US Politics

[Solomon2]

Mississippi Church Torched And Vandalized With Pro-Trump Slogan

An ugly incident and due to its timing so close to the election itself, unlikely to determine before the election if it was a "dirty trick" by Clinton supporters or a genuine hate-crime by a Trumpkin.

 

[T-72]

Mississippi Church Torched And Vandalized With Pro-Trump Slogan

An ugly incident and due to its timing so close to the election itself, unlikely to determine before the election if it was a "dirty trick" by Clinton supporters or a genuine hate-crime by a Trumpkin.

most likely the former, Trump is winning big league, why would his supporters do that kind of thing now, it makes no sense.

I think you suffer from dementia.

lol, I think @Penguin is an oldschool European lefty idealist and is mostly mad at Trump for his mean sexist islamophobic tweets but is trying hard to not out his political/ideological bent here.

hacking is nothing new

for example, the Han hacked Sam and stole his F-35 plans, made a made in China version, and will further undercut Sam by selling it to Pakistan, what are these fools crying about now ?

what about Obama, ridiculing the very notion of hacked/rigged elections when Alex Jones first called it out.

"of course the elections wont be rigged, what does that mean ?" haha

and now Putin is somehow rigging it ?

people really ought to be paying attention to what is in those hacked e-mails, and not Assange or Putin. Assange used to be a darling of the left when outing the Bush admin, and now the same wikileaks are evil Russian agents ?

 

[Solomon2]

@RabzonKhan :

“Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form”
link​

 

[OldTwilight]

so when this big noisy show will end !?

did you see WWE !?

USA election is just like it .... a noisy battle with pre defined outcome ...

@RabzonKhan :

“Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form”
link​

we are not voter , so your propaganda is meaningless for us ....
for Iran , nothing will change and I'm sure USA will continue its policy till it fail , just like other EMPIRE ....

 

[RabzonKhan]

Good news, 28% Republicans (most probably, Cuban-Americans), so far, have voted for Hillary

28 Percent of Early-Voting Florida Republicans Choose Hillary Clinton

By NANCY SMITH November 2, 2016

A TargetSmart and William & Mary poll of early and likely voters released this morning shows some 28 percent of Florida Republicans who have already voted flipped to cast their ballots for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

"It's really quite remarkable," TargetSmart CEO Tom Bonier enthused to an MSNBC audience Tuesday. "Clinton has an 8 point lead among early voters in this key battleground state, and it's been fueled almost entirely by crossover GOP voters."

"This isn't entirely a surprise," retired Miami political consultant C. Ralph Weintraub told Sunshine State News. "But it gives us some idea how many in the GOP in Florida feel disenfranchised by their own nominee. We'll see if the FBI email drama playing out causes Donald Trump to pick up steam as we get closer to voting day."

Clinton holds a 48 to 40 percent lead over Trump, a more advantageous position for her than most other publicly available polling has suggested in the last week or so. As of the morning of Nov. 1, TargetSmart had tracked 3,695,359 people who already cast their votes in Florida.

The numbers amount to more than a quarter of early Florida voters picking Clinton over GOP nominee Donald Trump.

The TargetSmart/William & Mary poll was shared early with MSNBC.

Leveraging TargetSmart’s proprietary voter file -- something that is updated daily through the early voting window -- this poll reached a significant number of voters who have already participated. Among those early voters (who were asked which candidate they had voted for), Clinton outpaces Trump by a 17-point margin, 55 to 38 percent.

Reflective of the trends that have been published in other public polls in recent days, the TargetSmart/William & Mary poll shows the contest in Florida is very competitive among those who have yet to cast their ballot. Among those non-early voters (who were asked which candidate they will vote for), Clinton attracts 42 percent of the vote and 43 percent back Donald Trump.

The poll also shows the U.S. Senate race tilting decidedly in Marco Rubio’s direction. Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy trails Rubio 43 to 49 percent. Unlike Clinton, Murphy only breaks even with early voters, having garnered 48 percent of the vote to Rubio’s 47 percent. And, among non-early voters, Rubio holds a solid lead with 51 percent of the vote to Murphy’s 39 percent. Read more

 

[Penguin]

I think you suffer from dementia.


You quoted me first moron. Stop quoting me. Obsessed much?

"you quote me first" .... mymy, how old are you again? 8? Keep calling me names, pal, please do.

lol, I think @Penguin is an oldschool European lefty idealist and is mostly mad at Trump for his mean sexist islamophobic tweets but is trying hard to not out his political/ideological bent here.

I can't deny I'm European. As for the rest, you have no idea. I have no reason to be mad at Trump: he's not a compatriot, these elections aren't in my country, so in that sense he's not my problem.

Idealism emphasizes how human ideas—especially beliefs and values—shape society. Looking around here, the label idealist could apply to many.

"Lefty" in the context of the discussion of US Presidential elections fails to take into account that to many Americans even our conservative liberal Dutch politicians to the right of the political spectrum in the Netherlands would be considered 'leftist'. So, a statement like that is pretty much meaningless.

 

[Nicky G]

Mississippi Church Torched And Vandalized With Pro-Trump Slogan

An ugly incident and due to its timing so close to the election itself, unlikely to determine before the election if it was a "dirty trick" by Clinton supporters or a genuine hate-crime by a Trumpkin.

It seems a safe bet the it was orchestrated to generate fear among blacks - as democrats have always done.

U.S. ELECTION: AFRICAN-AMERICAN VOTER TURNOUT 'LOW' IN KEY STATES

As they say 'cui bono?'.

 

[T-72]

"you quote me first" .... mymy, how old are you again? 8? Keep calling me names, pal, please do.


I can't deny I'm European. As for the rest, you have no idea. I have no reason to be mad at Trump: he's not a compatriot, these elections aren't in my country, so in that sense he's not my problem.

Idealism emphasizes how human ideas—especially beliefs and values—shape society. Looking around here, the label idealist could apply to many.

"Lefty" in the context of the discussion of US Presidential elections fails to take into account that to many Americans even our conservative liberal Dutch politicians to the right of the political spectrum in the Netherlands would be considered 'leftist'. So, a statement like that is pretty much meaningless.

you are team crooked Hillary

Trump will win, big league.

-----------------------------------------------




interesting conversation here:

 

[Solomon2]

you are team crooked Hillary

Trump will win, big league.

How the heck can voters think Donald Trump is more honest than Hillary Clinton?

By Chris Cillizza November 2 at 1:33 PM

Donald Trump has said, repeatedly, that he opposed the war in Iraq from the start. He didn't.

