Forum: Political Forum - Spirited Political comedy. All serious political and World Event posting is also to be posted in this forum.

Thread: Nate Silver says Trump would be favorite if election were held today

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
  1. #151  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    15,949
    Big day for the Idiot Drumpf. He's moved up to double digits in Nate's Now cast.


    Chance of winning

    Hillary Clinton
    88.3%


    Donald Trump
    11.7%

    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #152  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    15,949
    Back under double digits chance for the pathetic loser in the now cast:

    Chance of winning

    Hillary Clinton
    90.5%


    Donald Trump9.5%




    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #153  
    RX Local superbeets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,232



    - AUGUST 14, 2016 -

    ICYMI: CLINTON’S NEWEST EMPTY JOBS PROMISE

    Please read the following excerpts from “Why would anyone believe Hillary’s promise of 10 million jobs?” by The New York Post’s Editorial Board, 8/14/16

    Hillary Clinton was scheduled to lay out her economic plans Thursday but instead spent much of her time bashing Donald Trump — and offering little of anything new.
    No wonder: She has so little to offer, at least when it comes to jobs.

    Clinton did repeat her claim Thursday that her economic plan would create 10.4 million jobs by 2026. She has said 640,000 of these will be in New York.
    Ha! New Yorkers are still waiting for the 200,000 jobs she promised for upstate back in 2000, when she was running for the Senate.
    Anyone who buys her new promises probably also believes she had no classified e-mails on her home-brewed server.

    It doesn’t account for the cost of her programs. A Tax Foundation analysis of the net impact says Clinton’s plan would actually shrink the economy 1 percent and produce 0.8 percent lower wages — and 311,000 fewer jobs.
    What do you expect? All told, Hillary’s tax hikes would suck $1.3 trillion from taxpayers’ pockets. How on earth is that supposed to create jobs?
    And Clinton herself doesn’t pretend any new jobs on her watch would be true, private-sector-generated jobs.

    Fact is, she’s really more interested in growing government than jobs. Which is too bad: With years of weak wage growth and record numbers of people out of the labor market, polls show Americans rank job-creation among their top priorities.
    Yet all Hillary can do is make more of the same empty promises she’s already broken.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #154  
    RX Local superbeets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,232



    - AUGUST 13, 2016 -

    CORRUPTION, PAY-TO-PLAY AND FLIP-FLOPS: HILLARY REMINDS EVERYONE SHE’S A DEEPLY FLAWED CANDIDATE

    "Hillary Clinton's week of scandals, from corruption to allegations of pay-to-play to flip-flops, reminded everyone just how flawed she is as a candidate and why the American people cannot afford four more years of Obama-Clinton rule. Whether it’s using government entities to personally and politically enrich herself, prioritizing donors over what's best for the American people, using her influence to shutter suspicious financial transactions with the Clinton Foundation and foreign entities, or the ability of Clinton to completely surrender and sell out American workers after promising a stop to the TPP, it’s clear that Crooked Hillary will do and say anything to get elected. 70% of American voters believe our country is going in the wrong direction, and only Donald Trump provides the vision and the energy to get us back on track." -Jason Miller, Senior Communications Advisor

    DOUG BAND EMAILS


    Former Bill Clinton Aide Doug Band Urgently Asked Clinton Aides Cheryl Mills And Huma Abedin To Set Up A Meeting With An Ambassador For A Major Clinton Foundation Donor.“In an April 2009 email to Clinton’s State Department aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, President Clinton’s former body man, Doug Band, the founder of corporate consultant Teneo, urgently asked them to set up a meeting with an ambassador for a major donor to the Clinton Foundation.” (Daniel Halper, “New Emails Show Huma Scheming For Hillary,” The New York Post, 8/9/16)





    • Band Had Previously Served As An Aide To Bill Clinton And Has Performed “Multiple Duties For The Clinton Foundation.” “Band previously served as an aide to former President Bill Clinton and has performed multiple duties for the Clinton Foundation. He is also a founding partner and president of Teneo Holdings, the consulting firm.”(Julian Hattem, “In Email, State Asked To ‘Take Care Of’ Clinton Foundation Associate,” The Hill,8/9/16)




    The Meeting Was For Gilbert Chagoury Who Is A Lebanese-Nigerian Billionaire Who Has Given Between $1 And $5 Million To The Clinton Foundation. “‘We need Gilbert Chagoury to speak to the substance person re lebanon. As you know, he’s key guy there and to us and is loved in lebanon.’ Chagoury is a Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and a Clinton Foundation donor, giving somewhere between $1 million and $5 million.” (Daniel Halper, “New Emails Show Huma Scheming For Hillary,” The New York Post, 8/9/16)



    In Another Email From Doug Band, He Put The Subject Line As “A Favor…” Then Asked Them To “Take Care Of” An Associate. “‘Important to take care of’ the person, Douglas Band told Clinton aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Nora Toiv in an April 22, 2009, email with the subject line ‘A favor…’. The name of the aide is redacted.” (Julian Hattem, “In Email, State Asked To ‘Take Care Of’ Clinton Foundation Associate,” The Hill, 8/9/16)





    • Clinton’s Senior Aides Were Pressed By A “Long Time Confidante With Deep Ties To The Clinton Foundation” To Give A Job To An “Unidentified Male.” “Shortly after Hillary Clinton took the reins as U.S. secretary of State in 2009, a longtime confidante with deep ties to the Clinton Foundation pressed her senior aides to give a job to an unidentified male associate.” (Julian Hattem, “In Email, State Asked To ‘Take Care Of’ Clinton Foundation Associate,” The Hill, 8/9/16)




    Top Clinton Aide Huma Abedin Responded Saying “We Have All Had Him On Our Radar…”“‘We have all had him on our radar,’ Abedin responded. ‘Personnel has been sending him options.’” (Julian Hattem, “In Email, State Asked To ‘Take Care Of’ Clinton Foundation Associate,” The Hill,8/9/16)



    CHERYL MILLS AND CLINTON FOUNDATION


    CNN Headline: “Top Clinton State Department Aide Helped Clinton Foundation”(Drew Griffin, “Top Clinton State Department Aide Helped Clinton Foundation,”CNN, 8/11/26)



    This Week It Was Discovered That Clinton’s Chief Of Staff At The State Department Cheryl Mills Went To New York In 2012 To Interview Executives For A Top Position At The Clinton Foundation. “A CNN investigation found that Clinton aide Cheryl Mills was involved in the Clinton Foudnation while she was also employed as Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State. On a trip to New York in 2012, Mills interviewed two executives for a top position at the Clinton foundation. The State Department said she was on personal time. Mills' attorney says she was, doing ‘volunteer work for a charitable foundation. She was not paid.’” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)



    “The Fact That The Aide, Cheryl Mills, Was Taking Part In Such A High Level Task For The Clinton Foundation While Also Working As Chief Of Staff For The Secretary Of State Raises New Question About The Blurred Lines That Dogged The Clinton As Secretary Of State.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)



    The State Department Has Been Stonewalling Congressional Investigators On This Matter. “The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, has tried to get answers about Mills' New York trip as well. Grassley sent Secretary of State John Kerry a letter in January asking the purpose of Mills' trip. The State Department did not officially respond to the letter.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16



    SCUTTLED FBI-REQUESTED INVESTIGATION


    Several Months Ago, The FBI And Department Of Justice Met To Discuss Opening A Public Corruption Case Into The Clinton Foundation.“Officials from the FBI and Department of Justice met several months ago to discuss opening a public corruption case into the Clinton Foundation, according to a US official.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)



    Three FBI Field Offices Wanted To Investigate If Suspicious Banking Activity From A Foreigner Was Involved A Criminal Conflict Of Interest With The State Department And The Clinton Foundation. “At the time, three field offices were in agreement an investigation should be launched after the FBI received notification from a bank of suspicious activity from a foreigner who had donated to the Clinton Foundation, according to the official. FBI officials wanted to investigate whether there was a criminal conflict of interest with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton's tenure. The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book ‘Clinton Cash,’ but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)



    Obama’s Department Of Justice Pushed Back Against Opening A Case. “As a result, DOJ officials pushed back against opening a case during the meeting earlier this year. Some also expressed concern the request seemed more political than substantive, especially given the timing of it coinciding with the investigation into the private email server and Clinton's presidential campaign.”(Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)





    • The FBI Field Offices Were “Waved Off” By The DOJ. “Accusations that Clinton has committed crimes, and gotten away with them, have colored Republican campaigns for decades. They've picked up since the FBI announced that it would take no further steps to investigate her ‘careless’ use of a private email server after a year-long probe; they've gained more steam after reports that three (of 56) FBI field offices wanted to probe the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation over a foreign donation but were waved off by a DOJ that had come up empty in a similar probe.” (David Weigel, “‘Lock Her Up’ Sentiment Comes To A Congressional Campaign,” The Washington Post, 8/12/16)




    MILLS INTERCEDING IN FOIA REQUEST ON CLINTON EMAILS


    Politico Headline: “Email Shows Mills Was Told Of Key Clinton FOIA Request” (Josh Gerstein, “Emails Show Mills Was Told Of Key Clinton FOIA Request,” Politico,8/10/16)



    The Washington Examiner Headline: “Emails Show Top Clinton Aide Knew Of Blocked Email Inquiry” (Sarah Westwood, “Emails Show Top Clinton Aide Knew Of Blocked Email Inquiry,” The Washington Examiner,8/10/16)



    A Newly Released Email Shows That Secretary Clinton’s Chief Of Staff Cheryl Mills Was “Alerted Within Days” When A Watchdog Group Requested Records Describing All Of Clinton’s Email Accounts. “A newly-released email message shows that Hillary Clinton's State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills was alerted within days in December 2012 when a liberal watchdog group requested records describing all the email accounts used by Clinton.” (Josh Gerstein, “Emails Show Mills Was Told Of Key Clinton FOIA Request,” Politico, 8/10/16)



    Six Months Later, The State Department Said That No Records Could Be Found Pertaining To The Request Regarding Clinton’s Email Accounts. “Six months later, State sent a letter to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington saying no records could be found. A State Department inspector general report issued in January described the episode as part of a pattern of ‘inaccurate and incomplete responses’ to FOIA requests.” (Josh Gerstein, “Emails Show Mills Was Told Of Key Clinton FOIA Request,” Politico, 8/10/16)



    If The State Department Had Been More Thorough, Clinton’s “Exclusive Use Of A Private Email Server As Secretary Of State Could Have Been Exposed Years Before It Became Public In March 2015.” “The incident is noteworthy because had State's response been more thorough, Clinton's exclusive use of a private email server as Secretary of State could have been exposed years before it became public in March 2015.” (Josh Gerstein, “Emails Show Mills Was Told Of Key Clinton FOIA Request,”Politico, 8/10/16)




    STATE DEPARTMENT ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL NEW WORK-RELATED CLINTON EMAILS


    The New York Post Headline: “It’s Going To Be A While Before All Of Clinton’s Emails Are Released” (Daniel Halper, “It’s Going To Be A While Before All Of Clinton’s Emails Are Released,” The New York Post, 8/10/16)



