Trump to win?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

I'm not sure I follow?

Did these pre-90s Democrats pretend to be racists to get votes? Or are they still racists now, but pretending they're not to get votes? Should we have believed them then, but not now? Or doubted them then, but believe them now? Do you have a diagram or something we can follow? That might help.

And people like you who think Trump is a racist (or just pretending to be one?), I guess that would make it okay because he would only be doing it to appeal to the Bubbas and win like Democrats do/did? Only it's okay for Democrats to pander to their voters but not okay for Republicans to do that?

I'm sorry, obviously I'm totally confused about what it is you're trying to say here Santa. For instance, Hillary is meeting with "top cops" today. Is she lying to the cops or lying to her supporters?

as keynes said, "when the facts change, i change my mind." i don't think people having different policy beliefs separated by a 20 year interval is a great surprise. i agree, however, that santa's reference to needing to be a bubba to get elected makes the choice of policy sound cynical and manipulative.

so it's not clear, do we see cynical shifts to reflect popular moods, or have we seen an evolution in understanding. i am dubious that when the crime bill was passed people really understood how it would lead to the carceral state. similarly, i don't think they well understood the consequences of "ending welfare as we [knew] it." so it is at least possible that policy beliefs have shifted to reflect new facts on the ground.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

When you reach back to the early '90s, you'll find many politicians, especially Democrats, voted in ways that today do not make them proud. Sanders is still trying to live down his vote for the 1994 crime bill. Bill Clinton's actions were wrong but the whole "tough on crime" issue came from the conservative aisle. Anyone who wasn't "tough on crime" didn't get elected.

Talking about 1992, an Atlantic article from last year noted, There’s a reason Clinton reminded voters that year that his nickname was “Bubba.” It’s because in 1992, far more than today, a Democrat who didn’t appeal to Bubbas couldn’t win. And in 1992, being “tough on crime” was critical to getting most Bubbas to give a Democrat a second look.

Even the black community backed the crime bill in '94. As manufacturing jobs moved out of the US young men in the inner cities were disproportionally effected and crime rates soared. That said, the bill was a horrible mistake.

Democrats have thankfully begun to move away from their racist Southern roots but Trump's core support group is bubbas. HRC has been very clear that being "tough on crime" is not the direction her administration will move. On this issue, I'll side with HRC.

I'm not sure I follow?

Did these pre-90s Democrats pretend to be racists to get votes? Or are they still racists now, but pretending they're not to get votes? Should we have believed them then, but not now? Or doubted them then, but believe them now? Do you have a diagram or something we can follow? That might help.

And people like you who think Trump is a racist (or just pretending to be one?), I guess that would make it okay because he would only be doing it to appeal to the Bubbas and win like Democrats do/did? Only it's okay for Democrats to pander to their voters but not okay for Republicans to do that?

I'm sorry, obviously I'm totally confused about what it is you're trying to say here Santa. For instance, Hillary is meeting with "top cops" today. Is she lying to the cops or lying to her supporters?

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton met on Thursday in New York with leading law enforcement officers from around the country, including from some of its largest cities, for a discussion about policing and the racial tensions that have been exposed by high-profile killings in recent years.

Clinton meets with top police officers as Trump casts himself as ‘law and order’ candidate

And here where the FOP says they were snubbed by Clinton, is she trying to say that she doesn't stand with the police but really does? Or is she saying she does but trying to convince her supporters that she doesn't?

Top officials at the biggest police union in the country are upset with Hillary Clinton, saying she snubbed them.

The leader of the National Fraternal Order of Police told The Hill that the Democrat sent a signal through her staff that she wouldn’t be seeking the union’s endorsement.

"It sends a powerful message. To be honest with you, I was disappointed and shocked," said Chuck Canterbury, the president of the National Fraternal Order of Police. "You would think with law enforcement issues so much in the news that even if she had disagreements with our positions, that she would’ve been willing to say that."

Police union: Clinton snubbed us

Do you mean to say Hillary was for reform before she was against it before she was for it? Or that she was for law and order before she was against it before she was for it? And which one is she doing (or not doing) now just to get votes?

A (More or Less) Definitive Guide to Hillary Clinton’s Record on Law and Order


She was for reform before she was against it before she was for it.


By Eli Hager. Posted on Friday, May 1, 2015 at 2:02 p.m.


On Wednesday, Bill Clinton conceded that the era of “mass incarceration” — which Hillary Clinton vowed to “end” in a speech just last week — can be traced back to the policies of his presidency. In an apparent effort to get out ahead of any political liability stemming from the prison boom of the last few decades, he acknowledged that “any policy that was adopted while I was president, in federal law, that contributed to [prison overpopulation ], should be changed.”


However, the former president sidestepped direct responsibility. In reflecting on the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a signature achievement of his administration and a major contributor to mass incarceration, Clinton instead placed the blame with Republicans. At the time, he said, he just “wanted to pass a bill,” and “went along with” what congressional Republicans wanted.


For her part, Hillary Clinton now faces the task of continuing to separate herself from the legacy of her husband’s crime bill, and of clarifying her changing positions on criminal justice issues over four decades.


In her first speech on the issue since launching her campaign for president, Hillary Clinton discussed criminal justice as though it were relatively new to her. “I don’t know all the answers,” she said, asking the audience to “start thinking this through with me.”


But Hillary Clinton has a long and winding history on the subject of criminal justice.


Much of the coverage of Clinton’s remarks has centered on the fact that the views she expressed – including an avowal to “end the era of mass incarceration” – seem to clash with the policies of her husband, who signed into law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.


By this logic, Hillary Clinton will need to live down the Bill Clinton legacy: Harsher sentencing guidelines; $9.7 billion in new funding for the construction of prisons; $10.8 billion for 100,000 new police officers; more federal crimes punishable by the death penalty; the end of higher-education grants for prisoners; the exclusion of drug offenders from food stamps and welfare; encouragement to states to try more children as adults; the distribution of surplus military equipment to local police departments; and time limits on death-penalty appeals. On his watch, the American prison population increased by more than 673,000 inmates in just eight years.


But Hillary is not Bill, and her history on these issues is more nuanced than simply cheerleading for her husband’s “tough on crime” approach. It is the story of a Barry Goldwater supporter who became a fighter for prisoners on death row who became a tough-on-crime First Lady who became a senator with a very mixed record who is now embracing the language of reform without yet offering much in the way of concrete proposals – apart from a largely uncontroversial suggestion that all police officers be equipped with body cameras.


Whether this represents evolution or expediency or some of each, we’ll let you decide. Below, a rundown of almost half a century of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s rhetoric, activism, policy positions, and changes of heart on the subject of criminal justice.


Early career and Arkansas


1971: Hillary Rodham takes a summer job at a left-leaning law firm in Berkeley, Calif. There, she joins a team that is busy helping Huey Newton – the leader of the Black Panthers, who stands accused of murdering an Oakland police officer – win a series of mistrials and the dismissal of all charges.


1973: At one of Rodham’s next jobs, with the Children’s Defense Fund, she studies the “problem” of juveniles incarcerated in adult jails.


Mid-1970s: Rodham learns in Arkansas that “our criminal-justice system can be stacked against those who have the least power and are the most vulnerable.”


1976: Now Hillary Clinton, she becomes the director of the legal aid clinic (and a professor of criminal law) at the University of Arkansas. There, she spearheads a project to bring legal representation to inmates at Cummins Farm, one of the worst prisons in the state. In one case, she and her team file a 64-page amicus brief on behalf of a mentally-impaired black man who was sentenced to death by an all-white jury.


But, in the first indication that she might be subordinating her career to Bill’s, Hillary keeps her name off of the brief – in part because her husband is running for attorney general of Arkansas.


Late 1970s: After famously debating whether or not to defend a rapist, Hillary Clinton decides that it is her duty to do so – and she aggressively wins her client a plea deal.


In the aftermath of that case, Hillary Clinton fights for legislation that would require judges to approve evidence of a rape victim’s previous sexual conduct before it could be presented to the jury. Meanwhile, she establishes the in Arkansas, and leads an educational campaign about sexual violence against women.


1978-1980: During his first term as governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton commutes the sentences of in two years.


1980: Bill Clinton is hammered as “soft on crime” by Republican opponent Frank White, and loses his reelection bid. He vows to become a “new” Democrat, one who would never again be attacked for his leniency.


1982-1992: After he is re-elected governor, Clinton tells Arkansans he has learned his lesson, and commutes only eight sentences in ten years. He also oversees four executions – the first four in the state of Arkansas since 1964.


Meanwhile: Hillary Clinton remains publicly silent on criminal justice issues. But according to her spiritual mentor, she over her husband’s embrace of capital punishment. Jones advised her, “I believe there is such a thing as punitive justice,” and Hillary responded, “Well, I think I agree with you.”


1992: Bill Clinton flies back to Arkansas from New Hampshire, where he has been campaigning for president, to personally oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, an African-American man who is so mentally incapacitated that he asks that his final dessert be served “tomorrow.”


The White House


1994: As First Lady, her days of defending those accused of rape and murder now long behind her, Clinton actively lobbies for the passage of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.


Annual “Women in Policing” Awards, Aug. 10, 1994: “There is something wrong when a crime bill takes six years to work its way through Congress and the average criminal serves only four…. We need more police. We need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets…. We will be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders — three strikes and you’re out. We are tired of putting you back in through the revolving door.”


C-SPAN interview, Aug. 15, 1994: “It’s a very well-thought-out crime bill that is both smart and tough. And I think Americans are gonna say, why these political games? And we will eventually get a good crime bill like the President has proposed.”


1996: In her book, “It Takes a Village,” Clinton again endorses the crime bill, and argues in favor of “zero-tolerance” policies for kids who break the rules at school.


Elsewhere in the book, Clinton delivers hardline rhetoric on the physical and sexual abuse of children. “Whatever the reasons for the apparent increase,” she writes, “it demands our intervention. We should start with strong, unambivalent criminal prosecution of perpetrators.”


But in the notes at the end of the book, she concedes that she is responding not to a rise in these offenses but to a rise in public fears. “Over the last several years, there has been a dramatic increase in media stories of abducted and abused children,” she wrote. “While there has not been an increase in the overall number of such cases, many families, and children, are more fearful.”


1998: Clinton pens a column in which she begins to shift – ever so slightly – back toward a more reformist position on criminal justice. In it, she picks and chooses from the crime bill’s legacy, emphasizing the gun-control measures, prevention programs for juveniles, and funding for more police officers, without mentioning the law’s contributions to mass incarceration.


The Senate


2000: Clinton suggests that the death penalty has her “unenthusiastic support,” a vague stance that she has never clarified.


As Senator, she is largely uninvolved in criminal justice debates and introduces no new legislation. However, she is one of many co-sponsors on a number of failed bills.


2001: Although she supports capital punishment in principle, Clinton co-sponsors the Innocence Protection Act, a bill designed to reduce the chance – in part through additional opportunities for DNA testing – that an innocent person gets executed.


2001: Clinton co-sponsors legislation that would create more tracking and harsher sentences for hate crimes.


2003: Clinton says she “pushed for” the PROTECT Act, which increases the penalties for certain sex offenses and allows the federal government to supervise sex offenders for “any term of years or life.”


2007: Clinton votes “Yes” to reinstate her husband’s COPS initiative, a program for putting hundreds of thousands more police officers on the streets, to full $1.15 billion funding. She also co-sponsors the COPS Improvement Act, which would direct grant money toward the hiring of more anti-terror, anti-gang, and school-based police officers.


2007: While running for president, Clinton co-sponsors legislation to reduce the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, as well as a bill to lower recidivism by investing in drug-treatment and reentry programs.


Candidate for President


Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University, Jun. 28, 2007: “We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system. We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need...a system of justice that truly does treat people equally.”


Iowa Black & Brown Presidential Forum, Dec. 1, 2007: Finally addressing her support of the 1994 crime bill, Clinton says: “At the time, there were reasons why the Congress wanted to push through a certain set of penalties and increase prison construction and there was a lot of support for that across a lot of communities. It’s hard to remember now, but the crime rate in the early 1990s was very high. But we’ve got to take stock now of the consequences, so that’s why I want to have a thorough review of all of the penalties, of all the kinds of sentencing, and more importantly start having more diversion and having more second-chance programs.”


Jan. 4, 2008: Despite her own apparent evolution, candidate Clinton plays the “soft on crime” card. Her aides suggest to ABC News that President Obama’s positions on criminal justice – including his opposition to mandatory-minimum sentences – are too liberal and out-of-touch with mainstream views.


This Wednesday: In her apparent coming-out speech on criminal justice, Clinton expresses forceful criticism of mandatory-minimum sentences and the militarization of police, both of which date to her husband’s time in office.


“Measures that I and so many others have championed, to reform arbitrary mandatory-minimum sentences, are long overdue…. We can [make sure] that federal funds for state and local law enforcement are used to bolster best practices, rather than to buy weapons of war that have no place on our streets.”


And she concludes:


“It's time to change our approach. It's time to end the era of mass incarceration.”

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

But we do know that Clinton was instrumental in making it worse and there's no reason to believe she wouldn't do worse still.

When you reach back to the early '90s, you'll find many politicians, especially Democrats, voted in ways that today do not make them proud. Sanders is still trying to live down his vote for the 1994 crime bill. Bill Clinton's actions were wrong but the whole "tough on crime" issue came from the conservative aisle. Anyone who wasn't "tough on crime" didn't get elected.

Talking about 1992, an Atlantic article from last year noted, There’s a reason Clinton reminded voters that year that his nickname was “Bubba.” It’s because in 1992, far more than today, a Democrat who didn’t appeal to Bubbas couldn’t win. And in 1992, being “tough on crime” was critical to getting most Bubbas to give a Democrat a second look.

Even the black community backed the crime bill in '94. As manufacturing jobs moved out of the US young men in the inner cities were disproportionally effected and crime rates soared. That said, the bill was a horrible mistake.

Democrats have thankfully begun to move away from their racist Southern roots but Trump's core support group is bubbas. HRC has been very clear that being "tough on crime" is not the direction her administration will move. On this issue, I'll side with HRC.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

here are two:

#1 "i think when he says that the solution to community-police problems in places like milwaukee or baltimore rests on having more police without acknowledging excess in police behavior, that's a problem. if i lived in those communities i would expect that a trump justice dept would not be investigating metropolitan police depts in the ways obama's does. whether more suppression and police violence in inner cities would represent a radical departure from current circumstances can be debated, but by my lights it wouldn't be good.

I have a call I need to take, so forgive the brevity and that I address each of these individually.

TL/DR, I don't think Trump will be much different than Clinton here. We have no evidence to back up the assertion regarding Trump, so it's open to debate. But there is much evidence regarding Clinton (and Obama).

First, the DOJ investigations don't seem to amount to much. Here's the DOJ's list of their investigations of law enforcement agencies the outcomes.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/special-...atters0#police

Nearly all of them end in settlements or consent decrees that turn out to be little more than the same slap on the hand template - better community PR, some more training, sometimes a token fine, and always a promise by the LEO in question to sin no more. I just skimmed a few, but no instances of cops being jailed or departments dissolved or restructured, although there may be some. That's been more or less the same since Nixon signed the first Crime Bill back in the early 70s and through successive GOP and Democratic administrations.

I cannot simply forget that one of the key reasons we find ourselves here is because of Clinton's Omnibus Crime Bill. I believe the Crime Bill was what led us to become the carceral state we are today, with more people in prison than were ever incarcerated in the Soviet Union or Red China. I can't see how we are to correct this by electing the "co-president" ("two for the price of one") who brought us to this place.

And I won't forget that "the first black president" was the one who introduced into the debate the coded language of "midnight basketball" and put a black face on crime. And we didn't even get the basketball!

"Based upon critical race theory and close readings of Congressional hearings and print media coverage, we argue that race was the key to midnight basketball’s prominencein the legislative debates and that its introduction ultimately reduced prevention-oriented provisions included in the final legislation."

Midnight Basketball and the 1994 Crime Bill Debates: The Operation of a Racial Code Darren Wheelock and Douglas Hartmann, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Spring, 2007), p. 319.

Cops never investigate cops. If they must, they soft pedal it. The DOJ might go after a few LEOs more here and a few less there, but as we speak we have a regime of systematic torture and black sites in Chicago that has fallen off the front page. The Philadelphia police dropped a bomb on one of its neighborhoods and it took 11 years for a civil suit to work its way to completion and not one police official was ever charged, federally or otherwise. The LAPD has a history of nefarious acts, but as the western HQ of the spy vs. spy guys, nothing much changes there either.

Trump may make it worse or may he not. And if he goes for a massive rebuild of infrastructure as it is assumed he will, that will do more to reduce crime than any bill Congress could pass. We simply don't know what Trump would do here and can't know.

But we do know that Clinton was instrumental in making it worse and there's no reason to believe she wouldn't do worse still.

----
Back for a moment.

#2 in a similar way, if trump were able to get restrictions on the press by broadening libel laws, as he hopes, the change would be one of degree, since the press is already self-censoring and slanted in various ways, but it wouldn't be good."

Here I think here Trump is pissing into the wind. I empathize with the guy - how would you like to be bouncing your beautiful Jewish grandchild on your knee and then turn on the news to learn that people are calling you Hitler.

The man is an air-breathing human being and bleeds red. Would that not piss you off in the slightest? Clearly, it seems Trump was entirely unprepared for the barrage of false stories and defaming charges made against him in the press. I suppose we could argue that he should have expected it, but I never expected the most august journalistic bodies in the world to print stories calling him an agent of Moscow and worse. On a personal level, that stuff would drive me crazy, reading demonstrably false charges of the most absurd variety every day and not being able to do a damn thing about it.

But that is where Trump finds himself as a candidate. And as president he'd have even less recourse, so I think it's a non-issue. Here I criticize Trump for wasting his time going after the media. It's a lost cause and never amounts to anything as they are mostly untouchable.

Legally, his resources are thin. I'm not an attorney but I do know that libel suits are notoriously difficult to win. And since we have no federal libel laws (that I'm aware of) there's just not much that any president can (or should, regrettably) do about it. The Supreme Court has rarely heard such cases and that's probably why the one's we know about it are so renown. Here i think of "People vs Larry Flynt." But presidents moving Congress to beef up libel laws? Not really a big concern, I think.

Politicians have other ways to punish and reward news organizations and reporters that do not involve legal remedies. Granting or denying access, mainly.


I just don't think this is a serious issue, unless you frame it as a "Trump thin skin" issue and while here he does need work, I wonder how many of us could wake up to that sort of flaying day in and out without it getting to us?

Now, I can argue about your assertion of media "self-censorship" but that is a bigger issue than one election and predates Trump by about 100 years, no?

-----

#3 of whether you really find "dr. drew" credible? if yes, on what basis? if no, why post his "analysis" of non-existent data?

I think there is something up with Clinton's health and that the campaign and media are doing their best to cover it up. That's hardly a novelty in American politics, either the inquiry or the cover up. I don't watch TV so don't know about "Dr. Drew" except for when he was straight man to Adam Carrola on the radio. I suppose Pinsky still practices, but he's an entertainer first. I don't look to him as an authority on medicine or politics.

When I posted the story, I did make a caveat about the source. It's a weird piece and like you, I don't know where the good doctor is getting his information. If he has it, he should share. Just another data point until we have something firm. I want HRC to live a long and happy life and hope for her good health, just live it outside of the White House, Hillz. Trust me, life after politics is awesome.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

here are two:

#1 "i think when he says that the solution to community-police problems in places like milwaukee or baltimore rests on having more police without acknowledging excess in police behavior, that's a problem. if i lived in those communities i would expect that a trump justice dept would not be investigating metropolitan police depts in the ways obama's does. whether more suppression and police violence in inner cities would represent a radical departure from current circumstances can be debated, but by my lights it wouldn't be good.


#2 in a similar way, if trump were able to get restrictions on the press by broadening libel laws, as he hopes, the change would be one of degree, since the press is already self-censoring and slanted in various ways, but it wouldn't be good."

i would also add the question
#3 of whether you really find "dr. drew" credible? if yes, on what basis? if no, why post his "analysis" of non-existent data?

as to whether everyone is tiring of the woody/jk/santa show, i would say that now that the heat's been turned down, perhaps we can actually generate some light.

if people are tired of it they are free to say so, and a few such expressions would be enough to convince me. one measure of interest would be to look at how many views this thread gets. if that number continues to grow, then i guess there are readers who want to follow it. at this moment there have been 72,978 views. let's keep track of that for a bit.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

woodsman, you asked me to go first in changing our dialogue and i did so in post #909. will you reply to the concerns i raised there?

This one?

I thought I took on the meatiest one and did it convincingly enough. But I'm happy to give you my opinion, only can you pick one or two that are meaningful enough to make it worth the effort. I have an editing problem - as in writing too much - I'm a hardcore logoholic and can't help myself. One or two, please?

I am very sure folks are getting sick and tired of the Woods/JK/Santa show by now. Can I have an "amen?"

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

woodsman, you asked me to go first in changing our dialogue and i did so in post #909. will you reply to the concerns i raised there?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Okay, the media goes apeshit over Bannon's appointment, portraying him as a rabid Pit Bull. Next day Trump goes national with a mea culpa speech in Charlotte that could have been delivered by Jimmy Carter. And from the list of policies, he sounds a lot like a traditional GOP candidate.

Maybe he's lying? Maybe when he says "one people, one country" in the back of his mind he's really thinking "ein reich, ein volk, ein fuhrer" and we're really in Nuremberg and it's 1936.

That's what I expect will happen. You'll have the very serious people oh-so-thoughtfully making comparisons to Hitler's speechifying and Trump's "pivot."

Some of the more excitable folks aligned with the Unpopular Front, this new and curious neoliberal Democrat and neoconservative Republican alliance and their media, will have a field day. This is certain.

Anyway, there's your pivot.

Thank you. It’s great to be here in Charlotte. I just met with our many amazing employees right up the road at our property.

I’d like to take a moment to talk about the heartbreak and devastation in Louisiana, a state that is very special to me.

We are one nation. When one state hurts, we all hurt – and we must all work together to lift each other up. Working, building, restoring together.

Our prayers are with the families who have lost loved ones, and we send them our deepest condolences. Though words cannot express the sadness one feels at times like this, I hope everyone in Louisiana knows that our country is praying for them and standing with them to help them in these difficult hours.

We are one country, one people, and we will have together one great future.

Tonight, I’d like to talk about the New American Future we are going to create together.
Last week, I laid out my plan to bring jobs back to our country.

On Monday, I laid out my plan to defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism.

On Tuesday, in Wisconsin, I talked about how we are going to restore law and order to this country.

Let me take this opportunity to extend our thanks and our gratitude to the police and law enforcement officers in this country who have sacrificed so greatly in these difficult times.

The chaos and violence on our streets, and the assaults on law enforcement, are an attack against all peaceful citizens. If I am elected President, this chaos and violence will end – and it will end very quickly.

Every single citizen in our land has a right to live in safety.

To be one united nation, we must protect all of our people. But we must also provide opportunities for all of our people.

We cannot make America Great Again if we leave any community behind.

Nearly Four in ten African-American children are living in poverty.I will not rest until children of every color in this country are fully included in the American Dream.

Jobs, safety, opportunity. Fair and equal representation. This is what I promise to African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and all Americans.

But to achieve this New American Future we must break from the failures of the past.

As you know, I am not a politician. I have worked in business, creating jobs and rebuilding neighborhoods my entire adult life. I’ve never wanted to learn the language of the insiders, and I’ve never been politically correct – it takes far too much time, and can often make more difficult.

Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that, and I regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues.

But one thing I can promise you is this: I will always tell you the truth.

I speak the truth for all of you, and for everyone in this country who doesn’t have a voice.

I speak the truth on behalf of the factory worker who lost his or her job.

I speak the truth on behalf of the Veteran who has been denied the medical care they need – and so many are not making it. They are dying.

I speak the truth on behalf of the family living near the border that deserves to be safe in their own country but is instead living with no security at all.

Our campaign is about representing the great majority of Americans – Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Conservatives and Liberals – who read the newspaper, or turn on the TV, and don’t hear anyone speaking for them. All they hear are insiders fighting for insiders.

These are the forgotten men and women in our society, and they are angry at so much on so many levels. The poverty, the unemployment, the failing schools, the jobs moving to other countries.

I am fighting for these forgotten Americans.

Fourteen months ago, I declared my campaign for the Presidency on the promise to give our government back to the people. Every day since then, I’ve worked to repay the loyalty and the faith that you have put in me.

Every day I think about how much is at stake for this country. This isn’t just the fight of my life, it’s the fight of our lives – together – to save our country.

I refuse to let another generation of American children be excluded from the American Dream. Our whole country loses when young people of limitless potential are denied the opportunity to contribute their talents because we failed to provide them the opportunities they deserved. Let our children be dreamers too.

Our whole country loses every time a kid doesn’t graduate from high school, or fails to enter the workforce or, worse still, is lost to the dreadful world of drugs and crime.

When I look at the failing schools, the terrible trade deals, and the infrastructure crumbling in our inner cities, I know all of this can be fixed - and it can be fixed very quickly.

In the world I come from, if something is broken, you fix it.

If something isn’t working, you replace it.

If a product doesn’t deliver, you make a change.

I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens.

That’s why I am running: to end the decades of bitter failure and to offer the American people a new future of honesty, justice and opportunity. A future where America, and its people, always – and I mean always – come first.

Aren’t you tired of a system that gets rich at your expense?

Aren’t you tired of the same old lies and the same old broken promises? And Hillary Clinton has proven to be one of the greatest liars of all time.

Aren’t you tired of arrogant leaders who look down on you, instead of serving and protecting you?

That is all about to change – and it’s about to change soon. We are going to put the American people first again.

I’ve traveled all across this country laying out my bold and modern agenda for change.

In this journey, I will never lie to you. I will never tell you something I do not believe. I will never put anyone’s interests ahead of yours.

And, I will never, ever stop fighting for you.

I have no special interest. I am spending millions of dollars on my own campaign – nobody else is.

My only interest is the American people.

So while sometimes I can be too honest, Hillary Clinton is the exact opposite: she never tells the truth. One lie after another, and getting worse each passing day.

The American people are still waiting for Hillary Clinton to apologize for all of the many lies she’s told to them, and the many times she’s betrayed them.

Tell me, has Hillary Clinton ever apologized for lying about her illegal email server and deleting 33,000 emails?

Has Hillary Clinton apologized for turning the State Department into a pay-for-play operation where favors are sold to the highest bidder?

Has she apologized for lying to the families who lost loved ones at Benghazi?

Has she apologized for putting Iran on the path to nuclear weapons?

Has she apologized for Iraq? For Libya? For Syria? Has she apologized for unleashing ISIS across the world?

Has Hillary Clinton apologized for the decisions she made that have led to so much death, destruction and terrorism?

Speaking of lies, we now know from the State Department announcement that President Obama lied about the $400 million dollars in cash that was flown to Iran. He denied it was for the hostages, but it was. He said we don’t pay ransom, but he did. He lied about the hostages – openly and blatantly – just like he lied about Obamacare.

Now the Administration has put every American travelling overseas, including our military personnel, at greater risk of being kidnapped. Hillary Clinton owns President Obama’s Iran policy, one more reason she can never be allowed to be President.

Let’s talk about the economy. Here, in this beautiful state, so many people have suffered because of NAFTA. Bill Clinton signed the deal, and Hillary Clinton supported it. North Carolina has lost nearly half of its manufacturing jobs since NAFTA went into effect.

Bill Clinton also put China into the World Trade Organization – another Hillary Clinton-backed deal. Your city of Charlotte has lost 1 in 4 manufacturing jobs since China joined the WTO, and many of these jobs were lost while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State – our chief diplomat with China. She was a disaster, totally unfit for the job.

Hillary Clinton owes the State of North Carolina a very big apology, and I think you’ll get that apology around the same time you’ll get to see her 33,000 deleted emails.

Another major issue in this campaign has been the border. Our open border has allowed drugs and crime and gangs to pour into our communities. So much needless suffering, so much preventable death. I’ve spent time with the families of wonderful Americans whose loved ones were killed by the open borders and Sanctuary Cities that Hillary Clinton supports.

I’ve embraced the crying parents who’ve lost their children to violence spilling across our border. Parents like Laura Wilkerson and Michelle Root and Sabine Durden and Jamiel Shaw whose children were killed by illegal immigrants.

My opponent supports Sanctuary Cities.

But where was the Sanctuary for Kate Steinle? Where was the Sanctuary for the children of Laura, Michelle, Sabine and Jamiel?

Where was the Sanctuary for every other parent who has suffered so horribly?

These moms and dads don’t get a lot of consideration from our politicians. They certainly don’t get apologies. They’ll never even get the time of day from Hillary Clinton.

But they will always come first to me.

Listen closely: we will deliver justice for all of these American Families. We will create a system of immigration that makes us all proud.

Hillary Clinton’s mistakes destroy innocent lives, sacrifice national security, and betray the working families of this country.

Please remember this: I will never put personal profit before national security. I will never leave our border open to appease donors and special interests. I will never support a trade deal that kills American jobs. I will never put the special interests before the national interest. I will never put a donor before a voter, or a lobbyist before a citizen.

Instead, I will be a champion for the people.

The establishment media doesn’t cover what really matters in this country, or what’s really going on in people’s lives. They will take words of mine out of context and spend a week obsessing over every single syllable, and then pretend to discover some hidden meaning in what I said.

Just imagine for a second if the media spent this energy holding the politicians accountable who got innocent Americans like Kate Steinle killed – she was gunned down by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times.

Just imagine if the media spent this much time investigating the poverty and joblessness in our inner cities.

Just think about how much different things would be if the media in this country sent their cameras to our border, or to our closing factories, or to our failing schools. Or if the media focused on what dark secrets must be hidden in the 33,000 emails Hillary Clinton deleted.

Instead, every story is told from the perspective of the insiders. It’s the narrative of the people who rigged the system, never the voice of the people it’s been rigged against.

So many people suffering in silence. No cameras, no coverage, no outrage from a media class that seems to get outraged over just about everything else.

So again, it’s not about me. It’s never been about me. It’s about all the people in this country who don’t have a voice.

I am running to be their voice.

I am running to be the voice for every forgotten part of this country that has been waiting and hoping for a better future.

I am glad that I make the powerful a little uncomfortable now and again – including some powerful people in my own party. Because it means I am fighting for real change.

There’s a reason the hedge fund managers, the financial lobbyists, the Wall Street investors, are throwing their money at Hillary Clinton. Because they know she will make sure the system stays rigged in their favor.

It’s the powerful protecting the powerful.

The insiders fighting for the insiders.

I am fighting for you.

Here is the change I propose.

On terrorism, we are going to end the era of nation-building and instead focus on destroying ISIS and Radical Islamic terrorism.

We will use military, cyber and financial warfare and work with any partner in the world, and the Middle East, that shares our goal of defeating terrorism. I have a message for the terrorists trying to kill our citizens: we will find you, we will destroy you, and we will win.

On immigration, we will temporarily suspend immigration from any place where adequate screening cannot be performed. All applicants for immigration will be vetted for ties to radical ideology, and we will screen out anyone who doesn’t share our values and love our people. Anyone who believes Sharia law supplants American law will not be given an immigrant visa. If you want to join our society, then you must embrace our society, our values and our tolerant way of life. Those who believe in oppressing women, gays, Hispanics, African-Americans and people of different faiths are not welcome to join our country.

We will promote our America values, our American way of life, and our American system of government which are all the best in the world.

My opponent on the other hand wants a 550% increase in Syrian refugees. Her plan would bring in roughly 620,000 refugees from all refugee-sending nations in her first term, on top of all other immigration. Hillary Clinton is running to be America’s Angela Merkel, and we’ve seen how much crime and how many problems that’s caused the German people.

We have enough problems already, we don’t need another one.

On crime, we are going to add more police, more investigators, and appoint the best judges and prosecutors in the world. We will pursue strong enforcement of federal laws.

The gangs and cartels and criminal syndicates terrorizing our people will be stripped apart one by one. Their day is over.

On trade, we are going to renegotiate NAFTA, withdraw from the TPP, stand up to China on our terrible trade agreement, and protect every last American job.

Hillary Clinton has supported all of the major trade deals that have stripped this country of its jobs and its wealth.

On taxes, we are going to massively cut tax rates for workers and small businesses – creating millions of new good paying jobs.

We are going to get rid of regulations that send jobs overseas and we are going to make it easier for young Americans to get the credit they need to start a small business and pursue their dreams.

On education, we are going to give students choice, and allow charter schools to thrive. We are going to end tenure policies that reward bad teachers and hurt good ones. My opponent wants to deny students choice and opportunity, all to get a little bit more money from the education bureaucracy. She doesn’t care how many young dreams are dashed in the process.

We are going to work closely with African-American parents and students in the inner cities – and what a big difference that will make. This means a lot to me, and it is going to be a top priority in a Trump Administration.

On healthcare, we are going to repeal and replace Obamacare. Countless Americans have been forced into part-time jobs, premiums are about to jump by double-digits yet again, and just this week Aetna announced it is pulling out of the exchanges in North Carolina. We are going to replace this disaster with reforms that give you choice and freedom and control in healthcare – at a much lower cost.

On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our government.

In my Administration, I am going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.

I am going to forbid senior officials from trading favors for cash by preventing them from collecting lavish speaking fees through their spouses when they serve.

I am going to ask my senior officials to sign an agreement not to accept speaking fees from corporations with a registered lobbyist for five years after leaving office, or from any entity tied to a foreign government.

Finally, we are going to bring this country together. We are going to do it by emphasizing what we all have in common as Americans. We are going to reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton, which sees communities of color only as votes and not as human beings worthy of a better future.

If African-American voters give Donald Trump a chance by giving me their vote, the result for them will be amazing. Look at how badly things are going under decades of Democratic leadership – look at the schools, look at the 58% of young African-Americans not working. It is time for change.

What do you have to lose by trying something new?– I will fix it. This means so much to me, and I will work as hard as I can to bring new opportunity to places in our country which have not known opportunity in a very long time.

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party have taken African-American votes totally for granted. Because the votes have been automatically there, there has been no reason for Democrats to produce.

It is time to break with the failures of the past, and to fight for every last American child in this country to have the better future they deserve.

In my Administration, every American will be treated equally, protected equally, and honored equally. We will reject bigotry and hatred and oppression in all of its forms, and seek a new future built on our common culture and values as one American people.

This is the change I am promising all of you: an honest government, a fair economy, and a just society for each and every American.

But we can never fix our problems by relying on the same politicians who created these problems in the first place.

72% of voters say our country is on the wrong track. I am the change candidate, Hillary Clinton is the failed status quo.

It is time to vote for a New American Future.

Together, We Will Make America Strong Again.

We Will Make American Proud Again.

We Will Make America Safe Again.

Friends and fellow citizens: Come November, We Will Make America Great Again.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

trump currently running behind romney's numbers with white males.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us...white-men.html

Trump is way up with white Protestant men (+20%). He's way down with white Catholic men (-22%). That group has moved against him the hardest since the convention.

The white Catholic male vote really has been swinging a lot. It's how PA goes back and forth so hard.






Meanwhile, the white Protestant male vote is more or less locked in for Trump.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...%80%99s-health

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

scott adams: trump's "third act" will change everything

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

trump currently running behind romney's numbers with white males.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us...white-men.html

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

here's a list of recent national polls, along with a grade for their historical accuracy.

of course there's no higher medical authority than "dr drew" but e.g. some people are deficient in the enzyme which converts some of your t4 [thyroxine] to t3 [triiodothyronine]. armour thyroid is a convenient way to give people both in a physiologic ratio.

btw, do we really know whether clinton has ever taken armour thyroid? just askin'.

and if dr drew has really seen these medical records, why haven't we? just his secret?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

The Hillary health scare stuff has become a complete joke. If she hesitates for 1 second during an hour long speech there will be some anti-Hillary website claiming that she had a mini-stroke. If she is slow going up a staircase she is somehow medically disqualified from being President. It's especially hilarious coming from Trump supporters. The guy is 70 years old. He's probably more likely to die in office than Hillary. And if weird facial expressions are indicative of health problems, he's certainly giving at least as much reason to be concerned.

This isn't to say she doesn't have a serious health problem. And I'm sure that most of the media would gladly sweep it under the rug if it hurt her chances. But it's not like they are applying to be astronauts. Not only can they be replaced in office, but you actually vote for their replacement at the exact same time.

It's the same old story: "clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right".

Consider the source, but Americas TV doctor seems to think she has brain damage and is getting substandard care.

TV personality Dr. David Andrew Pinsky said Wednesday that he is “gravely concerned” about Hillary Clinton’s health and the treatments she’s received, which he described as “1950-level care.”

Appearing on KABC’s “McIntyre in the Morning,” Dr. Pinsky, a board-certified internist more commonly known as Dr. Drew, said he and another doctor reviewed Mrs. Clinton’s medical evaluations and came to some startling conclusions.

“Based on the information that she has provided and her doctors have provided, we were gravely concerned not just about her health, but her health care,” he said in the interview, transcribed by the Washington Free Beacon.

“Both of us concluded that if we were providing the care that she was receiving, we’d be ashamed to show up in a doctor’s lounge. We’d be laughed out,” he added. “She’s receiving sort-of 1950-level care by our evaluation.”

Later in the interview, Dr. Drew mentioned that Mrs. Clinton suffered from two episodes of deep vein thrombosis, or DVT, which he described as a very common problem that normally results in blood clots in the leg.

“She also has hypothyroidism, and she’d been treated for hypothyroidism with something called Armour Thyroid, which is very unconventional and something that we used to use back in the ‘60s,” Dr. Drew said. “And by the way, wow, Armour Thyroid sometimes has some weird side effects.

So she goes on Coumadin,” he continued. “That’s weird, because Coumadin really isn’t even used anymore. Now we use Eliquis or Xarelto, things like this. Certainly the presidential candidate would get one of the newer anti-coagulates. Then she falls, hits her head, and as a complication of that has something called a transverse sinus thrombosis. This is an exceedingly rare clot. I’ve only seen one of these in my career, which is a clot in the collecting system for the cerebral spinal fluid, and it essentially guarantees that somebody has something wrong with their coagulation system. Well, she’s had two clots, a transverse sinus thrombosis.”

“And oh, by the way, Armour Thyroid associated rarely with hyper-coagulability. So the very medicine the doctors are using may be causing this problem, and they’re using an old-fashioned medicine to treat it. What is going on with her health care?” he asked. “It’s bizarre. I got to tell you. Maybe they have reasons, but at a distance, it looks bizarre. There ought to be some sort of standard for people that are going to lead the country or are going to making these important decisions.”

Another issue that “gravely concerned” the doctors is that Mrs. Clinton had to wear prism glasses after she fell and hit her head, suffering from a concussion in 2012.

“That is brain damage, and it’s affecting her balance,” Dr. Drew said. “Now clearly, it hasn’t affected her cognition, but tell us a little more about that. That’s profound. And then number two, when they screened her for heart disease, again, they did an old-fashioned screen. It just seems like she’s getting care from somebody that she met in Arkansas when she was a kid, and you’ve got to wonder. You’ve got to wonder. It’s not so much that her health is a grave concern. It’s that the care she’s getting could make it a concern.”
Dr. Drew’s comments have fueled ongoing speculation by conservative and alt-right media outlets about Mrs. Clinton’s state of health.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump twice this week questioned whether Mrs. Clinton had the mental and physical “stamina” to take on the Islamic State terror group.

Dr. Drew ‘gravely concerned’ about Hillary Clinton’s ‘1950-level’ health care

FYI, Rassmusen has Trump 2 points behind Clinton. LA Times has him closing the gap to less than a single point. Wait until Labor Day weekend to see if these cluster.

[DSpencer]

Re: Trump to win?

absolutely agree. e.g. i have ever diminishing trust and respect for the ny times. i have trouble finding any outlet to be trusted, so i read from the conservative media as well as from the liberal. that's how i know about the issues re hillary's health being bruited about on the right. there is not a murmur from the hillary-leaning press. i am skeptical as to the legitimacy of those issues, but have no way to know the truth. frankly, these days i'm skeptical about everything

The Hillary health scare stuff has become a complete joke. If she hesitates for 1 second during an hour long speech there will be some anti-Hillary website claiming that she had a mini-stroke. If she is slow going up a staircase she is somehow medically disqualified from being President. It's especially hilarious coming from Trump supporters. The guy is 70 years old. He's probably more likely to die in office than Hillary. And if weird facial expressions are indicative of health problems, he's certainly giving at least as much reason to be concerned.

This isn't to say she doesn't have a serious health problem. And I'm sure that most of the media would gladly sweep it under the rug if it hurt her chances. But it's not like they are applying to be astronauts. Not only can they be replaced in office, but you actually vote for their replacement at the exact same time.

It's the same old story: "clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right".