He said he saw “thousands” of Muslims celebrating on New Jersey rooftops on the night of Sept. 11, 2001. Didn't happen.

He said that 58 percent of black youths are unemployed. Nope.

These are far from isolated incidents. In fact, 63 percent of the 91 Trump statements that the WaPo's Fact Checker has checked were given a Four Pinocchio rating — meaning they were/are totally false. (A typical candidate gets 4 Pinocchios somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the time; 14.2 percent of Clinton's claims have been given Four Pinocchios.)

In short: There is no doubt that even in the quadrennial truth-stretching that happens in presidential campaigns, Trump has set records for fabrication.

And yet, this:

By an eight-point margin, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll, Trump is seen as more honest than Clinton.

What? How?

Good questions.

Start here: Perception matters hugely in politics. What people perceive to be the facts — whether or not those actually are the facts — are very powerful when it comes to what they think of the presidential candidates.

In that perception game, here's how the two candidates are seen:

Trump: Straight talker. Loud, brash and often offensive.

Clinton: Guarded and careful, maybe to the point of paranoia.

That explains how Trump, a candidate with a documented record of lying about past statements and past events, can be seen as the more honest of the two candidates. People look at Trump and conclude: How can anyone who says as many controversial things as he does on a daily basis possibly be dishonest? Trump exudes unmanaged and unpolitical and it is, therefore, very tough — despite oodles of evidence — for most people to believe the guy simply doesn't tell the truth all that much.

Now, Clinton. She comes across — always — as cautious, wary of saying or doing things that might lose her a vote. That perception, coupled with the ongoing buzz surrounding Clinton's private email server, which has grown much louder after FBI Director James B. Comey's announcement of new emails being found last Friday, makes people more inclined to believe that the Democratic nominee is hiding something or not telling the whole truth.

The easy scapegoat here is, wait for it . . . the media. If the media would simply fact-check Donald Trump and call out his lies over and over again, then people would have a much more accurate sense of who is telling the truth and who isn't, the argument goes.

Except not really. Scroll back up in this post. Our Fact Checker operation has fact-checked 91 statements Trump has made in this campaign. They have fact-checked 49 statements by Clinton. The problem here isn't the media. The problem is that people stick very hard to their own preconceived notions — evidence to the contrary be damned. One place where the media can be blamed is in the rise of partisan media outlets that offer confirmation bias galore to people who see the world through a particular partisan lens.

As much as many people hate to hear this, Trump's edge over Clinton on the honesty question is a classic example of perception mattering more than reality in our modern politics. There's simply no other explanation that makes any sense.

Chris Cillizza writes “The Fix,” a politics blog for The Washington Post, and hosts the Ciquizza podcast

 

[T-72]

big league, you watch.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Three hundred and seventy economists, including eight Nobel Prize winners, co-signed a letter that asserts, "Trump is a dangerous, destructive choice for the country. He misinforms the electorate, degrades trust in public institutions with conspiracy theories, and promotes willful delusion over engagement with reality.”

370 Economists: ‘Do Not Vote For Donald Trump’

The statement was published by the Wall Street Journal, 11/01/2016

We, the undersigned economists, represent a broad variety of areas of expertise and are united in our opposition to Donald Trump. We recommend that voters choose a different candidate on the following grounds:

 He degrades trust in vital public institutions that collect and disseminate information about the economy, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, by spreading disinformation about the integrity of their work.

 He has misled voters in states like Ohio and Michigan by asserting that the renegotiation of NAFTA or the imposition of tariffs on China would substantially increase employment in manufacturing. In fact, manufacturing’s share of employment has been declining since the 1970s and is mostly related to automation, not trade.

 He claims to champion former manufacturing workers, but has no plan to assist their transition to well-compensated service sector positions. Instead, he has diverted the policy discussion to options that ignore both the reality of technological progress and the benefits of international trade.

 He has misled the public by asserting that U.S. manufacturing has declined. The location and product composition of manufacturing has changed, but the level of output has more than doubled in the U.S. since the 1980s.

 He has falsely suggested that trade is zero-sum and that the “toughness” of negotiators primarily drives trade deficits.

 He has misled the public with false statements about trade agreements eroding national income and wealth. Although the gains have not been equally distributed—and this is an important discussion in itself—both mean income and mean wealth have risen substantially in the U.S. since the 1980s.

 He has lowered the seriousness of the national dialogue by suggesting that the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Education would significantly reduce the fiscal deficit. A credible solution will require an increase in tax revenue and/or a reduction in spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or Defense.

 He claims he will eliminate the fiscal deficit, but has proposed a plan that would decrease tax revenue by $2.6 to $5.9 trillion over the next decade according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation.

 He claims that he will reduce the trade deficit, but has proposed a reduction in public saving that is likely to increase it.

 He uses immigration as a red herring to mislead voters about issues of economic importance, such as the stagnation of wages for households with low levels of education. Several forces are responsible for this, but immigration appears to play only a modest role. Focusing the dialogue on this channel, rather than more substantive channels, such as automation, diverts the public debate to unproductive policy options.

 He has misled the electorate by asserting that the U.S. is one of the most heavily taxed countries. While the U.S. has a high top statutory corporate tax rate, the average effective rate is much lower, and taxes on income and consumption are relatively low. Overall, the U.S. has one of the lowest ratios of tax revenue to GDP in the OECD.

 His statements reveal a deep ignorance of economics and an inability to listen to credible experts. He repeats fake and misleading economic statistics, and pushes fallacies about the VAT and trade competitiveness.

 He promotes magical thinking and conspiracy theories over sober assessments of feasible economic policy options. Donald Trump is a dangerous, destructive choice for the country. He misinforms the electorate, degrades trust in public institutions with conspiracy theories, and promotes willful delusion over engagement with reality. If elected, he poses a unique danger to the functioning of democratic and economic institutions, and to the prosperity of the country. For these reasons, we strongly recommend that you do not vote for Donald Trump.

Signed, Jason Abaluck, Yale University Dilip J. Abreu, Princeton University Daron Acemoglu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Amir Ali Ahmadi, Princeton University Mohammad Akbarpour, Stanford University Stefania Albanesi, University of Pittsburgh David Albouy, University of Illinois S. Nageeb Ali, Pennsylvania State University Hunt Allcott, New York University Douglas Almond, Columbia University Daniel Altman, New York University Donald Andrews, Yale University Isaiah Andrews, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Andres Aradillas-Lopez, Pennsylvania State University Kenneth Ardon, Salem State University Timothy Armstrong, Yale University Nick Arnosti, Columbia University Kenneth J. Arrow, Stanford University Gaurab Aryal, University of Virginia Arash Asadpour, New York University Susan Athey, Stanford University Andrew Atkeson, University of California, Los Angeles Maximilian Auffhammer, University of California, Berkeley Mariagiovanna Baccara, Washington University, St. Louis Jonathan B. Baker, American University Laurence Ball, Johns Hopkins University Abhijit Banerjee, Massachusetts Institute of Technology James Bang, St. Ambrose University Chris Barrett, Cornell University Jean-Noel Barrot, Massachusetts Institute of Technology John C. Beghin, Iowa State University Jess Benhabib, New York University Lanier Benkard, Stanford University Alan Benson, University of Minnesota Ronald Berenbeim, New York University Dirk Bergemann, Yale University David Berger, Northwestern University Daniel Beunza, London School of Economics Joydeep Bhattacharya, Iowa State University Alberto Bisin, New York University Emily Blank, Howard University Francine D. Blau, Cornell University Nicholas Bloom, Stanford University Simon Board, University of California, Los Angeles Luigi Bocola, Northwestern University Elizabeth Bogan, Princeton University Michele Boldrin, Washington University, St. Louis Patrick Bolton, Columbia University Carl Bonham, University of Hawaii, Manoa John P. Bonin, Wesleyan University Severin Borenstein, University of California, Berkeley Tilman Borgers, University of Michigan William C. Brainard, Yale University Timothy Bresnahan, Stanford University Moshe Buchinsky, University of California, Los Angeles Eric Budish, University of Chicago Daniel D. Butler, Auburn University Sebastien Buttet, City University of New York Ricardo Caballero, Massachusetts Institute of Technology John Y. Campbell, Harvard University Christopher D. Carroll, Johns Hopkins University Gabriel Carroll, Stanford University Michael R. Carter, University of California, Davis Elizabeth Caucutt, University of Western Ontario Sewin Chan, New York University Arun G. Chandrasekhar, Stanford University David A. Chapman, University of Virginia Kalyan Chatterjee, Pennsylvania State University Victor Chernozhukov, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Bhagwan Chowdhry, University of California, Los Angeles Lawrence Christiano, Northwestern University Michael Chwe, University of California, Los Angeles Tim Classen, Loyola University Chicago Gian Luca Clementi, New York University Victor Couture, University of California, Berkeley Ian Coxhead, University of Wisconsin Eric W. Crawford, Michigan State University Sean Crockett, City University of New York, Baruch College Barbara Crockett, City University of New York, Baruch College Samuel Culbert, University of California, Los Angeles J. David Cummins, Temple University David Cutler, Harvard University Jaksa Cvitanic, California Institute of Technology Chetan Dave, New York University Paul A. David, Stanford University Donald R. Davis, Columbia University Angus Deaton, Princeton University Joyee Deb, Yale University Rajeev Dehejia, New York University Stefano DellaVigna, University of California, Berkeley Tatyana Deryugina, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Ravi Dhar, Yale University Marco Di Maggio, Harvard Business School Dimitrios Diamantaras, Temple University Peter Diamond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Avinash K. Dixit, Princeton University Rebecca Dizon-Ross, University of Chicago Matthias Doepke, Northwestern University Esther Duflo, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Steven Durlauf, University of Wisconsin William Easterly, New York University Federico Echenique, California Institute of Technology Florian Ederer, Yale University Aaron S. Edlin, University of California, Berkeley Lena Edlund, Columbia University Sebastian Edwards, University of California, Los Angeles J.P. Eggers, New York University Sara Fisher Ellison, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Jeffrey Ely, Northwestern University Ryan Fang, University of Chicago Langdana Farrokh, Rutgers University Daniel Fetter, Wellesley College David Figlio, Northwestern University Diana Fletschner Frederick Floss, State University of New York at Buffalo Dana Foarta, Stanford University Meredith Fowlie, University of California, Berkeley Jeffrey Frankel, Harvard University Guillaume Frechette, New York University Victor R. Fuchs, Stanford University Thomas Fujiwara, Princeton University David W. Galenson, University of Chicago Sebastián Gallegos, Princeton University Michael Gallmeyer, University of Virginia David Gamarnik, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Bernhard Ganglmair, University of Texas at Dallas Pedro Gardete, Stanford University Robert Garlick, Duke University Peter Garrod, University of Hawaii, Manoa Claudine Gartenberg, New York University François Geerolf, University of California, Los Angeles Christophre Georges, Hamilton College George Georgiadis, Northwestern University Andra Ghent, University of Wisconsin, Madison Suman Ghosh, Florida Atlantic University Stefano Giglio, University of Chicago Chuan Goh, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Ben Golub, Harvard University Daniel Gottlieb, Washington University, St Louis Lawrence H. Goulder, Stanford University William Greene, New York University Dan Greenwald, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Matthew Grennan, University of Pennsylvania Gene Grossman, Princeton University Jean Grossman, Princeton University Michael Grubb, Boston College Jonathan Gruber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Martin J. Gruber, New York University Isabel Guerrero, Harvard University Veronica Guerrieri, University of Chicago Adam Guren, Boston University Isa Hafalir, Carnegie Mellon University Nima Haghpanah, Pennsylvania State University Jens Hainmueller, Stanford University Marina Halac, Columbia University Jeffrey Hammer, Princeton University Ben Handel, University of California, Berkeley Oliver D. Hart, Harvard University Tarek Alexander Hassan, University of Chicago Andreas Hauskrecht, Indiana University Brent Hickman, University of Chicago Kate Ho, Columbia University Saul D. Hoffman, University of Delaware Stephen Holland, University of North Carolina, Greensboro Thomas J. Holmes, University of Minnesota Adam Honig, Amherst College Roozbeh Hosseini, University of Georgia Sabrina Howell, New York University Peter Howitt, Brown University Hilary Hoynes, University of California, Berkeley Yasheng Huang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Isaiah Hull, Sveriges Riksbank Jennifer Hunt, Rutgers University Barry W. Ickes, Pennsylvania State University Nicolas Inostroza, Northwestern University Oleg Itskhoki, Princeton University Kelsey Jack, Tufts University Sanford M. Jacoby, University of California, Los Angeles Paul Jakus, Utah State University Gerald Jaynes, Yale University Ely Jeffrey, Northwestern University Geoffrey Jehle, Vassar College Elizabeth J. Jensen, Hamilton College Barbara A.P. Jones, Alabama A&M University Derek C. Jones, Hamilton College Joseph P. Joyce, Wellesley College John H. Kagel, Ohio State University Lisa B. Kahn, Yale University Navin Kartik, Columbia University Barbara G. Katz, New York University Michael Klein, Tufts University Christopher R. Knittel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Yilmaz Kocer, University of Southern California Michal Kolesár, Princeton University Charles Kolstad, Stanford University Gerald F. Kominski, University of California, Los Angeles Matthew Kotchen, Yale University Kate Krause, University of New Mexico Mordecai Kurz, Stanford University David Laitin, Stanford University Fabian Lange, McGill University Joe Langsam, University of Maryland and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Michel Lawrence, Economic Policy Institute Jonathan Leonard, University of California, Berkeley Jacob Leshno, Columbia University Dan Levin, Ohio State University David Levin, University of California, Berkeley Shengwu Li, Harvard University Annie Liang, University of Pennsylvania Marc Lieberman, New York University Benjamin Linkow, University of Chicago Dennis B. Liotta, New York University Elliot Lipnowski, University of Chicago Zachary Liscow, Yale University Adriana Lleras-Muney, University of California, Los Angeles Benjamin Lockwood, University of Pennsylvania Guido Lorenzoni, Northwestern University Jay Lu, University of California, Los Angeles Sydney C. Ludvigson, New York University Catherine Maclean, Temple University Mihai Manea, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Eric Maskin, Harvard University Costas Meghir, Yale University Marc Melitz, Harvard University Konrad Menzel, New York University Robert C. Merton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Andrew Metrick, Yale University Atif Mian, Princeton University Ronald Miller, Columbia University Alan Miller, University of Haifa Kurt Mitman, Stockholm University Benjamin Moll, Princeton University Dilip Mookherjee, Boston University Jonathan Morduch, New York University Alan Moreira, Yale University John Morgan, University of California, Berkeley Stephen E. Morris, Princeton University Taylor Muir, University of California, Los Angeles Aldo Musacchio, Brandeis University Roger Myerson, University of Chicago John Nachbar, Washington University, St. Louis Barry Nalebuff, Yale University Paulo Natenzon, Washington University, St. Louis Roz Naylor, Stanford University Jack Needleman, University of California, Los Angeles Christopher A. Neilson, Princeton University David Neumark, University of California, Irvine Marina Niessner, Yale University Roger G. Noll, Stanford University John O'Trakoun, Ford Motor Company Ezra Oberfield, Princeton University James Orlin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology David L. Ortega, Michigan State University Pietro Ortoleva, Columbia University Sharon Oster, Yale University Emily Oster, Brown University Ann Owen, Hamilton College Thomas Palfrey, California Institute of Technology Giri Parameswaran, Haverford College Sahar Parsa, Tufts University David Pearce, New York University Lynne Pepall, Tufts University Michael Peters, Yale University Monika Piazzesi, Stanford University Robert S. Pindyck, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laetitia Placido, City University of New York Jeffrey Pliskin, Hamilton College Steve Polasky, University of Minnesota Eswar Prasad, Cornell University Anita Prasad, Temple University Thomas Pugel, New York University Melissa Pumphrey Richard E. Quandt, Princeton University Hazhir Rahmandad, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Gautam Rao, Harvard University David S. Rapson, University of California, Davis Debraj Ray, New York University Thomas Reardon, Michigan State University Julian Reif, University of Illinois David Reiley, Pandora Media, Inc., and University of California, Berkeley Philip Reny, University of Chicago John Riley, University of California, Los Angeles Mario Rizzo, New York University John Roberts, Stanford University Yana Rodgers, Rutgers University Paul M. Romer, New York University Donald B. Rosenfield, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, Princeton University Alvin E. Roth, Stanford University Dan Sacks, Indiana University Maryam Saeedi, Carnegie Mellon University Maher Said, New York University Sarada Sarada, University of Wisconsin, Madison Christine Sauer, University of New Mexico Anja Sautmann, Brown University Laura Schechter, University of Wisconsin, Madison Jose A. Scheinkman, Columbia University and Princeton University Frank Schilbach, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Andrew Schotter, New York University William Schulze, Cornell University Stuart O. Schweitzer, University of California, Los Angeles Julia Schwenkenberg, Rutgers University, Newark Paul Scott, New York University Fiona M. Scott Morton, Yale University Douglas Shaw, Economist Mark Shepard, Harvard University Itai Sher, University of California Gerald Shively, Purdue University Ali Shourideh, Carnegie Mellon university Nirvikar Singh, University of California, Santa Cruz Marciano Siniscalchi, Northwestern University Jack Stecher, Carnegie Mellon University John Sterman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Scott Stern, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Steven Stern, Stony Brook University Adam Storeygard, Tufts University Sandip Sukhtankar, University of Virginia Scott Sumner, Bentley University Ashley Swanson, University of Pennsylvania Steve Tadelis, University of California, Berkeley Joshua Tasoff, Claremont Graduate University Dmitry Taubinsky, Dartmouth College J. Edward Taylor, University of California, Davis Richard Thaler, University of Chicago Mallika Thomas, Cornell University Felix Tintelnot, University of Chicago Oana Tocoian, Claremont McKenna College Dan Tortorice, Brandeis University Nikos Trichakis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology David Tschirley, Michigan State University Robert W. Turner, Colgate University Stephen Turnovsky, University of Washington Kosuke Uetake, Yale University Utku Unver, Boston College Robert Valdez, University of New Mexico John Van Reenen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard Van Weelden, University of Chicago Kerry D. Vandell, University of California, Irvine Laura Veldkamp, New York University Venky Venkateswaran, New York University Gianluca Violante, New York University Tom Vogl, Princeton University Paul Wachtel, New York University Joel Waldfogel, University of Minnesota Don Waldman, Colgate University Xiao Yu Wang, Duke University Leonard Wantchekon, Princeton University Mark Watson, Princeton University Jonathan Weinstein, Washington University, St. Louis Birger Wernerfelt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ivan Werning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Silvia Weyerbrock, Princeton University E. Glen Weyl, Yale University Roger White, Whittier College Andrea Wilson, Georgetown University Larry Wimmer, Brigham Young University Justin Wolfers, University of Michigan Catherine Wolfram, University of California, Berkeley Richard Woodward, Texas A&M University Jeffrey Wooldridge, Michigan State University Bruce Wydick, University of San Francisco Dean Yang, University of Michigan Muhamet Yildiz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Pai-Ling Yin, University of Southern California Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University Thomas C. Youle, Dartmouth College Albert Zevelev, Baruch College Frederick Zimmerman, University of California, Los Angeles Seth Zimmerman, University of Chicago Eric Zivot, University of Washington NOTE: Institutions are listed for identification purposes and should not be viewed as signatories to the letter. Link

 

[Nicky G]

How the heck can voters think Donald Trump is more honest than Hillary Clinton?

By Chris Cillizza November 2 at 1:33 PM

Donald Trump has said, repeatedly, that he opposed the war in Iraq from the start. He didn't.

He said he saw “thousands” of Muslims celebrating on New Jersey rooftops on the night of Sept. 11, 2001. Didn't happen.

He said that 58 percent of black youths are unemployed. Nope.

These are far from isolated incidents. In fact, 63 percent of the 91 Trump statements that the WaPo's Fact Checker has checked were given a Four Pinocchio rating — meaning they were/are totally false. (A typical candidate gets 4 Pinocchios somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the time; 14.2 percent of Clinton's claims have been given Four Pinocchios.)

In short: There is no doubt that even in the quadrennial truth-stretching that happens in presidential campaigns, Trump has set records for fabrication.

And yet, this:

By an eight-point margin, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll, Trump is seen as more honest than Clinton.

What? How?

Good questions.

Start here: Perception matters hugely in politics. What people perceive to be the facts — whether or not those actually are the facts — are very powerful when it comes to what they think of the presidential candidates.

In that perception game, here's how the two candidates are seen:

Trump: Straight talker. Loud, brash and often offensive.

Clinton: Guarded and careful, maybe to the point of paranoia.

That explains how Trump, a candidate with a documented record of lying about past statements and past events, can be seen as the more honest of the two candidates. People look at Trump and conclude: How can anyone who says as many controversial things as he does on a daily basis possibly be dishonest? Trump exudes unmanaged and unpolitical and it is, therefore, very tough — despite oodles of evidence — for most people to believe the guy simply doesn't tell the truth all that much.

Now, Clinton. She comes across — always — as cautious, wary of saying or doing things that might lose her a vote. That perception, coupled with the ongoing buzz surrounding Clinton's private email server, which has grown much louder after FBI Director James B. Comey's announcement of new emails being found last Friday, makes people more inclined to believe that the Democratic nominee is hiding something or not telling the whole truth.

The easy scapegoat here is, wait for it . . . the media. If the media would simply fact-check Donald Trump and call out his lies over and over again, then people would have a much more accurate sense of who is telling the truth and who isn't, the argument goes.

Except not really. Scroll back up in this post. Our Fact Checker operation has fact-checked 91 statements Trump has made in this campaign. They have fact-checked 49 statements by Clinton. The problem here isn't the media. The problem is that people stick very hard to their own preconceived notions — evidence to the contrary be damned. One place where the media can be blamed is in the rise of partisan media outlets that offer confirmation bias galore to people who see the world through a particular partisan lens.

As much as many people hate to hear this, Trump's edge over Clinton on the honesty question is a classic example of perception mattering more than reality in our modern politics. There's simply no other explanation that makes any sense.

Chris Cillizza writes “The Fix,” a politics blog for The Washington Post, and hosts the Ciquizza podcast

Oversimplification. Moreover, underestimation of the electorates' intellect.

Quality matters. Lying over sex life is not as damaging as jeopardizing national security or lying about cause of death of a US diplomat. Another critical distinction is the position the liar hold - a private citizen vs a public figure.

 

[Nicky G]

Three hundred and seventy economists, including eight Nobel Prize winners, co-signed a letter that asserts, "Trump is a dangerous, destructive choice for the country. He misinforms the electorate, degrades trust in public institutions with conspiracy theories, and promotes willful delusion over engagement with reality.”






View attachment 348662



370 Economists: ‘Do Not Vote For Donald Trump’

The statement was published by the Wall Street Journal, 11/01/2016

We, the undersigned economists, represent a broad variety of areas of expertise and are united in our opposition to Donald Trump. We recommend that voters choose a different candidate on the following grounds:

 He degrades trust in vital public institutions that collect and disseminate information about the economy, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, by spreading disinformation about the integrity of their work.

 He has misled voters in states like Ohio and Michigan by asserting that the renegotiation of NAFTA or the imposition of tariffs on China would substantially increase employment in manufacturing. In fact, manufacturing’s share of employment has been declining since the 1970s and is mostly related to automation, not trade.

 He claims to champion former manufacturing workers, but has no plan to assist their transition to well-compensated service sector positions. Instead, he has diverted the policy discussion to options that ignore both the reality of technological progress and the benefits of international trade.

 He has misled the public by asserting that U.S. manufacturing has declined. The location and product composition of manufacturing has changed, but the level of output has more than doubled in the U.S. since the 1980s.

 He has falsely suggested that trade is zero-sum and that the “toughness” of negotiators primarily drives trade deficits.

 He has misled the public with false statements about trade agreements eroding national income and wealth. Although the gains have not been equally distributed—and this is an important discussion in itself—both mean income and mean wealth have risen substantially in the U.S. since the 1980s.

 He has lowered the seriousness of the national dialogue by suggesting that the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Education would significantly reduce the fiscal deficit. A credible solution will require an increase in tax revenue and/or a reduction in spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or Defense.

 He claims he will eliminate the fiscal deficit, but has proposed a plan that would decrease tax revenue by $2.6 to $5.9 trillion over the next decade according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation.

 He claims that he will reduce the trade deficit, but has proposed a reduction in public saving that is likely to increase it.

 He uses immigration as a red herring to mislead voters about issues of economic importance, such as the stagnation of wages for households with low levels of education. Several forces are responsible for this, but immigration appears to play only a modest role. Focusing the dialogue on this channel, rather than more substantive channels, such as automation, diverts the public debate to unproductive policy options.

 He has misled the electorate by asserting that the U.S. is one of the most heavily taxed countries. While the U.S. has a high top statutory corporate tax rate, the average effective rate is much lower, and taxes on income and consumption are relatively low. Overall, the U.S. has one of the lowest ratios of tax revenue to GDP in the OECD.

 His statements reveal a deep ignorance of economics and an inability to listen to credible experts. He repeats fake and misleading economic statistics, and pushes fallacies about the VAT and trade competitiveness.

 He promotes magical thinking and conspiracy theories over sober assessments of feasible economic policy options. Donald Trump is a dangerous, destructive choice for the country. He misinforms the electorate, degrades trust in public institutions with conspiracy theories, and promotes willful delusion over engagement with reality. If elected, he poses a unique danger to the functioning of democratic and economic institutions, and to the prosperity of the country. For these reasons, we strongly recommend that you do not vote for Donald Trump.

Signed, Jason Abaluck, Yale University Dilip J. Abreu, Princeton University Daron Acemoglu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Amir Ali Ahmadi, Princeton University Mohammad Akbarpour, Stanford University Stefania Albanesi, University of Pittsburgh David Albouy, University of Illinois S. Nageeb Ali, Pennsylvania State University Hunt Allcott, New York University Douglas Almond, Columbia University Daniel Altman, New York University Donald Andrews, Yale University Isaiah Andrews, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Andres Aradillas-Lopez, Pennsylvania State University Kenneth Ardon, Salem State University Timothy Armstrong, Yale University Nick Arnosti, Columbia University Kenneth J. Arrow, Stanford University Gaurab Aryal, University of Virginia Arash Asadpour, New York University Susan Athey, Stanford University Andrew Atkeson, University of California, Los Angeles Maximilian Auffhammer, University of California, Berkeley Mariagiovanna Baccara, Washington University, St. Louis Jonathan B. Baker, American University Laurence Ball, Johns Hopkins University Abhijit Banerjee, Massachusetts Institute of Technology James Bang, St. Ambrose University Chris Barrett, Cornell University Jean-Noel Barrot, Massachusetts Institute of Technology John C. Beghin, Iowa State University Jess Benhabib, New York University Lanier Benkard, Stanford University Alan Benson, University of Minnesota Ronald Berenbeim, New York University Dirk Bergemann, Yale University David Berger, Northwestern University Daniel Beunza, London School of Economics Joydeep Bhattacharya, Iowa State University Alberto Bisin, New York University Emily Blank, Howard University Francine D. Blau, Cornell University Nicholas Bloom, Stanford University Simon Board, University of California, Los Angeles Luigi Bocola, Northwestern University Elizabeth Bogan, Princeton University Michele Boldrin, Washington University, St. Louis Patrick Bolton, Columbia University Carl Bonham, University of Hawaii, Manoa John P. Bonin, Wesleyan University Severin Borenstein, University of California, Berkeley Tilman Borgers, University of Michigan William C. Brainard, Yale University Timothy Bresnahan, Stanford University Moshe Buchinsky, University of California, Los Angeles Eric Budish, University of Chicago Daniel D. Butler, Auburn University Sebastien Buttet, City University of New York Ricardo Caballero, Massachusetts Institute of Technology John Y. Campbell, Harvard University Christopher D. Carroll, Johns Hopkins University Gabriel Carroll, Stanford University Michael R. Carter, University of California, Davis Elizabeth Caucutt, University of Western Ontario Sewin Chan, New York University Arun G. Chandrasekhar, Stanford University David A. Chapman, University of Virginia Kalyan Chatterjee, Pennsylvania State University Victor Chernozhukov, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Bhagwan Chowdhry, University of California, Los Angeles Lawrence Christiano, Northwestern University Michael Chwe, University of California, Los Angeles Tim Classen, Loyola University Chicago Gian Luca Clementi, New York University Victor Couture, University of California, Berkeley Ian Coxhead, University of Wisconsin Eric W. Crawford, Michigan State University Sean Crockett, City University of New York, Baruch College Barbara Crockett, City University of New York, Baruch College Samuel Culbert, University of California, Los Angeles J. David Cummins, Temple University David Cutler, Harvard University Jaksa Cvitanic, California Institute of Technology Chetan Dave, New York University Paul A. David, Stanford University Donald R. Davis, Columbia University Angus Deaton, Princeton University Joyee Deb, Yale University Rajeev Dehejia, New York University Stefano DellaVigna, University of California, Berkeley Tatyana Deryugina, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Ravi Dhar, Yale University Marco Di Maggio, Harvard Business School Dimitrios Diamantaras, Temple University Peter Diamond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Avinash K. Dixit, Princeton University Rebecca Dizon-Ross, University of Chicago Matthias Doepke, Northwestern University Esther Duflo, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Steven Durlauf, University of Wisconsin William Easterly, New York University Federico Echenique, California Institute of Technology Florian Ederer, Yale University Aaron S. Edlin, University of California, Berkeley Lena Edlund, Columbia University Sebastian Edwards, University of California, Los Angeles J.P. Eggers, New York University Sara Fisher Ellison, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Jeffrey Ely, Northwestern University Ryan Fang, University of Chicago Langdana Farrokh, Rutgers University Daniel Fetter, Wellesley College David Figlio, Northwestern University Diana Fletschner Frederick Floss, State University of New York at Buffalo Dana Foarta, Stanford University Meredith Fowlie, University of California, Berkeley Jeffrey Frankel, Harvard University Guillaume Frechette, New York University Victor R. Fuchs, Stanford University Thomas Fujiwara, Princeton University David W. Galenson, University of Chicago Sebastián Gallegos, Princeton University Michael Gallmeyer, University of Virginia David Gamarnik, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Bernhard Ganglmair, University of Texas at Dallas Pedro Gardete, Stanford University Robert Garlick, Duke University Peter Garrod, University of Hawaii, Manoa Claudine Gartenberg, New York University François Geerolf, University of California, Los Angeles Christophre Georges, Hamilton College George Georgiadis, Northwestern University Andra Ghent, University of Wisconsin, Madison Suman Ghosh, Florida Atlantic University Stefano Giglio, University of Chicago Chuan Goh, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Ben Golub, Harvard University Daniel Gottlieb, Washington University, St Louis Lawrence H. Goulder, Stanford University William Greene, New York University Dan Greenwald, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Matthew Grennan, University of Pennsylvania Gene Grossman, Princeton University Jean Grossman, Princeton University Michael Grubb, Boston College Jonathan Gruber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Martin J. Gruber, New York University Isabel Guerrero, Harvard University Veronica Guerrieri, University of Chicago Adam Guren, Boston University Isa Hafalir, Carnegie Mellon University Nima Haghpanah, Pennsylvania State University Jens Hainmueller, Stanford University Marina Halac, Columbia University Jeffrey Hammer, Princeton University Ben Handel, University of California, Berkeley Oliver D. Hart, Harvard University Tarek Alexander Hassan, University of Chicago Andreas Hauskrecht, Indiana University Brent Hickman, University of Chicago Kate Ho, Columbia University Saul D. Hoffman, University of Delaware Stephen Holland, University of North Carolina, Greensboro Thomas J. Holmes, University of Minnesota Adam Honig, Amherst College Roozbeh Hosseini, University of Georgia Sabrina Howell, New York University Peter Howitt, Brown University Hilary Hoynes, University of California, Berkeley Yasheng Huang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Isaiah Hull, Sveriges Riksbank Jennifer Hunt, Rutgers University Barry W. Ickes, Pennsylvania State University Nicolas Inostroza, Northwestern University Oleg Itskhoki, Princeton University Kelsey Jack, Tufts University Sanford M. Jacoby, University of California, Los Angeles Paul Jakus, Utah State University Gerald Jaynes, Yale University Ely Jeffrey, Northwestern University Geoffrey Jehle, Vassar College Elizabeth J. Jensen, Hamilton College Barbara A.P. Jones, Alabama A&M University Derek C. Jones, Hamilton College Joseph P. Joyce, Wellesley College John H. Kagel, Ohio State University Lisa B. Kahn, Yale University Navin Kartik, Columbia University Barbara G. Katz, New York University Michael Klein, Tufts University Christopher R. Knittel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Yilmaz Kocer, University of Southern California Michal Kolesár, Princeton University Charles Kolstad, Stanford University Gerald F. Kominski, University of California, Los Angeles Matthew Kotchen, Yale University Kate Krause, University of New Mexico Mordecai Kurz, Stanford University David Laitin, Stanford University Fabian Lange, McGill University Joe Langsam, University of Maryland and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Michel Lawrence, Economic Policy Institute Jonathan Leonard, University of California, Berkeley Jacob Leshno, Columbia University Dan Levin, Ohio State University David Levin, University of California, Berkeley Shengwu Li, Harvard University Annie Liang, University of Pennsylvania Marc Lieberman, New York University Benjamin Linkow, University of Chicago Dennis B. Liotta, New York University Elliot Lipnowski, University of Chicago Zachary Liscow, Yale University Adriana Lleras-Muney, University of California, Los Angeles Benjamin Lockwood, University of Pennsylvania Guido Lorenzoni, Northwestern University Jay Lu, University of California, Los Angeles Sydney C. Ludvigson, New York University Catherine Maclean, Temple University Mihai Manea, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Eric Maskin, Harvard University Costas Meghir, Yale University Marc Melitz, Harvard University Konrad Menzel, New York University Robert C. Merton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Andrew Metrick, Yale University Atif Mian, Princeton University Ronald Miller, Columbia University Alan Miller, University of Haifa Kurt Mitman, Stockholm University Benjamin Moll, Princeton University Dilip Mookherjee, Boston University Jonathan Morduch, New York University Alan Moreira, Yale University John Morgan, University of California, Berkeley Stephen E. Morris, Princeton University Taylor Muir, University of California, Los Angeles Aldo Musacchio, Brandeis University Roger Myerson, University of Chicago John Nachbar, Washington University, St. Louis Barry Nalebuff, Yale University Paulo Natenzon, Washington University, St. Louis Roz Naylor, Stanford University Jack Needleman, University of California, Los Angeles Christopher A. Neilson, Princeton University David Neumark, University of California, Irvine Marina Niessner, Yale University Roger G. Noll, Stanford University John O'Trakoun, Ford Motor Company Ezra Oberfield, Princeton University James Orlin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology David L. Ortega, Michigan State University Pietro Ortoleva, Columbia University Sharon Oster, Yale University Emily Oster, Brown University Ann Owen, Hamilton College Thomas Palfrey, California Institute of Technology Giri Parameswaran, Haverford College Sahar Parsa, Tufts University David Pearce, New York University Lynne Pepall, Tufts University Michael Peters, Yale University Monika Piazzesi, Stanford University Robert S. Pindyck, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laetitia Placido, City University of New York Jeffrey Pliskin, Hamilton College Steve Polasky, University of Minnesota Eswar Prasad, Cornell University Anita Prasad, Temple University Thomas Pugel, New York University Melissa Pumphrey Richard E. Quandt, Princeton University Hazhir Rahmandad, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Gautam Rao, Harvard University David S. Rapson, University of California, Davis Debraj Ray, New York University Thomas Reardon, Michigan State University Julian Reif, University of Illinois David Reiley, Pandora Media, Inc., and University of California, Berkeley Philip Reny, University of Chicago John Riley, University of California, Los Angeles Mario Rizzo, New York University John Roberts, Stanford University Yana Rodgers, Rutgers University Paul M. Romer, New York University Donald B. Rosenfield, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, Princeton University Alvin E. Roth, Stanford University Dan Sacks, Indiana University Maryam Saeedi, Carnegie Mellon University Maher Said, New York University Sarada Sarada, University of Wisconsin, Madison Christine Sauer, University of New Mexico Anja Sautmann, Brown University Laura Schechter, University of Wisconsin, Madison Jose A. Scheinkman, Columbia University and Princeton University Frank Schilbach, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Andrew Schotter, New York University William Schulze, Cornell University Stuart O. Schweitzer, University of California, Los Angeles Julia Schwenkenberg, Rutgers University, Newark Paul Scott, New York University Fiona M. Scott Morton, Yale University Douglas Shaw, Economist Mark Shepard, Harvard University Itai Sher, University of California Gerald Shively, Purdue University Ali Shourideh, Carnegie Mellon university Nirvikar Singh, University of California, Santa Cruz Marciano Siniscalchi, Northwestern University Jack Stecher, Carnegie Mellon University John Sterman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Scott Stern, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Steven Stern, Stony Brook University Adam Storeygard, Tufts University Sandip Sukhtankar, University of Virginia Scott Sumner, Bentley University Ashley Swanson, University of Pennsylvania Steve Tadelis, University of California, Berkeley Joshua Tasoff, Claremont Graduate University Dmitry Taubinsky, Dartmouth College J. Edward Taylor, University of California, Davis Richard Thaler, University of Chicago Mallika Thomas, Cornell University Felix Tintelnot, University of Chicago Oana Tocoian, Claremont McKenna College Dan Tortorice, Brandeis University Nikos Trichakis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology David Tschirley, Michigan State University Robert W. Turner, Colgate University Stephen Turnovsky, University of Washington Kosuke Uetake, Yale University Utku Unver, Boston College Robert Valdez, University of New Mexico John Van Reenen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard Van Weelden, University of Chicago Kerry D. Vandell, University of California, Irvine Laura Veldkamp, New York University Venky Venkateswaran, New York University Gianluca Violante, New York University Tom Vogl, Princeton University Paul Wachtel, New York University Joel Waldfogel, University of Minnesota Don Waldman, Colgate University Xiao Yu Wang, Duke University Leonard Wantchekon, Princeton University Mark Watson, Princeton University Jonathan Weinstein, Washington University, St. Louis Birger Wernerfelt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ivan Werning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Silvia Weyerbrock, Princeton University E. Glen Weyl, Yale University Roger White, Whittier College Andrea Wilson, Georgetown University Larry Wimmer, Brigham Young University Justin Wolfers, University of Michigan Catherine Wolfram, University of California, Berkeley Richard Woodward, Texas A&M University Jeffrey Wooldridge, Michigan State University Bruce Wydick, University of San Francisco Dean Yang, University of Michigan Muhamet Yildiz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Pai-Ling Yin, University of Southern California Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University Thomas C. Youle, Dartmouth College Albert Zevelev, Baruch College Frederick Zimmerman, University of California, Los Angeles Seth Zimmerman, University of Chicago Eric Zivot, University of Washington NOTE: Institutions are listed for identification purposes and should not be viewed as signatories to the letter. Link

These economists should be asked if the current president and those who worked for him, lied grossly while trying to pass their healthcare bill that is now resulting in a severe jump in premium.

 

[Solomon2]

Three hundred and seventy economists, including eight Nobel Prize winners, co-signed a letter that asserts, "Trump is a dangerous, destructive choice for the country. He misinforms the electorate, degrades trust in public institutions with conspiracy theories, and promotes willful delusion over engagement with reality.”

I don't think Hillary refrains from "misinforming the electorate" when it suits her convenience. While Trump may prove a "dangerous, destructive choice" we know that Hillary actually has been and is - trust in public institutions like the State Dept., FBI, and Justice Dept. has been severely shaken. Conspiracy "theories" are one thing, but conspiracies snap into reality under email revelations of "unbiased" reporters sharing "surprise" questions with Clinton before events. As for "delusion over reality" Hillary was the biggest pusher of the meme that a barely-noted anti-Muslim "movie" was the cause of the Benghazi debacle, rather than the failings of her own department.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Libertarian Party VP nominee Bill Weld basically just endorsed Hillary Clinton

By Aaron Blake November 2, 2016

He didn't say it directly, but the Libertarian Party's vice presidential nominee, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld, for all intents and purposes endorsed Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night.

In an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Weld, a former Republican, said he was "vouching" for Clinton and praised her effusively while arguing that the choice between the two major candidates is clear -- all while not really vouching for the top of his own ticket, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson.

Weld has been hinting in this direction for weeks, saying nice things about Clinton, warning about Trump and suggesting people choosing between the two should pick Clinton. But at this juncture in the race, the Libertarian Party is struggling to get the 5 percent of the vote that would qualify it for federal matching funds and easier ballot access.

The whole thing is worth a gander. Below is the full transcript, with the most interesting parts highlighted and annotated.

MADDOW: I’m very pleased today that joining us live tonight in studio for the interview is Bill Weld, the Libertarian candidate for vice president this year. Governor Weld thank you so much for being here.

WELD: Thank you so much. It’s great to be here. Thank you.

MADDOW: I posited just a moment ago before the commercial break that what you and Gary Johnson are really aiming at this year is that 5 percent threshold, to try to get some federal matching funds, to try to get some ballot access, and all those other things. Basically so the Libertarians might be viable in the future. Is that fair?

WELD: I think you can — I think in the real world that’s probably correct. That would give federal matching funds. It would mean no more ballot access woes. You know we thought for the longest time we might have a chance to run the table because we’re such nice guys and centrist party, etcetera, but not getting into the debates really sort of foreclosed that option. So now it’s really the 5 percent, you’re right.

MADDOW: And when you—in the real world when you think about pursing that 5 percent option, for people who are in states where it’s really close, for people who are in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, these states where the presidential race really might be decided among the two candidates who actually have a shot at it. Do you think that people in those states should vote for you?

WELD: Well, we are making our case that we’re fiscally responsible and socially inclusive and welcoming. And we think we’ve got on the merits the best ticket of the three parties, if you will, and so, you know, we’d like to get there. Having said that, as I think you’re aware, I see a big difference between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. And I’ve been at some pains to say that I fear for the country if Mr. Trump should be elected. I think it’s a candidacy without any parallel that I can recall. It’s content-free and very much given to stirring up ambient resentment and even hatred. And I think it would be a threat to the conduct of our foreign policy and our position in the world at large.

MADDOW: When you say fear for the country do you mean — is that hyperbole or do you mean it literally? Do you think it would actually be a threat to us as a country if elected?

WELD: Well I think it would be a threat to our polity as Tom Brokaw has been saying over the past couple of days. You know we’re getting to the point where we’re impinging on democratic institutions in this country and I think, you know, it takes a certain-- not a suspension of disbelief -- but willingness to go along with other people to get the ship of state going forward. I’m not sure that happens in a Trump presidency, frankly.

MADDOW: You’ve described him as unstable. Did you mean that sort of psychologically or—what’s the basis of that?

WELD: Oh yeah. No I mean that psychologically. I think he showed in the debates when he encounters criticism or challenge he behaves the way a bully would. He just doesn’t take it well. He doesn’t deal well with criticism and blame and I don’t think he could competently manage the office of the presidency given the criticism and challenge that you face every single day as the President of the United States. He just would not be in his element and I think he would wobble off course and I think the country just can’t have that.

MADDOW: Given that, I'm gonna circle back to the question I asked before. Somebody listening to you right now in N.C. -- knowing that N.C. may decide who the next president of the U.S. is -- hearing you, in terms of what you think of Donald Trump and that you fear for the country if he is elected. Why wouldn't it be -- if those are the stakes, and that person is deciding well, I'm gonna vote against Donald Trump and you concede basically that you're not gonna win -- that you and Gary Johnson are not gonna win the presidency. Why would that person not weigh threat to the country, fear for the fate of the country against hope the libertarian party gets its five percent this year. Why would a person pick the Libertarian vote in that case if the stakes are that high between voting for Clinton and Trump?

WELD: Well, the person could very well decide not to do that, and for someone deciding not to do that, I have a lot to say about Mrs. Clinton that has not been said by others recently and that I think needs to be said. I mean I've known her for 40 years. I worked with her, I know her well professionally. I know her well personally. I know her to be a person of high moral character. A reliable person and an honest person, however Mr. Trump may rant and rave to the contrary. So I'm happy to say that. People can make their own choices. Read more







Amazing, 102-year-young, and still has great common sense!


102-Year-Old Born Before Women’s Suffrage Casts Ballot For Clinton

“It was the greatest thrill of my life,” Geraldine “Jerry” Emmett said.

A 102-year-old woman who was born before women could vote cast an early ballot Tuesday for who she hopes will be the first female president.

“It was the greatest thrill of my life; I just wish my mother and dad could see all of this,” Geraldine “Jerry” Emmett told Tucson News Now after submitting her vote for Hillary Clinton.

The Prescott, Arizona woman arrived at the polls wearing a white and blue suit and positively beaming from ear-to-ear, for good reason. Link