#2
To quote the Obama spokesman Jay Carney "Benghazi happened a long time ago." The house built by slaves even longer ago. Has Moochael stopped hating America now that she's received the reparations largesse that go with the Presidency and living in the WH?
[Breitbart] "They not only changed their formula, to put Hillary ahead. They went back and changed the results, for a week of results where Trump was ahead, and then they turned those into Hillary leads," said Caddell. "They also erased all the former polling off the site. They didn’t tweak their procedure ‐ they cooked it."
"Never in my life have I seen a news organization, and a supposedly reputable poll, do something so dishonest," Caddell continued. "What they have done is, they decided the people who said, ’oh, I’m never for someone’ ‐ oh, those must be Hillary votes. They used to be Trump voters."
"They made a switch, as much as nine points, in their results from the beginning of last week, the 25th and 26th. It is, beyond doubt, the most outrageous thing," he declared, noting that results in three- and four-way polls that include independent candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were also skewed.
"This is what the media is willing to do, to try to elect her," Caddell said. "This poll is nothing but a part of a media offensive. In the 45 years since I was a child, in top-level presidential campaigns, I have never seen the media on such a jihad, and so involved in hiding facts, and not following up. This is a crisis of democracy, what the press is now doing."
#1
Yep one cooked poll brings up the average and suddenly she gets a bounce rather than a thud and that has an effect on future polls. If it is cooked though it won't last for long.
#3
I've thought for quite awhile these polls are cooked. They tend to over sample Dems and under sample Pubs and others. They try to create a faux "bandwagon effect" to suppress the vote. The Dems hope to have the Pubs and Independents stay at home. The rallys that Bernie had were huge as were Trumps. Hillary has trouble filling a small gymnasium most of the time. Does anyone really think the polls are not cooked?
Donald Trump presents an oversized target for anyone who wants to attack him for poor knowledge of international politics. His most recent remarks on Russia and Ukraine, on ABC's "This Week," have again invited sharp criticism because they are so far removed from the U.S. government's official line. But they are not as ignorant as many think: Like much that Trump says, they represent a politically incorrect dissenting view that bears some analysis.
Here's what Trump said about Putin:
He's not going into Ukraine, OK? Just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down and you can put it down, you can take it anywhere you want.
When George Stephanopoulos tried to correct him, saying Putin was already there, Trump conceded: "OK, well, he's there in a certain way."
Trump also breezily stated that "the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were." One wonders how he knows that. Last February, the Ukrainian arm of the German market research firm GfK attempted what is, to my knowledge, the only independent post-annexation survey of Crimeans' attitude toward their sudden change of nationality. But the collected data was unreliable because the researchers conducted their survey over landlines; people would have been too wary of being overheard to speak their minds. The poll showed they were happy for Crimea to be part of Russia -- but it's not clear whether any other result would have been possible given Russian secret intelligence's special attention to the peninsula. There's no way to find out whether locals would vote differently in a fair referendum today than Russia said they voted in a disgracefully rigged one in March, 2014.
But something Trump said immediately afterwards holds up better:
And that's under the Obama's administration, with his strong ties to NATO. So with all of these strong ties to NATO, Ukraine is a mess. Crimea has been taken. Don't blame Donald Trump for that.
Though many Americans don't realize it, that was a bull's eye.
In February, the Ukrainian parliament published the transcript of a Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council meeting that took place on Feb. 28, 2014. The Kiev authorities knew Russia was preparing something in Crimea -- and they decided not to fight it. One reason was that the Ukrainian army had been weakened by years of thievery and consequent underfunding. Another was that Western powers advised Ukraine against fighting back.
The U.S. stood by, and unofficially asked Ukraine to stand by, as Russia took Crimea. In reply, the U.S. targeted some officials from Putin's inner circle, broke off talks on visa liberalization and some military matters and banned certain technology exports to Russia -- a weak set of measures that was only expanded to include capital market restrictions for state-owned Russian companies after pro-Russian rebels shot down a passenger plane. Those restrictions -- the only component of the sanctions that is unpleasant to Putin and his regime -- would be lifted if Russia and Ukraine carry out a cease-fire agreement reached in Minsk last February, an agreement brokered by Germany and France, with no U.S. participation.
U.S. officials cannot say publicly that they let Russia take Crimea unopposed to prevent a large-scale invasion of the rest of Ukrainian territory. It didn't quite work: Putin is in Ukraine "in a certain way." But an invasion like the one in Georgia in 2008 did not take place. Nor can Ukrainian officials say openly that the U.S. and Europe, despite continuing to pay lip service to Ukraine's territorial integrity, have de-facto acquiesced in Crimea's annexation. That would be disloyal toward the Western allies, who are propping up the current Kiev government with loans and technical assistance.
Trump, on the other hand, has no qualms about saying openly what he thinks. His statements amount to no more than former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger -- not a political naïf -- has been saying ever since the invasion:
Nobody in the West has offered a concrete program to restore Crimea. Nobody is willing to fight over eastern Ukraine. That's a fact of life. So one could say we don't have to accept it, and we do not treat Crimea as a Russian territory under international law -- just as we continued to treat the Baltic states as independent throughout Soviet rule.
The difference between the official U.S. policy, which will probably continue under Hillary Clinton if she is elected, and the public statements of Trump (and Kissinger, with whom Trump has met during the election campaign) is mainly in the rhetoric -- and in the stated willingness, or lack thereof, to re-establish a working relationship with Moscow sooner rather than later. Trump's statements on Ukraine reflect a school of thought in the Republican mainstream, a realpolitik approach that many in Europe -- where patience is fraying with the anti-Russian sanctions -- would welcome.
Clinton, who has a long-standing, respectful relationship with Kissinger, will probably be exposed to his views on Ukraine, too. She may eventually ignore them, but that doesn't justify all the raised eyebrows about Trump's Ukraine remarks.
[American Spectator] It is hot. Too hot. I awakened feeling happy, though. Maybe because the conventions are over and I can go back to watching my TCM classic movies and my World War One documentaries. I also just finished watching the greatest western of all time, High Noon.
There is a movie about heroism. About manliness. That movie, starring the incomparable Gary Cooper, came out in 1952. It was the first and only movie my father ever took me to by myself, that is, just us two men. I was seven. I saw it on a double bill with the British movie, Breaking The Sound Barrier.
I was so happy to be at that movie with my father I didn’t even mind that they didn’t have popcorn at the theater. I think it was "The Playhouse" near 13th and K, maybe a block from McPherson Square. That was a giddy night. Fathers, spend time with your sons. It means a world to them, as far as I could tell.
We were up in Sandpoint for about ten days. Wlady was kind enough to post some pictures. It’s more beautiful than ever and the view from my living room -- our living room -- is more spectacular than ever. Early in the morning the lake looks like an immense iceberg, blue and gray and then alive with fire. Like fire on ice. I never tire of it.
Of course, we went up to Hills Resort on Priest Lake. That’s about a ninety-minute drive and every time I make that trip I swear it’s too long and I will never do it again, even if it is by the wide Pendoreille River and through the endless forests north of the town of Priest River.
But then I open the door to Hills and magic happens. I push open the doors and I am in 1956. It’s an episode of The Twilight Zone. The room is old fashioned, probably never remodeled, with knotty pine paneling and floor to ceiling windows. The diners are respectable, usually families, all looking as if they came from a Saturday Evening Post cover by Rockwell.
Outside the windows there are people playing paddle ball and farther towards the lake, volleyball. The waitresses and waiters smile and look happy and are happy. There is a cheery hub bub all about the room. My eyes go out to the marina and then to the boundless Priest Lake. Lengthy, but don't neglect the comments, particular those of 'Bill Hussein O'Stalin' and 'Angry Dad.'
Posted by: Bov Flimbers ||
08/02/2016 0:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Now, let’s be honest Mr. Khan, those of us with knowledge could just as easily bring attention to SGT Hasan Karim Akbar and Major Nidal Hasan, both Muslims serving in the U.S. Army.
#3
Then again, maybe you had no intention of using the platform provided to you as a teachable moment…but rather a politically-influenced opportunity for gain.
#4
Mr. Khan, I grieve for the loss of your son. However, I grieve even more that you used his sacrifice and loss as nothing more than a damn politicized stunt. May God forgive you for it.
Remember reading somewhere "The best combat leaders have an unerring instinct for going for the jugular".
#5
Then again, maybe you had no intention of using the platform provided to you as a teachable moment…but rather a politically-influenced opportunity for gain. Dankie, Besoeker
Recognize the Palestinian meme did you? One must wonder how Mr. Khan balances his love for the U.S. Constitution with his belief in Sharia Law? For the layman (which is me), the two appear to be irreconcilable.
#7
I'm the sort of cynic who believes that Khan's son may have been used by the Ikhwan to gain credibility for future purposes. They did the same sort of thing in the nineteen thirties when they attempted to infiltrate the Egyptian military (e.g., Anwar Sadat, et. al.).
#8
"They have the VFW and McCain and Veterans going after Trump."
When you've lost McCain... you've not really lost anyone of value, have you?
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/02/2016 8:30 Comments ||
Top||
#9
IMO Captain Khan should be honored for the hero he is. His parents should be honored as Gold Star parents. I don't think McCain should be disparaged either. That said, the Khans pushed themselves (with a great deal of help from the Clintonistas) into the political spotlight. It is legit to question their motives. I have yet to see the same concern from the Obama/Clinton campaign for the police officers gunned down by radicals and thugs or the parents and families of the Benghazi defenders who were murdered or for those who have been shot, blown up or murdered by Islamic inspired terrorists.
I don't think Trump is as good as his camp might say. I don't think he is as bad as the MSM and the left says he is. He has a record of getting things done. With Hillary it is difficult to point to much in the way of accomplishments. I don't think the Washington establishment really wants to see change occur. Hillary is the establishment politician. One knows what they get with Hillary--she is a lying, election-thieving, underhanded slimy politician. With Trump, you get some hope of the changes he says he will try to bring about. He is supportive of the cops and the military and the vets from what I can tell.
#10
" I don't think McCain should be disparaged either."
John "What Free Speech?" McCain?
He was incredibly brave in Vietnam. He's been incredibly craven in the Senate. One of those is still going on...
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/02/2016 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I'm not a big McCain fan although I did vote for him. Agreed that McCain had a rough go of it in Vietnam--his record should not be disparaged is all I was saying. As a politician there are times I don't agree with him and thinks he sucks.
#13
Ah yes, President McCain. I remember those days.
I'm not sure what chance he had against an opponent who could jet off to the Caribbean every time his tongue box broke, but perhaps McCain could open his spit bottle and ask about once a future president's opinions are now about McCain's overemphasis on the Russian threat is now.
[Daily Beacon] We live in an age of skepticism, and there is nothing more vulnerable to the skeptic than everyday human experience. Tradition and cultural inheritance, which shape human experience, are especially subject to doubt. One need only observe the decline in church attendance and in the number of married women under thirty in Britain, France, and the United States to understand that doubting tradition and custom is more fashionable than embracing them.
Doubt closes us to the fullness of human experience by rendering us aloof or apart, like a child who wants to go swimming but hovers, afraid, at the water’s edge. This doubt is regrettable because on the other side of some seemingly mundane, instrumental activities lies transcendent meaning. Rather than doubting everyday human experience, embracing that experience allows for deeper immersion into it.
Take eating. The skeptic will scrutinize the ceremonies surrounding the meal and wonder whether the fare is actually good for the diner. By focusing on such questions, he misses the pleasure of conversation, the tasty morsels in front of him, the fact that passing food from one diner to another is a form of intimacy that facilitates friendship, and the peace of soul contained in thanking God or gods at the beginning of the meal.
Everyday human experience, its depth, and its connection with the sacred has been a major theme of Sir Roger Scruton’s work. The philosopher has written many works on features of human experience--architecture and music, sexual desire, community and country, custom and land, whiskey and wine. Through experience of these things, human beings approach what is highest and best. And since the principles of each of these things are passed down from generation to generation, doubting the cultural inheritance we receive in traditional institutions such as the family, the town, and the school is a mistake. The seed of doubt closes young people off from both their cultural inheritance and what is highest and best in human experience.
#1
Pass the Roast Beef, and yes, just a moment and I'll get the mashed potatoes to you, Dad tends to be a slowish with the gravy. Why yes, thank you, you know Ima crazy for deviled eggs. Four is okay then, I don't want to over do it? Creamed pearl onions? Maybe just a little....
#1
Sheriff Clarke's deputies report that Sheriff Clarke is getting a huge number of death threats for having the audacity to speak out. The anonymous threats likely from folks that believe the attached Southern Poverty Law Center propaganda in this article.
The SPLC attacks the Sheriff for promoting the truth that most people see the Sheriff as the lead LE officer in their community...because the office of the Sheriff is the most responsive elected official to their needs...on call 24 hours a day, will protect and serve as needed, will listen to their complaints (no matter their standing in society) and can be hired or fired by the people every 2-4 years.
As opposed to...say the FBI...or an other centralized three letter agency/bureaucracy.
#2
If the SPLC had to write a neutral, factual article, they'd likely explode. Literate people believe the crap they spew?
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/02/2016 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The SPLC is an anachronism. They see the boogeyman in all right wing/conservative groups and none in left-wing groups or cop-killing advocacy groups or Islamist terrorist groups.
A cultural conflict between these who understand elementary statistics and these who emote.
Or "So Absolute Moral Authority is a Thing Again Now?"
We haven’t really been wasting too much time on the subject of candidate Trump’s apparently insufficient worshiping at the feet of the Khans, but still. Let’s see if we get this right.
The Khans had a son who died in The Long War 12 years ago. The Khans are muslim. Therefore Trump is a horribly racist bigot because he’s concerned about muslim terrorists since obviously, their son gave his life for this country and, therefore, all muslims are American Patriots who can do absolutely no wrong.
Did we get that just about right?
Sounds an awful lot like Saint Cindy of the Ditch.
#1
Let's be clear. This was a response to Trump's absurd proposal to ban ALL Muslims from traveling to the US. I would also remind the author of this steaming pile that there are reasons we stand up for Gold Star families. One way to honor those that defend us is to make sure they know we have their families backs. Trump should give a full throated apology. But he won't because he is a classless toad with no sense of honor.
#3
Trump yet again proves he is totally incapable of not being a massive dumbfuck.
Also, if any of his staff or volunteers are reading, could you please explain to him sacrifice implies no personal gain.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
08/02/2016 10:13 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I had to sit through eight whole minutes of the ABC World News last night about how Trump is such a bad, bad man for suggesting that Pakistan is full of Islamofascist nut cases who should never be allowed into this country. So Captain Khan served our country with honor. I'm sick of hearing about it. Big fucking deal, OK? I still don't want any more of those miserable people coming into my country.
Pakistan is the country that threatens India with terrorism and nukes. This is the country that prevents polio vaccine from being administered to its children. This is the country that gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden and countless other terrorists who hate us and want to kill us.
BTW, eight minutes is an extremely long time for a single subject on a 23 minute nightly network newscast. It is terrifying when you understand how fully in the bag for Hillary the MSM is. There is no objectivity, no fairness, no balance and yet people sit and watch it and absorb what can only be classified as propaganda (or bullshit) without even thinking about it. I feel like I'm living in a nightmare. Doesn't anybody get it?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
08/02/2016 10:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
How much did they give the Benghazi mother who was at the RNC convention? 15 seconds?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
08/02/2016 11:41 Comments ||
Top||
#7
DepotGuy -- what bad thing did Trump say about the Khans? Direct quote, please.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/02/2016 12:10 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Seems to me it was Khan who attacked Trump first, waving that copy of the Constitution around as if he knows what it means and Trump doesn't, as if none of us ever knew that we have Muslims serving in our military.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
08/02/2016 12:18 Comments ||
Top||
#9
As Abu said, wife was watching box news and she finally turned it off, "Like being back in junior high. Do people just sit and watch this?"
She knows what clinton is, coin flip on trump, but feeling corralled. She asked how much he got paid, I responded likely he contributed or called an even trade, referred her to the Shoebat piece.
I thought it nifty of khan to hold up his passport like we see jihadis holding up korans.
#10
#1 Let's be clear. This was a response to Trump's absurd proposal to ban ALL Muslims from traveling to the US.
Let's be even more clear. Trump said we should stop importing Muslims until we can get a handle on vetting who they actually are. The media, being Dem operatives, turned this into "Trump Sez Ban Muslims" and repeated it so often everyone knows it is true.
It's that subtle difference between "We should shoot dogs with rabies" vs "We should shoot dogs". One is a great sound bite. One might be a good idea.
#11
I honour Captain Khan's deliberate sacrifice. I honour his parents' grief, as I do the parents of the Benghazi victims, and Cindy Sheehan's, years ago. I do not see why that requires me to turn off my brain.
An extensive round-up of surveys of Muslims in America and elsewhere. Fascinating reading. Not really a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention, but nice to have all in one place when someone suggests vetting those who would like to come here. I do not want to live like they now do in Europe, waiting for the next jihadi massacre.
All this still smells like a DNC political setup. Their son might have been brave and willing to sacrifice everything, but the parents smell like rats.
#14
Note to Mr Khan - there's all types of sacrifice to be made. The fact that one's may not be yours, or as high priced does not give you clearance to attack others with impunity.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
08/02/2016 14:12 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I wonder if we did a poll of all the bereaved American families: servicemen & victims of terror at home; on Trump's suggestion?
#18
From #11 - An extensive round-up of surveys of Muslims in America and elsewhere.
Wow, that's pretty grim. Why, if Hillary Clinton knew about that ....
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/02/2016 17:32 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Getting a little vile??? So break it down. This Muslim's son joins the Army, gets killed. Fact. His father is a Wahhabist and worked in soddi promoting sharia law. He also worked in the US promoting Sharia law and scamming Visa's, fact. He is tied financially to the Clinton foundation, fact. I kinda doubt this Wahhabist was supportive of his son killing muslims. So now he platforms using his sons death to try and drive the muslim vote toward Hillary, who voted for the war his son was killed in. Trump was very vocal against it. The hypocrisy of the whole speech he gave is still ringing. I honor gold star families. But when they drag their dead kids into the streets for political favor, they lose my respect. This guy was a rube, during his speech he had his wife behind him and silenced, not next to him as any husband would do with a grieving wife. Any other American would have had his arm around his wife, she did not speak because she is property and not entitled. Trump read it right. And to your spittle Depot Guy, we always have the families back, until they dishonor the soldier ands his death, which is what the family did. Toad? Really? This is exactly why Hillary brought that sharia law loving guy on TV, to cause confusion and divisiveness. You have fallen for her PR expertise...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
08/02/2016 18:56 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Contrary to Mr Trump's assertion, Mr Khan does have the "right" to criticize him. Especially an asinine proposal that that targets a single religion. Of course, Trump is equally free to respond. And a true leader would have taken the high road with a Gold Star family. But not Trump...nope he thinks selling real estate and hiring employees is of equal sacrifice as a family losing a son defending his liberties. Nope, Trump is so thin skinned that he has to insult the mother because she chose not to utter a spoken word. Some obviously view Trump's compulsion to "counter punch" (expecially the family of a fallen soldier)as strength. Others,such as myself,perceive his behavior as an indication of insecurity...perhaps clinical narcissistic. I find it interesting that a man can insult his supporters (shoot someone) and they continue to defend his reprehensible actions. Apparently some folks actually prefer crony capitalist buffoons. Who knew?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Daily Beacon] We live in an age of skepticism, and there is nothing more vulnerable to the skeptic than everyday human experience. Tradition and cultural inheritance, which shape human experience, are especially subject to doubt. One need only observe the decline in church attendance and in the number of married women under thirty in Britain, France, and the United States to understand that doubting tradition and custom is more fashionable than embracing them.