    The Hill Headline: “Deleted Clinton Emails Might Remain Secret Until After Election”(Julian Hattem, “Deleted Clinton Emails Might Remain Secret Until After Election,”The Hill, 8/10/16)



    None Of The Work-Related Clinton Emails Deleted From Clinton’s Server That The FBI Discovered Have Been Released. “None of the work-related Hillary Clinton emails discovered by the FBI after being deleted from her private server have been released, raising questions about whether any will be seen in public before Election Day.” (Julian Hattem, “Deleted Clinton Emails Might Remain Secret Until After Election,” The Hill, 8/10/16)



    “The FBI Found ‘Several Thousand’ Work-Related Emails Deleted By Clinton” But The State Department Has Not Committed To A Schedule For Their Release… “The FBI says it found ‘several thousand’ work-related emails deleted by Clinton, but the State Department has not committed to a schedule for their release, and it will be up to a federal judge to determine when they could be made public.” (Julian Hattem, “Deleted Clinton Emails Might Remain Secret Until After Election,” The Hill,8/10/16)



    “The Ongoing Delay Complicates The Odds That Clinton’s Deleted Emails Are Made Public Before The Election In November.”(Julian Hattem, “Deleted Clinton Emails Might Remain Secret Until After Election,” The Hill, 8/10/16)



    Clinton: “I Responded Right Away And Provided All My Emails That Could Possibly Be Work-Related.” CLINTON: “Third, after I left office, the State Department asked former Secretaries of State for our assistance in providing copies of work- related emails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totalled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew that the State Department already had the vast majority of them. We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work- related emails and deliver them to the State Department.” (Hillary Clinton,Remarks At A Press Conference, New York, NY, 3/10/15)



    IRAN $400 MILLION RANSOM PAYMENT OPPOSED BY HEAD OF DOJ NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION


    On Thursday August 4th, President Obama Dismissed Concerns About The Release Of American Hostages From Iran Coinciding With A $400 Million Payment As A Result Of “The Manufacturing Of Outrage.” “‘What we have is the manufacturing of outrage in a story that we disclosed in January,’ the president said when asked about the delivery, the result of a decades-old dispute over payment for military equipment.” (Louis Nelson, Obama Dismisses Idea That $400 Million For Iran Was Ransom Payment,” Politico, 8/4/16)



    Hillary Clinton Also Dismissed The Payment As “Old News.” “Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, when asked about the payment by a local Denver, Colorado, television station, said it was "old news." “‘It was first reported about seven or eight months ago, as I recall,’ she told Denver's 9News. ‘And, so far as I know, it had nothing to do with any kind of hostage swap or any other tit-for-tat. It was something that was intended to, as I am told, pay back Iran for contracts that were canceled when the Shah fell.’” (Elise Labott, Nicole Gaouette and Kevin Liptak, “US Sent Plane With $400 Million In Cash To Iran,” CNN, 8/4/16)



    However, The Wall Street Journal Reported That Senior Officials At The Justice Department Were Concerned That The Iranians Considered The Payment To Be A Ransom. “The timing and manner of the payment raised alarms at the Justice Department, according to those familiar with the discussions. ‘People knew what it was going to look like, and there was concern the Iranians probably did consider it a ransom payment,’ said one of the people.” (Devlin Barrett, “Justice Department Officials Raised Objections On U.S. Cash Payment To Iran,” The Wall Street Journal,8/3/16)



    And They Recently Reported That The Head Of The National Security Division At The Justice Department Was One Person Who Raised Concerns About The Optics Of The Iran Payment. “The head of the national security division at the Justice Department was among the agency’s senior officials who objected to paying Iran hundreds of millions of dollars in cash at the same time that Tehran was releasing American prisoners, according to people familiar with the discussions.” (Delvin Barret, “Senior Justice Official Raised Objections to Iran Cash Payment,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/12/16)





    • Regardless Of The Nature Of The Payment, Some At The Justice Department Feared That Iran Would Believe The Payment Was Ransom Money. “John Carlin, a Senate-confirmed administration appointee, raised concerns when the State Department notified Justice officials of its plan to deliver to Iran a planeful of cash, saying it would be viewed as a ransom payment, these people said. A number of other high-ranking Justice officials voiced similar concerns as the negotiations proceeded, they said.” (Delvin Barret, “Senior Justice Official Raised Objections to Iran Cash Payment,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/12/16)





    The International Community Being Confused By The Optics Of The Agreement Could Put Americans In Danger. “The objection of senior Justice Department officials was that Iranian officials were likely to view the $400 million payment as ransom, thereby undercutting a longstanding U.S. policy that the government doesn’t pay ransom for American hostages, these people said. The policy is based on a concern that paying ransom could encourage more Americans to become targets for hostage-takers.” (Delvin Barret, “Senior Justice Official Raised Objections to Iran Cash Payment,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/12/16)



    Justice Department Objections Were Ultimately Overruled By The Obama Administration’s State Department. “Senior Justice Department officials objected to sending a plane loaded with cash to Tehran at the same time that Iran released four imprisoned Americans, but their objections were overruled by the State Department, according to people familiar with the discussions.” (Devlin Barrett, “Justice Department Officials Raised Objections On U.S. Cash Payment To Iran,”The Wall Street Journal, 8/3/16)



    Echoing Concerns Held By The Justice Department, Some In Iran Viewed The Payment As Ransom. “In contrast, Iranian hardliners have been saying since February that it was ransom payment for the release of American spies. Subsequently, they have also used the “ransom” as evidence to the Iranian public to justify more ‘espionage’ related arrests.” (Ellen R. Wald, “Iran Ransom 2016: A Bigger Deal Than Iran-Contra 1985,” Forbes, 8/4/16)



    Iranian Brigadier General Mohammed Reza Neghdi Has Publicly Said The Payment Was Ransom. “According to entrenched powers in Iran, the February deal, was, in fact, ransom. Brig. General Mohammed Reza Neghdi, who runs the Iranian Basij (a domestic military-style organization), has been saying publically in Iran that the cash payment was ransom for “spies.” He cites this regularly as evidence that the United States is still working to infiltrate Iran and uses it to justify detaining and imprisoning more Americans in Iran. The more political Foreign Ministry denied the ransom claim in February, but the issue holds such political sway that it was debated live on television during Iran’s most recent parliamentary elections.”(Ellen R. Wald, “Iran Ransom 2016: A Bigger Deal Than Iran-Contra 1985,” Forbes, 8/4/16)



    Lawmakers Contend That The Perception Of A Ransom Payment Exists Putting Americans In Danger. “The cash flown to Iran consisted of euros, Swiss francs, and other currencies because U.S. law forbids transacting American dollars with Iran. While the Obama administration denied the cash transfer was done to secure the release of the four Americans, GOP lawmakers said it was tantamount to ‘ransom.’ ‘Paying ransom to kidnappers puts Americans even more at risk,’ Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said in a statement. ‘While Americans were relieved by Iran’s overdue release of illegally imprisoned American hostages, the White House’s policy of appeasement has led Iran to illegally seize more American hostages.’” (“Lawmakers: ‘Ransom’ To Iran Puts Americans At Risk,” Fox News, 8/3/16)



    CLINTON’S TRANSPARENT FLIP FLOPS ON TRADE


    During Her Economic Speech On Thursday, Clinton “Forcefully Rejected The Notion” That She Would Support The TPP, Saying “I Oppose It Now, I’ll Oppose It After The Election, And I’ll Oppose It As President.” “Hillary Clinton on Thursday forcefully rejected the notion that she will support the Trans-Pacific Partnership if she’s elected in November, telling a blue-collar crowd in Michigan that ‘I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president.’” (Nolan D. McCaskill, “Clinton Forcefully Disavows Obama’s Trade Deal,” Politico, 8/11/16)



    Clinton Slammed Current U.S. Trade Deals And Has Said She “Will Stop Any Trade Deal That Kills Jobs Or Holds Down Wages, Including The Trans-Pacific Partnership.” “Well let’s start with this. It is true that too often past trade deals have been sold to the American people with rosy scenarios that did not pan out. Those promises now ring hollow in many communities across Michigan and our country that have seen factories close and jobs disappear. Too many companies lobbied for trade deals so they could sell products abroad. But then they instead moved abroad and sold back into the United States. It is also true that China and other countries have gamed the system for too long. Enforcement, particularly during the Bush administration has been too lax. Investments at home that would make us more competitive have been completely blocked in Congress. And American workers and communities have paid the price. But the answer is not to rant and rave or cut ourselves off from the world. That would end up killing even more jobs. The answer is to finally make trade work for us, not against us. So my message, my message to every worker in Michigan and across America is this. I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including The Trans-Pacific Partnership.” (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Warren, MI, 8/11/16)



    As Secretary Of State, Clinton Took “A Leading Part In Drafting The Trans-Pacific Partnership.” “She’s pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China’s shadow. She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.” (Elizabeth Dwoskin and Indira Laksmanan, “How Hillary Clinton Created A U.S. Business-Promotion Machine,” Bloomberg,1/10/13)



    As “One Of The Leading Drivers Of The TPP When Secretary Of State,” Clinton Spoke In Favor Of TPP At Least 45 Times According To CNN.“But as members of the Obama administration can attest, Clinton was one of the leading drivers of the TPP when Secretary of State. Here are 45 instances when she approvingly invoked the trade bill about which she is now expressing concerns.” (Jake Tapper, “45 Times Secretary Clinton Pushed The Trade Bill She Now Opposes,” CNN, 6/15/15)



    In November 2012, Clinton Said The “TPP Sets The Gold Standard In Trade Agreements” And Includes “Strong Protections For Workers And The Environment.”CLINTON: “So it's fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.” (Hillary Clinton,Remarks At Techport Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, 11/15/12)




    But In October 2015, Clinton Flip-Flopped On TPP, Saying The Deal Did Not “Meet The High Bar” She Has Set. PBS’S JUDY WOODRUFF: “So are you saying that as of today, this is not something you could support?” CLINTON: “What I know about it, as of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it. And there is one other element I want to make, because I think it’s important. Trade agreements don’t happen in a vacuum, and in order for us to have a competitive economy in the global marketplace, there are things we need to do here at home that help raise wages. And the Republicans have blocked everything President Obama tried to do on that front. So for the larger issues….and then what I know, and again, I don’t have the text, we don’t yet have all the details, I don’t believe it is going to meet the high bar I have set.” (PBS’s “News Hour,” 10/7/15)
    Financial Times Editorial: TPP “Is Not The First Time Mrs. Clinton Has Spoken From One Side Of Her Mouth When In Office And From The Other Side When Out Of It” On Trade.“This is not the first time Mrs Clinton has spoken from one side of her mouth when in office and from the other side when out of it. When she was running against Mr Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, she said that she would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ‘to take out the ability of foreign companies to sue us because of what we do to protect our workers’. After joining Mr Obama’s administration in 2009, she reversed course and supported similar “investor-state dispute settlement” provisions in the TPP.” (Editorial, “Hillary Clinton, The TPP And The Trust Problem,”Financial Times, 10/8/15)






    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #155  
    RX Local superbeets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,232


    - AUGUST 12, 2016 -

    HILLARY CLINTON’S RADICAL JOB-KILLING ENERGY PLAN

    Hillary Clinton’s Embrace Of President Obama’s Radical Environmental Agenda Will Kill Jobs And Hurt The Economy
    Clinton Has Praised President Obama’s Radical Environmental Agenda And Has Vowed To Expand Upon It:
    Clinton Has Vowed To “Defend And Build On” The Obama Administration’s Anti-Coal Regulations, Which Has Earned Her Support From Environmentalists But Led To Concerns From Labor Unions. “Clinton was quick last week to praise President Obama’s stricter rules on coal-fired power plants, vowing to both defend and build on them. Her stance won plaudits from environmentalists within her party, but unions, a key constituency, are concerned she has yet to say how tougher climate rules will affect coal industry jobs.” (Valerie Volcovici and Amanda Becker, “Clinton Strays From Her Roots As Coal Miner’s Great Granddaughter,” Reuters, 8/10/15)
    Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Chair, John Podesta, Was The “Architect” Of The Obama Administration’s Carbon Regulations. “Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, was the architect of Mr. Obama’s signature climate change policy, a set of E.P.A. regulations to cut carbon emissions from power plants. Mrs. Clinton’s new plan appears explicitly designed to build on that plan.” (Trip Gabriel and Coral Davenport, “Hillary Clinton Lays Out Climate Change Plan,” The New York Times¸7/27/15)
    In August 2015, Obama Finalized New EPA Regulations That Mandate “Tougher Greenhouse Gas Cuts On American Power Plants.” “Aiming to jolt the rest of the world to action, President Barack Obama moved ahead Sunday with even tougher greenhouse gas cuts on American power plants, setting up a certain confrontation in the courts with energy producers and Republican-led states.” (Josh Lederman, “Climate Change: Obama Orders Steeper Cuts From Power Plants,” The Associated Press, 8/2/15)

    • Obama’s EPA Initially Proposed The Regulations In 2014, Which Take Aim At The Country’s Coal-Fired Power Plants By Drastically Cutting Carbon Emissions. “The Obama administration on Monday announced one of the strongest actions ever taken by the United States government to fight climate change, a proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulation to cut carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The regulation takes aim at the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States, the nation’s more than 600 coal-fired power plants.” (Coral Davenport, “Unveiling New Carbon Plan, E.P.A. Focuses On Flexibility,” The New York Times, 6/2/14)

    The Final EPA “Clean Power Plan” Rule “Requires A 32 Percent Cut In Power-Plant Carbon-Dioxide Emissions By 2030 From 2005 Levels.” “The limits on carbon emissions are a central component of the U.S.’s pledge to its international partners to cut greenhouse gases by a range of 26% to 28% by 2025, from 2005 levels. The final Environmental Protection Agency rule requires a 32% cut in power-plant carbon-dioxide emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels, which is a more ambitious target than the draft rules proposed last year.” (Colleen McCain Nelson And Amy Harder, “Obama Announces Rule To Cut Carbon Emissions From Power Plants,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/3/15)
    The Final EPA Rule, Running More Than 1500 Pages, Explicitly Says That States Can Use Tax Increases “As A Tool For Meeting Their Emissions-Cutting Requirements.”“In a change from the draft plan, the final EPA rule now explicitly says states can use ‘fees’ (i.e., taxes) as a tool for meeting their emissions-cutting requirements. That’s on page 899 of the massive 1,560-page rule. Plans that states craft to comply with the mandate, the rule states, ‘could accommodate imposition by a state of a fee for CO2 emissions from affected [electric generating units], an approach suggested by a number of commenters.’ That language is a rather brief blessing but enough to excite the ad-hoc, Left-Right mix of environmentalists, economists, and a few conservative carbon-tax advocates who have long been swimming upstream at the national and state level.”(Ben Geman, “Obama Climate Plan Revives Talk Of A Carbon Tax,” National Journal, 8/3/15)
    Obama’s Plan To Crack Down On Emissions Is “Unprecedented” And “Controversial.” “In finalizing the unprecedented pollution controls, Obama was installing the core of his ambitious and controversial plan to drastically reduce overall U.S. emissions, as he works to secure a legacy on fighting global warming. Yet it will be up to Obama’s successor to implement his plan, which reverberated across the 2016 presidential campaign trail.” (Josh Lederman, “Obama Orders Steeper Greenhouse Gas Cuts From U.S. Power Plants,” The Associated Press, 8/2/15)

    • Obama’s Regulations Are Intended To “Wean” The Country Off Coal Produced Energy. “Another key change to the initial proposal marks a major shift for Obama on natural gas, which the president has championed as a ‘bridge fuel’ whose growing use can help the U.S. wean itself off dirtier coal power while ramping up renewable energy capacity. The final version aims to keep the share of natural gas in the nation’s power mix at current levels.” (Josh Lederman, “Obama Orders Steeper Greenhouse Gas Cuts From U.S. Power Plants,” The Associated Press, 8/2/15)

    In June 2014, Clinton Praised The Obama Administration’s EPA Rules On Coal-Fired Power Plants And Described The New Rules As “A Very Creative AmericanSolution.” CLINTON: “So part of what President Obama is doing, and I fully support it, is making it clear that the United States is going to act. We’ve done work on mileage, now with the EPA rules on coal-fired plants, and a very creative American solution, having different states figure out what they can do to try to lower their coal-fired emissions. But then the Supreme Court just agreed that the government has the authority to regulate carbon.” (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At The Aspen Ideas Festival, Aspen, CO, 6/30/14)
    Clinton Commended Obama For His Actions On Climate Change, Including New EPA Regulations To Limit Carbon Emissions From Coal-Fired Power Plants. “On climate change, Clinton commended President Obama for some recent actions, including new federal regulations limiting carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. ‘We’re moving,’ Clinton said, ‘but we need to do so much more.’” (Philip Rucker, “Hillary Clinton Tries To Strike The Right Tone On Wealth And Income Inequality,” The Washington Post, 6/30/14)

    • But Clinton Also Said She Believed America Needed To Go Further Than Obama’s Actions: “So We Are Moving But We Need To Do So Much More.” CLINTON: “So we are moving but we need to do so much more. But the United States cannot go to an international forum unless we’ve done more. And I think what President Obama is now doing is laying down here is what the United States of America is going to do, what are you going to do and being able to bring people around the table by 2015 so maybe we can stem off what will be a terrible, terrible outcome for our world.” (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At The Aspen Ideas Festival, Aspen, CO, 6/30/14)

    Clinton’s “Support Of Obama’s Climate Agenda” Will Be A Liability For Her 2016 Campaign. “If Clinton runs in 2016, her support of Obama’s climate agenda, and push for more policies, would likely put her in the crosshairs of Republicans who call the president’s emissions standards a ‘war on coal’ and energy jobs.” (Laura Barron-Lopez, “Clinton: US Must Do More On Climate,” The Hill, 7/1/14)
    Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” Regulations, Finalized In 2015, Will Raise Energy Costs And Kill Jobs:
    Based On EPA Data, The American Action Forum Estimated The Obama Administration’s Finalized Regulations On Carbon Emissions Would Close 66 Power Plants, Eliminate 125,800 Coal Jobs, And Cut The Coal Industry In Half. “The final rule for the Clean Power Plan (CPP) was released by the Obama Administration this past August and is a direct attack on the coal industry. According to American Action Forum (AAF) research, the final plan, supported by Sec. Clinton, will shutter 66 power plants and eliminate 125,800 jobs in the coal industry. All of these figures are based on EPA data. The same study shows that using the 2012 baseline for coal generation and projections for 2030 output, the industry could shrink by 48 percent.” (Kimberly VanWhye, “’Revitalizing Coal Communities’: A $30 Billion Consolation Prize”, American Action Forum, 11/13/15)
    An Analysis By NERA Economic Consulting Projected That Obama’s Carbon Regulations Will Cost As Much As $292 Billion. “NERA Economic Consulting has produced an analysis of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) recently finalized by the Obama Administration, aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from new and existing power plants by 32 percent nationwide. NERA’s calculates the CPP could add $29 billion to $39 billion in costs to utilities or as much as $292 billion in added costs between 2022 and 2033, exclusive of added transmission, distribution and natural gas infrastructure costs.” (H. Sterling Burnett, “Economic Analysis of Clean Power Plan Shows High Cost, Minimal Benefits,” The Heartland Institute, 12/2/15)
    The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Estimates That The New Carbon Regulations Will Cause Annual Real Disposable Income To Decline More Than $200 Per Year, Totaling A Loss Of $3,400 By 2030. “Slower economic growth, job losses, and higher energy costs mean that annual real disposable household income will decline on an average of more than $200, with a peak loss of $367 in 2025. In fact, the typical household could lose a total of $3,400 in real disposable income during the modeled 2014-30 timeframe.” (“Assessing The Impact Of Potential New Carbon Regulations In The United States,” Institute For 21st Century Energy, 5/28/14)
    As A Result Of These Regulations, The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Estimates That From 2014 To 2030, On Average, The U.S. Economy Will Have 224,000 Fewer Jobs With A Peak Decline In Employment Of 442,000 Jobs. “On average, from 2014 to 2030, the U.S. economy will have 224,000 fewer jobs (Table ES-3), with a peak decline in employment of 442,000 jobs in 2022 (Figure ES-1). These job losses represent lost opportunities and income for hundreds of thousands of people that can never be recovered.” (“Assessing The Impact Of Potential New Carbon Regulations In The United States,” Institute For 21st Century Energy, 5/28/14)
    “The Obama Administration Estimated The Emissions Limits Will Cost $8.4 Billion Annually By 2030.” (Josh Lederman, “Obama Orders Steeper Greenhouse Gas Cuts From U.S. Power Plants,” The Associated Press, 8/2/15)

    • Industry Experts Say That The Regulations “Will Require Billions Of Dollars In New Investments.” “Industry experts say cutting carbon emissions 32% by 2030 will require billions of dollars in investments for new transmission lines that accommodate more solar and wind power and new pipelines to feed natural-gas-fired power plants, as coal becomes less important as a fuel.” (Amy Harder, Colleen McCain Nelson and Rebecca Smith, “Obama’s New Climate-Change Regulations To Alter, Challenge Industry,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/2/15)

    The Obama Administration Claims The Plan Will Lower Energy Costs, But It Does So By Assuming People Will Simply Use Less Energy, An Assumption Challenged By Energy Providers. “Although the administration predicts the plan will actually lower the average U.S. energy bill by almost $85 in 2030, companies that produce and distribute electricity aren’t buying it. The savings come largely from increased use of wind, power and hydro plants, which operate at a cost of close to zero after they’re installed but cost a lot to get up and running. The administration is also counting on people’s power bills going because they’ll simply use less power as a result of efficiency measures. The National Association of Manufacturers, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, the National Mining Association, the American Energy Alliance and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association all predicted the rule would drive electricity bills up.” (“Winners And Losers Under Obama’s Stricter Power Plant Limits,” The Associated Press, 8/3/15)
    Energy Executives Worry That The New Rules Will “Result In Shutting Power Plants” Leading To Higher Costs For Consumers. “Executives worry about the EPA plan’s cost, in part because it could result in shutting power plants that aren’t yet paid off, Mr. Akins said, meaning consumers will have to pay for assets that aren’t providing benefits. Other executives said consumers may be able to trim their electricity use and keep their bills flat—or even reduce them.” (Amy Harder, Colleen McCain, and Rebecca Smith, “Obama’s New Climate-Change Regulations To Alter, Challenge Industry,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/2/15)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #156  
    RX Local superbeets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,232
    - AUGUST 11, 2016 -



    CLINTON ATTACKS STRUGGLING PARENTS WITH WILD LIES ON TRUMP’S PROPOSED CHILDCARE REFORMS


    "In a disturbing attack on middle class parents seeking to provide for their children, Hillary Clinton has lied wildly about Mr. Trump's tax deduction for working families. The deduction is strictly capped at the average cost of childcare to target the benefit to working and middle class families, and lower-income workers can deduct it from their payroll taxes. Crucially, it is also available to stay-at-home parents. This is just the first in a series of reforms the campaign will outline in more detail in coming days to provide targeted relief to low and middle income families, especially those most in need." - Stephen Miller, National Policy Director

    Mr. Trump’s said that we would allow “parents to fully deduct the average cost of childcare spending from their taxes.”

    • Every parent, whether they itemize deductions or use the standard deduction, will be able to subtract the average cost of childcare from their income when determining tax liability.
    • This “above-the-line” deduction or exclusion from income will provide the greatest relief to middle class families who struggle to pay childcare costs that sometimes exceed $1,000 per month.
    • The deduction will be limited to the average cost of childcare for the age of the child.
    • To provide benefits to lower-income taxpayers who may not benefit from the deduction, the plan also allows parents to exclude childcare expenses from half of their payroll taxes—increasing their paycheck income each week
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #157  
    RX Local superbeets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,232

    • SHARE PICTURE



    +5



    President Obama is set to interrupt his vacation to campaign for Hillary Clinton at a private event for wealthy donors


    But plays golf while Milwaukee burns and Lousiana drowns.

    The worst POTUS in history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #158  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    15,949

    Who would win the presidency today?


    Chance of winning

    Hillary Clinton
    87.1%


    Donald Trump
    12.8%

    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #159  
    RX Local superbeets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,232
    Quote Originally Posted by The Guesser View Post

    Who would win the presidency today?

    Chance of winning

    Hillary Clinton
    87.1%


    Donald Trump
    12.8%





    June 16, 2015: Why Donald Trump Isn’t A Real Candidate, In One Chart
    The first anti-Trump volley at FiveThirtyEight was fired by Harry Enten, the website’s election specialist. Enten’s “one chart” that showed Trump wasn’t a real candidate was one showing the net favorability of 106 presidential candidates since 1980. Trump’s high name recognition combined with a staggering -32 favorability made him the least-liked presidential candidate of all time, Enten said.
    “For this reason alone, Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another “Home Alone” movie with Macaulay Culkin — or playing in the NBA Finals — than winning the Republican nomination.,” Enten said.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #160  
    RX Local superbeets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,232
    Quote Originally Posted by The Guesser View Post

    Who would win the presidency today?

    Chance of winning

    Hillary Clinton
    87.1%


    Donald Trump
    12.8%

    July 16, 2015: Two Good Reasons Not To Take The Donald Trump ‘Surge’ Seriously
    Another Enten article, this piece assures readers that while Trump is rising in the polls (he was second behind Jeb Bush at the time), that’s no reason to regard him as a new Republican frontrunner.
    “In reality, the broad, shallow nature of Trump’s support suggests it’s due mostly to near-universal name recognition, thanks in part to being in the news more often than the news anchors,” he said.


    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #161  
    RX Local superbeets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,232
    Quote Originally Posted by The Guesser View Post

    Who would win the presidency today?

    Chance of winning

    Hillary Clinton
    87.1%


    Donald Trump
    12.8%


    July 20, 2015: Donald Trump Is The World’s Greatest Troll
    Silver finally weighed in with this article, where he described Trump as a “troll” candidate, who was thriving simply by virtue of the tremendous attention he could receive by insulting everybody and not playing by the rules. Trolling, he suggested, had its political limits and would almost certainly deny Trump the nomination.
    “Trump has taken trolling to the next level by being willing to offend members of his own party. Ordinarily, this would be a counterproductive strategy. In a 16-candidate field, however, you can be in first place with 15 or 20 percent of the vote — even if the other 80 or 85 percent of voters hate your guts.
    “In the long run — as our experience with past trolls shows — Trump’s support will probably fade. Or at least, given his high unfavorable ratings, it will plateau, and other candidates will surpass him as the rest of the field consolidates.”

    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #162  
    RX Local superbeets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,232
    Quote Originally Posted by The Guesser View Post
    Back under double digits chance for the pathetic loser in the now cast:

    Chance of winning

    Hillary Clinton
    90.5%


    Donald Trump9.5%





    Aug. 6, 2015: Donald Trump’s Six Stages of Doom
    This article likened Trump’s candidacy to a variety of other insurgent Republican campaigns in the past 20 years, from Pat Buchanan in 1996 to Herman Cain in 2012.
    “The lesson … is that Trump’s campaign will fail by one means or another. Like Cain, Bachmann and Gingrich, Buchanan, Huckabee and Forbes came nowhere close to winning the Republican nomination,” Silver wrote. He pegged Trump’s odds of winning the nomination at 2 percent, and laid out the so-called “six stages of doom” for his campaign.
    Trump would eventually be undone, Silver said, by the many roadblocks in his way. He could disappoint in Iowa or New Hampshire, hit a ceiling as the field shrank, botch delegate accumulation in caucus states, or encounter a concerted GOP effort to sabotage him at the convention. Ultimately, all of these factors influenced the race… and none of them were enough to halt the Trump train.

    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #163  
    RX Local superbeets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,232
    Quote Originally Posted by The Guesser View Post

    Who would win the presidency today?

    Chance of winning

    Hillary Clinton
    87.1%


    Donald Trump
    12.8%


    Aug. 11, 2015: Donald Trump Is Winning The Polls, And Losing The Nomination
    With Trump’s poll support apparently only increasing with time, Silver sought to explain how Trump’s surge in the polls was actually coming at the expense of any chance he had of actually winning the nomination.
    In Silver’s telling, Trump’s abrasive, attention-getting rhetoric was serving to make the primary a “referendum” on Trump, a referendum where 75 percent of Republicans were voting against him. Other GOP candidates had less support, but were at least viewed positively by the party. Once the field shrank, Silver said, one of them would almost certainly be able to crush Trump head to head.
    “Our emphatic prediction is simply that Trump will not win the nomination,” Silver said. “It’s not even clear that he’s trying to do so.”


    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #164  
    RX Local superbeets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,232
    Quote Originally Posted by The Guesser View Post

    Who would win the presidency today?

    Chance of winning

    Hillary Clinton
    87.1%


    Donald Trump
    12.8%



    Nov. 23, 2015: Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trump’s Polls
    Three months later, Trump was still stubbornly refusing to fade away. So, Silver waded back into the fray to tell the news media to stop panicking, and to declare that betting market odds placing Trump’s chances of victory at 20 percent were “substantially too high.”
    The key problems with believing in Trump, Silver said, were his persistently-high unfavorability even among Republicans, along with the fact that the vast majority of voters would only decide whom to support at the last minute. Those last-minute deciders, Silver suggested, could break against Trump in a big way.
    “[C]ould Trump win?,” he asked. “We confront two stubborn facts: first, that nobody remotely like Trump has won a major-party nomination in the modern era. And second, as is always a problem in analysis of presidential campaigns, we don’t have all that many data points, so unprecedented events can occur with some regularity. For my money, that adds up to Trump’s chances being higher than 0 but (considerably) less than 20 percent. Your mileage may vary.”


    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #165  
    Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory Willie99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Home of Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun & Looney Libs
    Posts
    61,465
    "It's official, it's over, Rubio is the nominee"
    "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter". "A rising tide raises all boats". "MAGA"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #166  
    RX Local superbeets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,232
    Quote Originally Posted by The Guesser View Post
    Back under double digits chance for the pathetic loser in the now cast:

    Chance of winning

    Hillary Clinton
    90.5%


    Donald Trump9.5%






    Donald Trump Comes Out Of Iowa Looking Like Pat Buchanan
    Silver was quick to pounce after Trump finished second to Ted Cruz in the Iowa caucuses.
    After Reading This, Will You Ever Take Nate Silver's Opinions Seriously?

    Yes No
    Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

    “Trump underperformed his polls, which had him winning Iowa with 29 percent of the vote, while Cruz and Rubio outperformed theirs,” he wrote. “It’s not uncommon for the polls to be off in Iowa and other early-voting states, but the manner in which Trump underachieved is revealing. It turns out that few late-deciding voters went for him … Iowa voters made Trump appear to be much more of a factional candidate along the lines of [Pat] Buchanan, who received 23 percent of Iowa’s vote in 1996, than the juggernaut he’s been billed as.”Still, Trump’s sustained polling success was finally cracking even Silver’s resolve. Instead of being openly dismissive of Trump, he simply noted that Trump’s real strength would be revealed by how New Hampshire voted. We all know how that went. On Feb. 10, Silver finally anointed Trump as the GOP frontrunner.


    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #167  
    RX Local superbeets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,232
    Yes rough election cycle for both Guesser and his bum chum Nate Silver



    It’s been a rough election cycle for forecasting guru Nate Silver and his website FiveThirtyEight. Silver became a household name after he almost perfectly predicted the results of the 2008 and 2012 general elections, and his esteem was such that to some people he had removed almost all the suspense from elections.
    Then Trump happened.
    Nate Silver and his colleagues at FiveThirtyEight were extremely dismissive of Trump’s chances even after he rose to the top of the polls in the summer of 2015, and they repeatedly said as much. But ultimately, Trump proved to be a “black swan” event that was devastating to the retrospective models Silver relies upon to make predictions. Silver himself has been forthright about his failure, issuing a mea culpa .

    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #168  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    15,949
    The 2 above Gutless, Lying idiots, Wrong Way, and the no life sick Brit Twit, have a standing, open ban bet invitation, to actually back their words. Of course, they are nowhere to be found, because they don't believe a word they post. Just like the Candidate they back, Gutless, Pathetic #LOSERS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #169  
    Rx. Senior TomGshotput's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NV
    Posts
    4,438
    Quote Originally Posted by superbeets View Post
    But ultimately, Trump proved to be a “black swan” event that was devastating to the retrospective models Silver relies upon to make predictions.
    It was only because of Silver's horrible predictions that you were able to make all those 40-1 bets on Trump winning the election. Hopefully he wins in a few weeks and you get your big payday out of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #170  
    RX Local Acebb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    19,442
    Classic thread.
    The 2 banned losers and duhfelch assuring everyone about Hillary's victory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •