US Politics
- Thread starter RabzonKhan
- Start date
F-22Raptor
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 16,980
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.
This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.
From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.
Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.
We’ve been highly critical of the GOP nominee in a number of previous editorials. With early voting already underway in several states and polls showing a close race, now is the time to spell out, in one place, the reasons Trump should not be president:
He is erratic. Trump has been on so many sides of so many issues that attempting to assess his policy positions is like shooting at a moving target. A list prepared by NBC details 124 shifts by Trump on 20 major issues since shortly before he entered the race. He simply spouts slogans and outcomes (he’d replace Obamacare with “something terrific”) without any credible explanations of how he’d achieve them.
He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent. It’s not just Democrats who say this. Scores of Republican national security leaders have signed an extraordinary open letter calling Trump’s foreign policy vision “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle.” In a Wall Street Journal column this month, Robert Gates, the highly respected former Defense secretary who served presidents of both parties over a half-century, described Trump as “beyond repair.”
He traffics in prejudice. From the very beginning, Trump has built his campaign on appeals to bigotry and xenophobia, whipping up resentment against Mexicans, Muslims and migrants. His proposals for mass deportations and religious tests are unworkable and contrary to America’s ideals.
Trump has stirred racist sentiments in ways that can’t be erased by his belated and clumsy outreach to African Americans. His attacks on an Indiana-born federal judge of Mexican heritage fit “the textbook definition of a racist comment,” according to House Speaker Paul Ryan, the highest-ranking elected official in the Republican Party. And for five years, Trump fanned the absurd “birther” movement that falsely questioned the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president.
His business career is checkered. Trump has built his candidacy on his achievements as a real estate developer and entrepreneur. It’s a shaky scaffold, starting with a 1973 Justice Department suit against Trump and his father for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals. (The Trumps fought the suit but later settled on terms that were viewed as a government victory.) Trump’s companies have had some spectacular financial successes, but this track record is marred by six bankruptcy filings, apparent misuse of the family’s charitable foundation, and allegations by Trump University customers of fraud. A series of investigative articles published by the USA TODAY Network found that Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the past three decades, including at least 60 that involved small businesses and contract employees who said they were stiffed. So much for being a champion of the little guy.
He isn’t leveling with the American people. Is Trump as rich as he says? No one knows, in part because, alone among major party presidential candidates for the past four decades, he refuses to release his tax returns. Nor do we know whether he has paid his fair share of taxes, or the extent of his foreign financial entanglements.
He speaks recklessly. In the days after the Republican convention, Trump invited Russian hackers to interfere with an American election by releasing Hillary Clinton’s emails, and he raised the prospect of “Second Amendment people” preventing the Democratic nominee from appointing liberal justices. It’s hard to imagine two more irresponsible statements from one presidential candidate.
He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.
He’s a serial liar. Although polls show that Clinton is considered less honest and trustworthy than Trump, it’s not even a close contest. Trump is in a league of his own when it comes to the quality and quantity of his misstatements. When confronted with a falsehood, such as his assertion that he was always against the Iraq War, Trump’s reaction is to use the Big Lie technique of repeating it so often that people begin to believe it.
We are not unmindful of the issues that Trump’s campaign has exploited: the disappearance of working-class jobs; excessive political correctness; the direction of the Supreme Court; urban unrest and street violence; the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group; gridlock in Washington and the influence of moneyed interests. All are legitimate sources of concern.
Nor does this editorial represent unqualified support for Hillary Clinton, who has her own flaws (though hers are far less likely to threaten national security or lead to a constitutional crisis). The Editorial Board does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.
Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president.
Other board members have serious reservations about Clinton’s sense of entitlement, her lack of candor and her extreme carelessness in handling classified information.
Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.
Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/
This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.
From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.
Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.
We’ve been highly critical of the GOP nominee in a number of previous editorials. With early voting already underway in several states and polls showing a close race, now is the time to spell out, in one place, the reasons Trump should not be president:
He is erratic. Trump has been on so many sides of so many issues that attempting to assess his policy positions is like shooting at a moving target. A list prepared by NBC details 124 shifts by Trump on 20 major issues since shortly before he entered the race. He simply spouts slogans and outcomes (he’d replace Obamacare with “something terrific”) without any credible explanations of how he’d achieve them.
He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent. It’s not just Democrats who say this. Scores of Republican national security leaders have signed an extraordinary open letter calling Trump’s foreign policy vision “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle.” In a Wall Street Journal column this month, Robert Gates, the highly respected former Defense secretary who served presidents of both parties over a half-century, described Trump as “beyond repair.”
He traffics in prejudice. From the very beginning, Trump has built his campaign on appeals to bigotry and xenophobia, whipping up resentment against Mexicans, Muslims and migrants. His proposals for mass deportations and religious tests are unworkable and contrary to America’s ideals.
Trump has stirred racist sentiments in ways that can’t be erased by his belated and clumsy outreach to African Americans. His attacks on an Indiana-born federal judge of Mexican heritage fit “the textbook definition of a racist comment,” according to House Speaker Paul Ryan, the highest-ranking elected official in the Republican Party. And for five years, Trump fanned the absurd “birther” movement that falsely questioned the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president.
His business career is checkered. Trump has built his candidacy on his achievements as a real estate developer and entrepreneur. It’s a shaky scaffold, starting with a 1973 Justice Department suit against Trump and his father for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals. (The Trumps fought the suit but later settled on terms that were viewed as a government victory.) Trump’s companies have had some spectacular financial successes, but this track record is marred by six bankruptcy filings, apparent misuse of the family’s charitable foundation, and allegations by Trump University customers of fraud. A series of investigative articles published by the USA TODAY Network found that Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the past three decades, including at least 60 that involved small businesses and contract employees who said they were stiffed. So much for being a champion of the little guy.
He isn’t leveling with the American people. Is Trump as rich as he says? No one knows, in part because, alone among major party presidential candidates for the past four decades, he refuses to release his tax returns. Nor do we know whether he has paid his fair share of taxes, or the extent of his foreign financial entanglements.
He speaks recklessly. In the days after the Republican convention, Trump invited Russian hackers to interfere with an American election by releasing Hillary Clinton’s emails, and he raised the prospect of “Second Amendment people” preventing the Democratic nominee from appointing liberal justices. It’s hard to imagine two more irresponsible statements from one presidential candidate.
He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.
He’s a serial liar. Although polls show that Clinton is considered less honest and trustworthy than Trump, it’s not even a close contest. Trump is in a league of his own when it comes to the quality and quantity of his misstatements. When confronted with a falsehood, such as his assertion that he was always against the Iraq War, Trump’s reaction is to use the Big Lie technique of repeating it so often that people begin to believe it.
We are not unmindful of the issues that Trump’s campaign has exploited: the disappearance of working-class jobs; excessive political correctness; the direction of the Supreme Court; urban unrest and street violence; the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group; gridlock in Washington and the influence of moneyed interests. All are legitimate sources of concern.
Nor does this editorial represent unqualified support for Hillary Clinton, who has her own flaws (though hers are far less likely to threaten national security or lead to a constitutional crisis). The Editorial Board does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.
Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president.
Other board members have serious reservations about Clinton’s sense of entitlement, her lack of candor and her extreme carelessness in handling classified information.
Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.
Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/
anon45
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,212
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Trump Foundation lacks the certification required for charities that solicit money
By David A. Fahrenthold September 29 at 8:25 PM
Trump directed $2.3 million owed to him to his tax-exempt foundation instead]
But, as of this week, the Trump Foundation had not obtained the state registration required to ask for donations, according to a spokesman for Schneiderman.
Experts on charity law said they were surprised that Trump’s foundation — given its connections to a wealthy man and his complex corporation — did not register to solicit funds.
“He’s a billionaire who acts like a thousandaire,” said James J. Fishman, a professor at Pace University’s law school in White Plains, N.Y. He said Trump’s foundation seemed to have made errors, including the lack of proper registration, that were more common among very small family foundations.
“You wouldn’t expect somebody who’s supposed to be sophisticated, and brags about his business prowess, would run his foundation like this,” Fishman said.
The Trump Foundation was established by Trump in 1987 to give away the proceeds of his book “The Art of the Deal.” Trump is still the foundation’s president.
For many years, Trump was the foundation’s sole donor: He gave a total of $5.4 million between 1987 and 2006.
Under state law, the foundation during that period was required to have only the least-demanding kind of certification, referred to as “EPTL,” because it is governed by the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law.
Under that registration, the Trump Foundation filed annual reports with the Internal Revenue Service and the state. But the state did not require an independent audit to ensure that the charity was handling its funds properly.
[Trump is doing his foundation a favor by ‘storing’ its portrait on golf resort wall, adviser says]
But starting in the early 2000s, Trump’s foundation began to change. It began to take in donations from other people.
At first, it happened a little bit at a time. In 2004, for instance, an autograph seeker sent $25 to Trump Tower, along with a book he wanted Trump to sign. The book came back signed. The money was deposited in the Trump Foundation.
Then, the gifts began to get larger.
In 2005, Trump’s wife, Melania, was named “Godmother” of a new ship launched by Norwegian Cruise Lines. As part of its agreement with Melania Trump, the cruise lines said, it gave $100,000 to the Trump Foundation. The Trump campaign has not responded to requests for comment on the gift.
In the meantime, Trump himself drastically reduced his gifts. After 2008, tax records show he stopped giving altogether. Since then, according to tax records, the Trump Foundation has received all of its incoming money — more than $4.3 million — from other donors.
Under state law, charities that solicit donations from others in New York must register under a different law, called “7A” for its article heading.
Trump used $258,00 from his charity to settle legal problems]
But, in several cases, The Post’s reporting has indicated that the Trump Foundation or Trump himself did help bring in the money.
In 2011, for instance, Trump was the star of a televised “roast” on Comedy Central in New York. He directed his $400,000 appearance fee to the Donald J. Trump Foundation, according to a Trump campaign staffer.
Between 2011 and 2014, the Trump Foundation also received nearly $1.9 million from a New York businessman named Richard Ebers, who sells high-end tickets and one-of-a-kind experiences to wealthy clients.
Two people familiar with those transactions told The Post that Ebers bought tickets and other goods and services from Trump, and was instructed — by Trump or someone at his company — to pay the Trump Foundation instead.
Trump’s campaign has neither confirmed nor denied The Post’s reporting about the nature of the donations from Ebers. Ebers has declined to comment.
Then, this year, Trump skipped a Republican primary debate in Iowa and instead held a televised fundraiser for veterans’ causes. As part of that effort, he set up a website, donaldtrumpforvets.com, which took donations via credit card — and sent them to the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
“Over 1,670,000 raised online,” said the thank-you message from the Trump Foundation, after The Post made a $10 donation in March.
The most important consequence of not registering under the more rigorous “7A” level was that the Trump Foundation was not required by the state to submit to an annual audit by outside accountants. In such an audit, charity-law experts said, the accountants might have checked the Trump Foundation’s books — comparing its records with its outgoing checks, and asking whether the foundation had engaged in any transactions that benefited Trump or his businesses.
In recent years, The Post has reported, Trump’s foundation does appear to have violated tax laws in several instances.
In 2013, it gave a donation to a political group supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) — despite a ban on nonprofit groups making political gifts. The Trump Foundation then filed an incorrect tax filing, which omitted any mention of that gift, and said incorrectly that the money had gone to a charity in Kansas. Trump paid a $2,500 penalty tax for that political gift this year.
Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
In two other instances, Trump’s foundation has made payments which appeared to help settle legal disputes involving Trump’s for-profit businesses. In 2007, Trump’s foundation paid $100,000 to settle a lawsuit involving his Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida. And in 2012, the foundation paid $158,000 to the charity of a New York man named Martin Greenberg on the day that Greenberg settled a lawsuit against one of Trump’s golf courses.
Those two cases are under investigation by Schneiderman. Just this week, his office requested that a Florida attorney provide a copy of the foundation check that Trump had sent to settle the Mar-a-Lago case.
Trump’s son Eric has his own foundation, also headquartered in New York, which raises money from the public through an annual golf tournament.
Unlike his father’s charity, however, the Eric Trump Foundation has registered to solicit funds in the state and files an annual audit report. The two Trump foundations share an accountant, Donald Bender of the firm WeiserMazars. A spokeswoman for the firm declined to comment on Thursday.
The Washington Post has contacted more than 250 charities with some ties to the GOP nominee in an effort to find proof of the millions he has said he donated. We've been mostly unsuccessful.VIEW GRAPHIC
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ac6a68-8658-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html
The Attorney General of New York could potentially order the Trump foundation to return all the money it received in donations.
By David A. Fahrenthold September 29 at 8:25 PM
Trump directed $2.3 million owed to him to his tax-exempt foundation instead]
But, as of this week, the Trump Foundation had not obtained the state registration required to ask for donations, according to a spokesman for Schneiderman.
Experts on charity law said they were surprised that Trump’s foundation — given its connections to a wealthy man and his complex corporation — did not register to solicit funds.
“He’s a billionaire who acts like a thousandaire,” said James J. Fishman, a professor at Pace University’s law school in White Plains, N.Y. He said Trump’s foundation seemed to have made errors, including the lack of proper registration, that were more common among very small family foundations.
“You wouldn’t expect somebody who’s supposed to be sophisticated, and brags about his business prowess, would run his foundation like this,” Fishman said.
The Trump Foundation was established by Trump in 1987 to give away the proceeds of his book “The Art of the Deal.” Trump is still the foundation’s president.
For many years, Trump was the foundation’s sole donor: He gave a total of $5.4 million between 1987 and 2006.
Under state law, the foundation during that period was required to have only the least-demanding kind of certification, referred to as “EPTL,” because it is governed by the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law.
Under that registration, the Trump Foundation filed annual reports with the Internal Revenue Service and the state. But the state did not require an independent audit to ensure that the charity was handling its funds properly.
[Trump is doing his foundation a favor by ‘storing’ its portrait on golf resort wall, adviser says]
But starting in the early 2000s, Trump’s foundation began to change. It began to take in donations from other people.
At first, it happened a little bit at a time. In 2004, for instance, an autograph seeker sent $25 to Trump Tower, along with a book he wanted Trump to sign. The book came back signed. The money was deposited in the Trump Foundation.
Then, the gifts began to get larger.
In 2005, Trump’s wife, Melania, was named “Godmother” of a new ship launched by Norwegian Cruise Lines. As part of its agreement with Melania Trump, the cruise lines said, it gave $100,000 to the Trump Foundation. The Trump campaign has not responded to requests for comment on the gift.
In the meantime, Trump himself drastically reduced his gifts. After 2008, tax records show he stopped giving altogether. Since then, according to tax records, the Trump Foundation has received all of its incoming money — more than $4.3 million — from other donors.
Under state law, charities that solicit donations from others in New York must register under a different law, called “7A” for its article heading.
Trump used $258,00 from his charity to settle legal problems]
But, in several cases, The Post’s reporting has indicated that the Trump Foundation or Trump himself did help bring in the money.
In 2011, for instance, Trump was the star of a televised “roast” on Comedy Central in New York. He directed his $400,000 appearance fee to the Donald J. Trump Foundation, according to a Trump campaign staffer.
Between 2011 and 2014, the Trump Foundation also received nearly $1.9 million from a New York businessman named Richard Ebers, who sells high-end tickets and one-of-a-kind experiences to wealthy clients.
Two people familiar with those transactions told The Post that Ebers bought tickets and other goods and services from Trump, and was instructed — by Trump or someone at his company — to pay the Trump Foundation instead.
Trump’s campaign has neither confirmed nor denied The Post’s reporting about the nature of the donations from Ebers. Ebers has declined to comment.
Then, this year, Trump skipped a Republican primary debate in Iowa and instead held a televised fundraiser for veterans’ causes. As part of that effort, he set up a website, donaldtrumpforvets.com, which took donations via credit card — and sent them to the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
“Over 1,670,000 raised online,” said the thank-you message from the Trump Foundation, after The Post made a $10 donation in March.
The most important consequence of not registering under the more rigorous “7A” level was that the Trump Foundation was not required by the state to submit to an annual audit by outside accountants. In such an audit, charity-law experts said, the accountants might have checked the Trump Foundation’s books — comparing its records with its outgoing checks, and asking whether the foundation had engaged in any transactions that benefited Trump or his businesses.
In recent years, The Post has reported, Trump’s foundation does appear to have violated tax laws in several instances.
In 2013, it gave a donation to a political group supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) — despite a ban on nonprofit groups making political gifts. The Trump Foundation then filed an incorrect tax filing, which omitted any mention of that gift, and said incorrectly that the money had gone to a charity in Kansas. Trump paid a $2,500 penalty tax for that political gift this year.
Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
In two other instances, Trump’s foundation has made payments which appeared to help settle legal disputes involving Trump’s for-profit businesses. In 2007, Trump’s foundation paid $100,000 to settle a lawsuit involving his Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida. And in 2012, the foundation paid $158,000 to the charity of a New York man named Martin Greenberg on the day that Greenberg settled a lawsuit against one of Trump’s golf courses.
Those two cases are under investigation by Schneiderman. Just this week, his office requested that a Florida attorney provide a copy of the foundation check that Trump had sent to settle the Mar-a-Lago case.
Trump’s son Eric has his own foundation, also headquartered in New York, which raises money from the public through an annual golf tournament.
Unlike his father’s charity, however, the Eric Trump Foundation has registered to solicit funds in the state and files an annual audit report. The two Trump foundations share an accountant, Donald Bender of the firm WeiserMazars. A spokeswoman for the firm declined to comment on Thursday.
The Washington Post has contacted more than 250 charities with some ties to the GOP nominee in an effort to find proof of the millions he has said he donated. We've been mostly unsuccessful.VIEW GRAPHIC https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ac6a68-8658-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html
The Attorney General of New York could potentially order the Trump foundation to return all the money it received in donations.
maximuswarrior
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2016
- Messages
- 13,771
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
^^ The guy is an absolute farce. Those who support him also belong to the basket of deplorables.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Presidential Debate Cartoons. 
T-72M1
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,795
- Reaction score
- -17
- Country
- Location
just one of her long list of foreign policy disasters:
Egyptian protesters threw tomatoes and shoes at U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's motorcade Sunday and shouted, "Monica, Monica, Monica" ...Clinton met with Morsy on Saturday and urged him to assert the "full authority" of his office.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/15/world/africa/egypt-clinton/
good conversation here:
Egyptian protesters threw tomatoes and shoes at U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's motorcade Sunday and shouted, "Monica, Monica, Monica" ...Clinton met with Morsy on Saturday and urged him to assert the "full authority" of his office.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/15/world/africa/egypt-clinton/
good conversation here:
cloud4000
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2015
- Messages
- 4,862
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/gary-johnson-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html
Why is Gary Johnson still in the race?
The gaffes, combined with his failure to make the debate stage and his infinitesimal chance of winning the White House, raise a pressing question: Why is Johnson still in the race?
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton ribbed Johnson Thursday by pretending to struggle when she was asked to name a world leader she admired. But she made clear her view that she and her Republican counterpart, Donald Trump, are the only viable candidates.
"Either Donald Trump or I will be the President of the United States," she told reporters on her campaign plane, sending a clear warning to disaffected Democrats flirting with Johnson. "People have to look carefully in making their decision. It will be either him or me."
But Johnson isn't going anywhere.
William Weld, Johnson's running mate, said the latest stumble doesn't leave him with any doubts.
"He's a deep person in terms of his thinking and he thinks through things in a way that many other people don't," Weld told CNN's Randi Kaye Thursday on Anderson Cooper 360. "Pop quizzes on television are obviously not his forte but depth of analysis and surprising lines of analysis are his forte. I think he just needs time to expound what he's thinking."
Johnson's decision to stay in the race isn't just an academic question. He and Weld are doing well enough in swing states to pull votes from both Trump and Clinton. In the latest CNN/ORC poll of Colorado — a state Clinton must win and which her campaign thought was already safe — Johnson is polling at 13% among likely voters while Clinton trails Trump 42% to 41%.
Market for Johnson
Third party candidates have traditionally had a rough ride in the two-party US election system — none have made a significant national impact since billionaire Ross Perot grabbed 19% of the vote in 1992.
But amid the most polarizing election in years featuring two major party nominees with historic unfavorability ratings, there may be a market for Johnson's character and ideas.
"Something is obviously different this time," said Kyle Saunders, a political analyst at Colorado State University. "Part of it is the unpopularity of the two major party candidates. The strongest of partisans are behaving the way they always behave."
He added: "Those other people who are not the strongest partisans are looking for some other places to cast their ballot."
And the more that the chattering classes disdain Johnson, the more stubborn he seems to get.
"It's been almost 24 hours ... and I still can't come up with a foreign leader I look up to," Johnson tweeted defiantly Thursday.
'Gotcha-ism at its worst'
Johnson's campaign manager, Ron Nielson, blasted Johnson's critics as being guilty of "gotcha-ism at its worst" in a Facebook post and said that the oversight just proved that his candidate was just like other Americans.
"Gary Johnson is a real person. A pragmatist and the kind of leader that people can respect and trust," Nielson wrote. "Unfortunately, as most Americans have come to realize, this is not the case with Clinton and Trump."
It was not the first time that a presidential candidate has stumbled in a world leader pop quiz that raised doubts about their credentials to be President. In 1999, then-GOP frontrunner George W. Bush was stumped when asked by a Boston reporter to name the leaders of Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan.
And gaffes don't seem to derail a candidate in 2016 the way they once did.
After all, Trump has made statements that are far more outrageous than Johnson's comments -- on an almost daily basis -- and he is locked in a tight race with Clinton.
It's debatable whether true Libertarian voters — those who support the party because it favors a disentangling from foreign quagmires and a less robust US global role — are that bothered that their candidate is not deeply acquainted with the details of the Syrian civil war.
Pressure on Johnson
But it's not just verbal stumbles that are beginning to build pressure on Johnson.
His political position is also eroding because of his failure to hit the 15% polling threshold needed to muscle his way into the debates between Clinton and Trump.
Back in June, Johnson told The New Yorker that if he missed what he called the political "Super Bowl" — "There's no way to win."
There are reasons -- beyond the disdain that a large proportion of the electorate appears to hold for Clinton and Trump -- for Johnson to stay in the race.
First, he appears to have the chance to make tangible progress for the Libertarian Party across the nation. In 2012, Johnson ran for President and won just under 1% of the electoral vote. Even if he only cracks 5% this time, that would represent an undeniable step forward for the party.
But there's a more fundamental reason why Johnson may resist calls to quit.
He explained in an op-ed piece in the New York Times on Wednesday that the American political system, by producing such alienating rivals as Clinton and Trump, has failed. That, he argued, means reformers have no choice but to fight.
"Hyper-partisanship may be entertaining, but it's a terrible way to try to run a country. We're the alternative — and we're the only ticket that offers Americans a chance to find common ground," Johnson wrote.
Johnson also appears to be building a significant base of support among millennial voters -- a demographic that Clinton needs to dominate to make it to the White House -- but which could fuel Libertarian Party growth in future.
A Bloomberg News/Selzer & Co. poll released Monday found Clinton's 10-point advantage among younger voters cut to a statistically insignificant four points when Johnson and Stein are included in the race.
While some Democrats who abhor Clinton might be tempted by a fling with Johnson, he is also providing a refuge with Republicans who cannot stomach Trump. Antipathy for the billionaire prompted the Detroit News Thursday to do something it has never done in its 143 year history -- endorse someone other than the Republican presidential candidate.
Concern for Democrats
Still, Johnson's resilience is causing genuine concern for top Democrats.
"There's one message I want to deliver to everybody: If you don't vote, that's a vote for Trump. If you vote for a third-party candidate who's got no chance to win, that's a vote for Trump," President Barack Obama said on the Steve Harvey radio show this week.
Vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine is warning wavering Democrats attracted to Johnson that they risk bringing about an electoral catastrophe similar to the one in Florida in 2000 when Ralph Nader siphoned votes away from Vice President Al Gore. That allowed Bush to claim Florida after the vote count showdown in the US Supreme Court.
"If Gore had been president, we probably wouldn't had a war in Iraq," Kaine told Yahoo News' Katie Couric last week. "Casting a vote, a protest vote, for a third-party candidate that's going to lose may well affect the outcome. It may well lead to a consequence that is deeply, deeply troubling. That's not a speculation, we've seen it in our country's history."
CNN's Eli Watkins contributed to this report.
First of all, I don't see how Gary Johnson is any less qualified than Trump to be president. Second, why are Democrats so concerned about Johnson? It's more likely he's taking votes away from Trump rather than Clinton.
Why is Gary Johnson still in the race?
- by Stephen Collinson, Cnn
- Sept. 30, 2016
- 4 min read
- original
The gaffes, combined with his failure to make the debate stage and his infinitesimal chance of winning the White House, raise a pressing question: Why is Johnson still in the race?
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton ribbed Johnson Thursday by pretending to struggle when she was asked to name a world leader she admired. But she made clear her view that she and her Republican counterpart, Donald Trump, are the only viable candidates.
"Either Donald Trump or I will be the President of the United States," she told reporters on her campaign plane, sending a clear warning to disaffected Democrats flirting with Johnson. "People have to look carefully in making their decision. It will be either him or me."
But Johnson isn't going anywhere.
William Weld, Johnson's running mate, said the latest stumble doesn't leave him with any doubts.
"He's a deep person in terms of his thinking and he thinks through things in a way that many other people don't," Weld told CNN's Randi Kaye Thursday on Anderson Cooper 360. "Pop quizzes on television are obviously not his forte but depth of analysis and surprising lines of analysis are his forte. I think he just needs time to expound what he's thinking."
Johnson's decision to stay in the race isn't just an academic question. He and Weld are doing well enough in swing states to pull votes from both Trump and Clinton. In the latest CNN/ORC poll of Colorado — a state Clinton must win and which her campaign thought was already safe — Johnson is polling at 13% among likely voters while Clinton trails Trump 42% to 41%.
Market for Johnson
Third party candidates have traditionally had a rough ride in the two-party US election system — none have made a significant national impact since billionaire Ross Perot grabbed 19% of the vote in 1992.
But amid the most polarizing election in years featuring two major party nominees with historic unfavorability ratings, there may be a market for Johnson's character and ideas.
"Something is obviously different this time," said Kyle Saunders, a political analyst at Colorado State University. "Part of it is the unpopularity of the two major party candidates. The strongest of partisans are behaving the way they always behave."
He added: "Those other people who are not the strongest partisans are looking for some other places to cast their ballot."
And the more that the chattering classes disdain Johnson, the more stubborn he seems to get.
"It's been almost 24 hours ... and I still can't come up with a foreign leader I look up to," Johnson tweeted defiantly Thursday.
'Gotcha-ism at its worst'
Johnson's campaign manager, Ron Nielson, blasted Johnson's critics as being guilty of "gotcha-ism at its worst" in a Facebook post and said that the oversight just proved that his candidate was just like other Americans.
"Gary Johnson is a real person. A pragmatist and the kind of leader that people can respect and trust," Nielson wrote. "Unfortunately, as most Americans have come to realize, this is not the case with Clinton and Trump."
It was not the first time that a presidential candidate has stumbled in a world leader pop quiz that raised doubts about their credentials to be President. In 1999, then-GOP frontrunner George W. Bush was stumped when asked by a Boston reporter to name the leaders of Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan.
And gaffes don't seem to derail a candidate in 2016 the way they once did.
After all, Trump has made statements that are far more outrageous than Johnson's comments -- on an almost daily basis -- and he is locked in a tight race with Clinton.
It's debatable whether true Libertarian voters — those who support the party because it favors a disentangling from foreign quagmires and a less robust US global role — are that bothered that their candidate is not deeply acquainted with the details of the Syrian civil war.
Pressure on Johnson
But it's not just verbal stumbles that are beginning to build pressure on Johnson.
His political position is also eroding because of his failure to hit the 15% polling threshold needed to muscle his way into the debates between Clinton and Trump.
Back in June, Johnson told The New Yorker that if he missed what he called the political "Super Bowl" — "There's no way to win."
There are reasons -- beyond the disdain that a large proportion of the electorate appears to hold for Clinton and Trump -- for Johnson to stay in the race.
First, he appears to have the chance to make tangible progress for the Libertarian Party across the nation. In 2012, Johnson ran for President and won just under 1% of the electoral vote. Even if he only cracks 5% this time, that would represent an undeniable step forward for the party.
But there's a more fundamental reason why Johnson may resist calls to quit.
He explained in an op-ed piece in the New York Times on Wednesday that the American political system, by producing such alienating rivals as Clinton and Trump, has failed. That, he argued, means reformers have no choice but to fight.
"Hyper-partisanship may be entertaining, but it's a terrible way to try to run a country. We're the alternative — and we're the only ticket that offers Americans a chance to find common ground," Johnson wrote.
Johnson also appears to be building a significant base of support among millennial voters -- a demographic that Clinton needs to dominate to make it to the White House -- but which could fuel Libertarian Party growth in future.
A Bloomberg News/Selzer & Co. poll released Monday found Clinton's 10-point advantage among younger voters cut to a statistically insignificant four points when Johnson and Stein are included in the race.
While some Democrats who abhor Clinton might be tempted by a fling with Johnson, he is also providing a refuge with Republicans who cannot stomach Trump. Antipathy for the billionaire prompted the Detroit News Thursday to do something it has never done in its 143 year history -- endorse someone other than the Republican presidential candidate.
Concern for Democrats
Still, Johnson's resilience is causing genuine concern for top Democrats.
"There's one message I want to deliver to everybody: If you don't vote, that's a vote for Trump. If you vote for a third-party candidate who's got no chance to win, that's a vote for Trump," President Barack Obama said on the Steve Harvey radio show this week.
Vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine is warning wavering Democrats attracted to Johnson that they risk bringing about an electoral catastrophe similar to the one in Florida in 2000 when Ralph Nader siphoned votes away from Vice President Al Gore. That allowed Bush to claim Florida after the vote count showdown in the US Supreme Court.
"If Gore had been president, we probably wouldn't had a war in Iraq," Kaine told Yahoo News' Katie Couric last week. "Casting a vote, a protest vote, for a third-party candidate that's going to lose may well affect the outcome. It may well lead to a consequence that is deeply, deeply troubling. That's not a speculation, we've seen it in our country's history."
CNN's Eli Watkins contributed to this report.
First of all, I don't see how Gary Johnson is any less qualified than Trump to be president. Second, why are Democrats so concerned about Johnson? It's more likely he's taking votes away from Trump rather than Clinton.
CorporateAffairs
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2011
- Messages
- 2,742
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
"BILL"ary is losing the elections for sure.
Just wait and watch.
Just wait and watch.
T-72M1
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,795
- Reaction score
- -17
- Country
- Location
no way ! 20 years ago he called out a beauty queen for being fat
, can you imagine ? 
lol stupid cunts, that's all they have on him, "he racist, he bigoted
"
CorporateAffairs
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2011
- Messages
- 2,742
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
no way ! 20 years ago he called out a beauty queen for being fat
lol stupid cunts, that's all they have on him, "he racist, he bigoted
Trump 47%
Billary 42% is the latest polls.
watch out the October 8th debate.
T-72M1
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,795
- Reaction score
- -17
- Country
- Location
link ? I saw this on MSNBC where she got a post debate bump (up 4pts) in FL but they were still all worrying
also, if you don't mind my asking, will you be voting, and what are you seeing around you on the ground in terms of a pro Hillary or pro Trump vibe ? I studied there and have friends and relatives scattered all over and lot of them are talking about a Trump swell, even those in the most unlikeliest places you would imagine, so that, plus the online chatter and all those huge rallies.. Trump is on to something.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Steve Case: Why I’m voting for Hillary Clinton
By Steve Case September 28
Steve Case, a co-founder of America Online, is chairman and chief executive of Revolution and author of “The Third Wave: An Entrepreneur’s Vision of the Future.”
I’ve been involved in policy for three decades, since AOL played a pivotal role in getting the nation online in the early days of the Internet. Initially, my focus was on commercializing the Internet, expanding access and putting appropriate rules of the road in place. In the past decade, my focus shifted to encouraging pro-growth policies that foster innovation, generate jobs, help start-ups and create opportunity. I was proud to work with a Democratic president and a Republican House to help get the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act passed four years ago, and I have spent countless hours meeting with members of both parties on immigration reform, patent reform and pro-start-up economic ideas.
Despite my active engagement on policy, however, I’ve tried to steer clear of politics. I’ve avoided endorsing candidates or making big contributions to campaigns. I’ve wanted to be nonpartisan, able to work with people on both sides of the aisle. Indeed, I’ve been troubled by the hyper-partisanship that has defined our politics of late, and by the resulting gridlock that has set in. The United States faces many challenges, but in my view our greatest threat may not be external forces but rather our inability to work together to move our country forward.
So my inclination is to continue to stay out of politics and continue to quietly build working relationships with both Republicans and Democrats. I’d prefer to be positioned as a builder of bridges and consensus.
But I’ve decided to make an exception this election. I have concluded that I cannot sit on the sidelines this year. At this pivotal time, the choice is too important.
I’ve decided to back Hillary Clinton for president for four reasons.
First, I think she’d be better for our economy, especially with respect to innovative technology and start-ups. Donald Trump knows business, but his campaign has been backward-looking on the economy and oddly absent of ideas to spur creation of the jobs of the future. Clinton understands what we need to help start businesses and will invest in education, advanced manufacturing and basic research. She’s not promising a return to a bygone era — she’s focused on making our economy strong for our children and their children. These forward-leaning policies are essential to ensure continued U.S. economic leadership.
Second, Clinton is right on immigration. To win in the global economy, our country must win the global battle for talent. Immigrants don’t take U.S. jobs; they create them. More than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or their children: Think how many fewer jobs we’d have in the United States if these entrepreneurs and their parents had been kept out by a wall. Trump’s harsh policies will cost us jobs, and his even harsher rhetoric will chase away immigrant families whose children could grow up to be the next Steve Jobs(whose father was a Syrian refugee) or Sergey Brin (an immigrant himself).
Third, while Trump has been largely silent on technology issues facing the new economy, Clinton has put forward an agenda that has won considerable acclaim among technology leaders. She wants to appoint a chief innovation adviser, expand science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, education and more. And she shares my view that it’s not enough to support a booming Silicon Valley — we need policies that promote the “rise of the rest”: a spread of start-ups to all parts of our country. We need to level the playing field so anybody, anywhere, has a shot at the American dream.
Fourth, I agree with Clinton on the need to control the deficit. Despite his populist rhetoric, Trump wants to give huge tax breaks to people like me, the very folks who have benefited greatly from the innovation economy, while many others have been left behind. In the process he would blow up our deficit and make the economy more unequal. I agree we need to simplify the tax code, but if we are going to give tax relief, let’s make sure it is in incentives for start-ups to grow and create jobs.
I think I get why Trump has been such a potent political force this year. I am well aware that millions of people are angry about their prospects and fearful that the forces of globalization and digitization have left them behind. I also recognize many are frustrated by politics and feel we need an outsider to shake things up. But I don’t think Trump is the answer, for those people or for the country.
I don’t agree with everything Clinton has said and done. I take issue with some aspects of her platform, and I worry about her inclination to all too often view the government as the solution to problems. If she becomes president, I’m sure there will be plenty of times I will disagree with her. But for 2016, I believe Hillary Clinton represents the best choice for the United States — and our best hope to remain the most innovative and entrepreneurial nation in the world. Read more
By Steve Case September 28
Steve Case, a co-founder of America Online, is chairman and chief executive of Revolution and author of “The Third Wave: An Entrepreneur’s Vision of the Future.”
I’ve been involved in policy for three decades, since AOL played a pivotal role in getting the nation online in the early days of the Internet. Initially, my focus was on commercializing the Internet, expanding access and putting appropriate rules of the road in place. In the past decade, my focus shifted to encouraging pro-growth policies that foster innovation, generate jobs, help start-ups and create opportunity. I was proud to work with a Democratic president and a Republican House to help get the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act passed four years ago, and I have spent countless hours meeting with members of both parties on immigration reform, patent reform and pro-start-up economic ideas.
Despite my active engagement on policy, however, I’ve tried to steer clear of politics. I’ve avoided endorsing candidates or making big contributions to campaigns. I’ve wanted to be nonpartisan, able to work with people on both sides of the aisle. Indeed, I’ve been troubled by the hyper-partisanship that has defined our politics of late, and by the resulting gridlock that has set in. The United States faces many challenges, but in my view our greatest threat may not be external forces but rather our inability to work together to move our country forward.
So my inclination is to continue to stay out of politics and continue to quietly build working relationships with both Republicans and Democrats. I’d prefer to be positioned as a builder of bridges and consensus.
But I’ve decided to make an exception this election. I have concluded that I cannot sit on the sidelines this year. At this pivotal time, the choice is too important.
I’ve decided to back Hillary Clinton for president for four reasons.
First, I think she’d be better for our economy, especially with respect to innovative technology and start-ups. Donald Trump knows business, but his campaign has been backward-looking on the economy and oddly absent of ideas to spur creation of the jobs of the future. Clinton understands what we need to help start businesses and will invest in education, advanced manufacturing and basic research. She’s not promising a return to a bygone era — she’s focused on making our economy strong for our children and their children. These forward-leaning policies are essential to ensure continued U.S. economic leadership.
Second, Clinton is right on immigration. To win in the global economy, our country must win the global battle for talent. Immigrants don’t take U.S. jobs; they create them. More than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or their children: Think how many fewer jobs we’d have in the United States if these entrepreneurs and their parents had been kept out by a wall. Trump’s harsh policies will cost us jobs, and his even harsher rhetoric will chase away immigrant families whose children could grow up to be the next Steve Jobs(whose father was a Syrian refugee) or Sergey Brin (an immigrant himself).
Third, while Trump has been largely silent on technology issues facing the new economy, Clinton has put forward an agenda that has won considerable acclaim among technology leaders. She wants to appoint a chief innovation adviser, expand science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, education and more. And she shares my view that it’s not enough to support a booming Silicon Valley — we need policies that promote the “rise of the rest”: a spread of start-ups to all parts of our country. We need to level the playing field so anybody, anywhere, has a shot at the American dream.
Fourth, I agree with Clinton on the need to control the deficit. Despite his populist rhetoric, Trump wants to give huge tax breaks to people like me, the very folks who have benefited greatly from the innovation economy, while many others have been left behind. In the process he would blow up our deficit and make the economy more unequal. I agree we need to simplify the tax code, but if we are going to give tax relief, let’s make sure it is in incentives for start-ups to grow and create jobs.
I think I get why Trump has been such a potent political force this year. I am well aware that millions of people are angry about their prospects and fearful that the forces of globalization and digitization have left them behind. I also recognize many are frustrated by politics and feel we need an outsider to shake things up. But I don’t think Trump is the answer, for those people or for the country.
I don’t agree with everything Clinton has said and done. I take issue with some aspects of her platform, and I worry about her inclination to all too often view the government as the solution to problems. If she becomes president, I’m sure there will be plenty of times I will disagree with her. But for 2016, I believe Hillary Clinton represents the best choice for the United States — and our best hope to remain the most innovative and entrepreneurial nation in the world. Read more
