Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
From the web…
“The only good thing about #socialism is that most of us aren't stupid enough to fall for it.” - @THEHermanCain
“#Republicans must vote in droves to have a fighting chance. Remember: you’re not only facing #Democrats. You’re fighting dead voters, illegal alien voters, and repeat voters. That is, if you can even get to the polls past Black Panthers intimidating you.” - @RealJamesWoods
The Real Colluders With Russia are the Democrats, Intel Agencies, and the Democrat Media Complex
Whatever Happened to the Investigation Into the Obama Regime’s Illegal ‘Unmasking’ of U.S. Citizens
https://www.newsmax.com/LarryKlayman/obama-administration-unmasking-susan-rice/2017/05/03/id/787887/
Amsterdam 'lawless jungle' at night, ombudsman warns
ANP/AFP/File / Koen van WeelTourist hotspot Amsterdam transforms into a "lawless jungle" after dark with the police powerless to intervene against crime and violence, the city ombudsman has warnedTourist hotspot Amsterdam turns into a "lawless jungle" after dark with the police powerless to intervene against crime and violence, the city's ombudsman warned in an interview Saturday.
"The city centre becomes an urban jungle at night," Amsterdam's official ombudsman Arre Zuurmond told Dutch daily Trouw, warning of illegal car and bike races zooming through the streets, open drugs sales and general mayhem.
"Criminal money flourishes, there is no authority and the police can no longer handle the situation," he warned.
Some 18 million tourists flock to Amsterdam every year -- more than the entire population of the Netherlands.
Over the past year, the city has sought to take major steps to push back against unruly visitors instituting stiff fines and penalties for breaking public disturbance laws.
But enticed by cheap travel, groups mostly of young men -- mainly from elsewhere in the Netherlands or Britain -- frequently roam the inner city's canal-lined streets at weekends, on pub crawls or to celebrate stag parties drawn by easy access to drugs and the notorious Red Light district.
Zuurmond paints a painful picture of the city centre's nightlife after previously setting up three cameras in the busy Leidseplein square ringed by bars and clubs.
"One night we counted 900 offences, mainly between the hours of 2:00am and 4:00am. The atmosphere is grim, and there is an air of lawlessness," he said.
"Scooters race through the pedestrian areas. There is a lot of shouting. Drugs are being bought. There is stealing. People pee and even poop on the streets," he said.
"There is violence but no action. You can even pee on the van of a mobile (police) unit and the driver won't say anything."
Zuurmond, who has taken the unusual step of moving into the heart of the city for two weeks this summer to observe first hand the problem, also highlighted 2,000 illegal taxis roaming the streets at nights for fares and a flourishing black market with racketeers dealing in wads of cash.
In the Red Light district "the streets are so packed in the evenings that there is a very unsafe public situation in the event of a fire or a heart attack as emergency services cannot get through."
He pointed to measures to clean up the New York underground 20 years ago, by focusing on one station at a time.
Such a plan could be put into action in Amsterdam, moving through one area at a time, perhaps starting with the central Leidseplein, he suggested.
You gotta see this DEVASTATING video from Netanyahu against the Iranian regime
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu published an absolutely devastating video against the Iranian regime and what they’re doing to their own people.
It’s just him telling a story, but it is very effective:
This is a tough story. But you need to hear it
Wow. I hope this video gets to Iranian citizens yearning to breathe free and that they understand Israel is not their enemy despite the insane rhetoric from Tehran.
So What’s Paul Manafort On Trial For Again?
So What’s Paul Manafort On Trial For Again?
JAZZ SHAW
Paul Manafort’s trial gets underway in Virginia tomorrow with jury selection being the first order of the day. It’s been a long time coming and the public (or at least the majority of the media) are keen to find out what sort of answers may be in store for us. But the list of charges and the evidence being presented by the prosecution seems to be sorely lacking in one area. That’s highlighted in the title of this Associated Press piece from the weekend: Manafort trial to focus on lavish lifestyle, not collusion.
Hold the phone. So you’re saying that after all the hemming and hawing, immunity deals for witnesses and all the rest, the result of Manafort’s role in the Russian collusion scheme is a list of charges for… tax evasion? (Emphasis added)
The trial of President Donald Trump’s onetime campaign chairman will open this week with tales of lavish spending, secret shell companies and millions of dollars of Ukrainian money flowing through offshore bank accounts and into the political consultant’s pocket.
What’s likely to be missing: answers about whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential election, or really any mention of Russia at all.
Paul Manafort’s financial crimes trial, the first arising from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, will center on his Ukrainian consulting work and only briefly touch on his involvement with the president’s campaign.
The article goes on to slyly suggest that, “the broader implications are unmistakable” but never really says how.
Look, if the investigation turned up wrongdoing unrelated to the original alleged crimes, those charges obviously can and should be pursued. If Manafort had been funneling Ukrainian money into offshore accounts and not paying taxes on it, then he broke the law. Of course, I’ve been repeatedly assured for years by lawyers of my acquaintance that officials need a reason to suspect you’ve done something wrong before they can collect evidence and charge you. Isn’t that what the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine is all about?
That brings us back to the starting point of the investigation. What was the original crime that Team Mueller was tasked with looking into when all this started? Wasn’t it supposed to be a question about whether or not people working for the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to “meddle” in the election? Every time I hear the Morning Joe panel answering the President’s tweets about the “witch hunt,” the response always begins with a haughty declaration that some of his closest associates have already been arrested and are going to trial. (At the moment that’s mostly Manafort.) But if all you managed to get on Manafort was that he was laundering money from Ukrainian clients and lining his pockets before going to work on the Trump campaign, what’s all of this been about?
There are more dominos yet to fall and other people who may or may not be pleading guilty to something or going before a jury. But if this is typical of what Mueller has discovered from the past couple of years worth of campaign activity, there are going to be some very different questions for the Special Counsel to answer.
Huge 'Trump 2020' Banner Unfurled Inside Yankee Stadium
By JOSEPH CURL @JOSEPHCURLSomehow, the Russians are no doubt involved.
On Sunday afternoon, in the most liberal bastion in the land — New York City — some supporters of President Trump unfurled a large banner in right field of Yankee Stadium that said "Trump 2020."
Yahoo Sports ✔@YahooSports
"Trump 2020" banner unfurled at Yankee Stadium as sports and politics meet again 
Narciso Urquiola@Coney70sWay to go! pic.twitter.com/ruYtT5levA
Dina Berliner@DinaBerlinerNot even baseball is devoid of politics now. Trump 2020 sign unfurled at the Yankee game during the 8th inning
3:42 PM - Jul 29, 2018
No one knows just how the Trump fans smuggled the massive banner into the stadium. But chances are they aren't residents of the Bronx, home of Yankee Stadium, because just 5% of the residents in the borough voted for Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
No word if Hillary Clinton was at the game, but we're guessing not.
The real colluders with Russia are the Democrats, intelligence agencies, and corporate media. The facts about the Trump Tower meeting only reinforce that.
By Willis L. Krumholz
By Willis L. Krumholz
According to “sources with knowledge” talking to CNN—whatever that means—Michael Cohen is prepared to tell Special Counsel Robert Mueller that Donald Trump knew in advance about the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr. and Russians. The president still denies knowing about that meeting beforehand.
Don Jr. was emailed by a British music promoter, Rob Goldstone, who promised that the Russian “crown prosecutor” had information that would “incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia.” When the meeting took place, in walked two Russian nationals, Rinat Akhmetshin and Natalia Veselnitskaya, who proceeded to talk to Don Jr., Jared Kushner, and others about how Americans could once again adopt Russian children, if only the Magnitsky Act were repealed. Eyes surely rolled, and the meeting was ended. Kushner even messaged his assistant to try to come up with an excuse to leave the meeting early.
For those who belong to the religious cult of Trump-Russia collusion, this meeting is prima facie evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia to rig the 2016 election. One of the sacraments of this cult is that its adherents wake up every morning and hope that on this day, just maybe, Trump will finally be done away with. CNN is of course central to this practice.
CNN’s Chris Cillizza called the anonymously sourced report a “collusion bombshell,” and said it was maybe the “most important [event] of Donald Trump’s presidency.” One wonders how many times CNN and its employees have said similar things, only to see their hopes dashed?
The truth is that it doesn’t matter whether Trump knew of this meeting or not, or whether Mueller can ever prove that he did. Don Jr. and his associates did nothing wrong in setting up this meeting. But the events surrounding the meeting are damning for the intelligence agencies, the media, and the Democrat Party.
This Was Not About the DNC Hacked Emails
At the time of this meeting, the public did not know that Democratic National Committee emails had been stolen. Only the DNC and the Clinton campaign knew that. On June 9, 2016, everyone in conservative-ville, including Don Jr., was still hoping to discover the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton deleted from the home-brew server she used while secretary of state.
Clinton said these emails were personal, but many suspected that they contained evidence of Clinton running a quid pro quo operation while secretary of state: The U.S. government does a foreign country a favor, and in return that foreign government pays Slick Willy half a million for a speech, or donates millions to the Clinton Foundation.
Wasn’t it terrible that Don Jr. met with Russians? Despite what Sen. Marco Rubio and David French might think, no campaign in American history would pass up the opportunity of receiving dirt on their opponents. If a foreign government has dirt, you especially need to examine the dirt, because if your opponent is elected that dirt could be used to leverage U.S. policy decisions.
Keep in mind that during this time nobody knew that Russia had interfered in anything, aside from the regular deluge of phishing emails common to both Russian and Chinese hackers that were directed at both Democrats and Republicans. Yes, it would be grossly inappropriate to change American policy in return for receiving the dirt, and you shouldn’t send your son or close associates to listen to the potential dirt, but you do look into it. That’s just how it works.
Instead of dirt, Don Jr. was treated to a diatribe about adoptions and the Magnitsky Act. Here is where things get very interesting. The Magnitsky Act is a law meant to crack down on Russian black money that human rights violators have parked overseas. The act was named after Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who revealed a Kremlin-run tax fraud and was later beaten to death in Russian prison. In a cruel retaliation for the Magnitsky Act, Vladimir Putin banned U.S. parents from adopting Russian children.
Democratic Operatives Were Working For the
Kremlin
Somebody colluded with Russia, and it wasn’t Donald Trump. Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin were working to repeal the Magnitsky Act for the Kremlin with none other than Fusion GPS, the same opposition research firm the DNC and Clinton campaign had hired in April 2016 to dig up—or create—ties between Trump and Russia.
Fusion’s Glenn Simpson met with Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin both before and after that Trump Tower meeting. Simpson told Congress he had no idea that the two Russians were meeting with the Trump team, but Fusion GPS even provided the materials and handouts for the meeting in question.
Three days after the June 9 Trump Tower meeting, the public learned the DNC had been breached. Around this same time, Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele, a former British spook, specifically to tie Trump to Russia. Steele oversaw the creation of the still-unverified and salacious “dossier.” But Steele farmed out the responsibility for the dossier to Edward Baumgartner, a British national with ties to the Kremlin, who used Russians as sources who were likely current and former Russian intelligence officials.
Former CIA Director John Brennan took that dossier, full of what is likely Russian disinformation straight from the Kremlin, and shopped it around to Congress. Brennan also pushed the FBI to investigate Trump. The FBI’s Peter Strzok opened an investigation based on this Russian disinformation.
Former top Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion GPS, another avenue by which Fusion laundered its weaponized Russian disinformation into the upper echelons of the U.S. government. James Comey’s FBI violated the spirit and the letter of the law and spied on a former member of Trump’s campaign—Carter Page—using the unverified dossier. Once the warrant to spy on Page was secured, the “two-hop rule” allowed American intelligence officials to delve into much if not all of the Trump campaign’s communications.
Most important to team Clinton, Steele and Simpson vociferously shopped the dossier to American journalists, which our intelligence agencies suspiciously ignored, so stories would publish before the election about Trump’s nefarious ties to Russia. Because these stories said the American government was investigating Trump, they lent the Clinton campaign’s talking points on Trump and Russia—meant to distract from the treatment of Bernie Sanders and Clinton’s integrity issues—legitimacy. If that isn’t election interference, then what is?
All the Real Russian Colluders So Far Are Democrats
Let all that sink in. The Democrats hired Fusion GPS to find ties between Trump and Russia, primarily by means of a dossier sourced by Russians tied to the Kremlin. Our so-called intelligence agencies used this dossier to spy on the Trump campaign and mislead an American court, trampling over Americans’ civil liberties to do so. At the same time Fusion GPS was working for the Democrats, Fusion GPS was working for the Kremlin, and with the Russians that showed up at that Trump Tower meeting.
Those who have worked with Fusion GPS have worked with a shadowy group that has acted as an arm of the Kremlin seeking to interfere in U.S. politics.
Because of this, any association with Fusion GPS should be toxic. Those who have worked with Fusion GPS have worked with a shadowy group that has acted as an arm of the Kremlin seeking to interfere in U.S. politics and elections. Yet a lot of people in the Beltway establishment have their hands stained by dealings with Fusion GPS.
The intelligence agencies are stained by Fusion GPS through their use of the Steele dossier. So are the DNC and the Clinton people. And so are a great deal of journalists. Perhaps this explains why the media is so desperately invested in obscuring the factthat the FBI spied on the Trump campaign using Russian disinformation. Maybe this is why the media and many establishmentarians parrot the talking points of James Clapper, Brennan, and Comey. All have at the very least been duped by Russian disinformation.
Even worse, there are still Democrats and so-called journalists working with Fusion GPS to this very day. And the problems with Fusion are no secret. This is a firm with a detailed history of working to spin and gloss over corruption, including for the regimes in Russia and Venezuela.
As Lee Smith has noted, Fusion GPS is tied at the hip to a host of journalists, including Atlantic reporter and MSNBC/NBC contributor Natasha Bertrand, and NBC’s national security reporter Ken Dilanian (a.k.a. “Fusion Ken”). One of the primary goals of creating the Steele dossier, after all, was to shop it to journalists who would then “report” nefarious ties between Trump and Russia before the election. Fusion GPS did just this, and so-called journalists bought it.
Many journalists have continued to run Fusion stories after it was known that Fusion had worked with the Kremlin. Fusion has even made payments to journalists, although the identities of the journalists paid and the extent of this corruption are yet to be discovered.
What Americans Should Do about This
This is the height of stupidity and corruption. How much damage will be done to our country before the truth shines through, and the real colluders are exposed? Here is what you can do.
If you are a conservative politician, you will never change the minds of the Democrat Party, or the media. They are compromised. Stop caring about what they think. But you can speak to Middle Americans and independents. Ask interviewers this question, over and over: “Why were Democrats working with Fusion GPS to create ties between Trump and Russia using a Russian-sourced dossier, at the same time Fusion was working for the Kremlin and with the Russians who showed up at that Trump Tower meeting?
Our republic is on the line if unelected bureaucracies can continue to ignore Congress and act as they please.
“Why did U.S. intelligence agencies use the unverified dossier this firm tied to Russia created—a dossier that was sourced by Russians tied to the Kremlin—to spy on the Trump campaign? And, by the way, why can’t we see that DNC server?”
Stop treating the media like something other than Democrats looking to obscure the truth, promote their party line, and embarrass you and everything you believe in. Interrupt. Argue. Set the agenda. Be dogged, just like Trump.
President Trump, meanwhile, needs to take on Clapper, Brennan, and Comey, and anyone who would defend them. Yes, revoke their security clearances. Yes, continue to publicly lambast them, and don’t be afraid to talk to Russia. This is both good policy, and good politics.
More important though, our republic is on the line if unelected bureaucracies can continue to ignore Congress and act as they please. As such, fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The average American—you and I—has the most important job. Conservatives should always stand up to unelected bureaucrats who bend the rules and abuse their power. This is especially true when these bureaucrats are members of the all-powerful and secretive intelligence bureaucracy. If a politician doesn’t stand up to intelligence bureaucrats, he or she doesn’t belong in a conservative political party representing conservative voters.
A vote to impeach Rosenstein for repeatedly withholding documents Congress demanded just failed to get to the House floor due to a lack of Republican support. Push Congress to bring that vote to the floor and remember where the chips fall. It is too late to mount a primary campaign against Republican members of Congress, but next midterm, voters should remember who votes yea, and who votes nay.
Finally, begin a grassroots push to seriously reform U.S. intelligence agencies. Even move to bring the intelligence agencies under the command of the Pentagon. Russia and China are adversaries, but the most serious threat to our liberty comes from an out-of-control intelligence bureaucracy. If we don’t deal with this problem now, it will only get worse.
Willis L. Krumholz is a fellow at Defense Priorities. He holds a JD and MBA degree from the University of St. Thomas, and works in the financial services industry. The views expressed are those of the author only. You can follow Willis on Twitter @WillKrumholz.
Photo Daniel Huizinga / Flickr
Virtue Signaling Is Now A Cheap, Prolific Substitute For Actual Virtue
The less prone we are to self-examination, the more self-aggrandizing we become in our denunciations. It’s making our society harsher.
For several reasons, all embarrassing testaments to my vice, I was listening to an interview of a beloved former contestant on ABC’s “The Bachelorette.” He was making public amends after having traded his good-guy persona for a series of one-night stands and unfulfilled promises.
I’m sure it’s a temptation of some enormity to be suddenly surrounded by beautiful and willing young women who see you as you want to see yourself. Still, he knew, as all celebrities must know, that how his fans saw him wasn’t real. He began to cope with that disparity by becoming louder in support of various charities. Somehow he thought that by putting his weight behind a good cause he could bridge the chasm between perception and reality, a chasm exacerbated by his womanizing.
His case was less egregious than, but still reminiscent of, Harvey Weinstein’s bizarre public mea culpa about fighting the National Rifle Association in light of the revelations of his predation. Such a jarring non sequitur was deemed unacceptable because he’d violated the last sexual norm: consent. But it was still revealing in how we’ve come to see public support of a popular cause as a great balm for our personal guilt.
It made me wonder how often we all do this. We feel the dissonance between who we ought to be and who we are, and we make up for it by becoming noisier about some issue. If our noise can also implicitly condemn moral beings with whom we disagree, then we might come that much closer to feeling satisfied with ourselves.
Now, obviously we can and should fight injustice, and certainly it’d be not only hasty, but wrong to assume that someone else’s passion for a cause is some sort of mask for his or her interior guilt or shame. But it’s notable that, as we’ve declined as a culture in our private virtue, so have we increasingly globalized our public virtue.
This exchange of the personal for the global means that virtue has become largely propositional. It’s no longer understood as something that demands that I master passions, but now resides largely in an assent to the right beliefs and being on the right side of a cause. It becomes idea more than act. Do you condemn the correct things? Do you do it publicly?
We’re buoyed in this self-defeating exercise by an ambient relativism that ironically encourages its own fundamentalism and incivility. We think relativism will increase civility by making us more accepting, but practically speaking it seems to have the opposite effect.
Cultural relativism implies a futility to debate. Each person can only speak from the locked soap box of his or her own perspective. Outside of that, there’s no intelligible or discoverable meaning upon which we can come together.
Yet even the relativist wants to advance his vision of the moral society. Without recourse to universals, his option for persuasion becomes demagoguery: make your opponent seem not only wrong but bad, someone to be shunned. There truly are some ideas that are so repugnant that they’re not worth serious engagement, but the habit now is to conflate complex policy disagreements without easy answers into Manichaean battles of principle dividing the pure from the sinister.
By nature we’re moral beings. Loosening our cultural mores doesn’t mean our moral instincts disappear. Rather, we end up flexing that muscle more gratuitously. The less prone we are to self-examination, the more self-aggrandizing we become in our denunciations.
It’s making our society harsher. A greater focus on personal virtue gives us an ability to temper our emotions, to be prudent about when to speak and what to say, and to have the humility to humanize our ideological opponents. Mastering our passions and the intellectual habit of seeking plausible opposing arguments can slow the intemperate outrage that’s deforming us.
There’s no avenue to a just society that circumvents the hard work we have to do in ourselves and within our immediate spheres of influence. In fact, we emasculate our efforts if we exert more energy on things over which we’ve the least amount of control.
There’s a lot of talk about civility lately, and a common rejoinder is often some sort of contemptuous tu quoque, but the root of the problem is that being civilized requires personal virtue; it isn’t meant to be a replacement for it. There’s no shortcut to civility that won’t end up being a cheap veneer, easily peeled away and corroded underneath.
There’s a reason Mother Teresa famously said that the way to change the world is to go home and love your family. She knew the sadness and injustice of the world. She also knew the solution.
Noelle Mering is the arts and culture editor and social media manager for helenadaily.com. She received her undergraduate degree from Westmont College in California and did graduate work in philosophy at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. Noelle and her husband live in Southern California with their six children. Noellemering.com
Fitton: Big Victory — Judicial Watch Forces Disclosure of FISA Warrants Targeting Trump Team
AP Photo/J. Scott ApplewhiteA year ago, on July 19, 2017, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Justice Department (DOJ) for copies of the applications it made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for warrants regarding alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.
As you might have expected, Justice didn’t comply — in fact, DOJ refused to confirm or deny any such documents even existed. But then, earlier this year, President Trump declassified the “Nunes Memo” which discussed the Carter Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants abuses. And Judicial Watch quickly sued as the FISA material could now be made public. In April the DOJ told the court that it would have something by July 20, last Friday. That day passed, but late the next day, late on Saturday, Justice released a heavily redacted 412-page document.
Despite the fact that most of the pages were blacked out, they seemed to confirm that the FBI and DOJ misled the courts in withholding the information that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC were behind the “intelligence” used to persuade the courts to approve the FISA warrants that targeted the Trump team.
The FISA court was never told that the key information justifying the warrant requests came from a “dossier” that was created by Fusion GPS, a paid agent of the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. The initial Carter Page warrant was granted just weeks before the 2016 election. Page is the former Trump campaign part-time advisor who was the subject of four controversial FISA warrants from the DOJ.
Little wonder, then, that Justice took a year to deliver and then waited until a Saturday evening to release the materials.
The documents support criticisms by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee who released the Nunes memo that criticized the FISA targeting. The memo details how the “minimally corroborated” Clinton-DNC dossier was an essential part of the FBI and DOJ’s applications for surveillance warrants to spy on Page.
Judicial Watch’s work was widely acclaimed and was noted five times by President Trump, who tweeted:
Congratulations to @JudicialWatch and @TomFitton on being successful in getting the Carter Page FISA documents. As usual they are ridiculously heavily redacted but confirm with little doubt that the Department of “Justice” and FBI misled the courts. Witch Hunt Rigged, a Scam!
Given the corruption made evident by the document, President Trump should intervene and declassify the heavily redacted material, as I call for here. The Obama/Deep State’s abuses now lie partially exposed, and it’s important for Americans to see the full evidence.
Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch.
,The race for the White House is a statistical tie between Democrat Hillary R. Clinton and Republican Donald J. Trump, according to the Breitbart/Gravis national poll conducted Nov. 1 and Nov. 2 with 2,435 registered voters
“Our poll shows Clinton at 47 percent and Trump at 45 percent, which is at our margin of error,” said Doug Kaplan, the managing partner of Gravis Marketing, the Florida-based polling company that executed the poll. The poll carries a margin of error of two percent with a 95 percent level of confidence. Libertarian Gary Johnson has the support of three percent with Green Party nominee Dr. Jill Stein the choice of one percent, he said.
Kaplan said, “Every four years, there is a surge at the end by the Republican nominee, like muscle memory kicking in that in some years is enough and some is not.”
Democratic pollster Patrick Caddell said the election is still up for grabs with up to 12 percent of the electorate still “floating” between the two candidates.
These floaters include up to 20 percent of Clinton’s own supporters, who have developed a split personality–supporting the former first lady personally, but agreeing with Trump, he said
“The whole country is in motion and states in play are going all together,” he said.
Trump is not doing what Caddell has said to Breitbart News or other outlets that he must do, he said: “He needs to go to the American people and make the case that this is a referendum election.”
If Trump makes the election a personality or character contest between him and Clinton, he will lose, Caddell said.
Both candidates have almost the same unfavorable ratings, so it is a wash there, but the head-to-head contest obscures the solid alignment of Trump and the voters on the important issues, such as trade, refugees, immigration, and the idea that an elite has been running the country for their own benefit, he said.
“His closing two minutes is good,” Caddell said. “But he is out there rallying his base–and this is more than a base election.”
The momentum is with Trump, and there is no comparison with the weaker momentum of Republican W. Mitt Romney that stalled in 2012 in the last days of his campaign against President Barack Obama, when Hurricane Sandy made landfall on New Jersey Oct. 29, just over a week before the Nov. 6 election, he said.
“Romney’s momentum was never this great, let’s get that straight,” he said. “They had thrown that election away–hurricane or no hurricane–there was nothing like we are seeing now in terms of volatility, the anti-establishmentism and the protest voting,” he said.
In addition to their presidential preference, poll participants were asked a series of policy and attitudinal questions to gauge the mood of the electorate.
Caddell said one of the most important results in the poll was the response to the question as to whether the “Political Elite and Special Interests” win or lose if Trump or Clinton win or lose.
In the general sample population, 65 percent of respondents said “Political Elite and Special Interests” win if Clinton wins and 35 percent said they lose if the former first lady takes the White House. If Trump wins, 43 percent said “Political Elite and Special Interests” win and 57 percent said they lose.
Caddell said that inside the segments of the sample population, among people with a single college degree, 66 percent said the elites win when Clinton wins, and it was also the response of 58 percent of people with advanced degrees.
This alignment with the Trump voters among voters that are supposed to be hostile to Trump is very significant, he said.
“This is the argument that could move the election” he said.
“If the voters to go into the booth on the basis of just personal qualifications, Trump is disadvantaged. But, if they go and vote based on whether or not they are concerned that Hillary Clinton is under investigation–and if the closing case is that how America is supposed to be ruled? Then, Trump could win–and win by a lot.”
Asked: “Why do you think FBI Director James Comey chose to reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while Secretary of State after the agency recently uncovered thousands of emails on the laptop used by Clinton’s closest adviser?” fifty-seven percent of participants said Comey believed that he found something significant and 43 percent said Comey was trying to influence the outcome of the election.
Asked: “How concerned are you that if Hillary Clinton were elected President her current controversies and scandals will continue to be a central focus of her Presidency and detract from her ability to lead the country?” Sixty percent said they were concerned, which is combination of 47 percent saying “Very Concerned” and 13 percent saying “Concerned.” Nineteen percent said they were “Not Very Concerned” and 19 percent “Not Concerned At All.”
Fifty-six percent said the FBI’s reboot of its investigation will have no effect on their vote, while 21 percent said it was “More Likely” to affect their vote and 22 percent said it would be “Less Likely” to have that effect.
Participants were asked three questions dealing with the issue of whether Clinton would be pardoned.
Asked: “Should President Obama publicly announce before the election that if Hillary Clinton is elected, he will not pardon her for any crimes prior to the election?” Forty-one percent said the president should make that pledge and 34 percent said he should not.
Forty-one percent of respondents said Clinton should announce that she will not accept a pardon from the president, but 31 percent said she should not.
Forty-eight percent said Clinton should announce that if she is elected president, she will not pardon herself and 31 percent said she should not.
Participants were also asked questions to determine whether there is a consensus for change.
Fifty-four percent of the respondents said the county is going in the “Wrong Direction” and 40 percent said the country is going in the “Right Direction.”
Similarly, 54 percent of the respondents said they want the next president to “change the direction and pursue new policies” and 41 percent want the next president to “continue the policies of Barack Obama.”
When they were asked: “Has Obamacare been a success?” Fifty-three percent said “Yes” and 36 percent said “No.”
The poll was conducted using interactive voice response polling and an internet panel of cell phone users with results weighted to match a proprietary turnout model.
The party breakdown of participants is: 46 percent Democrat, 38 percent Republican, and 16 percent Other.
Thirty-seven percent of respondents said they had already voted, 11 percent said they would vote before Election Day and 51 percent said they would vote Election Day.
G’ day…Ciao…Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2018/07/www_31.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment