Politicians are trying to deceive you. Modern (American) politics is essentially a game in which politicians say and do whatever they possibly can to persuade people that they are an ideal leader deserving of a vote. But you already know that. Hopefully. Most of us are pretty cynical about politics and straight-up expect politicians to lie to us. We understand that posturing, over-promising, tricky rhetoric, and psychological manipulation are par for the course in the political arena. Interestingly, though, I’ve been hearing some claims regarding the current presidential race that contradict the typical cynicism with which most people view political candidates. Specifically, I’ve heard many people expressing the belief that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are refreshingly different from typical political candidates. Why? Because they say what they really feel and think, supposedly. They aren’t just talking heads. They’re real people who will let their real views and ideas be known, for better or worse. That might be true, to some extent. Trump and Sanders might be more authentic than most politicians (which wouldn’t take much). It’s almost impossible to say. But even if they are, make no mistake: They are still playing the game like everyone else. I’m not saying anything about their merits as candidates or people, and I’m not making any kind of moral judgment. I’m just saying that they too are posturing, over-promising, and employing tricky rhetoric and psychological tactics to win over their audiences. Don’t think for a second that they’re not. No one would have a prayer of winning a presidential race without doing those things. But people are viewing them as utterly genuine. People are taking them at face value. Sanders has this effect on people because he’s so fiercely passionate about the issues. I actually believe he sincerely cares about the things he wants to change, and so he exudes an earnestness while speaking that captivates many people, especially people in my generation. Nonetheless, I assure you that Sanders is self-aware of his grandiose, fiery style and his calls for revolution. He knows he’s over-promising, and he’s consciously trying to create a tsunami of unrealistically high hope for a better world and ride that wave into the White House, like Obama did. It’s a good strategy, though if he gets elected, many people will probably be upset when the revolution doesn’t arrive, when the billionaire class continues to exist, and when big money continues to influence politics.¹ Trump, on the other hand, is perceived as honest because he says and does so many ludicrous things, compared to traditional candidates. Trump’s behavior is so ridiculous that people can’t fathom that most of it could be an act, a strategy, a role he’s learned to play. But it is. And whereas Bernie is trying to ride a wave of hope into the White House, Trump is trying to ride a wave of fear and anger. Trump’s appeal is downright frightening because we are at a rather precarious moment in the history of the United States and the history of the world. The planet is filled with nuclear warheads; environmental crises are occurring/looming; the largest refugee crisis since World War II is taking place. The 21st century is a time in which the countries of the world need more than ever to cooperate with one another, consider a global perspective, and devise strategies that will make the human enterprise sustainable through the 21st century and hopefully far beyond. But Trump isn’t much of a cooperator. He’s explicitly stated that he wants to build a wall around much of the United States, and he’s made comments that reveal a frighteningly uncritical and violent approach to international relations (on ISIS: “I would bomb the shit out of ’em,” and “ … you have to take out their families.”). From my vantage point, a leader like Trump is more likely to help bring about World War III than a more sustainable, equitable, and unified human enterprise.² Many people don’t see it this way, though. Many believe that Trump’s aggressive and America-centric approach to politics will be our saving grace. This may have something to do with the hypothesized psychological divide between people who lean Left versus people who lean Right. Some fascinating studies have suggested that there are neurobiological differences between liberals and conservatives. One study found, for instance, that conservatives tend to respond to threatening situations with more aggression than liberals. If one wanted to appeal to conservative-minded people, it follows then that one could paint a picture of the world as One Giant Threat to America and propose an extremely aggressive plan to ameliorate the situation. As we’ll see, Donald Trump is a master of this persuasive tactic. He’s a master of a number of other tactics as well, and the cumulative effect of these tactics is that he’s gone from being considered a joke candidate to having a decent chance of becoming the next leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world. Let’s take a closer look at the various tactics Trump has used to climb into his present position. The following points were gathered primarily from two YouTube videos³ created by Charlie Houpert, which provide an excellent analysis of Trump’s various psychological strategies. You’ll find the videos embedded at the bottom of this article, if you’d like to watch them, but that isn’t necessary, as I’ll thoroughly summarize the 12 strategies they discuss. Trump has said, “You’re going to have more World Trade Centers. It’s going to get worse and worse, folks,” and “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re bringing drugs; they’re bringing crime; they’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” These are blatant instances of fear-mongering. Trump deliberately hones in on frightening statistical rarities — terrorist attacks against the US and immigrants who are dangerous rapists — and acts like they’ve become the norm. Violence has actually declined over recent decades and centuries, but Trump makes it seem like the opposite has happened. Why does he do this? Charlie Houpert, the creator of the videos I mentioned, explains it well: “Fear is an incredibly powerful emotion. It captures our attention like no other emotion can. We focus intensely on the thing that is giving us that fear. Secondly, it shuts down higher thinking. When we’re terrified by a bump in the night, we don’t focus on the probability that it’s just the wind. Our critical thinking skills dip as we focus solely on protecting ourselves. Thirdly, it feels crappy, so the fastest way to get out of fear and move toward a powerful emotion is to move into anger.” Major news outlets portray the world as a terrifying place because doing so captures people’s attention. Trump is doing the same thing. Fear ensnares our attention like nothing else can, while simultaneously short-circuiting our higher cognitive functioning. This is unsettling because our natural response to fear is to escape or destroy whatever is threatening us as quickly as possible. It is quite natural for humans to cope with fear by becoming angry and aggressive. Trump fuels this fire of fear-driven rage and hostility as much as he possibly can and directs it toward non-American outgroups. He says things like “China is taking our jobs; they’re taking our money,” and “Syrians are now being caught at the Southern border; we don’t know who they are; could be ISIS.” He sets up false dichotomies between the interests of Americans and the interests of other humans of the world, such that if you disagree with him, you appear to be anti-American. This leaves many credulous viewers with one obvious response: to be an angry, aggressive, Trump-supporting American who views the rest of the world with suspicion and aggression! This potent combination of fear-, anger-, and aggression-mongering then sets Trump up for one of his most effective lies: that he is the only big, strong man tough enough to do what needs to be done to kick everyone else’s ass and “make America great again.” Trump makes unrealistic claims such as “No one else will keep you safe,” and “No one is going to mess with us.” He presents himself as the most dominant and strongest-willed candidate — the only candidate capable of returning the US to its rightful position as Imminent, Dominant Global Superpower. But again, do we need America to dominate other countries/entities at this point in history? It’s likely that some amount of military action is advisable, as certain groups (e.g. ISIS) are committing brutal crimes against innocent people. However, if one looks at the bigger picture, it becomes clear that cooperation rather than conflict must become the rule in the human enterprise, if the human species is to persist into the deep future. On a planet now laced with nuclear warheads, unbounded aggression is no longer an option. And in a biosphere facing various environmental crises, our species must recognize the collective goal of devising sustainable systems to avert catastrophe. But, as I mentioned earlier, research has suggested that conservative-minded people respond more aggressively to threatening situations than liberal-minded people. Instinctively aggressive people respond favorably to Trump’s call for a return to an Ultra-Dominant America. That some people are more instinctively aggressive than others is not a “bad” thing. Clearly, this arrangement was beneficial in our primal past, or we would not have evolved this way. However, we don’t live in the world of our distant ancestors anymore. We live in a world in which excessive aggression/conflict is a potential threat to the entire biosphere and all sentient life. Thus, we need leaders who are capable of taking calculated aggressive measures after a thorough analysis of all available courses of action, not leaders whose default response to problematic circumstances is to use hyper-aggressive military force, as Trump wishes to do. The world is a damn complex and ambiguous place, but admitting this reality is not a good political strategy. It’s much more effective to paint the world as a simple place where things are either X or not-X. To do so is to commit the ‘false dilemma’ fallacy. A quintessential example is a much-cited statement made by George W. Bush in 2001: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” It comforts people to tell them that things must be either this or that because it makes them feel that they understand the insanely complex bramble of global affairs that no individual human actually understands en toto. Trump is brilliant at reducing the complexity of the world to black-and-white narratives. One of his favorites is the narrative of Winners vs Losers. In Trump’s story, America has been unambiguously losing in recent memory; America is becoming a perma-loser before our eyes, and we’re just getting used to it. Of course, with Trump as president, America is going to start winning again in all regards. “We’re going to start winning so much that you’re going to get used to winning instead of getting used to losing,” he has said. Does it even make sense to conceive of individual countries as “winners” or “losers” in a world where the future of our entire species and all life on Earth is potentially at stake? Probably not. Yet Trump’s black-and-white narrative appeals to our desire for simple, digestible stories and our American hyper-competitiveness. And again, when people are afraid and angry, they are primed to accept whatever convenient narrative promises to allow them to escape their fear, and thus the absurdly vague and reductive America is Going to Start Winning So Much Again That We’ll Have Nothing to Worry About story begins to seem quite alluring indeed. One downside of portraying yourself as the Big Strong Man is that there will still always be situations in which someone gets the best of you, making you appear foolish or weak. Donald Trump has found himself in this situation on a number of occasions. One of the most notable was a situation in which Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly confronted Trump about past comments in which Trump had called women he disliked “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.” This question was a potential landmine for Trump, but he interrupted Megyn Kelly halfway through her question by saying, “Only Rosie O’Donnell.” This comment caused an uproar of laughter in the audience and all but derailed the inquiry into Trump’s juvenile and dehumanizing remarks. Trump has perfected this strategy of deflecting potential threats through the use of humor. As Charlie Houpert put it: “So that is the power of laughter. It is a pattern interrupt[ion]. You can’t stay booing and upset and angry when somebody makes you uncontrollably laugh. It also makes you more receptive to whatever comes next that somebody has to say because they’ve already started to lead you emotionally. So what Donald Trump is doing is using laughter to take control of situations where he’s starting to lose control. And what that does for him is it effectively helps him dodge any points that you make against him because he can almost erase them with a laughing crowd.“ Humor isn’t Trump’s only strategy for avoiding discussion of some of the more contentious issues in his record. Another favorite strategy of his is to simply act superior to all opponents and criticisms. In one of the GOP debates, Jeb Bush attempted to point out that Donald Trump had completely changed his stance on ISIS in a matter of two months. As Jeb was saying this, Trump didn’t even pay him the courtesy of looking in his direction. Instead, he looked only at the audience with an expression of disbelief and disgust that said, “Who is this guy?” This maneuver indicates to the audience that Bush’s attack is ridiculous, laughable, not even worthy of attention, allowing Trump to bypass any sort of rational discussion. By contrast, when Trump attacked Bush, Bush looked directly at Trump with an expression of distress and disconcertedness, playing perfectly into Trump’s game. Jeb appeared to be something of a confused and insecure novice looking to Big Daddy Trump for answers. This point is related to the previous two, but it deserves emphasis. Trump’s power plays — whether making jokes in the face of criticism or acting superior to other candidates — are all aimed at making him appear as the leader of a game in which everyone else is merely a player. In social dynamics, this is referred to as “frame control.” Trump frames every interaction as if he is unquestionably superior to those around him, as if everyone else is in his world. When it comes to politics, whichever politician has the strongest and most unflinching frame will make that frame a perceived reality. And Trump is very good at unflinchingly selling his frame. As a billionaire, thick-skinned businessman, he’s been practicing this tactic for decades. Combine this with his fear-mongering, anger-mongering, and presenting himself as the One Great Strong Solution to Loser America, and you’ve got a potent combination of factors coming together to make Donald Trump appear to be an untouchable, iron-willed leader in comparison to his opponents. Another of Trump’s favorite tactics (and another form of frame control) is to trap other candidates in double-bind situations. Essentially, this means that he puts them in positions where it doesn’t matter what they say or how they react to him — however they respond, he will come out looking better and they will come out looking worse. Charlie Houpert cites the example of Trump taunting Jeb Bush about having low energy during one of the GOP debates. Trump says, “I know you’re trying to build up your energy, Jeb, but it’s not working.” In the face of such a statement, Jeb Bush has two options: to try to ratchet his energy up or keep it where it is/take it down a notch. If he chooses the former, he appears to be reacting to Trump, making Trump look like he’s in control. If he chooses the latter, he remains low-energy and Trump can just steamroll him throughout the debate. It’s a lose-lose situation for Jeb Bush, and this is the power of a double-bind. Donald Trump repeats emotionally provocative words like “strong” and “win” over and over and over. The second of Charlie Houpert’s videos shows one absurd clip in which Trump manages to say the word “win” 12 times in about 15 seconds. This tactic subtly conditions people to associate strength and victory with the Trump campaign. You might think that this tactic is silly or would only be effective on unintelligent people, but you’d be wrong. There’s a reason large companies pour millions of dollars into ad campaigns with catchy taglines and jingles: through sheer repetition, certain associations become embedded in the mind, if only on an unconscious level. Watch the documentary Century of the Self sometime if you don’t believe me. Trump loves to hammer social proof. He repeats over and over and over that he’s ahead in the polls or that people agree he won a particular debate. As social creatures, we have a distinct and sometimes malignant tendency to do and believe whatever we think everyone else is doing and believing. Trump understands the importance of this fact, and so at every turn, he acts as if he has an army of people behind him. Trump is also very careful to avoid negative social proof. For instance, at one point Trump appeared on the O’Reilly Factor, and Bill O’Reilly suggested that people had seen Trump as a “buffoon” when he first announced his campaign. Trump outright rejected this statement, acted as if it was outrageous, and assured the audience that people did not feel that way. He was very deliberate and forceful about this because he knows that what people think other people think is one of the most potent forces driving human belief and behavior. His decades in business almost certainly ingrained that lesson into his mind. Trump loves to assert that authority figures approve of him and disapprove of other candidates. The second video of Charlie Houpert’s cites Trump saying, “Larry Kudlow likes my tax plan,” and “Experts wonder if Cruz can run the US because he was born in Canada.” Trump understands that especially in our uncertain postmodern world with its endless sources of competing information, people look to experts to form their opinions. There is also a cognitive bias known as the Asch effect that is relevant here. From Wikipedia: “In repeated and modified instances of the Asch conformity experiments, it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect. So not only do we tend to feel pressure to conform with the herd, but we also feel pressure to agree with high-status individuals. Here’s an off-the-cuff armchair-evolutionary-psych explanation for this phenomenon: When our ancestors lived as bands of hunter-gatherers, it was beneficial to have an extraordinary level of cohesion of belief and action in a given tribe; it was often a matter of life or death. Thus, tribes in which people unquestioningly accepted the worldview passed on by wise elders and readily conformed to the herd mentality would be more likely to survive. Anyway, for whatever reason, we’re much more likely to believe something if an authority figure or expert tells us it’s true. Trump understands this and takes advantage of it at every turn. This might come as a surprise, but humans actually suck at making rational decisions and are much more likely to make emotion-driven decisions. This is a great thing a lot of the time because in many areas of life, our emotions and feelings are excellent indicators of an appropriate course of action. But when it comes to choosing the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world, it might be a bad idea to vote for a guy because his smile gives you the warm fuzzies. Unfortunately, it’s damn difficult for humans to use rationality, especially if they haven’t been trained to think critically or haven’t researched the various cognitive biases that result in inaccurate thinking. Donald Trump knows that most people make their decisions on the basis of emotion rather than reason. He also knows that there are certain methods of manipulating people’s emotions to get them to do what you want. Most all of the items on this list — from fear-/anger-mongering and deflection via humor to repetition, social proof, and appeal to authority — are effective methods of making people feel very confident about a position, despite the fact that they haven’t considered any statistical evidence or rational arguments. Donald Trump understands this, and that’s why you’ll never see him engaging in a rational discussion of the issues or of the criticisms levied against him. When challenged to do so, Trump will deflect via humor, appeal to vague authorities or social proof, or utilize some sort of half-relevant anecdote to appeal to emotion and distract from his shortcomings. As I said before, Donald Trump isn’t the only one playing the manipulation game. Other candidates also understand that people are emotional creatures, and any candidate who wants to have a chance of winning must use some or all of these tactics. Such is the nature of American democracy in 2016. What’s frightening about Trump is that he’s so damn good at playing this game. He’s spent decades learning the subtle art of being a dominant social presence and persuading people to do what he wants them to do. His actual values and ideas could be egregiously ill-conceived. Hell, they could be a recipe for World War III. But because he’s such a talented hypnotist politician, his actual values and ideas don’t matter that much. If he wins the race, it will be because he effectively encouraged and harnessed the fear, anger, and emotion-driven decision-making of a large portion of the American public. Personally, I would prefer not to find out what happens to America after electing one of the most effective fear- and anger-mongers since, uh, Adolf Hitler. I would prefer not to find out if a man who has spent the last 30 years plastering his name on everything he could put his name on gives two shits about the interests of most Americans. I would prefer not to find out if a businessman with no political experience is prepared to approach the challenges of the presidency with wisdom and acumen. I would prefer not to find out if Trump’s hard-ass, violence-friendly approach to political problems is as dangerous for planet Earth as I think it is. If you found this article educational or important in any way, please pass it on to your friends. 1. Don’t get me wrong: I like Bernie and would likely vote for him if he were to get the nomination. All I’m saying is that he’s playing the game too, and that in reality, he had no choice but to play the game if he wanted to have any chance of winning. 2. One could also argue that an extremely passive or pacifistic US President could inadvertently cause a World-War-III situation by failing to take action to neutralize dangerous groups or leaders who are gaining power. Some argue that this is essentially what happened pre-World War II. My view is that we need leaders who are capable of taking aggressive measures after a thorough analysis of all available courses of action, not leaders whose default response to problematic circumstances is to use hyper-aggressive military force. 3. The two outstanding videos that inspired this post and provided many of the insights: Start your journey now


During the 1950s “Red Scare,” innocent Americans were smeared and sometimes blacklisted for being supposed Communists. Real subversives existed, including Alger Hiss, a traitor and Soviet spy whom liberals – to their misfortune – made into a poster boy of McCarthyism. But the actual number of Communists was tiny and utterly not commensurate with the fervent public witch hunt led by right-wingers. Today’s group hysteria comes from the left, as a fanatic political mob sees racists behind every door. Their paranoia is not harmless, as they use the racist bogeyman to intimidate political adversaries – and sometimes erstwhile friends – while seeking to silence political dialogue. As with the Red Scare, there’s some reason for vigilance regarding actual racists, as Charlottesville reminded us. But as with the hunt for Communists under every bed, the scare tactics far outweigh the actual problem. The New McCarthyism revealed its full absurdity this week via the ACLU’s Twitter stream, which had the temerity to post a picture of an adorable young toddler holding an American flag and a doll with the tag line “This is the future that ACLU members want.” Because the girl (TRIGGER WARNING: I assume it’s a girl, given the doll) happens to be blonde and Caucasian, the ACLU was promptly attacked – the ACLU! Immediately the politically correct rage mob commenced a digital protest led by credentialed injustice professionals such as Professor Nyasha Junior of Temple University who posted, “A white kid with a flag?!” Yes, Professor. In much of America outside of your faculty lounge, young American children waving Old Glory warms the heart and makes us smile rather than prompt thoughts of white supremacy lurking under the sheets. Did the ACLU, a group once known for taking brave and unpopular stands, hold its ground or, better yet, simply ignore the online rabble? Sadly, no. The organization shortly responded with a Kermit the Frog image saying “That’s a very good point” and the post “When your followers keep you in check and remind you that white supremacy is everywhere.” Come again? This lovely young kid holding a flag equals “white supremacy”? Who even thinks of such things? Answer: the diversity hustlers. Shame on the ACLU, which apparently should have posted a picture of a gender-fluid dark-skinned child, holding a rainbow flag, perhaps with a COEXIST sticker on [gender-neutral pronoun] wheelchair. This is not merely social-media silliness. It’s not even lunacy, although it certainly seems insane. This is a weapon used cynically and viciously -- little girls are apparently acceptable collateral damage -- by the left to isolate and demonize opponents, and particularly President Trump and his supporters. As MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch said of Trump: “He is a racist -- can we just say it once and for all?” Such accusations are not rare. If I had a dollar for every time the mainstream media accused Trump and his voters of racism, I’d be about as rich as the recent Powerball winner. As a Hispanic, I believe that people of color, for far too long, have been taken for granted by the Democratic Party. I also believe that the Trump movement represents real policy solutions for the woes of poverty and violence that burden too many African-American and Latino citizens. But the digital rage mob holds people like me in particular contempt, as I saw during the 2016 campaign in the form of a constant stream of online slurs. Yes, today’s liberals are quick to use racism’s terms when it suits their purposes, calling me a “coconut” (brown on the outside, white on the inside) and “Tio Tomas” (Uncle Tom in Spanish). One of the main reasons America has succeeded as a country lies is our rejection of the tribalism that afflicts and paralyzes so much of the world. America is an idea, and one open to all who embrace it, regardless of skin color, heritage, or religion. To be sure, America must own the racist sins of our history. Thankfully, such systemic racism is just that, history – as evidenced by electing twice to our highest office an African-American man with a decidedly un-European name. Instead of allowing a new scourge, this Racist Scare, to corrode our discourse, we must embrace our common American identity, rooted in our best traditions and elucidated in our founding documents. We should be difficult to offend and slow to accuse others of the disease of prejudice. As the incumbent president of the United States explained in his inaugural address seven months ago: “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for bigotry.” Amen. Steve Cortes, a contributor to RealClearPolitics and Fox News, is the national spokesman for the Hispanic 100, an organization that promotes Latino leadership by advancing free enterprise principles. His Twitter handle is @CortesSteve.


Before Democrats burn James Comey in effigy, they should think about how the FBI director came to have an outsized influence in the election in the first place. It’s not something Comey sought or welcomed. A law enforcement official who prizes his reputation, he didn’t relish becoming a hate figure for half the country or more. No, the only reason that Comey figures in the election at all is that Democrats knowingly nominated someone under FBI investigation. Once upon a time — namely any presidential election prior to this one — this enormous political and legal vulnerability would have disqualified a candidate. Not this year, and not in the case of Hillary Clinton. The country has clearly lowered its standards in this election, and Donald Trump’s madcap candidacy provides evidence of that almost every day. But Hillary’s nomination was itself an offense against American political norms and an incredibly reckless act. And the Democrats were supposed to be the party acting rationally. Clinton effectively locked up the nomination in June and wasn’t cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the FBI until July. What if she had been indicted? Would Democrats have run her anyway? Would they have substituted in a 74-year-old socialist who had lost the nomination battle, or someone else who hadn’t even run? Any of these circumstances would have been unprecedented, but Democrats risked it. They did it, in part, because they could never bring themselves to fully acknowledge the seriousness of the email scandal and, relatedly, the ethical miasma around the Clinton Foundation. They considered it all another desperate trick of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Clinton henchman David Brock demanded that the New York Times retract its initial report of Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email account in March 2015. A parade of Democratic operatives pooh-poohed the whole thing, from Clinton spokesman Karen Finney (“a politically motivated series of attacks”) to James Carville (“not going to amount to a hill of beans”) to Howard Dean (“hooey”). When they first got on a debate stage together last October, Bernie Sanders, the only man who had a chance to stop Clinton, pleased the crowd with a ringing denunciation of interest in her emails. Democrats bought the just-so stories offered up by the Clinton campaign. The FBI investigation was just a “security review.” The FBI wasn’t investigating Hillary, but only her server. Anything to deflect from the seriousness of the matter. While Democrats willfully looked the other way, they put Comey in an impossible position. An indictment would change the course of American history. That was all on him. He ultimately blinked. But he also put on the record the recklessness of Clinton’s practices as secretary of state in an attempt to create public accountability. Comey’s conduct is open to criticism, but there’s no way to please everyone when handling a case with such high political stakes. His notification to Congress last weekend is another case in point. All that can be said is that if Democrats didn’t want the FBI to have any part in the election, they could’ve considered that before nominating Clinton. Trump may be a deeply flawed candidate, but he caught a wave of popular fervor; Hillary, with her astonishing vulnerabilities, is a production of the Democratic elites who did everything to get her over the finish line. Just how vulnerable is she? If it weren’t for the new trove of Huma Abedin emails, the blockbuster news this week would come via a Wall Street Journal report that the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation — although Fox News reported the same thing at the beginning of the year, and Hillary, of course, dismissed it as an “unsourced and irresponsible claim that has no basis.” The email scandal and Clinton Foundation will dog Hillary until Election Day and, should she win, into her presidency. For this, she has no one to blame but herself — and her irresponsible enablers.


Former Dawson’s Creek star James Van Der Beek is joining Terry Crews in admitting he has experienced sexual harassment as a man in Hollywood. Van Der Beek added his voice to the chorus of men and women condemning disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, in the wake of numerous sexual misconduct allegations. “What Weinstein is being accused of is criminal. What he’s admitted to is unacceptable — in any industry. I applaud everybody speaking out,” Van Der Beek wrote on Twitter before revealing his own experience with sexual harassment. “I’ve had my ass grabbed by older, powerful men, I’ve had them corner me in inappropriate sexual conversations when I was much younger,” he wrote. “I understand the unwarranted shame, powerlessness & inability to blow the whistle. There’s a power dynamic that feels impossible to overcome.” See his tweets below. This week, in the wake of the Weinstein scandal, Crews also revealed via Twitter that he was groped in the past by an unnamed Hollywood executive. “This whole thing with Harvey Weinstein is giving me PTSD,” Crews wrote before explaining he was targeted last year by a “high-level Hollywood executive” who “groped my privates.” “I understand and empathize with those who have remained silent. But Harvey Weinstein is not the only perpetrator,” Crews wrote. “Hollywood is not the only business [where] this happens, and to the casualties of this behavior — you are not alone. Hopefully, me coming forward with my story will deter a predator and encourage someone who feels hopeless.” Weinstein has been accused of sexual misconduct by numerous women, including Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, Rosanna Arquette, Cara Delevingne, and more. In a statement to The New Yorker, which detailed numerous allegations — including claims made by actress and filmmaker Asia Argento that Weinstein raped her by forcibly performing oral sex on her — the producer “unequivocally denied” allegations of non-consensual sex. The statement, released by his representative, continued, “Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances. Mr. Weinstein obviously can’t speak to anonymous allegations, but with respect to any women who have made allegations on the record, Mr. Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual. Mr. Weinstein has begun counseling, has listened to the community and is pursuing a better path. Mr. Weinstein is hoping that, if he makes enough progress, he will be given a second chance.”


In recent months, late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel has taken to scaremongering his audience with well-worn Democratic Party talking points regarding health care insurance policy. Between yuks, he occasionally accuses Republicans of being would-be baby killers, which is treated as an important political development because, well, Jimmy Kimmel is famous. This week, the comedian was back to explain why the new Graham-Cassidy Republican "repeal" bill is bad news. There were only two things wrong with his monologue: Almost everything he said was either completely untrue or highly misleading, and his simplistic emotional appeal was completely disconnected from the real world. The comedian's interest in policy was sparked by the harrowing experience of having a newborn son who suffered from a rare health condition. Thankfully, his boy is OK. "If your baby is going to die and it doesn't have to, it shouldn't matter how much money you make," said an emotional Kimmel in May. "I think that's something that, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat or something else, we all agree on that, right?" Yes, everyone agrees. As far as I know, there isn't a single politician in America who has ever supported allowing babies to die because they are born with birth defects, even if the parents can't pay. Not pre-Obamacare, and not post-Obamacare. In any event, after Kimmel's May rant, Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy showed up on his show to explain his position. These types of culture encounters shouldn't be dismissed, because the fact is most viewers are unaware of specific policies and have a notional understanding that's prejudiced by the establishment media's coverage. Cassidy came up with something he called the "Jimmy Kimmel Test," a test that no "family should be denied medical care, emergency or otherwise, because they can't afford it." Kimmel claims that the new bill doesn't meet this threshold. "This guy, Bill Cassidy, just lied right to my face," the talk-show host said on Tuesday night during an extended political rant. He went on to say, "And by the way, before you post a nasty Facebook message saying I'm politicizing my son's health problems, I want you to know: I am politicizing my son's health problems." OK. He explained: "Coverage for all? No. Fact, it will kick about 30 million Americans off insurance." Not a single person would be "kicked off" his or her insurance. Rather, the Congressional Budget Office review of the AHCA found that of the 24 million Americans who would no longer have health insurance after an Obamacare repeal, 14 million would choose not to buy insurance in 2018 in the absence of a penalty. And if Obamacare were not repealed, the CBO projects another 6 million people would voluntarily leave the Obamacare markets. Now, if you don't believe Americans should be afforded the choice to leave or not buy insurance, just say that. No one is being kicked off. Moreover, if Kimmel supports the individual mandate, Graham-Cassidy allows California to institute it -- as I am sure it would. Kimmel says: "Pre-existing conditions? Nope. If the bill passes, individual states can let insurance companies charge more if you have a pre-existing condition." States would be allowed to apply for waivers to change what qualifies as an essential health benefit as long as they still preserve "adequate and affordable health insurance coverage" for people with pre-existing conditions. You may prefer price fixing to allowing states flexibility to try and fix these problems, but Graham-Cassidy does not break the "Jimmy Kimmel Test." Kimmel might not be aware that there is no plan in place that has government cutting checks after every surgery. Kimmel then implored his audience to call Cassidy to stop the imaginary bill he had just described. It's a shame that Kimmel didn't provide a number to call for the tens of millions of Americans who have seen their premiums and out-of-pocket costs skyrocket under Obamacare's strictures. Is there no number available for those who are sick of being in exchanges that coerce them to buy plans they don't need that are sold by companies they don't like in fabricated, noncompetitive "markets" with dwindling choices? Anyway, so went a monologue that could have been written by any liberal activist. Which is to say it was all about cheap zero-sum emotionalism. Kimmel doesn't believe Americans deserve the chance to reduce the cost of health care with market-based reforms on the state level, or in giving states any flexibility in catering their plans to their own citizens. Kimmel believes California and New York should spend more per capita and smaller states should suffer. Kimmel doesn't believe that individuals and families should be allowed to contribute to health savings accounts or use them to help pay ever-growing insurance premiums. Kimmel wants average Americans to suffer. You see? Anyone can play this game. COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM


Donald Trump reported raising $100 million for his presidential campaign and the Republican party in September, a number that trails far behind Hillary Clinton’s fundraising haul in the same month. Trump’s campaign sent a statement Saturday announcing its “new fundraising record,” which will fill the coffers for his presidential bid as well as the joint efforts of the Republican National Committee, and various state GOP parties. The campaign said Trump himself contributed $2 million of that total. In total, the campaign and its affiliated joint fundraising committees finished September with approximately $75 million cash on hand. “These numbers show that Donald Trump continues to have incredible broad based support from across America,” Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s finance chairman. But Trump’s campaign apparatus is playing a catch-up game compared to Hillary Clinton’s behemoth fundraising efforts, which drew in more than $154 million for her campaign and the Democratic Party in September alone. HFA, along with the campaign’s other joint fundraising committees, began the month of October with a combined $150 million cash on hand. And when it comes to advertising, the numbers in the final stretch of the campaign continue the election-cycle trend of Clinton outspending Trump. Bloomberg reports that Clinton and various super PACs supporting the Democratic nominee have booked ads through election day with buys totaling $78.3 million. The amount is more than twice what Trump and his super PAC backers have scheduled -- $50 million, according to Kantar Media.


The National Hurricane Centre (NHC) said the hurricane is bringing “devastating” storm surge, extreme winds and heavy rains” to extensive parts of Florida. “Extremely dangerous hurricane Matthew heading for Florida,” the NHC warned last night. “If you are one of ~1.5 million people in Florida under evacuation instructions, leave those storm surge areas and mobile homes now!” The latest map, from the NHC, shows that the eye of the hurricane is travelling along the coast of Florida towards Georgia and the Carolinas. It is not yet known if the hurricane will go back out to sea after passing Florida but before reaching the other states further north. The governors of Florida, Goergia the Carolinas have declared a state of emergency amid fears that the storm could wreak havoc on today. It added that just a “small deviation” off track could bring the major onshore with terrible consequences. A Hurricane Warning is in effect along the East Coast from Florida to South Carolina. A Hurricane Watch alert is also affecting parts of North Carolina. It added: “Although strong winds and heavy rain are being experienced, the eye and thus the strongest winds are currently remaining just offshore. “Hurricane force winds are very close to the coast of Florida and the outer eyewall of Matthew is touching Cape Canaveral. A wind gust of 107 mph was recently recorded.” “When a hurricane is forecast to track roughly parallel to a coastline - as Matthew is forecast to go from Florida through South Carolina - it becomes very difficult to estimate the impacts this far in advance,” the NHC added. The Met Office said: "It is likely the eye of Hurricane Matthew will pass very close to the entire eastern coastline of the US state on Friday. "Over the weekend it is expected that Matthew will weaken and turn north and northeast and affect the coastal areas of Georgia and the Carolinas. "However, this is the point at which uncertainty grows in forecasts. "It is looking increasingly likely that later in the weekend Matthew will turn out to sea, but the timing of this cannot be stated with certainty. "Thus it is unclear how far north along the US coast will see impacts from Matthew." Met Office tropical prediction scientist Julian Heming explained that there are differences between the models that track the “very oblique” path of the hurricane towards the US. A full evacuation has been announced in South Carolina after Hurricane Matthew tore its way through the Caribbean. A state of emergency has been declared across the whole state of South Carolina and 1.1million people are set to be evacuated across the state. South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley urged communities along to coast to evacuate at least 100 miles away and fill their cars full of gas before they set off on their journeys. A NHC spokesman said the eye of the hurricane looks "like it's going to impact the Carolinas" at the end of the week or over the weekend. North Carolina’s Governor Pat McCrory has declared a state of emergency in 66 counties in central and eastern North Carolina. Parts of North Carolina have been evacuated. Mr McCrory also called on farmers to harvest their crops as soon as possible to prevent devastating flood damage if the hurricane hits. “We want to have everything in place early prior to the potential of an earthquake hitting North Carolina,” he said. “I’m hoping this is a false alarm but we can’t gamble - we won’t gamble - with people’s lives.” Large swathes of Georgia have been evacuated and there is a state of emergency in place. But Georgia might be spared if the eye of the hurricane goes back out to sea before reaching the state. Mr Heming warned that the hurricane was approaching the US at an oblique angle which means that "small shifts can make a big difference". Even if the eye of the hurricane does not hit Georgia, there will be strong winds, rain, rip currents and dangerous conditions at sea. Matthew has been downgraded from category four to category three but it remains extremely powerful. Tue, October 4, 2016


Early this year, Donald Trump made the seemingly audacious suggestion that Hillary Clinton was somehow responsible for Bill Clinton's infidelities. Trump called her an "enabler" and said she "attacked the women who Bill Clinton mistreated afterward." In typical Trump fashion, the comment was designed to get attention. Mrs Clinton has been a champion of family issues and women's rights throughout her career, so the idea that she was the enabler of someone Mr Trump has called "the greatest abuser of women in the history of politics," appeared outrageous. And yet, something resonated in Mr Trump's description of Hillary. There was a kernel of truth to his claim and now it is hurting Mrs Clinton with young female voters. The New York Times today has a long article outlining Mrs Clinton's role in the political handling of her husband's sexual affairs. It's pretty damning, and for Clinton's supporters it must make unpleasant reading. Anyone with an iota of empathy, of course, sympathises with what Hillary Clinton went through during the Lewinsky scandal. I was here and covered the story. It was grim, and the image of Chelsea steadfastly holding both parents hands as they walked, heads slightly bowed, to the helicopter on their way to that summer holiday in Martha's Vineyard will stick with me as one of the more poignant family portraits ever taken. Dealing with a spouse's unfaithfulness is traumatic in private. It must be an even deeper circle of Hell when splashed on the front of every newspaper. What is disconcerting now, however, is Hillary's role in pursuing the women themselves - Gennifer, Paula, Monica, they all, according to both the New York Times and previously published accounts, became the subject of brutal, organised discreditation campaigns. In 1992, Hillary told Esquire magazine that if she had the chance to cross examine Flowers, she would "crucify her." Taking such determined steps to destroy a woman's reputation in order to protect her husband's political career smacks of depressingly cynical calculation. The Clintons hired a famous private investigator to dig up the women's pasts with the aim of destroying their reputations. It is not clear from the Times' reporting to what degree Mrs Clinton favoured this tough approach. Did she drive it or just give it an accepting nod? Maybe the more relevant point is that she condoned it. Hillary also famously called Ms Lewinsky a "narcissistic loony toon," according to a friend's testimony. A staff member who was close to Hillary said she referred to Mr Clinton's affairs as "bimbo eruptions". And there's the problem for young women voters. Why should the character or the sexual past of these women be relevant to the truthfulness of their claims? Indeed, Mr Clinton went on to confess to affairs with both Ms Flowers and Ms Lewinsky, after initially denying them. By discrediting the women, the Clintons were spreading the subliminal message that it was somehow their fault more than Bill's. What were they trying to prove - that he was led astray by sexual predators? In 2016 that sounds grotesque. Today's sexual mores are very different from the 1980s and 1990s. Young women today expect women to stand up for other women, particularly in the area of sexual relations and particularly when those sexual relations involve a very powerful man and a younger woman. Younger women who have been through bruising college sexual abuse scandals across America have little tolerance for women who in any way cast blame on the victim. That empathy extends to consensual affairs - they just don't like women shaming other women. Which is exactly what Hillary Clinton was complicit in doing, according to the New York Times, and other previous accounts. Mrs Clinton's supporters say this is all old news, and is part of a right-wing attempt to slime her. Many millennial voters weren't even born when Monica and Bill were cavorting in the Oval Office. This is their first introduction to this sordid story. However the Clinton campaign tries to spin it, it just doesn't look great for their candidate.


With 11 days left in the presidential election, the FBI’s decision to launch another investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system for government business threatens to upend an already volatile race. At the most, it could turn at least some voters to rival Donald Trump, who has rested much of his pitch on the argument that Clinton is dishonest and who grabbed at the news immediately as a gift to salvage his trailing campaign. With less but still important impact, it could freeze the momentum to Clinton that has helped her pull ahead in past weeks. At a minimum, it could have a nominal effect on an electorate that already had doubts about her honesty, and has already started voting. FBI Director James Comey set off the late October furor with a letter to Congress on Friday saying the agency was launching another investigation into Clinton’s personal email server after obtaining additional information in an unrelated case Thursday. “The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation,” Comey wrote in the letter. “I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” Be the first to know when big news breaks Recaptcha requires verification. protected by reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms Privacy - Terms Loaded: 0% Progress: 0% Current TimeÂ 0:00 / DurationÂ 3:10 Trump on newly discovered Clinton emails: at last justice will be done Advertisement Donald Trump was holding a rally in New Hampshire when news broke that the FBI would review new emails in its investigation of Hillary Clinton. He called the inquiry “bigger than Watergate.” By McClatchy Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta called the announcement so late in the campaign “extraordinary” and urged the FBI to release all of the details of what it is examining. “We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July,” Podesta said, referring to the FBI decision earlier not to seek any prosecution of Clinton. His eagerness to address the matter as fast as possible underscored the mysterious nature of the new investigation and the impact it could have. Donald Trump and his Republican allies have been baselessly second-guessing the FBI and, in both public and private, browbeating the career officials there to revisit their conclusion in a desperate attempt to harm Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta The news spread quickly, including through the battleground state of North Carolina, one of several where a turn of a few percentage points still could decide the race. “This is definitely going to influence me,” said Democrat James Smythers, a warehouse manager from Princeton, North Carolina. “I’ll lean to Trump if he makes her pay for what she’s done.” A great day in our campaign just got even better. FBI reviewing new emails in Clinton probe @CNNPolitics https://t.co/WBltG2lAK6 EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM “The perception she’s untrustworthy has existed for years,” said Luke Perrin, a North Carolina State University sophomore from Hickory, North Carolina, who’s a Clinton supporter. “This is going to add to that perception.”     EDITORS: END OPTIONAL TRIM At a rally featuring Republican vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence in Raleigh, the mood was buoyant among those waiting, but not overwhelmingly so. “Five days ago I was down in the dumps, reading the polls,” said Republican Suzanne Morse, a retiree from Clayton, North Carolina. “Now I think there’s hope. It may not make a big difference, it may not be in the millions, but every vote counts.” Even if it doesn’t drive voters to Trump, it could stop any momentum to Clinton. “Voters who are on the bubble and maybe leaning toward Hillary, this puts the brake on,” said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. The FBI’s decision to reopen their criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s secret email server just 11 days before the election shows how serious this discovery must be. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus Clinton, leading in both national polls and battleground-state surveys, had been trying not to cause any waves as the election winds down. She had benefited greatly from bad news about her opponent – multiple women accusing Trump of sexual assault following the release of a decade-old video in which he bragged about groping women – and was working to avoid any change in that narrative. Now Republicans will work hard in the next few days to use the latest development to drive the argument that Clinton is unfit. “Hillary Clinton’s corruption is on a scale we have never seen before,” Trump said Friday in Manchester, New Hampshire, as the crowd broke into chants of “lock her up.” “We must not let her take her criminal scheme into the Oval Office.” Clinton email scandal + Anthony Weiner = a volcanic news cycle that will serve as an 11 day negative ad worth millions. Trump will have to rely on news media coverage to drive much of that message, having made the tactical decision much earlier not to spend as much time as Clinton did raising money – money he now could use to buy ads on the FBI news. EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM New fundraising reports just this week showed Clinton and associated Democratic committees had more than $62 million on hand as of Oct. 20, nearly four times the almost $16 million Trump and Republicans had. EDITORS: END OPTIONAL TRIM And he may have a bit of an uphill battle, given how many voters likely have already made up their minds about Clinton – or have already voted. EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM “Is it an unfortunate piece of the agenda?” asked Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. “The fact that we’re sitting here 11 days before the election talking about emails again? Yes, but I don’t think it fundamentally alters the race.” “The truth is this is a story that’s been out there a long time,” he said. “Most people have reached a conclusion on it one way or the other.” EDITORS: END OPTIONAL TRIM Both campaigns now agree Director Comey needs to put forward more information about what prompted this letter to GOP chairmen. Indeed, voters have already seen thousands of Clinton’s emails released by the State Department and thousands of her aides’ emails released, some illegally, by news organizations, conservative groups and the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. “Most people have already decided who they’re going to vote for and I don’t think this will influence people who have decided,” said Jacob Trubey, a North Carolina State University freshman from Cary, North Carolina, who is not affiliated with either party. “I just think it’s going to be salacious for the next 10 days unless there’s some bombshell out there,” said Kim Alfano, a Republican strategist. “I don’t think this will do anything dramatic to the race.” The Democratic and Republican parties are offering a choice between a candidate under FBI investigation, and Donald Trump. Voters deserve a lot better than that. America deserves better than that. Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for president Another potential mitigating effect: The news comes after millions already have voted. An estimated 17.1 million people had voted as of Thursday, and the surge of early voting is giving Clinton an important boost in swing states. EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE Nancy Gray, a retired high school counselor from Monterey Bay, Caliornia., for example, said she’d already voted for Clinton by mail and had tuned out politics until election night. “I’m not even paying attention, I’m so sick and tired of all the political stuff,” she said. John Fetterman, mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania, and a Clinton surrogate who was about to introduce former President Bill Clinton to a crowd in Reading, Pennsylvania, on Friday, said he hadn’t gotten any “panicked calls from the campaign.” “I don’t know how to quote a shoulder shrug,” Fetterman said of his reaction to the email development. “It’s just kind of a nothing burger. Could it move the needle a couple of points? Possibly. But I don’t think it’s going to be meaningful. I really feel Pennsylvania is comfortably blue.” Vera Bergengruen and Lesley Clark contributed to this report. Anita Kumar: 202-383-6017, @anitakumar01 David Goldstein: 202-383-6105, @GoldsteinDavidJ David Lightman: 202-383-6101, @lightmandavid


A 2014 study in France found that one-third of French births were non-white. The was before the mass migrant invasion of Europe supported by French, German, EU and Vatican leaders. 73% of children born in Paris are African. The national rate in France of African births is 39% African births will outnumber French births in France in 3 to 5 years. This will not end well. By 2022, African births will outnumber French births in France.This type of multiculturalism will kill the entire country and culture. pic.twitter.com/57IydjhZP7 — /pol/ News Infinity (@polNewsInfinity) October 14, 2017 Sponsored Sponsored


A group of anti-fascists attacked and stabbed a man outside his home in Vermont for not condemning a local white nationalist. On 16 August 2017, the right-wing web site BigLeaguePolitics.com reported that a Vermont man was attacked by an “antifa mob” — a description the alleged victim said did not come from him. Sam Wormer, the subject of the story, told us that he was met by five men outside his home a night earlier. Two of the five men, he said, attacked him directly while the other three “just kinda hung back,” but he disputed the story’s premise blaming anti-fascist groups: I honestly dont think antifa had anything to do with this. I personally believe this was a false flag attack perpetrated by the far right to further their own agenda. Big League Politics interviewed Wormer after he posted a picture of himself on his Facebook page with a visible cut to his stomach, which he told us came from a box cutter blade. The caption read: This is social justice apparently. This is what i get for sticking up for someone. Cowards. Wormer’s attackers have not been identified. He said that even though he was called a “Nazi” and a “fascist”, he did not describe them as being anti-fascists, either. He said there is a loosely organized antifa group in the area, which contacted him after the incident “trying to figure out what happened [and] who’s responsible, and have been very very supportive”. Wormer, who has not sought medical attention but filed a police report after the attack, first attracted media attention when he was interviewed in a Burlington Free Press story about Ryan Roy, a local man who was fired from his job after being identified as one of the participants in a white supremacist march held in Charlottesville, Virginia on 11 August 2017. Roy described himself as a white nationalist and supporter of President Donald Trump to the Free Press. He also said: Obviously I would advocate for racial separation and racial nationalism or repatriation or even a return to — our country was a white country up until the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Act. That legislation, which was signed into law by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson on 3 October 1965 and went into effect in June 1968, did away with quotas for immigrants to the U.S. based on their country of origin and instead gave priority to immigrants whose relatives already lived in the country, as well as those with “specialized skills.”. According to Wormer, he was “completely shocked” to see Roy in a Vice News report about the rally and did not agree with his beliefs, but still opposed subsequent demands online for him to be fired or lose custody of his child. Taking away somebody’s job and livelihood — I mean, that’s just adding fuel to the fire. I don’t think any good is going to come of this on anybody’s side. He said that he was attacked shortly after he made a separate comment about Roy on Facebook, which read: I believe he’s doing what he truly believes is right, and despite all the anger and hate pointed his way right now he stands by his choices. There’s a lot to be said for that. I respect him for that, and I won’t stand with those people who are trying to have Ryan’s child taken away or have him fired. I can’t, he and his family have done too much for me. Sorry but my allegiance is with Ryan no matter his choice, even if I can’t agree with him. You can hate me for it, but I stand with my decision and if any violence comes his way I will stand with him. I don’t agree with his actions but he has stuck up for me and other marginalized people when nobody else would. That is what family does. Wormer said besides the attack on him, his roommate and his roommate’s mother also received death threats, including “a threatening call”. Wormer also told us that Roy contacted him after the attack: He and his mother both reached out to me and made sure I was okay and safe, and thanked me for standing up for him. Police in Essex Junction, where Wormer lives, told us they have “nothing currently to report” on the matter. But Wormer said he would press charges if the people responsible were caught. “I don’t want anyone else to get hurt,” he said. Snopes.com has long been engaged in the battle against misinformation, an effort we could not sustain without the support of our readers. If you'd like to learn more about how you can support us, click here.


(Do what you want to do) (Do what you want to do) (Do what you want to do) (Don't let 'em run you) (Do what you want to do) (Do what you want to do) (Do what you want to do) (Don't let 'em run you) [Verse 1: Olly Simmons, Bruno Balanta] It doesn't matter what they say I won't accept it in any single way and-a Through the floors and-a through the cabling They're permeating in through every single day But I won't be confined by their regimented borders We've got the strength of over fifty thousand soldiers And we're not duty bound to anybody's orders (Come on everybody now) Don't let 'em run you [Buildup: Olly Simmons, Bruno Balanta] What you wanna do What you wanna do What you wanna do Don't let 'em run you What you wanna do What you wanna do What you wanna do Don't let 'em run you (Do what you want to do) (Do what you want to do) (Do what you want to do) (Don't let 'em run you) Don't let 'em run you! [Drop 1: Bruno Balanta] Don't let them run you [Verse 2: Olly Simmons] They're gonna take it all away This is a war and the enemies engaging But you can see through their lies and decide for your life I won't be confined by their regimented borders We've got the strength of over fifty thousand soldiers We're not duty bound to anybody's orders (Come on everybody now) Don't let 'em run you! [Drop 2] [Verse 1: Olly Simmons, Bruno Balanta] It doesn't matter what they say I won't accept it in any single way and-a Through the floors and-a through the cabling They're permeating in through every single day But I won't be confined by their regimented borders We've got the strength of over fifty thousand soldiers And we're not duty bound to anybody's orders (Come on everybody now) Don't let 'em run you [Buildup: Olly Simmons, Bruno Balanta] (Do what you wanna do) (Do what you wanna do) (Do what you wanna do) (Don't let 'em run you) Don't let 'em run you! [Drop 3: Olly Simmons, Bruno Balanta] You! You! You! Don't let 'em run you! Don't let 'em run you [Verse 2: Olly Simmons] They're gonna take it all away This is a war and the enemies engaging But you can see through their lies and decide for your life I won't be confined by their regimented borders We've got the strength of over fifty thousand soldiers We're not duty bound to anybody's orders (Come on everybody now) Don't let 'em run you! [Drop 4] [Outro: Bruno Balanta] Don't let 'em run you


Former Dems Now Backing Trump: 'Our Country's Going in the Wrong Direction' Donald Trump joined Bill O'Reilly on "The Factor" tonight to discuss a wide range of topics, including his claims that the election is rigged against him. "The system is rigged," Trump said, arguing that the media has been "horrible" in their coverage of him, while giving Hillary Clinton a pass for her various scandals. He added that Clinton was also given a pass by the Justice Department and the FBI for her private email server and mishandling of state secrets. "She is so guilty in so many different ways that she shouldn't even be allowed to run for president," Trump stated. "So right there, the system is really rigged." The Republican nominee added that he also isn't ruling out the possibility of widespread election fraud, with votes being miscounted at locations around the country. O'Reilly pointed out that there aren't any "hard facts" to back up such allegations. "On a mass level ... 120 million American votes ... the thing's going to be dishonest? Do you believe that?" O'Reilly asked. Trump asserted that there are 1.8 million deceased people registered to vote and 2.8 million people registered to vote in two states. "There are things that are going on, Bill." Watch the "O'Reilly Factor" interview above, and let us know what you think in the comments. Clinton Aide in New WikiLeaks Email: 'We Need to Clean This Up. He Has Emails from Her'


You knew this was coming. But now that President Trump is in office the liberal media had suddenly developed a new found interest in government spending. On Sunday Vice President Mike Pence attended the Indianapolis Colts game against the San Francisco 49ers. The VP had planned to attend the game for weeks. But after the NFL millionaires disrespected the US flag and military by kneeling during the national anthem, Vice President Pence and his wife walked out of the game. The liberal media is attacking the vice president for defending the flag and military. Several liberal hacks lashed out at the vice president after he left the game. This is CNN: How much did Vice President Mike Pence’s trip to Indianapolis to watch — and then abruptly leave — a football game Sunday between the Indianapolis Colts and San Francisco 49ers cost? Here is an estimate of just the air costs (which does not include costs of advance personnel, Secret Service or support on the ground): According to the Air Force, flying a C-32, the model of plane used for Air Force 2, for one hour costs about $30,000. Pence’s flight from Las Vegas to Indianapolis Saturday took about three hours and 20 minutes, so it cost about $100,000 Pence then flew from Indianapolis to Los Angeles on Sunday, which took about four hours and 45 minutes, costing about $142,500. The grand total: about $242,500. Sponsored Sponsored


Methinks she doth protest too much -- and too late. Those who condemned President Trump for not condemning white supremacist groups quickly and forcefully enough after Charlottesville have no problem with Hillary Clinton taking five full days to hypocritically condemn sexual predator Harvey Weinstein. Maybe she was pondering the similarities between Weinstein’s predatory activities and that of her husband. Both used their positions of power to extort sexual favors, sometimes forcibly, from women. And just as Hollywood looked the other way for the sake of career advancement so too did Hillary Clinton as she rode her husband’s attained coattails to political prominence. So her recent expression of disgust over Weinstein’s activities ring hollow: At long last, the people who do the strategic planning for Hillary Clinton and tell her what emotions she should imitate in response to various stimuli have weighed in and they have decided that Harvey Weinstein is not a nice man: “I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein. The behavior described by the women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior...” Hillary Clinton knew who and what Weinstein was as surely as she knew and knows what Bill Clinton is. Weinstein has been joined at the hip with the Clintons for a couple of decades… Ironically, as it turns out, he was a major defender of Bill Clinton in the Lewinski affair though Weinstein seemed to favor aiming at the ficus bushes rather than blue dresses. At the same time, mind you, that Hillary Clinton was active in directing a campaign to paint the battalion of women who had been sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton as morally decrepit if not outright crazy. Between Hillary’s campaigns and the Clinton Foundation (out of curiosity, is the FBI still investigating this?) she has benefited from as much as a quarter million dollars from Weinstein. Hollywood was a major funder of both the Clinton and Obama political machines, and many a Hollywood star defended Bill Clinton’s sordid activities as a personal matter as long as he was doing a good job as President. They similarly defended Weinstein as Michelle Obama once did, as a “wonderful human being”, as well as “a good friend and just a powerhouse” Both the Obamas and Clintons knew Weinstein well and neither should be given a pass for feigning ignorance and shock at his activities: None other than CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said on Tuesday evening that former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama should not get a “pass” on Harvey Weinstein. In fact, Toobin said their association with Weinstein throughout the years is a “dark mark on their record.” “I don’t think we can give the Clintons and the Obamas a pass here,” Toobin said on Anderson Cooper 360. He cited Seth MacFarlane’s creepy joke about Weinstein at an Oscars event and added that MacFarlane’s joke illustrated that “a lot of people knew or had very strong suspicions that this was a very bad guy.” “The Obamas and the Clintons embraced him, did fundraisers with him, paid tribute to him,” Toobin continued. “I think it’s a dark mark on their record…” The Obamas also finally said on record that they were “disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein.” “Michelle and I have been disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein,” the Obamas said in a statement. “Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion needs to be condemned and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status. We should celebrate the courage of women who have come forward to tell these painful stories. And we all need to build a culture -- including by empowering our girls and teaching our boys decency and respect -- so we can make such behavior less prevalent in the future…” As Breitbart News has reported, Weinstein visited the Obama White House on at least 13 occasions and Obama’s daughter, Malia Obama, “recently wrapped up an internship at the New York City offices of The Weinstein Co.” Right. Perhaps Weinstein wanted to see where Bill Clinton dropped his cigar in the Oval Office. Hillary, of course, should be all too familiar with Harvey Weinstein’s despicable behavior. She watched her husband do the same and worse for decades as she also allegedly fought for women’s rights, except for the right of their victims to leave the room unmolested. Hillary famously said that all claims of rape, abuse, and harassment should be deemed credible and be believed until proven otherwise. It seems there was an exception for her husband, an exception required by her need to ride his coattails to power, just as Hollywood excused Weinstein because he could advance or kill the careers of those he exploited. Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey as well as, some would suggest, a cast of thousands, have been groped, fondled, and used as sexual objects by one William Jefferson Clinton. Was Hillary appalled and shocked at her husband’s predatory activities or did she blame it on that “vast right-wing conspiracy”? And then there’s Juanita Broaddrick, who has accused President Clinton of rape. Juanita Broaddrick’s story is a credible one, and one of the many “ bimbo eruptions” that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton handled during her husband Bill’s presidential campaign As Linda Tripp, confidante of former Clinton intern Monica Lewinsky, told the Daily Mail of how Hillary both enabled and covered up Bill’s many dalliances: Tripp said: 'His political success was largely dependent upon Hillary. He owed her a great deal. As is widely acknowledged, Hillary took care of all the 'bimbo eruptions' of which there were thousands in order to present to the world an electable candidate. 'In this endeavor she was ruthless. She destroyed women so that their stories never saw the light of day.' So much for fighting for women’s rights. At a Trump press conference in 2016, Broaddrick, tired of being accused of being part of that vast right-wing conspiracy, and afraid that her attacker would once again occupy the White House with the woman who orchestrated the attacks on Bill Clinton’s “bimbo eruptions”, repeated her accusation: “Actions speak louder than words,” Broaddrick said. “Mr. Trump may have said some bad words but Bill Clinton raped me and Hillary Clinton threatened me. I don’t think there’s any comparison.” Broaddrick, who has said Hillary threatened her, appeared with fellow Clinton sexual assault victims Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey appeared in an interview at presidential suite of the historic Watergate and related the taleof Bill’s assaults and their fear of Hillary’s retaliation: In an exclusive video interview at the presidential suite of the historic Watergate Hotel, the victims of Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual assault -- Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones -- got together for the first time in person to express their personal fear of Hillary Clinton and to warn voters that Clinton does not stand for women’s issues.. The three women, who say their lives were forever changed by their experiences with the Clintons, used words like “terrified” and “frightened” to describe their feelings about the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency… “We were not willing participants,” Broaddrick said. “These were crimes.” In a separate interview, Broaddrick shared her own story of brutal sexual assault which she says Bill Clinton perpetrated against her. Willey called out NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell and CNN’s Jake Tapper by name, challenging them: “These are not infidelities. A rape is not an infidelity. These are crimes. Any other people would be in jail… “This is no longer about infidelities, indiscretions, girlfriends, sex, interns -- none of those. This is about a serial rapist, a predator, and his wife who has enabled his behavior all of these years.” Later in this interview, Jones, Willey, and Broaddrick expressed fear at how a potential President Hillary Clinton would use the power of her office. “It terrifies me and it should terrify all women,” Jones stated about Hillary’s presidential ambitions. “It should terrify all men and women,” Willey added. “She will annihilate any enemy. All of her enemies. Anybody who has spoken against her. Across the board for I don’t know how many years. She will get rid of them.” “No woman who advocates for women attacks the victims of sexual assault be it by her husband or anybody else,” said Willey. The women argued that the term “enabler” best describes Hillary Clinton’s role in her husband’s alleged sexual crimes. Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton – sexual predators separated at birth. Hillary and Hollywood knew them and their activities full well and tolerated them for similar reasons. We should be appalled, if not shocked, at their craven hypocrisy as both have waged a sick and depraved and very real war on women. Daniel John Sobieskiis a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.


On the morning following an excellent Champions League game, what do you know? The Daily Record has yet another story linking Celtic fans to extremism, and this one is as bent looking as it’s possible to be. Today they are featuring a “Celtic fan” who sent a “bomb threat” to Ibrox with an ISIS twist. On Twitter. And it doesn’t take much to knock this story on its ass. This “person” joined Twitter in July this year. He or she has a grand total of 59 followers and follows a grand total of 125. This is the textbook definition of a complete non-story; if this person exists at all The Record has elevated them beyond utter irrelevance and used them to beat the rest of our support. I would suggest this story has been manufactured. I had a look at this Twitter twat’s timeline; he is a clown. He rants about various subjects in the kind of pre-school language Twitter is full of. The Record knows full well this is an idiot with a few fried brain cells, but I said the other day that an agenda is being pursued here and this is another demonstration of it. To have blown a tweet by a complete nobody off Twitter into a story that smears the Celtic support as a whole is an act of malevolence against our club, and as per usual with that arse-rag the story is so weak that no-one wants to stand their own name beside it. It carries the standard appellation for a story which is Utter Mince; “Daily Record Online Reporter” – or Daily Record Shit-Stirring Troll, a far more accurate description. Basically, a clown whose job is to scour Twitter and Facebook for any anti-Celtic angle they can find. I know nobody in our support still reads this gutter-rag … I still do not understand why anyone from our club is willing to talk to its “journalists” or entertain their presence at our ground. This publication does not wish us well, I cannot put it more bluntly than that. The paper claims to have reported this “incident” to Police Scotland. Talk about wasting police time. Hiding a blatant smear job behind civic virtue … a new low even for them.


Colin Kaepernick is one of the most divisive players to have ever played in the NFL, on the back of his stance against police brutality last year, and his refusal to stand during pre-game national anthems as a result. Criticism rained down on the former San Francisco 49ers Quarterback for his actions, but he also won support aplenty from fellow athletes and onlookers for his social justice stance. The 29-year-old is currently unemployed because of his actions, however, and NFL clubs are reluctant to touch him because of the publicity that his protests attract. Speak out and you're damned, so it goes. Kaepernick is one of the most courageous sports stars in the world, and should be lauded for not accepting what others know is wrong, but keep their mouths shut anyway. Instead, despite being one of the best quarterbacks in the game, he doesn't have a club. US president Donald Trump was speaking at a rally in Alabama on Friday night when he took declining NFL TV ratings to task, going on to claim that the lack of physicality in the game was a reason for this. Then he turned his attention to the Milwaukee man's tendency to kneel during national anthems, and without mentioning by name, referred to him as a "son of a bitch." “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL Owners, when someone disrespects our flag to say, ‘get that son of a bitch off the field right now, he’s fired, he’s fired,” Trump said to the crowd. ... trump taking a veiled shot at colin kaepernick, says owner should say: "get that sonofabitch off the field right now... he's fired!!" pic.twitter.com/ttbOd0VrPG — fake nick ramsey (@nick_ramsey) September 23, 2017 “You know, some owner is going to do that. He’s gonna say, ‘that guy disrespects our flag, he’s fired.’ And that owner, they don’t know it. They don’t know it. They’re friends of mine, many of them. They don’t know it. They’ll be the most popular person for a week. They’ll be the most popular person in the country.” It really is amazing just how brainwashed Trump's following is, and many of them were celebrating these comments like they were gospel, just like his own son was. Love this: @realDonaldTrump on NFL players disrespecting our flag/anthem: "get that son of a bitch off the field right now - YOU'RE FIRED!" — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) September 23, 2017 There are still sane people out there, and Kaepernick's mother Teresa spoke of her pride at her son's actions, as did many more. A nation is people, not a symbol. A protest for the eradication of racism that violates millions of those people is not disrespect. https://t.co/yeeRG4hAEz — Be A King (@BerniceKing) September 23, 2017 Smh & all because @Kaepernick7 is exercising his right as an American citizen to protest. — Bishop Sankey (@BishopSankey) September 23, 2017 Guess that makes me a proud bitch! — Teresa Kaepernick (@B4IleaveU) September 23, 2017 The war goes on.


Mrs. Clinton said Senator Bernie Sanders has been a “largely very reliable supporter” of the National Rifle Association. Hillary Clinton said “of course” she would sign legislation raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Mrs. Clinton said more guns brought into New York and used in crimes come from Vermont, on a per capita basis, than any other state. Senator Bernie Sanders said Hillary Clinton has received significant contributions from the fossil fuel industry. "If you look back to Iowa, Ted did change his view and his stance on ethanol quite a bit." Gov. John Kasich said he would pressure China to use its influence on its neighbor North Korea, resist its aggression in the South China Sea and strengthen United States capabilities to fight Chinese cyberhacking. Marco Rubio said that the political and human-rights situation in Cuba had worsened since President Obama made his diplomatic opening to the island. Donald J. Trump said he would "listen to the generals" in deciding how many troops to commit to the battle against ISIS -- and the numbers he is hearing are 20,000 to 30,000. Ted Cruz said Hillary Clinton, like Donald Trump, expresses a desire to be neutral between the Israelis and Palestinians. Trump: "G.D.P. was zero, essentially, for the last two quarters." Marco Rubio says that most green cards are granted on the basis of family relationships. "We're going to have to make changes in Social Security." Mr. Kasich said he held 200 town hall-style meetings in New Hampshire. Mr. Trump said the families of some Sept. 11 hijackers were allowed to leave the U.S. days before the attacks. Mr. Cruz claimed Donald J. Trump repeatedly donated to Mrs. Clinton, writing several checks to her presidential campaign eight years ago. "Every other country we do business with, we are getting absolutely crushed on trade." Mr. Rubio said two-thirds of the votes cast in the Republican primaries and caucuses to date have gone against Donald J. Trump. Mr. Trump says he has beaten Hillary Clinton in many general election polls. Mr. Kasich said he was the only candidate to mention jobs at last week’s Republican debate. Mr. Rubio said Donald J. Trump received draft deferments because he had injuries from playing squash. Mr. Trump said the Canadian border is about four times as long as the Mexican border. Mr. Trump said he never advocated for the United States to topple Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi. Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices always stay Democratic; not so for Republicans. Mr. Rubio says Obamacare "is not just a bad health care law. It is a job-killing law." Mr. Rubio said Donald J. Trump criticized Mitt Romney’s use of the term “self-deportation.” Donald J. Trump funded the "Gang of Eight" senators who forged immigration legislation. Mr. Trump said Ted Cruz does not have the endorsement of a single Republican senator. Mr. Trump said he used foreign workers at his Palm Beach club because Americans don't want temporary jobs in Florida. Mr. Trump says we are "losing $500 billion a year" to China. Donald J. Trump suggested he was not soliciting campaign contributions. Mr. Cruz says Donald J. Trump has contributed to John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Mr. Cruz said Marco Rubio told Univision that "he would not rescind President Obama's illegal executive amnesty on his first day in office." "We have in Social Security right now thousands and thousands of people that are over 106 years old. Now, you know they don't exist." "It's been over 80 years since a lame-duck president has appointed a Supreme Court justice." "The Constitution actually doesn't address that particular situation." Mr. Sanders said that none of the Republican presidential candidates believe that climate change is real. Waterboarding “does not meet the generally recognized definition of torture.” Mrs. Clinton said Mr. Sanders voted in 1998 for a resolution favoring regime change in Iraq. Mr. Sanders suggested that Mrs. Clinton was not welcoming to child immigrants from Central America. “Marco Rubio has gone on Univision and said in Spanish, ‘No, no, no, I wouldn’t rescind amnesty.’” Mr. Christie said a nurse quarantined during the Ebola outbreak had symptoms. North Korea's new missile launch "is the direct result of the failures of the first Clinton administration." "Right now, we're the highest-taxed country in the world." Mr. Trump tried to use eminent domain to take an older woman's home. Mr. Christie said President Obama was in favor of paying ransom for hostages. Mr. Cruz said his campaign mistakenly spread the word that Ben Carson was quitting the race because of a CNN report. Mr. Christie said Marco Rubio did not vote for his own Hezbollah sanctions act. Mr. Rubio said New Jersey's credit rating had been downgraded nine times during Gov. Chris Christie's tenure. "When you ran against Senator Obama, you thought him naïve because he thought it was a good idea to talk to our enemies." "Almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent." Mrs. Clinton said Bernie Sanders's vote against "Ted Kennedy's immigration reform" in 2007 was not progressive. Mrs. Clinton says that experts agree that her Wall Street reforms are the toughest. “Millions of Americans have lost their jobs” because of President Obama’s health care law. Mr. Rubio said Hillary Clinton “wants to put Barack Obama on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.” Chris Christie said New Jersey’s job growth in 2015 was the best in the past 15 years. Marco Rubio said that other countries would go along when he ripped up the Iran deal. Chris Christie said neighbors of the San Bernardino attackers knew of their plans. Cap-and-trade emissions regulations would "destroy our economy." The average worker "has lost $4,000 in the last seven years of his income because of this administration." Ted Cruz says he would carpet bomb the Islamic State, which Obama has failed to do because he has weakened the military. "My voting record in the Senate, during my years, is almost 90 percent, which is significantly higher than Barack Obama's or Hillary Clinton's was when they were running for president." "The leader of Goldman Sachs is a billionaire who comes to Congress and tells us we should cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." Senator Bernie Sanders said that the United States must transform its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy-efficiency and sustainable energy. "I've got the most comprehensive legislation in the Senate to do that," he said. Hillary Clinton said Senator Bernie Sanders called President Obama “weak” and “disappointing,” and, in 2011, “publicly sought someone to run in a primary” against him. Hillary Clinton said that, because of the Affordable Care Act, "We now have driven costs down to the lowest they've been in 50 years." Senator Bernie Sanders said the United States spends almost three times more than the British on health care. Senator Bernie Sanders said 29 million people in the United States do not have health insurance. Donald J. Trump said he never suggested imposing a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods. Donald J. Trump asserted that China, by manipulating its currency, has cost the United States "millions and millions of jobs." Senator Marco Rubio said President Obama had played down the threat of the Islamic State, which practices "genocide against Christians and Yazidis and others in the region." Gov. Chris Christie said President Obama and Hillary Clinton failed to enforce a red line in threatening to use military force if President Bashar al-Assad of Syria used chemical weapons against his own people. And he said Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Assad a reformer. Jeb Bush said he would move the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as a signal to Iran. Gov. Chris Christie said he did not support President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Kasich said wages have not climbed “because the Federal Reserve kept interest rates so low.” Discussing his eligibility to be president, Mr. Cruz recalled that in September, Donald J. Trump "said that he had had his lawyers look at this from every which way, and there was no issue there." Mr. Cruz said he disclosed bank loans that he obtained for his 2012 Senate campaign with the Senate, but his failure to disclose them to federal elections officials was just a paperwork error. "We have the lowest percentage of Americans working today of any year since 1977." “I never believed Edward Snowden was a good public servant the way that Ted Cruz once said, that he had done a public service for America.” Asked about his proposal for a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods, Mr. Trump said, "I don't even know where the 45 percent came from." Mrs. Clinton said legislation that Bernie Sanders supported in 2005 forbids all lawsuits against gun makers and sellers. Mr. Rubio accused Chris Christie of having a record similar to President Obama's on issues like education, gun control and abortion. Mr. Christie said the murder rate had increased by 18 percent in Chicago and 11 percent in New York. Mr. Trump raised questions about whether Ted Cruz was eligible to be president because he was born in Canada. “I'm one of the few of the candidates that actually shows up to vote. Both Cruz and Rubio are missing the vast majority of their votes.” “Vladimir Putin is a person who has killed. He’s jailed and murdered journalists, political opponents. He bombed an apartment building as a pretext to attack the Chechens. He is responsible for the downing of that Malaysian airliner over Ukraine, because he provided the antiaircraft weaponry that was used for that.” “Our country is falling apart, frankly. Our infrastructure is a disaster. Our bridges are falling down. Sixty-one percent of our bridges are in danger.” Mrs. Clinton said Donald J. Trump “is becoming ISIS’ best recruiter. They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists.” “Senator Sanders voted against the Brady Bill. Senator Sanders voted to give immunity to gun dealers. And Senator Sanders voted against even research dollars to look into this public health issue.” Mr. Sanders said he voted against the Iraq war because of his opposition to unilateral action. “I have never supported legalization” for undocumented immigrants. “There were numerous people, including the mother, that knew what was going on. They saw pipe bombs sitting all over the floor. They saw ammunition all over the place.” “On September 10th, 2001, I was named chief federal prosecutor in New Jersey.” Mr. Cruz’s characterizations of his vote on the USA Freedom Act, which expanded N.S.A. surveillance “so we now have cellphones” and other data. "Do you know how many illegal aliens George W. Bush deported? 10 million." "When I stand across from King Hussein of Jordan, I say to him, 'You have a friend again, sir, who will stand with you to fight this fight,' he'll change his mind." Mrs. Fiorina said Stanley A. McChrystal and David H. Petraeus were "retired early because they told President Obama things that he didn’t want to hear." Mr. Rubio said the Islamic State took root because of Bashar al-Assad's decision to bomb his own people, and because of President Obama's unwillingness to arm the rebel groups. Mrs. Fiorina said Silicon Valley companies “do not need to be forced, they need to be asked” to help law enforcement get access to encrypted data. Rand Paul on Marco Rubio: “He is the one for an open border that is leaving us defenseless.” At Hewlett-Packard, Mrs. Fiorina said she provided equipment to assist the National Security Agency. Mr. Trump said he “certainly would never have made that horrible, disgusting, absolutely incompetent deal with Iran, where they get $150 billion. They're a terrorist nation.” “One of the first things I do in terms of executive order if I win will be to sign a strong, strong statement” that “anybody killing a police officer — death penalty.” “I am self-funding my own campaign. I have no people giving me money.” A poll asserting that 25 percent of Muslim Americans condone acts of violence against other Americans was from a “very highly respected group of people.” “I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down.” Ted Cruz was “part of that coalition that worked with the Democrats like Chuck Schumer and the A.C.L.U. to harm our intelligence programs.” “I said Osama bin Laden is going to come and do damage to us. And nobody believed it.” Mr. O'Malley said parents and students were being charged 7% to 8% interest on government-backed college loans. Mrs. Clinton said she introduced legislation to rein in executive compensation on Wall Street. Mrs. Clinton said that wages, when adjusted for inflation, have been stagnant since the end of the Clinton administration. Mr. Sanders said the United States is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain 5,000 nuclear weapons. “I got to know him very well because we were both on ‘60 Minutes,’” Mr. Trump said, referring to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia Mrs. Fiorina said she met President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia “not in a green room for a show, but in a private meeting.” Mr. Paul says that if you want to live in a city with lower inequality, you live in a city with a Republican mayor. Dwight D. Eisenhower “moved a million and a half illegal immigrants out of this country.” “If we were serious about it, we would raise the capital requirements.” Mr. Trump said the United States was better off letting Russia and its president, Vladimir V. Putin, confront the Islamic State. Mr. Trump complained that the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal did nothing about currency manipulation, which is a key problem with China.


The line of Republican cowards attempting to curry favor with Donald Trump stretches out the door, around the building, down the block, through the next door overflow room, and extends up to space, where it circles around the moon like Dr Manhattan. There's sniveling turdface Ted Cruz, who, among other things, listened to Trump call his wife ugly and his dad a traitor and a murderer. There's J Crew crewneck used to wipe pig vomit off of a misspelled yield sign Paul Ryan, who Trump has basically played the one-way dozens with for three years. And of course there's Most Racist Cracker Barrel Manager Ever Jefferson Sessions, who's remained mute as a Nazi church mouse as Trump continues to drink his milkshake on Twitter every day. But none of these cowards compare to the cowardice standard exhibited by John McCain; whose cowardice is legion and legendary, massive and magnificent. It's been only two years since Darth Cheeto — who was then still just Anakin Skyrapist — doubted McCain's war hero bonafides and added (quite humorously, I must admit) "I like people that weren’t captured." And now, here's McCain jumping out of his government-funded death futon to deny government-funded death futons to other sick people, all to support a President who disrespected the fuck out of him and whose only substantive agenda and platform is to erase everything the preceding President did. Again, Washington is full of cowards. But what makes McCain's cowardice special is that his whole entire personal and political brand is bravery. Well, "bravery." You expect people like Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan to be rats. But John McCain has created, attached himself to, and submerged himself in this maverick narrative; that he's somehow different from the rest of those craven motherfuckers. That he does what he does, but does what he does with integrity. And this story only exists and has been able to persist because he was a bad pilot. His "bravery" is to bravery what Arby's "roast beef" is to roast beef. Fuck him.


Officials familiar with the situation say that NATO has agreed to join the US-led anti-ISIS coalition on an alliance level, with indications that Germany and France were the last nations to agree to the formal move, which will be announced during the Brussels summit. All NATO members are already individually members of the anti-ISIS coalition, and diplomats say that the move will have no actual consequence, and seemingly is being done just for the sake of a “purely symbolic” gesture during President Trump’s visit. President Trump has always been keen to bring NATO deeper into the ISIS war, of course, and has made a big deal about NATO’s obsolescence because it wasn’t formed specifically to deal with terrorism, claiming in April that “ back when they did NATO there was no such thing as terrorism.” While shortly after his election most NATO officials were just attacking Trump for being too “pro-Russia,” recently they seem to be eager to please him, so long as it only requires symbolic actions that won’t amount to anything.