End Times and Current Events
January 24, 2021, 07:43:48 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Funny 2016 Election stuff or not so funny

August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 20   Go Down
Author Topic: Funny 2016 Election stuff or not so funny  (Read 37349 times)
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #390 on: August 05, 2016, 07:10:43 am »

Did Paul Ryan just predict that Clinton will win in a landslide?

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) sent an urgent fundraising appeal Thursday evening that warned: “If we fail to protect our majority in Congress, we could be handing President Hillary Clinton a blank check.”

Whether or not it was intentional, the phrase “blank check” has a political echo — one that suggests a deep fear by congressional Republicans that a sinking presidential candidate could take their majorities in the House and Senate with him, and that they are getting ready to desert him.

It goes back 20 years, to an infamous chapter in internecine Republican politics. In the weeks before the 1996 presidential election, as it became clearer and clearer that GOP nominee Bob Dole would not defeat incumbent president Bill Clinton, Republican operatives began urging their struggling congressional candidates to begin making the argument: “Let’s not give Clinton a blank check.”

In late October of that year, the National Republican Congressional Committee spent $4 million on television ads in 50 congressional districts where races were close. The final shot was of a blank check hovering over the Capitol dome. It was signed: “American taxpayer.”

For Dole, the implication that even his own party had given up on him was a devastating blow.

One of Dole’s top strategists that year was Paul Manafort, who is now Trump’s campaign chairman. Dole’s personal assistant was Michael Glassner, who has worked for Trump’s campaign for more than a year. A number of other Dole staffers now work for Trump.

Ryan used the words “blank check” at least three times Thursday, as Trump sat below Clinton in the polls and continued to deal with the aftermath of controversies of his own making. This week, Trump refused to endorse Ryan in the Wisconsin Republican primary and praised Ryan’s underdog opponent, Paul Nehlen. It was a snub that angered many Republican leaders.

“I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country,” Trump said in an interview with The Washington Post on Tuesday. “We need very strong leadership. We need very, very strong leadership. And I’m just not quite there yet. I’m not quite there yet.”

Trump’s campaign and Ryan’s office have yet to respond to requests for comment. Katie Martin, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the historical comparison is unfair.

“There is no news here, nothing to read into, no secret message about the upcoming elections,” Martin said in an email. “The possibility of giving Hillary Clinton a Congress led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be an unmitigated disaster for the American people — as it was 8 years ago with President Obama.”

In the 1996 election, Republicans lost nine seats but managed to hold the House, the first time they had done so in consecutive elections in more than 60 years. This year, Republicans have a bigger cushion — their strongest House majority since 1930.

However, they also have a standard-bearer who is far more toxic. In 1996, Dole was viewed positively by most voters, even as he lost. Trump, on the other hand, has the most unfavorable ratings of any candidate ever to lead a major party ticket since the advent of polling.

Ryan’s first use of the term “blank check” came during an interview with WTAQ radio in Green Bay, Wis., where Trump will hold a rally Friday night. Host Jerry Bader pressed Ryan on his support for Trump, despite the nominee’s ongoing controversial utterances. Ryan said he would remain behind Trump while continuing to speak out when he disagrees with him.

When asked whether there would ever be a point at which he would abandon Trump, Ryan said of his endorsement: “None of these things are ever blank checks.”

It was the standout line of the interview and appeared in numerous headlines. Hours later, the words popped up twice in Ryan’s fundraising appeal that was sent to email addresses collected during Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s failed presidential campaign.

The email reads: “96 days — that’s all the time we have left before Americans head to the polls on Election Day, and much more is at stake than the presidency. If we fail to protect our majority in Congress, we could be handing President Hillary Clinton a blank check.”

Clinton in the White House and Nancy Pelosi as the House speaker “would truly be devastating for our great nation,” the email continues, and it urges donations of $25 to $100.

The email is signed “Speaker Paul Ryan” and includes this P.S.: “We cannot afford to give Hillary Clinton a blank check if she’s elected president. We need a strong, conservative majority in Congress as our last line of defense.”

Mike DeBonis contributed to this report.
Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 21695

View Profile
« Reply #391 on: August 05, 2016, 07:57:03 pm »

Will Barack Obama Try To Stay In Office If Donald Trump Wins The Election?

If Donald Trump wins in November, will Barack Obama leave office and hand over power in an orderly fashion? Normally we would not even have to ask such a question, but these are not normal times. This week, Obama publicly stated that Trump “is unfit to serve as President” and that he is “woefully unprepared to do this job“. In addition, he told the press that Trump “doesn’t have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world.” If Obama really believes those things are true, would he really just stand aside and hand the keys to the White House to Trump?

Never before have I ever heard a sitting president claim that one of the major party candidates could not function as president. But that is what Obama has just done. The following is an excerpt from a transcript of remarks made by Obama earlier this week that comes directly from the official White House website. I have highlighted certain phrases in bold text, because I want you to truly consider the implications of what he is saying here…

    But there have been Republican Presidents with whom I disagreed with, but I didn’t have a doubt that they could function as President. I think I was right, and Mitt Romney and John McCain were wrong on certain policy issues, but I never thought that they couldn’t do the job. And had they won, I would have been disappointed, but I would have said to all Americans they are — this is our President, and I know they’re going to abide by certain norms and rules and common sense, will observe basic decency, will have enough knowledge about economic policy and foreign policy and our constitutional traditions and rule of law that our government will work, and then we’ll compete four years from now to try to win an election.

    But that’s not the situation here. And that’s not just my opinion; that is the opinion of many prominent Republicans. There has to come a point at which you say, enough.

Earlier today, I came across an outstanding article by Joseph Farah of WND in which he summarized the claims that Obama was making against Trump…

    He said Trump would not abide by “norms and rules and common sense.”
    He questioned whether he would “observe basic decency” should he reach the Oval Office.
    He said he would have been disappointed to lose the elections of 2008 and 2012, but never doubted whether his rivals in those elections, John McCain and Mitt Romney, could function as president or had the knowledge to make government work. “That’s not the situation here,” he added.
    He added Trump “doesn’t have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding, to occupy the most powerful position in the world.”
    He said he was “woefully unprepared to do this job.”
    Obama said Trump lacked knowledge about Europe, the Middle East and other parts of Asia.

This is some extremely strong language, and I truly wish one of the reporters at the press conference would have asked one incredibly important follow up question.

Will Barack Obama try to stay in office if Donald Trump wins the election?

In his article, Joseph Farah raised the same issue…

    If no one else will ask the question, I will: “Mr. President, if Donald Trump wins the election to become the next president of the United States, will you willingly and peacefully leave office and cooperate fully with the transition of power the way all of your predecessors in the White House have done in the past?”

    It’s a simple question that needs to be asked and answered – given Obama’s highly inflammatory rhetoric over the last week.

Like Farah, I believe that it is a fair question.

If Barack Obama truly believes all of the things he said about Donald Trump, does he also believe that he has a responsibility to keep Donald Trump from taking office?

Absent a major national emergency of some sort, this would be very difficult for Obama to do. But if there were some sort of enormous national crisis between now and next January, Barack Obama could potentially employ some of the extraordinary emergency powers that have been endowed on the office of the president over the past several decades.

There is not a single statute, regulation, executive order or presidential directive that contains all of the powers that a president would possess during a major national emergency. Rather, these powers have been layered on top of one another for a very long period of time, and they come from literally dozens of different laws, regulations, court decisions, executive orders and presidential directives.

One document that I would refer you to is National Security Presidential Directive 51 which was put into effect during the Bush administration. It is all about “national continuity policy” and it defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions”.

In such a scenario, the president would have almost unlimited power, and he would wield enormously powerful executive orders such as this one. If there was a big enough emergency, the president would potentially be able to declare martial law, suspend elections and essentially become a dictator.

Let us hope that we never see such a thing play out in the United States of America.

For the moment, there is not much of a threat that Obama will try to stop Trump from taking office because Hillary Clinton has jumped out to a huge lead in the latest McClatchy-Marist poll…

    The former secretary of State gained ground in the McClatchy-Marist poll, and Trump lost support. Clinton had the support of 48% of those surveyed, and Trump had 33%. Last month, Clinton had 42% while Trump had 33%.

    When third-party candidates are included, Clinton’s lead held strong. She had 45%, and Trump had 31%, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson had 10% and Green Party candidate Jill Stein had 6%.

And the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that Clinton is leading Trump by a 47 percent to 38 percent margin.

One thing that I found interesting about both of these polls is that they show two third party candidates gaining ground. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll had Gary Johnson with 10 percent support and Jill Stein at five percent.

Jill Stein is still behind Johnson at this point, but she is potentially the much stronger candidate. If she starts to catch fire with Bernie Sanders supporters, she could possibly even hit the 15 percent threshold for being invited to participate in the upcoming presidential debates.

And Donald Trump certainly needs something to change about this race, because right now he is really struggling.

But there is a long way to go until November, and as we have seen, anything is likely to happen in this election cycle.

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #392 on: August 05, 2016, 09:11:32 pm »

Or what if Hillary wins? Is it a coincidence that Alex Jones and the "truth" movement are backing Donald Trump? They go from Ron Paul to Donald Trump? Seriously?

Who knows, but Jones and these "truth" movement leaders are trying to stir up the pot within the whole "patriot" movement (which is Jesuit infiltrated to begin with).
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #393 on: August 05, 2016, 09:19:40 pm »

Earlier today, I came across an outstanding article by Joseph Farah of WND in which he summarized the claims that Obama was making against Trump…

    He said Trump would not abide by “norms and rules and common sense.”
    He questioned whether he would “observe basic decency” should he reach the Oval Office.
    He said he would have been disappointed to lose the elections of 2008 and 2012, but never doubted whether his rivals in those elections, John McCain and Mitt Romney, could function as president or had the knowledge to make government work. “That’s not the situation here,” he added.
    He added Trump “doesn’t have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding, to occupy the most powerful position in the world.”
    He said he was “woefully unprepared to do this job.”
    Obama said Trump lacked knowledge about Europe, the Middle East and other parts of Asia.

Wow - this article from this "independent" news source is BIASED! Have they heard comments from REPUBLICANS against Trump? John McCain, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Chuck Grassley, Ted Cruz, Bob Dole, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the list goes on. Or how about the growing list of "Republicans for Hillary", which includes former Bush cabinet members, a lot of corporate execs (ie, Meg Whitman), former national security people, etc (all of whom normally "endorse" Republicans like knowing how to tie their shoelaces).

This whole "truth" movement media is showing their disinfo roots now.

Yeah, whatever happened to Ron Paul? Or even Rand Paul? Or Jesse Ventura?
Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 21695

View Profile
« Reply #394 on: August 06, 2016, 05:10:30 pm »

Expert Analysis Finds Hillary Clinton’s Recent Seizures a Sign of Brain Damage

Recent videos call Hillary Clinton’s physical and mental stability is in question.

Although this was ignored by the liberal media Hillary Clinton appeared to have suffered a seizure after her DNC Convention speech in Philadelphia–

Hillary about jumped out of her skin when the balloons dropped.

This comes after a previous bizarre moment a week earlier at a campaign stop.
Notice how even the reporters were stunned by her behavior–

Then this week Hillary suffered a breakdown on TV.
It was weird.

Mike Cernovich at Danger and Play reported:

Hillary Clinton recently had a breakdown on TV. The media is of course covering this up rather than having an expert medical panel on to discuss her health. Yet what happened to Hillary was obviously a sign of a head injury and stroke.

When a protester appears, Hillary freezes. In psychology you learn that the flight-or-fight response is a myth. A stressful situation trigger a fight, flight, or freeze response.

“Freeze” is what we mean by saying someone has a “deer in the head lights look.” A prey animal freezes when it senses danger it cannot overcome and thus does not risk running away from. By freezing the deer hopes to not be seen.

Yet freezing is an instinctual response, as anyone who has driven a car through deer land knows. When you drive, your headlights hit a deer, it stops. Your choice is to keep driving or to swerve away, risking your own life.

Hillary’s health problems are well-known among the Secret Service.

While still FROZEN, Hillary is rescued by a male Secret Service agent, who reassures her, “You’ll be OK.”…

…Hillary has suffered a brain injury during a fall. She either had a stroke, causing her to fall, or the fall caused her stroke. (Doctors were unsure whether the fall was the cause or effect of the stroke.)

Hillary still suffers seizures.

Read the rest here. http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/08/06/hillary-clinton-stroke-seizure-coughing-fits/


Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #395 on: August 06, 2016, 05:59:40 pm »

Military community split over Trump's feud with Khans

NORFOLK, Va. –  Robin Starck is a retired submarine commander who still lives in the shadow of America's largest naval base, and he's heard all the shouting about Donald Trump and his tangle with the parents of a U.S. Army officer killed in Iraq.

Doesn't matter. He's still for Trump.

"Trump goes to the extreme," said Starck, 79. "Sometimes he goes off the wall." But he added, "I don't see myself changing my mind."

The Hampton Roads area of Virginia — home not only to Naval Station Norfolk, but a vast collection of defense contractors, including the shipyards that build America's aircraft carriers — has been a Trump stronghold. The New York billionaire won most of the counties that make up the area along the James River in Virginia's March 1 primary.

It's the sort of place where Trump's days of criticism of Khizr and Ghazala Khan, a Muslim-American family whose son, Capt. Humayun Khan, was killed while serving in Iraq in 2004, might be expected to alienate people, many with deep and personal ties to the military.

But Starck is one of several interviewed by The Associated Press this past week who said they have other concerns that are keeping them loyal to Trump, among them picking a conservative Supreme Court justice to replace the late Antonin Scalia and getting rid of President Barack Obama's health care law, which Hillary Clinton pledges to defend.

The fight with the Khans was a "big mistake," Starck said, but it was also blown out of "proportion."

The feud was set off when Khizr Khan, his wife silent at his side, denounced Trump from the stage of the Democratic National Convention for his views about Muslims. Trump responded angrily and would not back down even as many Republicans expressed revulsion that he would fight with the family of a slain soldier.

Jacob Jeske, 28, a commercial diver from Portsmouth, said the episode was not a "big deal to me."

"He means well," Jeske said. "He's just going by his emotions. He's not sitting there and thinking about it."

Jeske believes a Trump presidency would mean more work for him, given the candidate's promises to invest deeply in the military. As a diver, Jeske often makes his living by helping to maintain Navy ships.

"Trump knows that the military comes first, before any refugees or anyone else," he said.

Richard Cormier, 61, a civilian doctor on a Navy supply ship, agrees.

"If he's going to build a strong military, all the other issues go away," said Cormier, who is stationed in Norfolk. "That directly bears on my job. I don't even watch the news anymore, because it's all mudslinging and people getting shot."

Not all said they could look past Trump's fight with the Khans, joining with the many senior Republicans who condemned his remarks and urged him to apologize. Republican Scott Taylor, a former Navy SEAL who is running for Congress in Hampton Roads, is one.

"Donald Trump's back and forth engagements with the Khans are counterproductive," Taylor said this past week in a statement. "I encourage him to sincerely apologize to them and to end this issue now."

Another is James Atticus Bowden, a retired Army officer and the president of a defense consulting company, who said Trump was "classless to fuss at a Gold Star family" and should "just keep his mouth shut."

But Bowden, who supported Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in Virginia's primary and is still undecided about whom to vote for in November, said his bigger concern is Trump's lack of military service. Trump received five draft deferments during the Vietnam era, one of which stemmed from temporary bone spurs in his feet.

"He was a draft dodger when he could have served and should have served," said Bowden, who lives in Poquoson, Virginia.

Carolyn Hersh, 52, a psychotherapist from Portsmouth, said she can no longer vote for Trump after the Khan controversy.

"He shouldn't have taken it personally," said Hersh, whose husband is a former Navy doctor. "Coming from a military community, that was just (too much)."

But voting for Clinton is not an option for Hersh. She said she has too many concerns about the economy, which include government spending on entitlement programs, to cast her ballot for the Democratic nominee.

"I would have voted for him a couple weeks ago — not happily, but I would have," Hersh said of Trump. "I've never not voted. But that's something that's on the table."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #396 on: August 07, 2016, 01:16:50 am »

Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 21695

View Profile
« Reply #397 on: August 07, 2016, 06:23:54 pm »

SHOCK PHOTO: Multiple staffers help unstable Hillary up stairs

The questionable health condition of Hillary Clinton should be a major issue of the 2016 campaign.

The latest evidence comes in the form of Clinton being helped up a set of stairs by multiple individuals outside what appears to be a home.

The photos, published by Reuters and Getty, show the 68-year-old candidate with aides holding her arms as she ascends the stairs.

The other shows as she makes it to the top, but not without assistance.

At what point is the mainstream media going to question Clinton’s health status?

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 21695

View Profile
« Reply #398 on: August 08, 2016, 04:15:53 am »

PHOTOS=> Hillary's Handler Carries DIAZEPAM Pen for Patients Who Experience Recurrent Seizures!

In recent bizarre events on the campaign trail a strange man was noticed at Hillary Clinton’s side.
Via Mike Cernovich:

** Danger and Play has much more.

The man is dressed like a secret service agent but his actions prove otherwise.
In a recent campaign stop in a Union Hall in front of a sparse crowd, at about the time when some liberal protesters began to protest, Hillary Clinton suddenly froze. She looked dazed and lost.  Seeing this, a group of men rushed to assist the candidate on the stage.  One man however gently pats the candidate’s back and then says, “Keep Talking.”

An expert on Secret Service tactics told TGP Secret Service agents would not touch a candidate in the manner that this individual did and especially Hillary Clinton.  It has been widely reported on Hillary’s disdain for the agents who work to protect her. The man who touches Hillary may be a member of Hillary’s close staff – but he is NOT a Secret Service agent.

Now this…
Mike Cernovich pointed out that Hillary’s handler carries a Diazepam pen.

** Diazepam auto-injector pens are used for for Acute Repetitive Seizures. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16340187
Diazepam is prescribed for patients who experience recurrent seizures!

The Ralph Retort reported:

Hillary’s handler was definitely carrying an auto-syringe at the DNC Convention on Hillary’s big night.

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #399 on: August 08, 2016, 09:46:50 am »

Former CIA Officer Evan McMullin to Launch Independent Presidential Bid

Evan McMullin, a former CIA counterterrorism officer, will run for president as a third-party conservative alternative to Donald Trump, GOP operatives working to back the candidate told ABC News today.

The group, Better for America, a 501(c)(4) organization that cannot officially endorse or back McMillan's bid, has been working for months on trying to select a candidate and get on ballots throughout the country. In some states, like Texas, they will likely have to sue to get on the ballot. A 501(c)(4) is an issue-based nonprofit that can raise unlimited funds and does not have to disclose its donors.

It's an extreme uphill climb, but they are confident McMullin, 40, can act as a disruptor who they hope can peel off some red states in a race where some Republicans are still resistant to Donald Trump.

McMullin’s candidacy, backed by some Republicans, shows how the “Never Trump” movement is still working to upend Trump even with less than three months left until the general election. McMullin may be a long shot, but will have a legitimate organization behind him.

McMullin, who had recently been chief policy director of the House Republican Conference, will file today and in a statement told ABC News exclusively:

“In a year where Americans have lost faith in the candidates of both major parties, it’s time for a generation of new leadership to step up. It’s never too late to do the right thing, and America deserves much better than either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton can offer us. I humbly offer myself as a leader who can give millions of disaffected Americans a conservative choice for President.”

The group says prominent Republicans will back McMullin, who has some well-known GOP operatives working behind the effort, including Republican consultant Rick Wilson and Florida-based pollster and operative Joel Searby. Better for America has been funded in part by John Kingston, a Boston-based conservative donor who bundled for Mitt Romney.

McMullin was born in Provo, Utah, and earned a bachelor’s degree in international law and diplomacy from Brigham Young University and a master’s of business administration from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

McMullin served as a Mormon missionary in Brazil and volunteer refugee resettlement officer in Amman, Jordan, on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. On Sept. 11, 2001, he was in training at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia. He completed his training and volunteered for overseas service in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, spearheading counterterrorism and intelligence operations in some of the most dangerous nations, according to the group.

Once he left the CIA in 2011, McMullin went to work for Goldman Sachs in the San Francisco Bay Area and in 2013 became a senior adviser on national security issues for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and later the chief policy director of the House Republican Conference.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #400 on: August 09, 2016, 09:33:22 am »

Revolt on the right: Commentators bash Trump in psychiatric terms

Call it the revenge of the conservative nerds.

Commentators on the right, who fiercely opposed Donald Trump during the primaries, are now savaging him in harshly personal terms. They are having an I-told-you-so moment.

With Trump going through the roughest stretch of his campaign, many of these commentators seem to feel vindicated. We might have expected them to mute their criticism once Trump won the Republican nomination, or grudgingly argue that he is at least preferable to Hillary Clinton.

Instead, they are doubling and tripling down.

Here’s why it matters: At a time when liberal commentators are outright mocking Trump and the mainstream press is downgrading his chances, the erosion on the right has left him with few defenders. The columnists who might help defuse the political and journalistic bombs being hurled at him instead are firing their own ammunition.

Trump, of course, managed to win the GOP nomination over the opposition of the National Review and Weekly Standard crowd. His supporters dismissed the conservative elite as out-of-touch intellectuals who spent their time at conferences and cruises. And the candidate won nearly 14 million primary votes.

But just when he needs to expand his base, and is slipping in the polls, he’s taking heat from the right as well as the left.

Now Trump has some conservative defenders like Laura Ingraham, who spoke at the Cleveland convention, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt and others. But some of those with mighty megaphones are far louder.

I offer these excerpts not because I agree with them, but to convey the tone of these assaults.

One who admittedly went over the top was Red State founder Erick Erickson, now blogging at The Resurgent. He slammed Trump’s supporters:

“Donald Trump wants to turn NATO into a damn shakedown scheme and you people are cheering him on. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You should be ashamed of the fact that your cult leader who claims to have been personally affected by 9/11 does not even know our NATO allies protected his [butt] that day...

“You people reflect the evil character of your god...You disgust me in cheering him on.”

Erickson realized he had gone too far and apologized on Facebook.

David Brooks unloaded in the New York Times:

“With each passing week he displays the classic symptoms of medium-grade mania in more disturbing forms: inflated self-esteem, sleeplessness, impulsivity, aggression and a compulsion to offer advice on subjects he knows nothing about.

“His speech patterns are like something straight out of a psychiatric textbook.”


“He also cannot be contained because he lacks the inner equipment that makes decent behavior possible. So many of our daily social interactions depend on a basic capacity for empathy. But Trump displays an absence of this quality…He is a slave to his own pride, compelled by a childlike impulse to lash out at anything that threatens his fragile identity.”

Charles Krauthammer, perhaps Trump’s most prominent critic on Fox, seemingly uses his training as a psychiatrist to diagnose the candidate:

“It’s that he can’t help himself. His governing rule in life is to strike back when attacked, disrespected or even slighted. To understand Trump, you have to grasp the General Theory: He judges every action, every pronouncement, every person by a single criterion — whether or not it/he is ‘nice’ to Trump.

 “This is beyond narcissism…His needs are more primitive, an infantile hunger for approval and praise, a craving that can never be satisfied. He lives in a cocoon of solipsism where the world outside himself has value — indeed exists — only insofar as it sustains and inflates him.”

Some of Krauthammer’s words on Fox are being used in a Hillary ad.

The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan has jumped on the crazy train:

"Here is a truth of life. When you act as if you’re insane, people are liable to think you’re insane. That’s what happened this week. People started to become convinced he was nuts, a total flake."

George Will, who took the step of leaving the Republican Party, accuses Trump of practicing “post-factual politics”:

“He seems to understand that if you produce a steady stream of sufficiently stupefying statements, there will be no time to dwell on any one of them, and the net effect on the public will be numbness and ennui. So, for example, while the nation has been considering his interesting decision to try to expand his appeal by attacking Gold Star parents, little attention has been paid to this: Vladimir Putin’s occupation of Crimea has escaped Trump’s notice.

Will says politics is “being poisoned by the injection into its bloodstream of the cynicism required of those Republicans who persist in pretending that although Trump lies constantly and knows nothing, these blemishes do not disqualify him from being president.

And Bill Kristol, who led the search for a third-party alternative, even trying to recruit NR’s David French, says Trump’s Republican supporters, are in “a pathetic and contemptible place…All of these Republicans have expressed support for Trump. They're prominent people with access to Trump. They should persuade him in private to improve his campaign. Or they should give up and go on a long vacation. Or, if they have come to the belated realization that Donald Trump should not be the next president of the United States, they should stand up and say so.” And Kristol tells them to stop “whining to the press.”

Who needs liberals when your own side is indicting you this way?

The opposition is rooted in ideology, in that these pundits don’t believe that Trump is a real conservative. But it has mushroomed into something far deeper and more personal, a crusade to stop Trump at all costs.

None of these commentators is a fan of Hillary Clinton, but these attacks help her nonetheless.

Perhaps none of this matters. Trump is running against the media establishment in the same way that he ran against the political establishment.

But there is an animosity here that may have its roots in a sense of betrayal, the sense that the GOP betrayed them by nominating such a person. They sound even madder than the liberal pundits that Trump could win the White House.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #401 on: August 10, 2016, 10:15:50 pm »

Former top Bush official Negroponte endorses Clinton

John Negroponte, a veteran diplomat who served under three Republican administrations as well as the Clinton administration, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president on Wednesday. 

In a statement provided by the Clinton campaign, Negroponte touted the former secretary of state’s “leadership qualities” in his decision.

“She will bring to the Presidency the skill, experience and wisdom that is needed in a President and Commander in Chief,” he said. “Having myself served in numerous diplomatic and national security positions starting in 1960, I am convinced that Secretary Clinton has the leadership qualities that far and away qualify her best to be our next President.”

The decision comes after Negroponte joined 49 other former security and diplomatic officials from Republican administrations in signing a letter opposing GOP nominee Donald Trump earlier this week.

Negroponte was among the more prominent names on the list, having served as ‎director of national intelligence and deputy secretary of state under President George W. Bush. He also served as deputy national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan, and has held five different ambassadorial posts.

One of those was as ambassador to the Philippines under President Bill Clinton, though he mostly served under Republican administrations. He also was ambassador to Iraq under Bush.

‎The endorsement for the Democratic nominee marks the latest defection for the Republicans, though Trump has played down the intra-party tensions – and described those who signed the 50-official letter as the kind of “insiders” he’s running against.

The Republican nominee said in a statement on that letter that the co-signers “are the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place.”

The Clinton campaign also announced endorsements Wednesday from former Bush Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and ex-GOP Rep. Chris Shays, among others.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #402 on: August 10, 2016, 10:20:12 pm »

Clinton Camp Formally Launches Republicans for Hillary Effort

Hillary Clinton's campaign today announced the formal creation of a group to recruit Republican and independent voters dissatisfied with the GOP nominee, Donald Trump.

The launch of the group, Together for America, comes after months of scattered efforts by the campaign and its allies to woo anti-Trump Republicans.

The group consists of nearly 50 leaders in business, national security, foreign and economic policy, politics and other arenas, according to a list provided by the campaign. Their goal is to eventually build grass-roots support among conservatives, an aide said.

"Hillary Clinton understands the complex and volatile world we live in, and she has the temperament to be president and commander-in-chief. Donald Trump does not," the group's website says. "That’s why so many Republicans and independents are putting country over party and supporting Hillary for president."

A flood of prominent Republicans in recent weeks announced their support for Clinton over Trump, including former George W. Bush policy adviser Kori Schake, Hewlett Packard Enterprise CEO Meg Whitman and former acting CIA Director Mike Morell. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent, has also announced his backing of the Democratic nominee.

The recruitment effort has been spearheaded by Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta. Former Wall Street executive Leslie Dahl has helped with outreach to business leaders.

The Clinton campaign's efforts to recruit GOP voters began after Trump clinched the nomination in May, when it solicited Republicans to say why they couldn't back Trump.

"Are you a Republican who thinks @realDonaldTrump should not become president? Tell us why," the campaign tweeted.

Clinton and her vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, embarked last week on a bus tour about jobs that was, in part, aimed at courting independents and conservative-leaning voters. The running mates targeted counties in Ohio and Pennsylvania that went Republican in past elections.

The Clinton camp this week expanded its battleground state map to include Arizona and Georgia — yet another sign of efforts to cut into Trump's support.

Top officials from Clinton's headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, held calls with state party officials in Arizona and Georgia to discuss making six-figure investments in the two states, according to a source.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #403 on: August 11, 2016, 07:56:37 am »

August 10, 2016, 12:38 pm
Republican exodus from Trump grows

The ranks of Republicans opposing Donald Trump, their party's presidential nominee, are growing.

The opposition includes lawmakers, former officials and conservative pundits, with a few even vowing to vote for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Here is a list of prominent Republicans who oppose Trump. Please send updates to mmali@thehill.com.

This list was last updated at 6:42 p.m.

Elected officials

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.)

Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (Neb.)

Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.)

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (Fla.)

Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.)

Rep. Bob Dold (Ill.)

Rep. Richard Hanna (N.Y.) — Endorsed Clinton

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.)

Rep. Reid Ribble (Wis.)

Rep. Scott Rigell (Va.) — Endorsed Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)

Rep. Mark Sanford (S.C.)

Rep. David Valadao (Calif.)

Gov. Charlie Baker (Mass.)

Gov. Larry Hogan (Md.)

Danny Jones, mayor of Charleston, W. Va. — Voting for Johnson

Tomás Regalado, mayor of Miami

Iowa state Sen. David Johnson

Former elected officials

Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.)

Sen. Gordon Humphrey (N.H.)

Sen. Larry Pressler (S.D.) — Endorsed Clinton

Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)

Rep. Mary Bono (Calif.)

Rep. Tom Campbell (Calif.) — Endorsed Johnson

Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.)

Rep. Connie Morella (Md.)

Rep. Ron Paul (Texas)

Rep. Chris Shays (Conn.)

Rep. J.C. Watts (Okla.)

Rep. Vin Weber (Minn.)

Gov. Jeb Bush (Fla.)

Gov. Arne Carlson (Minn.) — Endorsed Clinton

Gov. William Milliken (Mich.) — Endorsed Clinton

Gov. George Pataki (N.Y.)

Gov. Tom Ridge (Pa.)

Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.), the 2012 GOP presidential nominee

Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (N.J.)

Assemblyman Jim Cunneen (Calif.)

State Senator Joyce Mulliken (Wa.)

Former administration officials

Donald B. Ayer, deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush

Linda Chavez, White House director of public liaison under President Reagan

Carlos Gutierrez, Commerce secretary under President George W. Bush

Jamie Brown Hantman, special assistant for legislative affairs for President George W. Bush

Carla A. Hills, U.S. trade representative under President George H.W. Bush

Ted Kassinger, deputy secretary of Commerce under President George W. Bush

Frank Lavin, aide to President Ronald Reagan

Stephanie Smith Lee, former director of the Office of Special Education Programs - Department of Education under President George W. Bush

Peter Lichtenbaum, assistant secretary of Commerce under President George W. Bush

Greg Mankiw, chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers

Robert McCallum, associate attorney general under President George W. Bush

David Ross Meyers, aide to President George W. Bush

Hank Paulson, Treasury secretary under President George W. Bush

Dan Price, deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush

William Reilly, EPA administrator under President George H. W. Bush — Endorsed Clinton

Paul Rosenzweig, deputy assistant secretary of Homeland Security

William Ruckelshaus, EPA administrator under Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — Endorsed Clinton

Larry D. Thompson, deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush

John Veroneau — Former deputy U.S. trade representative under President George W. Bush

Lezlee Westine, White House director of public liaison under President George W. Bush — Endorsed Clinton

Party officials, prominent Republicans

Brian Bartlett, former aide to Mitt Romney and GOP communications strategist

Sally Bradshaw, longtime aide to Jeb Bush

Former first lady Barbara Bush

Marvin Bush, brother of President George W. Bush — Endorsed Johnson

Mona Charen, senior fellow at Ethics and Public Policy Center

Dean Clancy, former FreedomWorks vice president

Maria Comella, longtime aide to Gov. Chris Christie (N.J.) — Endorsed Clinton

Rory Cooper, GOP strategist and managing director of Purple Strategies

Mindy Finn, president of Empowered Women

Doug Heye, former RNC communications director

Cheri Jacobus, GOP consultant and former columnist for The Hill

Matt Kibbe, former FreedomWorks CEO

Eli Lehrer, president R Street Institute

Justin LoFranco, former aide to Gov. Scott Walker (Wis.)

Kevin Madden, former aide to Mitt Romney

Liz Mair, GOP strategist

Mel Martínez (Fla.), former chairman of the Republican National Committee

Tucker Martin, communications director for former Gov. Bob McDonnell (Va.)

David McIntosh, president of Club for Growth

Ken Mehlman, former RNC chairman

Tim Miller, Our Principles PAC and former aide to Jeb Bush

Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention

Ted Newton, political consultant and former Mitt Romney aide

James Nuzzo, former White House aide

Katie Packer, deputy campaign manager to Mitt Romney and founder of Burning Glass Consulting

Marc Racicot, former RNC chairman

Patrick Ruffini, partner, Echelon Insights

Gabriel Schoenfeld, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute

Elliott Schwartz, Our Principles PAC

Evan Siegfried, GOP strategist and commentator

Craig Snyder, Republican lobbyist and consultant — Supports Clinton

Erik Soderstrom, former field director for Carly Fiorina

Ben Stein, actor and former speechwriter for Presidents Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon

Brendan Steinhauser, GOP consultant

Stuart Stevens, former Romney strategist

Michael R. Treiser, former Mitt Romney aide

Connor Walsh, digital director for former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) and founder of Build Digital

Meg Whitman, Hewlett-Packard CEO and former California gubernatorial candidate — Endorsed Clinton

Rick Wilson, Republican strategist

Nathan Wurtzel, Make America Awesome super-PAC

Bill Yarbrough, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Ohio

Dave Yost, Ohio auditor of state

Conservative media

Glenn Beck, radio host

Michael Berry, radio host

Brent Bozell, conservative activist

Bruce Carroll, creator of GayPatriot.org

Jay Caruso, RedState

Charles C.W. Cooke, writer for National Review

Doug Coon, Stay Right podcast

Steve Deace, radio host

Ross Douthat, New York Times columnist

Erick Erickson, writer

Daniel Foster, contributing editor at National Review Online

David French, writer at National Review

Jon Gabriel, editor-in-chief of Ricochet.com

Jonah Goldberg, writer

Michael Graham, radio host

Stephen Gutowski, writer for Washington Free Beacon

Stephen Hayes, senior writer at The Weekly Standard

Quin Hillyer, contributing editor at National Review Online and senior editor at the American Spectator

Ben Howe, RedState writer

Philip Klein, managing editor at the Washington Examiner

Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard editor

Mark Levin, radio host

Bethany Mandel, senior contributor at The Federalist

Dan McLaughlin, editor at RedState.com

Tom Nichols, senior contributor for The Federalist

Katie Pavlich, Town Hall editor

Brittany Pounders, conservative writer

Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post blogger

Sarah Rumpf, former Breitbart contributor

Mark Salter, writer and former aide to Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)

Tara Setmayer, CNN analyst and former GOP staffer

Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire

Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal deputy editor

Charlie Sykes, radio host

Brad Thor, writer

Peter Wehner, New York Times contributor

Jamie Weinstein, editor at The Daily Caller — Voting Clinton

George Will, writer

Leon Wolf, editor of RedState

National security officials

Ken Adelman, arms control director for President Ronald Reagan — Endorsed Clinton

Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of State under President George W. Bush — Endorsed Clinton

John B. Bellinger III, legal adviser to the State Department and National Security Council under President George W. Bush

Robert Blackwill, former National Security Council deputy for Iraq

Max Boot, former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.)

Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security under Presidents George W. Bush and Obama

Eliot Cohen, former George W. Bush official

Patrick Cronin, assistant administrator for policy at USAID under President George W. Bush

Eric S. Edelman, national security adviser under Vice President Dick Cheney

Gary Edson, deputy national security and national economic adviser under President George W. Bush

Richard Falkenrath, deputy Homeland Security adviser under President George W. Bush

Peter Feaver, National Security Council adviser under President George W. Bush

Richard Fontaine, associate director of the National Security Council’s Near Eastern affairs under President George W. Bush

Jendayi Frazer, assistant secretary of State for African Affairs under President George W. Bush

Aaron Friedberg, deputy assistant for national security affairs under Vice President Dick Cheney

Reuel Marc Gerecht, former CIA operative

Robert Gates, former Defense secretary

David Gordon, director of policy planning at the State Department under President George W. Bush

Michael Green, former member of the National Security Council

Alan Goldsmith, former staffer at the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Brian Gunderson, chief of staff at the State Department under President George W. Bush

Paul Haenle, former director for China and Taiwan on the National Security Council under Presidents George W. Bush and Obama

Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and NSA

John Hillen, assistant secretary of State for political-military affairs under President George W. Bush

William Inboden, senior director for strategic planning at the National Security Council under President George W. Bush

James Jeffrey, strategist on former President George W. Bush’s National Security Council

Reuben Jeffery III, former undersecretary of State under President George W. Bush

Robert Kagan, former official under President Ronald Reagan

David Kramer, assistant secretary of State under President George W. Bush

James Langdon, chairman of President George W. Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

Mary Beth Long, assistant secretary of Defense for international security affairs under President George W. Bush

Clay Lowery, director of international finance for the National Security Council and assistant Treasury secretary for international affairs under President George W. Bush

Peter Mansoor, former aide to former CIA Director David Petraeus — Supports Clinton

Richard Miles, director for North America at the National Security Council under President George W. Bush

Andrew Natsios, former administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development

John Negroponte, deputy secretary of State and Director of National Intelligence under President George W. Bush

John Noonan, national security adviser for Jeb Bush

Meghan O’Sullivan, former deputy national security adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan

Tom Ridge, secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush

Nicholas Rostow, formal legal adviser to the National Security Council

Kori Schake, former director on the National Security Council under President George W. Bush

Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser — Endorsed Clinton

Kristen Silverberg, ambassador to the European Union under President George W. Bush

Stephen Slick, former National Security Council official under President George W. Bush

William H. Taft IV, former deputy secretary of Defense and NATO ambassador under President Ronald Reagan

Shirin R. Tahir—Kheli — former ambassador under President George W. Bush

William Tobey — National Security Council member under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush

Daniel P. Vajdich, former national security adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)

Matthew Waxman — former deputy assistant secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush

Kenneth Weinstein, former assistant on Homeland Security & Counterterrorism under President George W. Bush

Roger Zakheim, former deputy assistant secretary of Defense

Philip D. Zelikow, former counselor to the State Department

Robert B. Zoellick, former deputy secretary of State under President George W. Bush

Dov Zakheim, former undersecretary of Defense under President George W. Bush

GOP donors

Mike Fernandez, Jeb Bush donor — Supports Clinton

Randy Kendrick

Seth Klarman — Supports Clinton

William Oberndorf — Supports Clinton

Art Pope

Marlene Ricketts

Paul Singer

Harry Sloan — Supports Clinton
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #404 on: August 13, 2016, 07:28:33 pm »

When it comes to politics in 2016, churchgoers are hearing it from the pulpit

At wedding receptions, barbershops and on park benches, this year's unusual presidential campaign is often an unavoidable topic of discussion.

As usual in presidential races, it's also seeping into houses of worship across the nation.

From Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton, and from abortion to immigration, many Americans are hearing politics from the pulpit, according to a survey released this week by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

Nearly 14% of respondents said they had heard their clergy speak for or against a specific presidential candidate this year, according to the survey.

About 9% said their clergy had offered support for a candidate, with far more praising Clinton, the Democratic nominee, than Trump, the Republican.

Similarly, 11% heard clergy speak against a candidate, with more hearing opposition to Trump than to Clinton.

The survey polled about 4,600 adults between June 5 and July 7. About 40% reported attended a religious service at least once in recent months.

Nearly two-thirds — 64 % — said they had heard clergy speak about issues in the campaign, including religious liberty, immigration, abortion, homosexuality, environmental issues and economic inequality.

The largest group — 40% — said clergy had discussed religious liberty, which is no surprise. Close behind was homosexuality, at 39%, and abortion at 29%.

Churches and synagogues long have been involved in political campaigns, with Democrats frequently appearing in black urban churches and Republicans often approaching evangelical congregations.

Helping voters get to polling places — dubbed "souls to the polls" in some churches — is an election day staple in some communities.

Churches also have helped rally supporters against restrictive election laws in some states, arguing that bans on early voting or on weekends effectively disenfranchise the working poor.

For all his incendiary rhetoric, Trump has not drawn the ire of religious leaders that John F. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, did when he ran against President George W. Bush in 2004.

A group of bishops blanketed Catholic churches around the country with fliers denouncing Kerry's support for abortion. Kerry, a Catholic, was even denied communion while campaigning in St. Louis.

When he was still a New York businessman, Trump had described himself as "very pro-choice." He now describes himself as pro-life "with exceptions" and has drawn support from conservative evangelical groups.

He also clashed with Pope Francis in February after the pontiff said the candidate's proposal to build a wall along the Mexican border was "not Christian." Trump called the comments "disgraceful."

Clinton has spoken at numerous black churches across the country.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #405 on: August 15, 2016, 09:33:50 am »

Companies Are Now Taking Sides in the Presidential Race
Businesses don't normally publicly endorse a candidate for office. And while human resources policies commonly prohibit such explicit political moves in the workplace, some tech startups have decided it's time to speak up.


When 145 leaders in the technology sector signed an open letter condemning GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, they included a disclaimer: The message reflected only the signees' personal views, and not those of their companies or organizations.

Keeping work and politics separate is standard practice for most business owners and employees. Roughly three-quarters of human resources professionals say their workplaces discourage political activity in the office, according to a recent survey by the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM). But in this heated election season, a handful of startups are bucking convention.

Riding the momentum of the open letter and venture capitalist Hunter Walk's call for companies to give workers time off for voting, the CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based app company Winnie wrote a post on Medium on August 9 declaring that her company was endorsing Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton for president.

"This is what we as a company really stand for," Sara Mauskopf says. "We just chatted about it--we do a lot of our talking over Slack--and everyone was really in agreement that Hillary Clinton's values are really in line with Winnie's values."

Mauskopf followed up the post with a list on Quora of other businesses that have informed her they are endorsing Clinton. The list of 11 companies includes child care startup Trusted, which posted its own Medium entry asserting that Clinton has stronger stances on family issues than Trump does. Other tech companies on the list include KYA, weeSpring, and Managed By Q.

Mauskopf, whose startup counts Walk as an investor, says its endorsement largely came down to what she describes as Clinton's record of supporting women, children, and families. Winnie, known as the "Yelp for parents," provides information about family-friendly amenities at businesses at other locations, such as highchairs, changing tables, and kids' menus.

Trump's infamous eviction of a crying baby from one of his campaign events and opposition to public breastfeeding didn't help his case with the startup, either. "It became an easy call when we saw what Donald Trump stands for," Mauskopf says.

The CEO admits that from a workplace perspective, the company has an easier time than might a larger business at rallying staff behind a common political aim. Winnie, founded in January, counts only four employees and three contractors in its ranks. But that doesn't mean the endorsement is free from a potential downside.

"The stakes are high for us, too, because we are trying to attract a lot of users at this point," Mauskopf says. Appearing partisan could turn off current and potential users. To deflect a possible backlash somewhat, she emphasizes that Winnie's stance is about the individual candidates, not their political parties.

Not that Winnie plans on holding back with users. The company is running a promotion closer to November in which it will encourage users to take their kids along when they hit the polls on Election Day, and post "stories" (Winnie's version of Yelp reviews), about their experiences. As part of the promotion, the company will ask users to share Mauskopf's Medium post.

While Winnie's endorsement may not alienate members of its small staff, a workplace adopting an official political position brings up touchy issues.

The SHRM survey from June reports HR professionals have seen less political conversation in the workplace as compared with past elections, surmising that it's in part because the presidential race is even more polarizing than usual. Survey responses indicated employees were trying to avoid conflict. The organization also notes that at most companies, workplace policies prohibit coercing employees or co-workers into expressing certain political views.

"Even a minor increase in political volatility can create major headaches in the workplace if not managed well," said the organization's survey director, Evren Esen, in a statement. With the election fast approaching, "HR professionals must be tuned in for changes in the culture of their organizations and recognize that tension may increase in the coming months, making it necessary to stress collaboration."
Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 21695

View Profile
« Reply #406 on: August 15, 2016, 05:22:55 pm »

'You have right to be believed' edited out of Clinton website

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign reportedly made some edits to the campus sexual assault page on its website shortly after a viral tweet from Juanita Broaddrick, Buzzfeed News reported.

The Democratic nominee's campaign deleted the line, "You have the right to be believed," from the page on its site.
The website originally read: "I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we're with you," quoting Clinton.

The last part of the quote has since been removed.

Clinton tweeted in September that every sexual assault survivor had "the right to be believed."

She was later asked at a campaign event if the women who had accused her husband of sexual harassment and assault, including Broaddrick, deserved to be "believed" also.

“Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence,” Clinton responded.

Broaddrick, who claimed Bill Clinton raped her in 1978 when he was serving as Arkansas' attorney general, decided to tweet after hearing Clinton's statements on sexual assault.

“I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me," she tweeted.

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 21695

View Profile
« Reply #407 on: August 15, 2016, 06:21:02 pm »

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 21695

View Profile
« Reply #408 on: August 16, 2016, 02:47:01 pm »

Trump Was Right: FOIA Document Shows Obama and Hillary Knew Their Actions Would Create ISIS

Trump was right.

A declassified and released FOIA document from 2012 shows that Obama and Hillary knew their actions would destabilize eastern Syrian and allow a Salafist principality to take hold of the region.

Judicial Watch released this 2012 document in 2015 after a FOIA request.

Russia Insider reported:

    The latest “OMG, Trump said that!” moment is The Donald’s claim that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are, correspondingly, the “founder” and “cofounder” of ISIS. True to form, the media reaction has been to shriek in outrage that he would cast aspersions on such august personages.

    As of this writing, not one American media source of which this writer is aware has brought up in relation to Trump’s claims the August 2012 report (declassified and released in 2015 under a FOIA request from Judicial Watch) from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) stating that “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

    The “supporting powers” are identified as “western countries” (no doubt including and led by the United States), “the Gulf States” (presumably including and led by Saudi Arabia), and “Turkey” (just Turkey).

    In August 2012 the Secretary of State at the time was one Hillary Rodham Clinton. The President was and still is one Barack Hussein Obama.

    The DIA report said, in essence, that if we (the U.S. and our local cronies) keep aiding al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other such sterling democrats, something really nasty would arise in eastern Syria. Several months later, it did, when ISIS declared itself a state straddling the Syria-Iraq border…

    …General Michael Flynn, currently a Trump adviser, took over as head of DIA a month before the issuance of the report in question. Whether it was his personal effort to caution the administration or simply the professional analysts in the DIA apparatus laying out the facts as they saw them, the 2012 report made no difference. As Flynn confirmed last year, this was not a matter of the administration’s turning a “blind eye” but of their “willful decision” that led to ISIS:

        Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?

        Flynn: I think the administration.

        Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

        Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

        Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

        Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 21695

View Profile
« Reply #409 on: August 16, 2016, 05:36:16 pm »

Cleansing of Christians in America? Wait Till Hillary Gets In Office

Due to our own actions in rejecting God and choosing a path of evil, God will bring our nation to her knees through much pain and destruction.

We read in 1 Samuel 8 Samuel stated that the people did not want to be “ruled” by God.

They did not want a prophet to speak to them on behalf of God. They wanted a king to judge them like the other nations.

I think back on the past elections when the Democrat party pulled God from the party platform. There was some backlash of sorts over this and the Democrat Party then tried to put God back into the party platform.

It took three votes at the Democrat Convention. The final vote was basically rigged and God was put back in against the will of the Democrat constituents.

When the “vote” was finally approved there was a huge voice of “boos” being heard all over the convention floor. There was clearly NOT a 2/3s majority in putting God back into the Democrat Platform.

One thing became very clear that day, the Democrat constituents did not want God on the platform, but He was placed back on just to save face.

FOLKS… that was then and this is now. Look at what the Democrats have done by electing Hillary Clinton as their candidate. Heck, they didn’t elect her, she stole the votes and got away with it. Totally unbelievable.

Folks the word “DEMOCRAT” really means Socialist / Communist. That is what will lead this country if she is elected.

Think persecution of Christians is bad? Think again, especially if she gets in office.

8 years ago when we as a nation came to the polls, we as a nation then voted this anti-God party into power.

With the way things are going right now and especially how Hillary stole her own nomination. What makes you think that she will not steal the election and we have another 8 years?

PEOPLE… just look at the corruption that she has gotten away with.

Do you know that in the past what…five weeks there are 4 deaths that can be linked to her?

What we are doing as a nation today, is openly allowing another “God hater” to go to war against God.

How can you tell?

If you have not been paying attention, just look; America is beginning to be “cleansed” of everything God, Jesus, His Word and His children – aka – bible believing Christians.

The problem is that we as bible believing Christians have been letting this go on now for years and have been complacent to do anything about it.

Christians gave up the high ground a long time ago and today we are seriously losing the battle.

Now, there is nothing we can do about it except maybe slow the process down a little.

That is why I am promoting Trump so hard. Look, the guy is not perfect, what human is? But needless to say we KNOW what we are going to get if Hillary wins. More God hating laws and regulations put against us.

Because of our current administration, our nation no longer wants God and in fact hates God, showing utter contempt for God.

When we voted in Obama, we have “voted” in one of the most ungodly, antichristian, bible hating men into the oval office since the beginning of our nation.

Well, let me put it this way. We did not vote him in, God appointed him as our judgement, and judgement begins in the house of the Lord.

This is not a symptom of where we are going as a nation. This is the result of what we have become as a nation.

BUT I honestly believe that we have a chance, if anything to curb or slow down judgement if we ask God to stay His judgement.

Now, we can not boss God around, but we know from scripture that He does listen to prayer and that He will change His mind in light of the righteous.

We are where we are today because in the years past we did not stand and occupy till He returns.

BUT… we can start getting on our knees now and start seeking His face and asking for mercy.

There is scripture though that is disturbing and I ask, have we crossed that point of no return?

The following verse is very earth shattering…

And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king
which ye shall have chosen you;
and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
1 Samuel 8:18 (KJV)

I hear people claim over and over again that we need to start praying “2 chronicles 7:14”

You know, “If my people who are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray….”

IF you would have asked me several years ago I would have said that the time for that came and gone.

In fact we have been praying that prayer since Bill Clinton, but the problem is that we still refuse to really humble ourselves and walk in the light of the Lord.

Our problem is that we love our sin and the flesh to much to turn from our wicked ways. But there is a glimmer of hope that I see out there. People have been waking up, but is it enough?

It is going to take a whole lot more people to be on their bent knees seeking God’s face.

I do believe that there might be a chance, but more people need to intercede for our nation.

We need to get to the point where we really need to repent.

In the mean time we have to face what is taking place and what is the natural progression to come.

Christian Cleansing of America

There is a “cleansing” of all things “Christian” taking place in this nation today. We see it taking place in our government, our military, our schools, our corporations, it is even being forced on people who own their own private business.

This sort of thing should be scaring the American public to death, but it isn’t. They are going along with it.


They hate Christians too.

Here is an article that I found very interesting….

Rising Persecution of U.S. Christians

By Joseph DeCaro, Worthy News Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A joint report by Liberty Institute and the Family Research Council shows that anti-Christian persecution is not only increasing in America, but that it’s coming from our own government.

“There are children being prohibited from writing Merry Christmas to the soldiers, senior citizens being banned from praying over their meals in the Senior Center, the VA banning the mention of God in military funerals, numerous attempts to have veterans memorials torn down if they have any religious symbols, such as a cross, and I could go on and on,” said Liberty Institute Founder Kelly Shackleford.


“Religious hostility is the red light on the dashboard that tells us we have a problem and that violence will come next if not fixed,” Shackleford said. “The recent attacks on the faith-based Family Research Council and the attack on the Sikhs are recent examples alone.”

Many public facilities are also masking American Christianity, according to ACLJ senior counsel David French.

“One of the most strident examples: the misuse of the Establishment Clause to attempt to ban any mention of God from historical markers, monuments or even museum exhibits. This represents an effort to whitewash God from American history and change our national identity.”

French said that though the Obama administration has contributed to this, it didn’t begin with his inauguration; in fact, anti-Christian persecution has been stewing here in America for decades.

“While the Obama administration launched its own unprecedented assault on religious liberty through Obamacare, the attack on Christian expression is the result of cultural changes that have been taking place for decades … the trend began with the advent of the sexual revolution and the mainstreaming of the 1960s counterculture. As leftist radicals have progressed through the academy, media, churches and government, the trend has only accelerated.”

Souce – https://www.worthynews.com/11755-rising-persecution-of-u-s-christians

This is the first step and we as Christians have been allowing this sort of “cleansing” of our own ranks take place for years now.

If Hillary gets in, it will become far, far worse. Think that she will not use the power of the executive office to rid the nation of dissidents?

Folks, think again. This woman is hell bent on power and I swear there are times that I think she is demon possessed.

Just check out this video and see for yourself. –

hillary-convulsMany have said she is just suffering effects from previous illness.

I have to disagree. If anyone knows anything about kundalini manifestations, this is what it looks like.

This is why I have been all out against seeing Hillary get into office. She will welcome Satan and will do all in her power to see Jesus Christ eradicated from our nation.

LISTEN… I am not a prophet or son of a prophet. I know that these things will happen because this is what hard core socialists / communists do… they imprison and kill those who stand in their way of obtaining more power.

The Future America – Thoughts While Sitting in a Prison Cell

“They came for the Baptists for preaching in the streets, but because I am not Baptist, I thought nothing of it.

They came for the Pentecostals for protesting at the abortion clinics, but because I am not Pentecostal I did not speak up

They came for the Protestants and Catholics for speaking out against homosexuals, but I don’t know anything about these older religions, so I just allowed it to happen.

Finally they came for me.

prisonerMy crime?

Owning a bible and praying over our supper at McDonalds the past week.

They came for us and arrested all my family.

Now I sit here in this God forsaken FEMA camp wearing a “yellow cross” sewn on my jacket.

My Family? Probably dead or being slaved away in one of the thousands of forced labor camps.

I am awaiting my trial today. I will most likely be executed for crimes against the state.

They have worked me till I can no longer be an asset to the state.

They say that “precious food and clothing is being wasted on me, a worthless air breather.”

This trial is just their way to justify my extermination and allow them to look their selves in the mirror at night.

Thinking to myself I say “We should have spoken up 20 years ago.”

Instead our nation has become this fascist country putting Christians to death for crimes against the state.

I hear that they going after the Jews now.

One would think that people would remember that this took place before in history.

How soon they forget.

How easily we were complacent and did nothing.

We now pay the price and “Christian Cleansing” is the accepted norm in a nation that once said “ In God We Trust.“

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #410 on: August 16, 2016, 10:43:16 pm »

Down Ticket #3: Republicans want to keep Congress by sacrificing Trump. Good luck with that.

In 1996, the GOP dumped Dole to save its congressional majorities. Why the same trick won’t work with Trump.

For Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, it must be like déjà vu all over again.

You may have missed the news while you were doing whatever it is that normal people do with their summer weekends, but Trump is in even bigger electoral trouble this week than he was the week before.

With the Donald continuing to falter and flail, the Republican Party is now strategizing about dumping its nominee — financially, at least — and redirecting its resources to down-ticket races.

First, on Thursday, more than 70 prominent Republicans signed an open letter to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus urging him to divert all of the cash the RNC is currently spending on Trump to vulnerable GOP House and Senate candidates. (That number climbed to 110 this week after Virginia Rep. Scott Rigell and Wisconsin Rep. Reid Ribble, both of whom are retiring, added their names to the request, along with former Reps. Bob Inglis of South Carolina and Jim Kolbe of Arizona.)

“Every dollar spent by the RNC on Donald Trump’s campaign is a dollar of donor money wasted on the losing effort of a candidate who has actively undermined the GOP at every turn,” the letter read. “The RNC should shift its strategy and its resources to convince voters not to give Hillary Clinton the ‘blank check’ of a Democrat-controlled Congress to advance her big government agenda.”

Then, on Saturday, an RNC official began laying the groundwork for such a shift by telling a group of reporters in an off-the-record session that Trump would have only himself to blame for a defeat in November.

“In the words of one person in the room,” according to Politico, “the message was that the RNC has ‘all these staffers out there working and knocking on doors, with a data system they believe rivals what Obama built in 2012 — so it’s not their fault.’”

This isn’t the first time the GOP has gone down this road … which brings us back to Paul Manafort.

Exactly two decades ago, Manafort was a top strategist for Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole. At least six other Trump staffers worked for Dole that year too.

All of them likely recall how Dole’s campaign ended: with the GOP giving up on its presidential candidate.

Convinced that incumbent President Bill Clinton would rout the veteran Kansas senator on Election Day, Republican operatives explicitly told “their party’s Congressional candidates to cut loose from Bob Dole and press voters to maintain a Republican majority” in order to “deny a re-elected President Clinton a ‘blank check.,’” as the New York Times reported. The National Republican Congressional Committee went on to launch a $4 million ad blitz designed to deliver the same message to 50 hard-fought congressional districts.

“The liberal special interests aligned with Clinton desperately want to buy back control of Congress,’’ the NRCC ad claimed. “If we give the special interests a blank check in Congress, who’s going to represent us?”

It was a devastating blow for Dole, who lost to Clinton by 220 electoral votes. And yet, for the party as a whole, the “blank check” strategy was a success: Republicans retained control of the House and actually picked up two seats in the Senate that November.

Clearly the RNC is hoping that a Congress-first approach will work a second time around — whatever happens to Trump.

But will it?

Not necessarily. There are a few big differences between 1996 and 2016 that will make it tougher for the GOP to save Congress by shunning its nominee.

The first is that it’s remarkably early for this sort of chatter. In 1996, the initial “blank check” story didn’t appear in the press until Oct. 18 — a mere 18 days before the election. That was by design. As veteran Republican consultant Eddie Mahe told the New York Times, the party was worried that ‘‘pull[ing] the trigger too soon” would “alienat[e] base Republicans.”

Mr. Mahe suggested that the tactic, which might ‘‘buy two, three or four points,’’ could be effective even if used only in the last three or four days of the campaign, when those base Republicans, too, would not be offended by an open discussion of Mr. Dole’s circumstances.

Base Republicans aren’t abandoning Trump. On the contrary — they still seem to adore him. Speculating about throwing their hero under the bus nearly three months before Election Day is not a good way to encourage them to show up and vote for GOP House and Senate candidates in November.

This is especially true because, compared with Dole, Trump still looks like he has a shot. Dole was trailing by as many as 17 percentage points in late August; Trump is currently behind by an average of 7. Bill Clinton slipped below the 50 percent threshold only a couple of times; Hillary Clinton rarely clears it. The earlier the RNC bails on Trump, the more inclined base voters will be to blame the party for deserting him. They may stay home as a result.

The second difference between 1996 and 2016 is absentee voting, which has become a lot more widespread over the last decade or so. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 37 states now allow voters to cast their ballots before Election Day; some mail their no-excuse absentee ballots to voters as early as next month. This puts the RNC in an even tougher position. Shift resources away from Trump sooner rather than later and, again, the base will revolt; wait until the last minute, however, and many voters will have already cast their ballots.

Then there’s polarization to consider. On the surface, Trump’s poll numbers appear to be more promising than Dole’s. But the fact that in 1996 Republicans were able to keep control of Congress despite losing the presidency by nearly 9 percentage points may ultimately say less about the brilliance of their “blank check” strategy than it does about the willingness of some voters — in the past — to bounce back and forth between the two parties as they worked their way down the ballot.

Split-ticket voting used to be fairly common; in 1972, for instance, 44 percent of congressional districts voted for one party in the presidential race and another in their local House contest. By 2012, however, that number had declined to 6 percent. To save the Senate from Trump, Republicans would have to revive the practice.

Finally, there’s the nominee himself. In mid-August 1996, 58 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Dole; only 35 percent saw him unfavorably. Dole wasn’t tarnishing the GOP brand.

Trump is. In fact, his current ratings are almost the exact opposite of Dole’s: 32.8 percent favorable versus 61.5 percent unfavorable. Those are the worst numbers in the history of presidential-election polling — and the GOP’s stats are almost as bad.

In 1996, it wasn’t all that difficult to convince swing voters to support Republican House and Senate candidates even if they weren’t supporting Dole. But this year, thanks to Trump, Republicans have a much more challenging case to make.

Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 21695

View Profile
« Reply #411 on: August 19, 2016, 06:05:10 pm »

Rick Perry Beats Ted Cruz in New 2018 Senate Primary Poll


Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #412 on: August 19, 2016, 10:39:08 pm »

Republican Congressman: I Signed Anti-Trump Letter For a ‘Clear Conscience’

Virginia Rep. Scott Rigell was one of two sitting members of Congress to recently sign a letter calling on the Republican party to stop supporting Trump’s presidential campaign.

“There is not one character trait in Donald Trump I would want my son to emulate,” Rigell told TIME on Friday. “I’m so embarrassed to be identified with him and in fact, I couldn’t be.”

Seventy former Republican elected and party officials had signed the letter when it was leaked last week. Addressed to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, the document calls for the party to focus funds on supporting down ballot candidates over Trump. This week, two sitting members of Congress, Wisconsin Rep. Reid Ribble and Rigell, signed on. The total number of Republican signatures has passed 120.

Rigell came to Congress in 2010 during the Tea Party wave. He is not running for reelection this year. While he describes himself as “very conservative” — he favors temporarily preventing Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. and wants to build the wall along the Mexican border — Rigell believes Trump’s candidacy is “catastrophic” for the Republican agenda.

“I need to have a clear conscience in this matter,” Rigell said to explain why he signed the letter and endorsed former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for President. The Virginia congressmen believes a Republican hold on the House is more fragile than most understand. “I think the Senate is in real doubt,” Rigell added. “That is a very steep hill to climb.”

The letter Rigell signed was delivered to Priebus earlier this week. The Republican Party has yet to comment on the letter, though multiple reports say party insiders are considering pulling funds from Trump’s campaign.

On Thursday, Trump bought $4 million in television ads, the first such purchase of his general election campaign.
Report Spam   Logged
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 21695

View Profile
« Reply #413 on: August 19, 2016, 11:08:45 pm »

“There is not one character trait in Donald Trump I would want my son to emulate,” Rigell told TIME on Friday. “I’m so embarrassed to be identified with him and in fact, I couldn’t be.”

Hillary is such the role model right?  Roll Eyes rino
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #414 on: August 20, 2016, 09:22:07 pm »

Democratic mega-donors plow money into Clinton, Senate bids

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic mega-donors, including George Soros and Tom Steyer, are putting millions of dollars into efforts to put Hillary Clinton in the White House and win control of the Senate. Their investment comes as Republicans worry about not only the chances of their nominee Donald Trump, but also his effect on down-ballot races.

Yet few of the GOP's biggest donors have put major money into Trump efforts, a striking change from four years ago when Mitt Romney had more million-dollar donors on his side than did President Barack Obama. They're also not rushing to help save the Senate, based on the July reports from GOP super PACs.

The presidential candidates and many outside groups must report their July fundraising and spending details to the Federal Election Commission by midnight Saturday. Here's what we know so far:



Billionaire after billionaire appeared on the latest fundraising reports from Democratic super PACs.

Super political action committees face no restrictions on how much money they can take from individual, corporate and union donors. Liberals have decried these groups as bad for democracy — yet they've leaned on them to help win races, saying they don't want to disarm against Republicans.

In July alone, New York hedge fund billionaire George Soros gave $1.5 million to Planned Parenthood's super PAC and $35,000 to Priorities USA, both working to elect Clinton, as well as $500,000 to the Senate Majority PAC. Other million-dollar donors to Priorities USA include the creator of diet product Slim-Fast, Daniel Abraham, and Donald Sussman, a financier who is divorcing Maine Rep. Chellie Pingree.

Soros's latest contributions bring his 2015-2016 super PAC total to more than $14 million — a fivefold increase from his super PAC investments during the previous presidential election.



Across the country, California hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer is feeling similarly generous.

Last month, he pumped another $7 million into his super PAC, called NextGen Climate Action Committee. In the past two years, he has put into $38 million into the group, which works to defeat politicians who don't believe in human-caused climate change.

NextGen also is spending heavily to help Clinton, including by giving millions of dollars to labor union super PACs that back her.

Another billionaire with his own super PAC, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, gave $5 million in July. The group, called Independence USA, backs candidates who want stricter gun control measures.

Although that often means championing Democrats, the super PAC recently began spending to help Republican Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey retain his seat in a tough contest. Bloomberg praised Toomey's support of expanding background checks as his chief motivation for doing so.

Bloomberg has also endorsed Clinton.



The Senate Majority PAC, a group with ties to Minority Leader Harry Reid, netted $7.3 million in July — its best fundraising yet this year. One of its top donors was Thomas Murphy, a Florida construction executive whose son Patrick Murphy is likely to face off with Republican Sen. Marco Rubio. The younger Murphy is a Democratic representative who had worked with his family's company before being elected to office.

Other $1 million donors to Senate Majority PAC were the Greater New York Hospital Association Management Corporation, a network of heath care facilities in the northeast, and the Laborers' International Union of North America.

On the Republican side, the Freedom Partners Action Fund is typically among the biggest groups spending in Senate races. In July, it counted a single donor, hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. He gave $1 million.

Freedom Partners is one of many political and policy groups steered by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, who are uncomfortable with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and have decided to concentrate on down-ballot races. Likewise, Singer is not a Trump backer.

Singer also gave $1 million in July to the Republican-backing Senate Leadership Fund. He was joined by Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus. The contributions of those two men accounted for about 80 percent of the super PAC's July fundraising — a sign that the numerous GOP donors on the sidelines in the presidential campaign aren't all moving their money down ballot, as some had predicted.



A pro-Trump group called Great America PAC landed its biggest contribution yet in July, $100,000 from billionaire Charles Johnson, a backer of vanquished GOP Trump opponent Jeb Bush and owner of the San Francisco Giants. Great America PAC has spent about $2 million on Trump-themed ads, most of which are aimed at getting viewers to call in to pledge money to the group.

Another Trump group, Make America Number 1, is funded exclusively by hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, new filings show. He gave the group $2 million in July, making him Trump's most generous supporter yet. Mercer was a major funder of Ted Cruz, Trump's toughest opponent in the long primary race.

Mercer's impact on Trump is evident: Not only is he a super PAC donor, but he also funds Breitbart News, whose leader Stephen Bannon became the campaign's chief executive officer this week, and Cambridge Analytica, a data company now doing business with the campaign.



Ahead of their filings, Trump and Clinton announced their July fundraising totals.

Clinton's July FEC report shows her campaign's work to bring small donors into the fold is paying off. Her Democratic primary rival, Bernie Sanders, had strong appeal online and had routinely trounced her on the small-money front. In July, contributors giving $200 or less accounted for $11.4 million of Clinton's fundraising — roughly double the amount they gave her in June.

These small donors helped Clinton raise about $90 million last month for her campaign and Democratic Party allies.

Trump, who did not raise much money during the primary and had no finance team until late May, has proven a surprisingly strong fundraiser. In July, he raised more than $80 million for his campaign and allied Republican Party groups, his campaign said.

Clinton's campaign began this month with about $58 million in the bank. Trump's campaign said that as of Aug 1 it had $37 million in cash and another $37 million in joint accounts with the Republican National Committee.

Campaign finance documents will give details about how both candidates spent their money in July.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #415 on: August 22, 2016, 07:12:19 am »

In the latest shift, Trump campaign wavers on mass deportations


Donald Trump’s campaign wavered Sunday on whether he would continue to call for the mass deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants from the United States, the latest in a series of sometimes-clumsy attempts to win over moderate GOP voters without alienating millions who have flocked to his hard-line views.

After insisting for more than a year that all illegal immigrants “have to go,” Trump met with a newly created panel of Hispanic advisers on Saturday and asked for other ideas — making clear that his position is not finalized, according to two attendees. Any shift would represent a remarkable retreat on one of the Republican nominee’s signature issues.

The meeting prompted attempts by Trump advisers on Sunday to clarify his position. Campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said on CNN that Trump’s stance on mass deportations was “to be determined” but that he will be “fair and humane for those who live among us in this country.” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a close Trump adviser, said on CBS that the nominee is “wrestling” with the issue but has not changed his position yet.

“People that are here unlawfully, came into the country against our laws, are subject to being removed,” Sessions said. “That’s just plain fact.”

The remarks were the latest in a series of moves by Trump or his aides in recent weeks to alter or shade his position on issues that have been central to his appeal — an effort that has accelerated as he fades in the polls behind Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. The shifts appear aimed at shoring up support among white GOP moderates who have been reluctant to support extreme positions staked out by Trump during the Republican primary, including a massive U.S.-Mexico border wall, deportation of illegal immigrants and a “total” ban on foreign Muslims.

At the same time, any oscillation carries the risk of alienating Trump’s most loyal supporters, many of whom adore his willingness to buck “political correctness” by laying out brash proposals. Trump has thrived in part by staying vague on most of his policy positions, vaccillating between extreme rhetoric and assurances of reasonableness.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign aides and critics of Trump within his own party have urged voters to focus on the concrete promises and proposals that Trump has made rather than the opaque rhetoric he often employs.

One key case in point is Trump’s position on foreign-born Muslims. In December, Trump issued a written statement — still on his campaign website — calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” although within days he said it would be temporary and would include a number of exceptions. By spring, he seemed to back away from the controversial proposal, calling it “just a suggestion,” only to double down once again following an Islamic State-inspired mass shooting at an Orlando gay nightclub. Then this summer, Trump stopped using the word “Muslim,” instead saying he would focus on “areas of the world where there’s a proven history of terrorism against the United States” — he wouldn’t say which ones — and implement “extreme vetting.”

“I’m talking about territories now,” Trump told Sean Hannity of Fox News in late July, insisting that his position had not changed but had expanded. “People don’t want me to say Muslim — I guess I’d prefer not saying it, frankly, myself. So we’re talking about territories.”

Rick Wilson, a longtime GOP strategist who strongly opposes Trump and is now working on the campaign of independent candidate Evan McMullin, called Trump’s shape-shifting on such issues “irritating.”

“He lets people fill in the blanks mentally for what they think he’s saying, not what he’s actually saying,” Wilson said. “So when you hear him saying one day: ‘I’m going to ban all Muslims,’ but then you hear him say another day, ‘Well, I’m going to ban the dangerous, bad ones.’ And then you hear him another day saying, ‘I’m going to ban the ones from the bad countries.’ So it always flips, and then the people that are fanatics about Trump just say, ‘Oh, well, he meant the one that I liked.’ ”

Trump has been equivocal on a long list of other issues as well, including the fight against terrorism, abortion and gun control.

On the Islamic State terrorist group, for example, Trump has presented a panoply of options throughout the campaign: Allow Russia to handle the problem. Send in tens of thousands of American troops. “Bomb the s---” out of oil fields controlled by the group and seize the oil. Or just “bomb the hell out of ISIS,” using a common acronym for the group.

Trump has also promised to revive waterboarding of terror suspects, only to say later that he would never force members of the military to break U.S. and international law. Then he said he would change those laws.

On guns, Trump implied that he wants to arm intoxicated club-goers and bar patrons — an idea that concerned even the National Rifle Association — then later insisted he “was obviously talking about additional guards or employees.” He suggested that Japan arm itself with nuclear weapons, then insisted he had never said that. He promised to raise taxes on wealthy individuals like himself, then insisted he never said that.

Trump called for banning abortion and then punishing women who have the illegal procedure, a position he quickly abandoned. He has said that wages are “too high” and “too low,” while calling for both an end to the federal minimum wage and an increase of it. He was opposed to H-1B visas used by skilled foreign workers, then in favor of the program, and then once again opposed.

Trump’s campaign did not respond to a request to clarify his positions on these and other issues. This spring, Trump insisted in an interview with The Washington Post that his positions have not changed at all.

“I mean I feel that I’m very consistent but you must have flexibility,” Trump said, seeming to take two positions on the question. “If you have a position, that doesn’t mean that there is not a better alternative . . . I’m very upfront with people and I will tell people, but I think I’ve been extremely, I think I’ve been steadfast in my beliefs, actually. But with all of that being said, sometimes there is flexibility. Sometimes you want to negotiate.”

Greg Mueller, a GOP strategist who worked on Pat Buchanan’s 1992 presidential campaign, said Trump’s positions have undergone “tweaks” but his big-picture stances on immigration, taxes and the economy have remained consistent — unlike Hillary Clinton, whom he accused of “doing a 180” on trade. Trump’s views should become even clearer as the GOP nominee gives more policy speeches that have been more deeply thought out than a quick answer on cable news, Mueller said.

“Candidates of all stripes running for all sorts of offices, especially national office where they’re dealing with a large breadth of issues . . . they modify or refine positions as campaigns go on or as issues change and we learn new information,” he said.

At the heart of Trump’s campaign is fierce opposition to illegal immigration. Trump has proposed building a mammoth wall along the southern border — so tall that no ladder could ever reach the top, he has said — and then to deport the millions of immigrants illegally in the country but allowing them to apply to reenter legally.

“They have to go,” Trump said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last year.

This June, Trump expressed hesitation in using the term “mass deportations,” although his aides would not say whether his position had changed. In the meeting Saturday with his Hispanic advisory panel, Trump asked to hear policy ideas — although the campaign said that should not be taken as a sign that Trump has changed his position.

“He addressed the immigration issue himself and said, ‘Look, I know it’s an issue. The biggest problem is the 11 million that are here.’ He asked for our input on how to deal with them,” said Jacob Monty, a Houston-based immigration attorney who handles complex immigration issues for large corporations, including the New York Yankees.

Conway — who was just hired last week amid a campaign shake-up — was asked during an interview Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” whether Trump still wants “a deportation force removing the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants.”

“To be determined,” said Conway, who in the past has supported creating a pathway to citizenship for the millions of immigrants illegally living in the United States.

“What he supports is to make sure that we enforce the law, that we are respectful of those Americans who are looking for well-paying jobs and that we are fair and humane for those who live among us in this country,” she said earlier in the interview.

Conway said the candidate will reveal the specifics of his immigration plan “as the weeks unfold.” Trump is expected to give an immigration policy speech on Thursday in Colorado.

Clinton’s campaign responded by listing Trump’s clear calls for mass deportations over the past year and noting his favorable comparison of his plans to “Operation Wetback,” which were mass deportations carried out during the 1950s under President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

“Whether Donald Trump’s immigration plan includes a deportation squad to forcibly remove millions of families from their homes has been asked and answered by the candidate himself time and time again,” Lorella Praeli, Hillary for America’s national Latino vote director, said in a statement. “When someone running for president says he looks upon a plan called Operation Wetback favorably, we should believe him the first dozen times he lays out his intentions.”

Ed O’Keefe contributed to this report.

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #416 on: August 22, 2016, 07:14:38 am »

Sean Hannity Turns Adviser in the Service of Donald Trump


During major inflection points in Donald J. Trump’s campaign, the advisers, family members and friends who make up his kitchen cabinet burn up their email accounts and phone lines gaming out how to get his candidacy on track (and what counsel he might go along with).

But one person in the mix brings more than just his political advice. He also happens to control an hour of prime time on the Fox News Channel.

That person is Sean Hannity.

Sign Up For NYT Now's Morning Briefing Newsletter

Mr. Hannity uses his show on the nation’s most-watched cable news network to blare Mr. Trump’s message relentlessly — giving Mr. Trump the kind of promotional television exposure even a billionaire can’t afford for long.

But Mr. Hannity is not only Mr. Trump’s biggest media booster; he also veers into the role of adviser. Several people I’ve spoken with over the last couple of weeks said Mr. Hannity had for months peppered Mr. Trump, his family members and advisers with suggestions on strategy and messaging.

So involved is Mr. Hannity that three separate denizens of the hall of mirrors that is Trump World told me they believed Mr. Hannity was behaving as if he wanted a role in a possible Trump administration — something he denied to me as laughable and contractually prohibitive in an interview on Friday.

But he did not dispute that he lends his thoughts to Mr. Trump and others in his close orbit whom Mr. Hannity has known for years.

“Do I talk to my friend who I’ve known for years and speak my mind? I can’t not speak my mind,’’ he said.

But, Mr. Hannity said, “I don’t say anything privately that I don’t say publicly.’’ And, he acknowledged, it’s unclear how far his advice goes with Mr. Trump, given that “nobody controls him.”

Mr. Hannity is unapologetic about his aim. “I’m not hiding the fact that I want Donald Trump to be the next president of the United States.” After all, he says, “I never claimed to be a journalist.”

That makes Mr. Hannity the ultimate product of the Fox News Channel that Roger Ailes envisioned when he founded it with Rupert Murdoch 20 years ago, as a defiant answer to what they described as an overwhelmingly liberal mainstream news media that was biased against Republicans. Mr. Hannity was there from the beginning with Mr. Ailes, who was forced out over sexual harassment allegations last month.

Mr. Hannity’s show has all the trappings of traditional television news — the anchor desk, the graphics and the patina of authority that comes with being part of a news organization that also employs serious-minded journalists like Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly.

But because Mr. Hannity is “not a journalist,” he apparently feels free to work in the full service of his candidate without having to abide by journalism’s general requirements for substantiation and prohibitions against, say, regularly sharing advice with political campaigns.

So there was Mr. Hannity last week, devoting one of his shows to a town hall-style meeting with Mr. Trump at which his (leading) questions often contained extensive Trumpian talking points — including the debunked claim that Mr. Trump opposed the Iraq invasion. (As BuzzFeed News first reported, Mr. Trump voiced support for the campaign in a 2002 discussion with the radio host Howard Stern.)

On other days, he has lent his prime-time platform to wild, unsubstantiated accusations that Hillary Clinton is hiding severe health problems. He showed a video of a supposed possible seizure that was in fact a comical gesture Mrs. Clinton was making to reporters, as one of them, The Associated Press’s Lisa Lerer, reported. He also shared a report from the conservative site The Gateway Pundit that a member of Mrs. Clinton’s security detail appeared to be carrying a diazepam syringe, “for patients who experience recurrent seizures.”

A simple call to the Secret Service spokeswoman Nicole Mainor, as I made on Friday, would have resulted in the answer that the “syringe” was actually a small flashlight.

People in Mr. Hannity’s audience of 2.5 million who are inclined to believe the health allegations, and who believe the mainstream media are covering for Mrs. Clinton, are unlikely to be impressed by the Secret Service’s explanation.

That’s the ultimate result of the hyperpoliticized approach Mr. Hannity and so many others use in today’s more stridently ideological media: A fact is dismissed as false when it doesn’t fit the preferred political narrative.

But while this informational nihilism appears to have hit a new high, the last two weeks have signaled the start of a possible reckoning within the conservative media.

First there was The Wall Street Journal’s deputy editorial page editor Bret Stephens, who, after trading insults with Mr. Hannity over Mr. Trump, said on the MSNBC show “Morning Joe” that “too much of the Republican Party became an echo chamber of itself.”

Those who spend an inordinate amount of time “listening to certain cable shows” and inhaling the conspiracy theories promoted on “certain fringes of the internet,’’ he said, wind up in a debate that’s “divorced from reality.”

Then there was the conservative radio host Charlie Sykes, who lamented in an interview with the Business Insider politics editor Oliver Darcy, “We have spent 20 years demonizing the liberal mainstream media.”

That criticism was often warranted, Mr. Sykes said. (Just take a look at the decision by the former Clinton White House aide and current ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos to give some $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation, for which he apologized last year.) But, as Mr. Sykes said, “At a certain point, you wake up and you realize you have destroyed the credibility of any credible outlet out there.” Therefore any attempt to debunk a falsehood by Mr. Trump, he said, becomes hopeless.

What really caught my eye, though, was the moment on Fox News on Wednesday when Dana Perino, a host of “The Five,” refused to go along with a colleague’s attempt to dispute the many polls showing Mrs. Clinton leading Mr. Trump. “That’s a real disservice to his supporters, to lie to them that those polls don’t matter,” said Ms. Perino, a White House press secretary for George W. Bush.

She went on to express regret for joining with other Fox News hosts who doubted the polls showing President Obama leading Mitt Romney in 2012.

You can’t help but see it as a sure sign that Mr. Ailes, who presided over all of that polling doubt four years ago, had left the building. Still, even Mr. Ailes occasionally reined in his more opinionated hosts when he worried they would tarnish the credibility of his news reporters.

It’s why, for instance, he abruptly canceled Mr. Hannity’s plans to attend a major Tea Party rally in Ohio in 2010 after it came to light that the organizers were using his appearance to raise money.

Mr. Ailes faced another Hannity-related issue shortly before his ouster, when CNN reported that the host had provided Newt Gingrich with private jet travel to Indiana, for a possible vice-presidential interview with Mr. Trump. (Mr. Hannity had been lobbying Mr. Trump to choose Mr. Gingrich.)

Mr. Ailes opted against forcing Mr. Hannity to collect the fare from Mr. Gingrich. He had a possible reason: Mr. Hannity was among those supporting Mr. Ailes amid the sexual harassment scandal, eventually even discussing a walkout in the event of Mr. Ailes’s ouster, as Breitbart reported a few days later. (After Fox News executives shared with Mr. Hannity and others the full details of the allegations, which Mr. Ailes denies, the talk of a walkout ended.)

Mr. Hannity says Mr. Gingrich is a very close friend and it’s his business what favors he does for him, though he left open the possibility that Mr. Gingrich might cut a check for the plane trip just the same. Since Mr. Ailes’s departure, Fox executives have not pushed the issue. Nor, apparently, have they warned Mr. Hannity away from giving advice to Mr. Trump and his campaign — at least not so far during a turbulent time at the network.

Then again, at this point there are questions about how much advice Mr. Ailes himself was lending to Mr. Trump when he was running the place, given that, as The Times reported on Saturday, he has already emerged as an influential Trump adviser.

Mr. Hannity told me his support for Mr. Trump makes him “more honest” than mainstream reporters who hide their biases. It turns out even “honesty” is a relative concept these days. For some people more than others.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #417 on: August 23, 2016, 08:20:06 am »

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #418 on: August 23, 2016, 05:24:01 pm »

What’s Donald Trump doing in deep-red Texas? Money, ego and reviving the ‘Summer of Trump’

AUSTIN, Texas — After weeks of campaigning in mostly battleground states like North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, Donald Trump takes his insurgent campaign for the presidency here Tuesday night, with a public rally scheduled in the heart of the Texas.

But the open question for many Republicans in Texas and beyond is why? Neither Mitt Romney nor John McCain visited the state so close to Election Day in 2012 and 2008.

For a candidate who often likes to tout his history-making bid for the White House, Trump is again breaking convention, investing time and money in a state that has been reliably Republican territory for the last nine presidential campaigns. The last time Texas voted for a Democratic nominee was in 1976, when it went blue for Jimmy Carter. And even amid continued Republican angst over Trump’s bid and an influx of new Latino voters who could lean toward Hillary Clinton in 2016, almost no one believes the state is going to play a decisive role in November.

“This is not Georgia or Arizona,” a Clinton aide said, referring to a pair of red states where Democrats have started to invest money in staff and ads, and where polls have suggested that Clinton has a chance.

Meanwhile, a local GOP official who declined to be named criticizing the candidate, told Yahoo News, “I am glad he is here. But I don’t know why he’s here.”

So why is Trump in Texas? Part of the reason is money. Facing a massive fundraising deficit against Clinton, the celebrity businessman turned politician is scheduled to headline two fundraisers benefiting his campaign and the Republican National Committee.

But the other reason, according to Republicans close to the campaign, is that Trump, who has taken an unusually hands-on role in guiding his schedule and strategy, simply wanted a big rally in the Lone Star State. Instead of meeting with donors and flying to headline an event in a swing state, the GOP nominee argued for a public rally in Austin, as well as in Jackson, Miss., another Republican stronghold where Trump is scheduled to campaign on Wednesday night.

“I think part of it is an ego thing. He wants to feel the love, and he’s going to places where he knows he will,” one Trump adviser said. Pointing to the massive rallies that occurred last summer, taking the party by surprise, the adviser said, “He wants to feel like it’s the ‘Summer of Trump’ again.”

The decision to divert the candidate’s finite campaign-trail time from critical battlegrounds has raised eyebrows among aides at the Republican National Committee, who have privately expressed frustration with the candidate’s “all-over-the-place strategy,” as one put it. And it exemplifies the struggle that Trump’s new campaign team faces in trying to reign in an inexperienced political candidate who has often bragged of being his own best adviser — particularly as the election enters the final stretch.

Earlier this month, Trump, who has previously suggested he didn’t need a ground operation because he wasn’t a typical candidate, personally ordered the RNC to open up joint campaign offices in all 50 states. It was a last-minute request that party aides believed could potentially undermine already-stretched resources in battleground states like Ohio and Florida, where the Trump campaign already has a smaller presence than Clinton.

At the same time, Trump has continued to say both publicly and privately that he can reshape the electoral map. Trump argues, as he repeatedly did in the primaries, that he can win traditionally blue states like Connecticut, where he campaigned earlier this month, California and New York — in spite of polls showing Clinton well ahead there.

Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event in Fairfield, Conn. (Photo: Michelle McLoughlin)

View photos

Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event in Fairfield, Conn. (Photo: Michelle McLoughlin)
Next week, Trump had been scheduled to visit Oregon and Washington, two other mostly Democratic states where he’s argued he can win, for both fundraisers and rallies. But on Monday, the Trump campaign abruptly scrapped the swing — as well as other planned events on the schedule this week in Colorado and Nevada — a shift an aide credited to the Trump campaign’s new brain trust, including campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, as they try to plot out how to best position the candidate for the little over two months before Election Day.

The move potentially suggested a new willingness by Trump to rely more on aides to determine the upcoming calendar. And it marked another compromise for the famously unpredictable candidate, who has relied on teleprompter speeches at rallies over the last week, in a new effort to stay on message.

Though Trump pushed for a Texas rally, the decision might also attract attention to one of his biggest problems heading into November — the angst that many Republicans continue to feel about his candidacy, particularly in Texas.

While some current and former public officials are expected to join him here, many prominent Texas Republicans won’t be present. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is out of the state, recovering from burns he suffered to his legs last month. A spokesman said Texas Sen. John Cornyn is also traveling out of state.

Earlier this month, George P. Bush, the Texas land commissioner and son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, broke with his family and publicly called for Republicans to back Trump. But he, too, is not expected to appear in Austin.

Perhaps the most prominent no-show will be Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who has pointedly declined to endorse his former primary rival. In recent weeks, Trump has repeatedly insisted he doesn’t want Cruz’s backing, but has still bitterly complained about it, reminding the public that Cruz promised to back whoever became the eventual GOP nominee.

At a Monday rally in Akron, Ohio, Trump, reading from the teleprompter, made no mention of Cruz or his other GOP rivals, but insisted he no longer cared about Republicans who oppose his campaign. That list includes Ohio Gov. John Kasich, another former primary rival.

“I wear their opposition as a badge of honor,” Trump said.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #419 on: August 24, 2016, 01:47:45 pm »

Donald Trump says he’s open to ‘softening’ immigration law

Donald Trump now says he’d be open to “softening” some U.S. immigration laws already on the books if he were elected president.

The Republican presidential candidate’s hard-line stance and policy proposals surrounding illegal immigration have been a centerpiece to his campaign. But over the past week, he’s shown signs of rolling back the more extreme measures, most notably his support for the mass deportation of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

In a Tuesday conversation with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Trump said he would consider changing aspects of immigration law as it relates to people who immigrated to the U.S. illegally but have not otherwise broken the law.

“There certainly could be a softening because we’re not looking to hurt people. We want people. We have some great people in this country … but we’re going to follow the laws of this country,” he told the Fox News host during a town hall.

Trump described the two-tier policy toward illegal immigration that he touched upon the day before. He said his administration would follow the laws that are already in place to deport known criminals immediately and then deal with everyone else.

“If you start going around trying to make new laws in this country, it’s a process that is brutal,” he said. “We want to follow the laws of the country. And if we follow the laws, we can do what we have to do.”

Trump’s comments on Tuesday were only the latest in a series of recent statements in which he’s muddled his caustic tone toward illegal immigration. He infamously launched his campaign accusing the Mexican government of sending rapists over the border, and as recently as last week, he released his first general-election TV ad accusing rival Hillary Clinton of wanting to throw open the U.S. border.

But after Trump met last weekend with a Hispanic advisory council, some members said Trump told them he was open to granting legal status to some of the people who immigrated to the U.S. illegally. His campaign denied that Trump’s position had changed, but in a Monday interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, the GOP nominee said his focus would be on deporting criminals, and he even favorably cited President Obama’s own approach to deportation.

During his Tuesday interview with Hannity, Trump also said allowing people to stay in the U.S. after immigrating illegally would be unfair to others who obeyed the law and immigrated into the country using the appropriate channels.

“You have years and years of people waiting on line. They’ve gone through a process, and they’ve filed — legally — they filed,” he said. “They’re great people in some cases. I guess in some cases maybe not. But you have really great people wanting — and so proudly wanting — to come into our country. And now what you’d be doing is you’d take people away from that line.”

According to the Trump campaign’s website, he believes there are three core principles that would guide effective immigration reform: a nation without borders is not a nation, a nation without laws is not a nation, and a nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation.

“We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own,” his site reads. “That must change.”

Clinton has promised to introduce within 100 days of stepping into the Oval Office comprehensive immigration reform that provides a pathway to full citizenship.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 20   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy