News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[mheslep]

Trump has said he's the law and Order candidate, i saw the clip last night.
...

I see you and Astro are right, since the VP - Pence announcement he's introduced that language.

 

[gleem]

Tony Schwartz the ghost writer who helped Trump write "The Art of the Deal" is now apologizing for his part.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/us/politics/trump-book-tony-schwartz.html

So should we believe him or should be believe all those who have talked with him privately and say that he is a wonder person and not the one who we see publicly?

 

[jim hardy]

So should we believe him or should be believe all those who have talked with him privately and say that he is a wonder person and not the one who we see publicly?

Whichever you did on Swiftboats ?

 

[CalcNerd]

I feel that if we elect Hillary, we deserve better; if we elect Donald, we deserve Donald.
.
I suspect this isn't just my opinion only.

 

[axmls]

Meanwhile, we could be seeing a third-party candidate in the debates. Libertarian Gary Johnson reaches 13% backing in the latest CNN poll: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...on-bill-weld-edit-0720-md-20160719-story.html

15% support in 5 national polls will allow him into the debates. It's worth noting that the libertarian ticket may be the most qualified contenders, with 2 two-term governors. Given the record-high disapproval rating for both republican and democratic candidates, this year seems to be the best possible year for a third party to win, though that is still quite unlikely.

 

[gleem]

With so many unhappy voters looking for alternatives I would think the media would take this opportunity to stir the pot a bit and do the country a service by giving Johnson some attention in the following months.

 

[jim hardy]

With so many unhappy voters looking for alternatives I would think the media would take this opportunity to stir the pot a bit and do the country a service by giving Johnson some attention in the following months.

 

[gleem]

And your point?

 

[axmls]

I don't know that anyone believes Gary Johnson would be a perfect president or that he was a perfect governor. He did have high approval as a republican in a blue state. He did face opposition from the 60% democratic legislature. But he does have a record of cutting taxes and left office with a surplus (from what I can find), and he's a lot more honest than two other candidates who shall remain unnamed

Besides. A couple billion of debt is nothing compared to a nearly useless $20 billion wall.

 

[russ_watters]

With so many unhappy voters looking for alternatives I would think the media would take this opportunity to stir the pot a bit and do the country a service by giving Johnson some attention in the following months.

I think that would depend on what the media wants.

 

[jim hardy]

And your point?

That doesn't look like fiscal balance .

 

[gleem]

I can't seem to draw a significant conclusion from that. It seems irrelevant considering the fiscal policies that Clinton and Trump espouse.

 

[axmls]

That doesn't look like fiscal balance .

A debt chart by itself doesn't convey enough information. There could be a lot of reasons for increased debt--a democratic legislature (60% in Johnson's case), for instance. It could also have been the case that the debt was rising under previous governors but Johnson slowed the growth (but a lot can still happen in 8 years). There's also the fact that Johnson was able to make a lot of tax cuts and left office with a large surplus. There are a lot more variables than "the debt rose, so he's not good in terms of fiscal policy."

The debt has risen under most (all?) presidents. However Johnson at least warrants some looking at given his popularity in a state where he shouldn't be popular (fairly blue state) and for some of his other policies, if one feels they're in line with their own. I say this particularly since Johnson is known for being pretty honest and lacking corruption, which are rare qualities this election cycle.

 

[jim hardy]

I can't seem to draw a significant conclusion from that. It seems irrelevant considering the fiscal policies that Clinton and Trump espouse.

well,, i thought libertarians reduce size of government and cut spending.
Looks like the opposite happened in NM during his tenure, of course i don't live there so just glanced at the stats.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1990_2015NMb_17s2li111mcn_F0t

He seems to me a Libertarian in name only.

But if you want to cast a protest vote...,

 

[jim hardy]

I say this particularly since Johnson is known for being pretty honest and lacking corruption, which are rare qualities this election cycle.

That would be a fresh breeze.

 

[gleem]

Johnson has received 13% of the votes in a recent national poll. Two more and he can debate. At least we might get a chance to evaluate him.

 

[axmls]

Looks to me like spending sharply increased after he left office, while it was still gradual during his tenure. That said, this doesn't take into account the population growth of New Mexico at the time. Of course spending will be higher if the state is making more money. Unfortunately it's difficult to see the whole picture, so it's hard to evaluate how well his policies worked.

That said, we know what he claims to adhere to, and we can judge him on that. One of his campaign promises is that he'll sign any legislation to reduce or simplify taxes and that he'll veto any legislation that doesn't pay for itself. He did reduce taxes over a dozen times, veto over 750 legislative pieces, and he cut over 1000 government jobs, so I think we can give him some credit for following through on what are supposed to be libertarian principles. Also, about 1/3 of his vetoes were of republican legislation, so that kind of strengthens his credence. It's worth noting that he never held a political office before running for governor. That just leaves the debt problem, and ideally we'll be able to see his explanation for that during the debates, as we should.

An interesting fact, and I'll try to find the source where I read this but don't have the time right now, is that Johnson's campaign has found that he is pulling voters from both Democrats and Republicans about equally (slightly more democrat) in the polls. If this is truly the case, it strengthens the argument that he has the greatest chance of winning as a third party candidate in a long time (even past '92, since I believe Perot stole votes mostly from Bush), however low that chance is.

I have my problems with him, but his honesty is refreshing, to be honest, and I think, since we in America are in the mood to fight against the establishment, it doesn't hurt to see a strong third party candidate.

 

[gleem]

The next poll should be interesting. Since the "Dump Trump" movement failed how many of those who supported it will remain faithful to the GOP.

 

[Evo]

Question for those that would vote for Trump just to thumb their nose at established government without regard for the consequences, how do you feel about his VP pick?

Mike Pence just destroyed Trump’s chances of winning over Bernie Sanders voters

If Trump "had picked a more moderate person instead of the devil incarnate, he would have been more appealing,"Javiera C wrote. "We all know Trump will probably get impeached in the first year so his VP will be president."

Another Facebook user suggested Trump's pick of an establishment Republican like Pence taints his credentials as an anti-establishment outsider, while yet another vowed that Pence only increased her opposition to Trump.

But picking a deeply religious, anti-abortion, anti-LGBT rights, old white male probably won't boost those sagging numbers among a Sanders coalition made up, in large part, of young professional and millennial voters less religious and in favor of gay marriage and LGBT equality.

Even more toxic in Trump's quest to sway fed up Sanders supporters: Pence's religious-freedom law, that would have given business owners the right to refuse service to gay customers, which he was forced to retreat from after a political firestorm.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/18/mike...ng-over-bernie-sanders-voters-commentary.html

 

[mheslep]

I feel that if we elect Hillary, we deserve better; if we elect Donald, we deserve Donald.
.
I suspect this isn't just my opinion only.

Ironically, I think conditions leading to the notion that a waiver can be granted to democracy for the maxim "you get what you deserve" *only* for the establishment candidate is the reason for the rise of Trump.

 

[mheslep]

I don't know that anyone believes Gary Johnson would be a perfect president or that he was a perfect governor. He did have high approval as a republican in a blue state. He did face opposition from the 60% democratic legislature. But he does have a record of cutting taxes and left office with a surplus (from what I can find), and he's a lot more honest than two other candidates who shall remain unnamed

Besides. A couple billion of debt is nothing compared to a nearly useless $20 billion wall.

I'd love to see a libertarian-ish candidate win. A serious one. Johnson is not, governor or no. His description of the immigration issue is incoherent, delusional, even compared to Trump/Hillary. It sounds as if he is going to add "smoke up" at the end of every sentence.

Sen Paul was a serious candidate.

 

[mheslep]

...

The debt has risen under most (all?) presidents. ...

The debt did not just rise, it doubled under Obama. Given the spending proposals he and Pelosi raised, if not for the GOP takeover in Congress a 250% increase was likely.

Johnson could well make the debt worse. He explicitly states he wants open borders. That doesn't work with a large welfare state. While recent history shows as President he can unilaterally have an open border, he can *not* unilaterally shut down the welfare state. A Congress run by existing parties that can gather super majorities really does not need a 3rd party President for much of anything.

 

[mheslep]

...



http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/18/mike...ng-over-bernie-sanders-voters-commentary.html

So says, Jordan Chariton, a political reporter for "The Young Turks" news show. Ever seen Young Turks?

 

[Evo]

So says, Jordan Chariton, a political reporter for "The Young Turks" news show. Ever seen Young Turks?

No.

 

[Astronuc]

Trump supporter tells Utah delegate: ‘You should die!’
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-supporter-tells-utah-delegate-you-should-die-172211021.html

So much for uniting the nation, let alone the party.

What's with the hostility and intimidation?

 

[Evo]

IMO, the whole thing is a sad joke.

 

[1oldman2]

IMO, the whole thing is a sad joke.

Exactly my thoughts, the US is out of good options now and it seems most of the world will be laughing at this sad joke soon.

 

[JohnDillinger2]

Question for those that would vote for Trump just to thumb their nose at established government without regard for the consequences, how do you feel about his VP pick?
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/18/mike...ng-over-bernie-sanders-voters-commentary.html

Trump was never going to win the far left of the country that burns American flags and thinks Trump is literally Hitler. He relies on "silent majority" type voters that are working class and care only about getting a job. I could see Pence being a solid pick for these types, especially if they're religious. I consider myself an independent and sympathetic to both Trump and Sanders based solely on my personal interest in how they view trade. Supporting the middle class is what matters to me.

Some of the topics brought up in that article like gay marriage and LGBT rights are totally frivolous. While I care about equality, these are not front and center issues that should be deciding people's votes.

 

[jim hardy]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/18/mike...ng-over-bernie-sanders-voters-commentary.html

Who the heck is Jordan Chariton?

He doesn't seem to like either candidate very much

http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-...-may-cost-democrats-more-than-the-presidency/

Becky Ruis, and Sanders supporters like her, doesn’t give a fig about helping Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump.

Why would they — what has the Democratic Party asking for her vote done for her and her family?

[did they _jh] Jail bankers responsible for her plight? No.

[did they _jh] Respond to an epic financial disaster — similar in scale to the Great Depression— and reinstate Glass-Steagall and take the keys to the car away from Wall Street? Nope.
With a Democratic President and Democratic House and Senate, [did they _jh] bailout the millions of displaced homeowners and laid off workers with direct financial relief, or expand special government-funded jobs, like rebuilding our roads and bridges?

A bailout happened: for bankers, who responded by showering themselves with millions in bonuses.

[did they _jh] Create special job programs for minority communities with ungodly unemployment rates? Infuse low-income communities with free educational programs, like say public college?

Ha!

...

Sure, the pundits warn of the looming epic disaster of a President Trump. What they can’t grasp — for Becky, and millions like her, they’re already living a quiet disaster.

One where personal growth and fulfillment has long been tossed aside; in its place — never-ending survival mode.

Fortunately for wealthy Democratic lawmakers, survival is something they don’t currently have to worry about.

They can continue to rest on their collective laurels, thinking changing demographics alone will guarantee the party presidential victories.

But, aside from the consistent polls showing Bernie Sanders as http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html, they might want to rethink a Clinton nomination.

Or fall into survival mode as a party in the years to come.

When the millions of young voters across colors rejecting its brand of neoliberalism, and “pragmatism,” go in a different direction.

Like a revolution.

i may like him more than i expected.

 

[jtbell]

I never thought I would ever smile while watching or reading about Ted Cruz. But I guess there's a first time for everything!

Defiant Ted Cruz stands by refusal to endorse Trump after being booed during convention speech (CNN)

 

[gleem]

Trump said that he might not come to the aid of NATO allies.

In January 1950 Secretary of State Dean Atcheson remarked in a public statement that South Korea was not vital to our national security. In June 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea. Where they emboldened by his remark?

How do you think Putin might be taking Trump's remark?

 

[jim hardy]

How do you think Putin might be taking Trump's remark?

A harbinger of reason ?

I was raised to fear the Hammer and Sickle, as i suppose Russian kids were raised to fear NATO.
Putin is not that much younger than me and as NATO missiles creep ever closer to the Russian border I'm not surprised it makes him nervous because those people who play chess with continents appear to be surrounding one another's oil resources with them.

Russian missiles in Venezuela? http://slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn/slide_8_300_22538.html#p=1

It's unwise to try and corner somebody in his own back yard.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/opinions/nato-summit-responds-to-russia-brzezinski/index.html <(note author _jh)
...
All this means that the alliance today is confronted by Russia's ability to suddenly seize limited swaths of territory along its periphery, including that of the Baltic states and Poland. Indeed, Moscow could potentially complete such aggression before the alliance's political authorities can determine and agree on what had transpired. NATO would then have to decide whether or not it would be worth the costs and risks of reversing that loss of territory.
To counter such a contingency, NATO members agreed at Friday's summit to deploy battalion level forces to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to deter Russian aggression. "[T]hese battalions will be robust and they will be multinational," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said. "They make clear that an attack on one ally will be considered an attack on the whole alliance."

But battalions -- 800 to 1,000 troops -- are small units compared with the divisions of airborne, mechanized, and tank units deployed in Russia's Western Military District and their supporting air and naval forces.
If these NATO battalions are to effectively deter a threat of that magnitude, therefore, they need to be able to survive for a limited amount of time amid an aggressive attack. In addition, they must have sufficient lethality to impose high costs on an aggressor -- even if the expectation is not to defeat that adversary. Finally, the alliance must demonstrate readiness to quickly reinforce these battalions.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/patrick-j-buchanan/natos-anti-russian-aggression/
Lest we forget, while it was Khrushchev who backed down in the Cuban missile crisis, President Eisenhower did nothing to halt the crushing of the Hungarian rebels, Kennedy accepted the Berlin Wall, and Lyndon Johnson refused to lift a finger to save the Czechs when their “Prague Spring” was snuffed out by Warsaw Pact tank armies.

Even Reagan’s response to the crushing of Solidarity was with words not military action.

None of these presidents was an appeaser, but all respected the geostrategic reality that any military challenge to Moscow on the other side of NATO’s Red Line in Germany carried the risk of a calamitous war for causes not justifying such a risk.

Yet we are today risking a collision with Russia in the Baltic States and Ukraine, where no vital U.S. interest has ever existed and where our adversary enjoys military superiority.

As Les Gelb writes in The National Interest, “the West’s limp hand” in the Baltic and “Russia’s military superiority over NATO on its Western borders,” is “painfully evident to all.” “If NATO ups the military ante, Moscow can readily trump it..."

Komsomolskaia Pravda: “Let’s take the bull by the horns straight away. We received hundreds of frankly disturbing calls. The situation in our country is extremely difficult. They tried to crush us with sanctions. NATO is already touching our borders, the are creating a system for anti-missile defence. In the foreign media, there is an unprecedented demonization of our country.

I'm worried about the world's dominant males starting a shootout.
imho Cruz showed his lack of judgement last night, the thought of him as CIC really worried me ..

What ever happened to Detente ?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/patrick-j-buchanan/the-evil-of-nato/
Nixon’s great achievement was to split China off from Moscow. President Reagan’s great achievement was to preside over the conversion of the “evil empire” into a country where he was cheered in Red Square.

What our Greatest Generation presidents accomplished, our Baby Boomer presidents appear to have booted away.

Good fences make good neighbors. Expansionism is disrespecting the fences.Not wanting to seem trite here,
but find "Bedford Incident" on Netflix and see if you think its message is relevant today.
http://www.fandango.com/thebedfordincident_92966/plotsummary

 

[1oldman2]

Who the heck is Jordan Chariton?

He doesn't seem to like either candidate very much

Thats enough to get votes at this point.

 

[mheslep]

Trump said that he might not come to the aid of NATO allies.

Specifically, Trump said, per the NYT:

if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing if those nations have “fulfilled their obligations to us.”

“If they fulfill their obligations to us,” he added, “the answer is yes.”

In January 1950 Secretary of State Dean Atcheson remarked in a public statement that South Korea was not vital to our national security. In June 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea. Where they emboldened by his remark?

One can keep going with that line, back to consequences of G. Washington's "entangling alliances" address, and http://www.theamericanconservative.com/repository/she-goes-not-abroad-in-search-of-monsters-to-destroy/:

She [America] well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom

How do you think Putin might be taking Trump's remark?

Which draws attention to some other sides of the issue.

First, what might be the response of the NATO allies to the remark, given only four of the members aside from the US meet the 2% of GDP target on defense spending expected of member states?

Second, given how the US tears itself apart in deciding to take military action abroad, I can see some possible benefits to military morale if action was not based entirely on unilateral support of a treaty by the US, that all of the NATO allies were meeting their obligations before the fact.

BTW, I don't recall much concern on the left for appearing weak or divisive when Obama, with then Sec State Clinton, canceled the planned US missile defense system for eastern Europe in 2009. Obama had stated he supported the missile defense proposal in the campaign of 2008.

September[/PLAIN] 2008:

...
00:01:09 Obama: The russians are playing a game when they pretend that this missile shield is directed against all their -- bill: it's ridiculous.
00:01:16 Host: It's a defensive thing.
00:01:17 Obama: It's a defensi thing.
00:01:19 Host: you are going to keep it there then.
00:01:21 Obama: Given what has happened in georgia, I think we have to send a clear signal that poland and other countries in that region are not going to be subject to intimidation and aggression.
00:01:32 Host: I want to get this on the record.
00:01:34 Host: You are elected president you keep the missile shield in poland.
00:01:37 Obama: I believe it's appropriate.
...

 

[gleem]

BTW, I don't recall much concern on the left for appearing weak or divisive when Obama, with then Sec State Clinton, canceled the planned US missile defense system for eastern Europe in 2009. Obama had stated he supported the missile defense proposal in the campaign of 2008.

Does anybody truly believe a candidate can or will do all the things that they promise. This is just the typical candidates item on his/her "to do list" until they get all the facts and they are sitting in the "seat" and are listening to their advisers who probably know a lot more about these things than the candidate.

 

[mheslep]

Does anybody truly believe a candidate can or will do all the things that they promise. This is just the typical candidates item on his/her "to do list" until they get all the facts and they are sitting in the "seat" and are listening to their advisers who probably know a lot more about these things than the candidate.

Do you think it appropriate, then, if everyone quoted your post in response to any controversial statement by a politician?

 

[russ_watters]

I hadn't seen any media mention of it and maybe it isn't even relevant, but here is the party platform adopted at the RNC:

https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/

 

[Astronuc]

Jon Stewart on Sean "Lumpy" Hannity and Trump.

 

[mheslep]

Trump supporter tells Utah delegate: ‘You should die!’
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-supporter-tells-utah-delegate-you-should-die-172211021.html

So much for uniting the nation, let alone the party.

What's with the hostility and intimidation?

Why is this incident representive of *the* hostility from Trump supporters? I don't see the assasination attempt on Trump a couple weeks ago as representative of anti-Trump sentiment.

 

[jim hardy]

Wow.

I watched Thom Hartmann this morning to get the left's take on Trump's speech

http://www.thomhartmann.com/

He started by reading from his own book, about protectionism.

Trump is on the verge of triggering a "Mass Movement" a la Eric Hoffer's "True Believer"
and Hartmann understands why.

Mass movements can go bad

but I'm optimistic about this one.

 

[Astronuc]

New Hampshire delegate and former US Senator Gordon Humphrey has quite the republican party over Trump and the party's support for Trump. He commented that "Trump is a 'malevolent man' who should not be leader."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-senator-quits-republican-party-173119377.html

New Clinton VP pick Kaine tried to shame Congress into action on ISIS
https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-vp-pick-kaine-tried-000000696.html

Obama reacts to Trump's GOP convention speech: CNN vets the claims
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/p...trump-fact-check-crime-immigration/index.html

 

[ebos]

Left, right, east, west, north, top, whatever... do I have to pick a side these days? Or will someone else now gladly pick it for me? I prefer to be 'nice'. Are there any 'nice wings'?
I think what's really sad is that any candidates who would actually make decent promises and then also keep them once they are voted to an office are also usually the first ones booted out of the nominating process. I think we call them 'kooks'. I guess that's one I missed above - kooks. Is this what it has come to? That we believe those who lie to us (mainly because they have enough money to make their lies appear believable) and we dismiss those who have great ideas and look like nice folks because the rich ones who lie to us have also convinced us that they are kooks. As if building a wall between Mexico and the US isn't kooky. Or arguing over and going to war over who gets to own and control property belonging to another sovereign country. Hmmm...

 

[jim hardy]

Obama reacts to Trump's GOP convention speech: CNN vets the claims
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/p...trump-fact-check-crime-immigration/index.html

I dunno, Astro, think i'd vet Obama and CNN on that one.

From the CNN piece

It is, of course, very difficult to check the total number of people who have tried to cross the border in any given year. The number of apprehensions gives us a good idea, but it also assumes that border patrol's resources and effectiveness have remained somewhat constant over the years. There is also no way to know how many people crossing the border illegally eluded arrest or how aggressive Border Patrol agents are with apprehensions at any given time.

Inappropriate source deleted by moderator. Not a mainstream source.

Edit-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>Okay then , how about this source ?<<<<

The article deleted by moderator related a statement made by Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol council, which is the Border Patrol Agents' Union
to the effect they are ordered to stand down ,
so to use rate of apprehensions as a statistic is disingenuous.

Here is part of his March testimony before the Subcommittee on National Security
You can read the whole thing at
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-23-Judd-Testimony-NBPC.pdf

So - Which news sources are to be believed ?
Information flows like water from a spring,
it is collected and distributed to myriad agencies for processing, analysis, and release to public
and passes through a lot of hands on its way to us.
So, i always look information from the field folks closest to the source, like Border Patrol agents, for it's been through the fewest hands.
Like the old cowboy says, "Always drink upstream from the herd."

I deem that CNN article propaganda, deceit with intent, and believe the poor reporter did as he was ordered but put his caveat (what i bolded) in there to salvage some sense of integrity..
That's my opinion on what news sources to believe.

Next - Which politicians to believe?
Here's a narrative by different politician. Pick whomever you think is closer to the source.

End Edit -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/114-60_98487.pdf

Mr. GOWDY
. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia. The Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
Chairman GOODLATTE
. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Record numbers of unaccompanied alien minors and adults traveling with minors are again surging across our southern border, overwhelming Federal and state resources, creating a border security nightmare,
and ensuring record profits for the criminal organizations that control the drug and human smuggling and trafficking business along
the border. More than 152,000 unaccompanied minors and families are projected to illegally cross our southwest border this year.
Some estimates project the number to top 177,000, the population of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This would surpass the previous high
mark in 2014 by nearly 30 percent. These minors, more than two-thirds of whom are between the
ages of 15 to 17, travel thousands of miles from Central America through dangerous desert areas controlled by Mexican drug cartels,
and arrive at our southern border with tried and tested instructions from the smugglers leading them. ‘‘Find the first Border Patrol agent and claim asylum.’’ This narrative is repeated thousands of times over, and there is little doubt that with every successful entry and reunification, it encourages thousands more to illegally
enter and further degrades our border security. We saw a similar surge of mass illegal immigration by unaccompanied minors and adults from Central America in 2014. Tragically, many were killed, assaulted, kidnapped, and extorted during their journey by the criminal elements that operate with impunity
south of our border. This surge will undoubtedly produce similar victims.
Despite these tragic consequences of non-enforcement, there are no lessons learned by this Administration.
A leaked DHS intelligence report shows the Obama administration’s lax immigration policies are fueling this current surge. During July through September 2015, customs and border protections agents interviewed 345 family units apprehended at the border. Nearly 70 percent said they had heard that if they came to the United States, they would be released, or receive some sort of immigration relief, such as asylum. Additionally, nearly 60 percent said it was the U.S. immigration policies that influenced their decision to come here. The unresponsiveness by President Obama to this clearly foreseeable crisis is truly shocking.
His instructions to Federal law enforcement agencies? Standdown. In some Border Patrol sectors, agents report that they are
not allowed to initiate removal proceedings against criminal aliens who do not have a felony conviction. Aliens convicted of misdemeanors, and those who have pending felony charges, get a free pass. Agents also report that they are not authorized to initiate removal proceedings against adult aliens after apprehension at the
border if no detention space is available. This is outrageous. Such aliens are supposedly the Obama administration’s number one priority for removal. And such a policy is a beacon call for foreign nationals to cross our border undetected, including those who would do us harm.

When you give up apprehending, the rate of apprehensions goes down.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.

The term was popularised in United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Several other people have been listed as originators of the quote, and it is often erroneously attributed to Twain himself.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

 

[Astronuc]

Which politicians are to be believed ?

That does seem to be the problem of the day, or perhaps one of them.

 

[Astronuc]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-france-others-hit-terror-may-face-more-040738960--election.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is asserting that countries like France that he says are compromised by terrorism may be subjected to the "extreme vetting" he proposes as a deterrent to attacks in the U.S.

When asked if his proposal might lead to a point when not a lot of people from overseas are allowed into the U.S., Trump said, "Maybe we get to that point" and added: "We have to be smart and we have to be vigilant and we have to be strong."

Seriously?!

 

[jim hardy]

Seriously?!

how's "lackadaisy" working out over there ?

 

[mheslep]

Transcript:

CHUCK TODD:

You could get to the point where you're not allowing a lot of people to come into this country from a lot of places.

DONALD TRUMP:

Maybe we get to that point. Chuck, look what's happening. Look at what just took place in Afghanistan, where they blow up a whole shopping center with people, they have no idea how many people were even killed. Happened today. So we have to be smart and we have to be vigilant and we have to be strong. We can't be the stupid people--

...

DONALD TRUMP:

--that they're from an area, and if a person can't prove what they have to be able to prove, they're not coming into this country.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-24-2016-n615706

US immigration lulls in the past:
http://www.susps.org/images/chart1.gif

 

[Astronuc]

The man behind Clinton's servers and email.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...enter-of-hillary-clinton-s-email-scandal.html

Bryan Pagliano didn’t just set up the now infamous “homebrew” server in the basement of Clinton’s New York home, which she used for official business while serving as Secretary of State. Pagliano has been the former secretary’s go-to IT guy for the past several years. He’s also the only person in the entire investigation of Clinton’s email who got an immunity deal, protecting him from possible criminal prosecution. That was Pagliano’s demand for telling FBI investigators about Clinton’s unorthodox system—a system that he apparently knows more about than anyone else.

Pagliano also had an unusual employment arrangement. He was pulling down a six-figure salary (~$140K, stated later in the article) at the State Department, which put him at the high-end of the pay scale for what appeared to be an ordinary tech support job. But Pagliano was also being paid on the side in cash by the Clinton family, something his immediate supervisors didn’t know.

. . .it turns out, there was more than one server, and Clinton used multiple devices. When the email story broke last year, Clinton said she used a private server for “convenience,” so that she wouldn’t have to carry different devices for her personal and private accounts.

Seems a lot wrong here.

 

[Astronuc]

Green Party's Jill Stein Wants To Be 'Plan B' For Bernie Sanders Supporters
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/48725...ts-to-be-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters

Today the biggest third party in the U.S. is the Libertarian Party, which has taken a new prominence as it courts Republicans who have refused to fall in line behind the party's nominee, Donald Trump. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee in 2012 and again this year, amassed 1.27 million votes in the last presidential election.

On the other end of the spectrum is the Green Party. The party traces its history to 1984. Its platform focuses on environmental issues and "social justice, peace and non-violence, local and regional self-management and grassroots democracy." In 2000, 2.8 million people voted for Ralph Nader as the Green Party presidential candidate — leading to accusations of "spoiling" the election for Al Gore, a charge Nader has rejected.

It seems 2000 was another year of bad choices.

 

[Astronuc]

Leonard Pitts commentary on the RNC.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4146950-155/leonard-pitts-battle-between-left-and

Last week's Republican conclave in Cleveland came across less as a nominating convention than as a four-day nervous breakdown, a moment of fracture and bipolarity from a party that no longer has any clear idea what it stands for or what it is. Everywhere you turned there was something that made you embarrassed for them, something so disconnected from fact, logic or decency as to suggest those things no longer have much meaning for the party faithful.

Let's see if the DNC can do better.

The US certainly had plenty of domestic terrorism during the 60s.

Did Florida Gov. Rick Scott really say he could remember "when terrorism was something that happened in foreign countries" — as if four little girls were never blown to pieces in a Birmingham church, and an NAACP lawyer and his wife were never killed by a bomb in Scott's own state?

After coming to the US in 1966, in the middle of the Civil Rights movement, I remember learning about the assassination of Medgar Evers in 1963.

In the early morning of June 12, 1963, just hours after President John F. Kennedy's nationally televised Civil Rights Address, Evers pulled into his driveway after returning from a meeting with NAACP lawyers. Emerging from his car and carrying NAACP T-shirts that read "Jim Crow Must Go", Evers was struck in the back with a bullet fired from an Enfield 1917 rifle; the bullet ripped through his heart. He staggered 30 feet (9.1 meters) before collapsing. He was taken to the local hospital in Jackson, Mississippi where he was initially refused entry because of his race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medgar_Evers#Assassination

I watched Martin Luther King marching in the South. Then he too was assassinated in 1968. It was certainly dangerous for African-Americans, who were insisting on and asserting their Constitutional rights. And that was only 50 years ago.