Rolling Stone Magazine, 14 October 2016 |
Showing posts with label U.S. presidential election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. presidential election. Show all posts
Saturday 22 October 2016
Quote of the Month
Labels:
Donald Trump,
U.S. presidential election
Wednesday 19 October 2016
Just three weeks to go until the U.S. presidential election and America is getting worried
Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ), statement:
New York, October 13, 2016--In an unprecedented step, the Committee to Protect Journalists today released a statement recognizing that a Donald Trump presidency would represent a threat to press freedom. In response to Trump's threats and vilification of the media during his campaign, the chairman of CPJ's board, Sandra Mims Rowe, issued the following statement on behalf of the organization:
Guaranteeing the free flow of information to citizens through a robust, independent press is essential to American democracy. For more than 200 years this founding principle has protected journalists in the United States and inspired those around the world, including brave journalists facing violence, censorship, and government repression.
Donald Trump, through his words and actions as a candidate for president of the United States, has consistently betrayed First Amendment values. On October 6, CPJ's board of directors passed a resolution declaring Trump an unprecedented threat to the rights of journalists and to CPJ's ability to advocate for press freedom around the world.
Since the beginning of his candidacy, Trump has insulted and vilified the press and has made his opposition to the media a centerpiece of his campaign. Trump has routinely labeled the press as "dishonest" and "scum" and singled out individual news organizations and journalists.
He has mocked a disabled New York Times journalist and called an ABC News reporter a "sleaze" in a press conference. He expelled Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from a campaign press conference because he asked an "impertinent" question, and has publicly demeaned other journalists.
Trump has refused to condemn attacks on journalists by his supporters. His campaign has also systematically denied press credentials to outlets that have covered him critically, including The Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, TheHuffington Post, The Daily Beast, Univision, and The Des Moines Register.
Throughout his campaign, Trump has routinely made vague proposals to limit basic elements of press and internet freedom. At a rally in February, Trump declared that if elected president he would "open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money." In September, Trump tweeted, "My lawyers want to sue the failing @nytimes so badly for irresponsible intent. I said no (for now), but they are watching. Really disgusting."
While some have suggested that these statements are rhetorical, we take Trump at his word. His intent and his disregard for the constitutional free press principle are clear.
A Trump presidency would represent a threat to press freedom in the United States, but the consequences for the rights of journalists around the world could be far more serious. Any failure of the United States to uphold its own standards emboldens dictators and despots to restrict the media in their own countries. This appears to be of no concern to Trump, who indicated that he has no inclination to challenge governments on press freedom and the treatment of journalists.
When MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asked him in December if his admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin was at all tempered by the country's history of critical journalists being murdered, his response was: "He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country... Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too."
Labels:
journalists,
media,
U.S. presidential election
Friday 14 October 2016
NSW Parliament Upper House sends U.S. presidential candidate Donald J. Trump a message - you're a 'a revolting slug' unfit for public office
Notice of Motion published in NSW LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL NOTICE PAPER No. 79 for Thursday, 13 October 2016:
The House agreed to the motion at 10:04am on 13 October 2016 and it was duly recorded in NSW Hansard.
It was passed without objection or need for formal vote.
It was passed without objection or need for formal vote.
Tuesday 11 October 2016
The second U.S. presidential debate reached peak stupid in record time on 10 October 2016
The New York Times article of 10 October 2016 pretty much sums up the second presidential debate:
Donald Trump boiled his decadent campaign down to one message during the presidential debate on Sunday night: hatred of Hillary and Bill Clinton.
With knock-kneed Republican officeholders at last summoning the nerve to desert him, Mr. Trump went to lengths to demonize Hillary Clinton — blaming her even for his own failure to pay taxes — and to remind his hard core of supporters that he is all that stands between her and the presidency.
If he were in charge, Mr. Trump told Secretary Clinton at one point, “You’d be in jail.”
When Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Trump out for his failure to apologize to the minorities, immigrants and women he’s offended, he responded by promising vengeance. Should he win, he said, he would unleash a special prosecutor to investigate her.
Sniffing and glowering, Mr. Trump prowled behind her as Mrs. Clinton presented herself again as the only adult on stage, the only one seeking to persuade the great majority of Americans that she shares their values and aspirations. Mr. Trump, by contrast, fell back on the tricks he has learned from his years in pro wrestling and reality television, making clear how deep his cynicism goes and how little regard he has for his party, let alone the presidency…..
Fortune.com has the published the full transcript online, if readers want to expose themselves to peak stupid.
Moderators Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz well and truly earned their fee - with most of the nastiness and all of the pouting emanating from Donald Trump but towards the end both candidates regularly running over time.
Sunday 2 October 2016
A look at US presidential candidate Donald Trump
Letting the man's words speak for themselves……
* "And by the way, with Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water. Okay, believe me."
* “Google search engine was suppressing the bad news about Hillary Clinton”
But wait, there's more!
But wait, there's more!
* “As
a businessman and a very substantial donor to very important people, when you
give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do. As a businessman, I need
that.”
* “Every time I said something, she would say something back. It was rigged.”…. “I have said time and time again that I would only do these debates if I am treated fairly. The only way I can be guaranteed of being treated fairly is if Hillary Clinton is not there.”
* “She [Hillary Clinton] could be crazy. She could actually be crazy.”
* “I’ve gotta use some tic tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab them by the p—y. You can do anything.”
* “Every time I said something, she would say something back. It was rigged.”…. “I have said time and time again that I would only do these debates if I am treated fairly. The only way I can be guaranteed of being treated fairly is if Hillary Clinton is not there.”
* “She [Hillary Clinton] could be crazy. She could actually be crazy.”
* “I’ve gotta use some tic tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab them by the p—y. You can do anything.”
Thursday 28 July 2016
U.S. Politics 2016: A cry from the heart
GOPLifer, 22 July 2016:
Chairman
Cuzzone:
We
come together in political parties to magnify our influence. An organized
representative institution can give weight to our will in ways we could not
accomplish on our own. Working with others gives us power, but at the cost of
constant, calculated compromise. No two people will agree on everything. There
is no moral purity in politics.
If
compromise is the key to healthy politics, how does one respond when compromise
descends into complicity? To preserve a sense of our personal moral
accountability we must each define boundaries. For those boundaries to have
meaning we must have the courage to protect them, even when the cost is high.
Almost
thirty years ago as a teenager in Texas, I attended my first county Republican
convention. As a college student I met a young Rick Perry, fresh from his
conversion to the GOP, as he was launching his first campaign for statewide
office. Through Associated Republicans of Texas I contributed and volunteered
for business-friendly Republican state and local candidates.
Here
in DuPage County I’ve been a precinct committeeman since 2006. Door to door
I’ve canvased my precinct in support of our candidates. Trudging through snow,
using a drill to break the frozen ground, I posted signs for candidates on whom
I pinned my hopes for better government. Among Illinois Republicans I found an
organization that seemed to embody my hopes for the party nationally.
Pragmatic, sensible, and focused on solid government, it seemed like a GOP
Jurassic Park, where the sensible, reliable Republicans of old still roamed the
landscape.
At
the national level, the delusions necessary to sustain our Cold War coalition
were becoming dangerous long before Donald Trump arrived. From tax policy to
climate change, we have found ourselves less at odds with philosophical rivals
than with the fundamentals of math, science and objective reality.
The
Iraq War, the financial meltdown, the utter failure of supply-side theory,
climate denial, and our strange pursuit of theocratic legislation have all been
troubling. Yet it seemed that America’s party of commerce, trade, and pragmatism
might still have time to sober up. Remaining engaged in the party implied a
contribution to that renaissance, an investment in hope. Donald Trump has put
an end to that hope.
From
his fairy-tale wall to his schoolyard bullying and his flirtation with violent
racists, Donald Trump offers America a singular narrative – a tale of cowards.
Fearful people, convinced of our inadequacy, trembling before a world alight
with imaginary threats, crave a demagogue. Neither party has ever elevated to
this level a more toxic figure, one that calls forth the darkest elements of
our national character.
With
three decades invested in the Republican Party, there is a powerful temptation
to shrug and soldier on. Despite the bold rhetoric, we all know Trump will
lose. Why throw away a great personal investment over one bad nominee? Trump is
not merely a poor candidate, but an indictment of our character. Preserving a
party is not a morally defensible goal if that party has lost its legitimacy.
Watching
Ronald Reagan as a boy, I recall how bold it was for him to declare ‘morning
again’ in America. In a country menaced by Communism and burdened by a
struggling economy, the audacity of Reagan’s optimism inspired a generation.
Fast-forward
to our present leadership and the nature of our dilemma is clear. I watched
Paul Ryan speak at Donald Trump’s convention the way a young child watches his
father march off to prison. Thousands of Republican figures that loathe Donald
Trump, understand the danger he represents, and privately hope he loses, are
publicly declaring their support for him. In Illinois our local and state GOP
organizations, faced with a choice, have decided on complicity.
Our
leaders’ compromise preserves their personal capital at our collective cost.
Their refusal to dissent robs all Republicans of moral cover. Evasion and
cowardice has prevailed over conscience. We are now, and shall indefinitely
remain, the Party of Donald Trump.
I
will not contribute my name, my work, or my character to an utterly
indefensible cause. No sensible adult demands moral purity from a political
party, but conscience is meaningless without constraints. A party willing to
lend its collective capital to Donald Trump has entered a compromise beyond any
credible threshold of legitimacy. There is no redemption in being one of the
“good Nazis.”
I
hereby resign my position as a York Township Republican committeeman. My
thirty-year tenure as a Republican is over.
Sincerely,
Chris
Ladd
Labels:
Donald Trump,
politics,
U.S. presidential election
Thursday 8 November 2012
Having the last laugh on disgruntled American wingnuts in November 2012
Labels:
U.S. presidential election,
US election
Wednesday 7 November 2012
US Presidenial Election 6 November 2012 - links to live cover on the night
Labels:
U.S. presidential election
Sunday 28 October 2012
Friday 26 October 2012
CNN withdraws online article which suggests a woman's vote is ruled by her hormones
Right in the middle of the final half of the 2012 US Presidential Election CNN committed an editorial blunder by apparently giving serious consideration to the concept of biological determinism as a political reality.
Unfortunately CNN didn’t tell Fox2 Now in St. Loius which went to press with the very same article five minutes later.
It is reproduced here as part of the historical record of the U.S. political landscape in October 2012:
Study Links Women’s Voting Choices With Ovulation
(CNN) — While the campaigns eagerly pursue female voters, there’s something that may raise the chances for both presidential candidates that’s totally out of their control: women’s ovulation cycles.You read that right. New research suggest that hormones may influence female voting choices differently, depending on whether a woman is single or in a committed relationship.
Please continue reading with caution. Although the study will be published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science, several political scientists who read the study have expressed skepticism about its conclusions.
A bit of background: Women are more likely to vote than men, other studies have found. Current data suggest married women favor Gov. Mitt Romney, in a 19% difference, over President Barack Obama, while Obama commands the votes of single women by a 33% margin, according to the study. And previous studies have shown that political and religious attitudes may be influenced by reproductive goals.
In the new study’s first experiment, Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, San Antonio and colleagues conducted an internet survey of 275 women who were not taking hormonal contraception and had regular menstrual cycles. About 55% were in committed relationships, including marriage.
They found that women at their most fertile times of the month were less likely to be religious if they were single, and more likely to be religious if they were in committed relationships.
Now for the even more controversial part: 502 women, also with regular periods and not taking hormonal contraception, were surveyed on voting preferences and a variety of political issues.
The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney, by a margin of at least 20%, Durante said. This seems to be the driver behind the researchers’ overall observation that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.
Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says.
“I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,” she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said.
Durante’s previous research found that women’s ovulation cycles also influence their shopping habits, buying sexier clothes during their most fertile phase.
“We still have the ovulatory hormones that have the same impact on female brains as across other species,” she said. We want sex and we want it with the best mate we can get. “But there are some high costs that come with it,” she said, particularly for women who are already in committed relationships.
This isn’t the first time hormones have been looked at in connection to voting. Last year Israeli researchers published a study in the journal European Neuropsychopharmacology examined the stress hormone cortisol in voters in Israel. Levels of this hormone were higher in people right before they were about to vote than in the same people when they were not voting.
Durante’s study on women noted that liberal attitudes favor social equality and tend to be less associated with organized religion. Conservatism is more about traditional values and is linked to greater participation in organized religion.
The most controversial part of the study is not only that hormonal cycles are linked to women’s preferences for candidates and voting behaviors, but also that single women who are ovulating are more likely to be socially liberal, and relationship-committed women are more likely to be socially conservative, said Paul Kellstedt, associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University.
One of the major caveats this paper fails to address is that men also have biochemical changes, Kellstedt said.
“The reader may be left with the impression that women are unstable and moody in ways that extend to their political preferences, but that men are comparative Rocks of Gibraltar,” Kellstedt said in an e-mail.
Kellstedt does not study biology, but he has been involved in research suggesting that men’s political preferences are even more volatile than women’s.
“There is absolutely no reason to expect that women’s hormones affect how they vote any more than there is a reason to suggest that variations in testosterone levels are responsible for variations in the debate performances of Obama and Romney,” said Susan Carroll, professor of political science and women’s and gender studies at Rutgers University, in an e-mail.
Carroll sees the research as following in the tradition of the “long and troubling history of using women’s hormones as an excuse to exclude them from politics and other societal opportunities.”
“It was long thought that a woman shouldn’t be president of the U.S. because, God forbid, an international crisis might happen during her period!” Carroll said.
A better explanation for the divide in voting preferences between single and married women is the difference in economic status, she said.
One expert gave it a little more credence: Israel Waismel-Manor, a political scientist at the University of Haifa in Israel, who did the cortisol study last year.
He’s not sure that this hormonal effect Durante found among women isn’t real, but offered an alternate explanation too: Research has shown women prefer more “manly men” when they are in their most fertile phases of the cycle. Obama and Romney are both handsome, in good physical shape and could fit the type of “provider of the family,” so either could fit the ideal, depending on a woman’s preference.
Assuming there is some hormonal explanation, the effects could cancel themselves out, since different women will be on different cycles when they vote, and the candidates have a similar level of physical attractiveness, Waismel-Manor said. A more elaborate research design is needed to examine it further.
“Even if the finding is correct, there’s a chance that it won’t have a cumulative effect on the electorate,” he said.
By Elizabeth Landau, CNN
The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2012 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.
Labels:
media bloopers,
politics,
U.S. presidential election
Tuesday 23 October 2012
Obamba and Romney quipping away at the 2012 Alfed E. Smith Memorial Dinner in New York as betting odds firm
The Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner is an annual white tie charity fundraiser for Catholic charities, held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York on the third Thursday of October (Smith died on October 4). It is organized by the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation in honor of former New York Governor Al Smith, the first Catholic presidential candidate. The first dinner was in 1945, the year after Al Smith's death.
How the world rates this contest between two privileged men.
Paddy Power betting odds:
Centrebet betting odds:
Sportsbet betting odds:
How the world rates this contest between two privileged men.
Paddy Power betting odds:
Centrebet betting odds:
Sportsbet betting odds:
Thanks to the reader who pointed me towards these bets.
Labels:
U.S. presidential election
Saturday 20 October 2012
Mitt Romney: the shot heard round the world
Arrggh!
I shot my foots! cries Mitt Romney after he said this:
So
now Teh Netz has Binders Full of Women
(tumblr), Binders Full of Women
(Facebook) and #bindersfullofwomen (Twitter)
Wonder if
Abbott will give the "binders full of women" line a go in his next
censure motion?
Labels:
U.S. presidential election,
US election
Monday 10 September 2012
US Presidential Election Campaign 2012: Barack goes trawling for the campaign dollar
On the face of it Barack Obama is reduced to asking for peanut-sized contributions from the party faithful as he battles to retain the US presidency.
Barack Obama@BarackObama
If you're on Team Obama-Biden, pitch in $5 now:
http://OFA.BO/T36fzu #Forward2012
And hawking stickers for 5 bucks a piece to top up the war chest.
http://OFA.BO/T36fzu #Forward2012
And hawking stickers for 5 bucks a piece to top up the war chest.
A strategy which seems to be working looking at this campaign funding breakdown over at Open Secrets.
Labels:
U.S. presidential election
Sunday 12 August 2012
U.S. Presidential Election 2012: Obama reacts swiftly to the naming of Paul Ryan as Romney's running mate
Barack Obama's supporters could have added that Paul Ryan was one of those who voted for the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 which paved the way for the widespread financial institutions collapse that caused the Global Financial Crisis. A crisis still reverberating around the world today.
A point these supporters could legitimately make, given Obama did not begin serving in the US Senate until January 2005.
They might also have added that Ryan reportedly received US $1,416,466 in political contributions from financial institutions prior to his vote.
Labels:
U.S. presidential election,
USA
Thursday 24 May 2012
U.S. Presidential Election 2012: Down and dirty in Romneyville
Although Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is publicly disavowing the 'battle plan' of the GOP-aligned super PAC, one gets the general impression that this tactic to smear Obama during the Carolina Democratic Convention being held 3-7 September 2012 falls well within the campaign strategy of the Romney camp.
Expect to see a significant Internet and social media presence by this pac then - starting with teasers hinting of dark clouds to come before a dénouement concerning the metrosexual black Abe Lincoln Barack Obama's past association with the African-American preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Wright was used as a character attack issue in the previous election campaign which saw Obama become U.S. President.
Labels:
U.S. presidential election
Monday 5 March 2012
For those so terminally bored that they are following the U.S. GOP preselection race
The New York Times online Politics
Click on map to enlarge
Mitt Romney won Saturday’s nonbinding caucuses in Washington State, handing him a symbolic victory in his quest for the Republican nomination as he heads into the critical Super Tuesday contests just three days away.
The vote was a nonbinding straw poll and has no bearing on the selection of the state’s 43 delegates. Of those, 40 are up for grabs, but they will not be picked until later.
All four candidates remaining in the race — Mr. Romney, Rick Santorum, Representative Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich — actively campaigned in Washington, but none concentrated their efforts there as intensely as Mr. Paul.
The victory gives Mr. Romney some momentum heading into the big contests this week on Super Tuesday, when 10 states vote. With 81 percent of the Washington votes counted on Saturday night, Mr. Romney had won about 37 percent, with Mr. Paul at 25 percent, Mr. Santorum at 24 percent and Mr. Gingrich at 11 percent.
Labels:
politics,
U.S. presidential election,
USA
Friday 6 January 2012
View from the far side of American politics
2012 U.S. Presidential Election – Republican Pre-selection Race - Iowa Caucus frontrunners in as few words as possible......
Rick Santorum
Conservative, Catholic, Creationist, Climate Change denier, Included in CREW Most Corrupt Members of Congress list in 2006, Former U.S. Congressman and two-term U.S. Senator sacked by voters in 2006, Lawyer, Energy industry consultant and former FOX NEWS contracted contributor, Endorsed by Rupert Murdoch, Described Wikileaks as being led by a terrorist, Annual income estimated at around $1 million, 53 years old, IQ debatable.
Conservative, Catholic, Creationist, Climate Change denier, Included in CREW Most Corrupt Members of Congress list in 2006, Former U.S. Congressman and two-term U.S. Senator sacked by voters in 2006, Lawyer, Energy industry consultant and former FOX NEWS contracted contributor, Endorsed by Rupert Murdoch, Described Wikileaks as being led by a terrorist, Annual income estimated at around $1 million, 53 years old, IQ debatable.
Conservative, Mormon, Pro-Lifer, Climate Change sceptic, More policy positions than the Karma Sutra, One-term Massachusetts Governor 2003-2007 then retired, Former private equity dealer, Biotech multinational Monsanto & Co a former client, Endorsed by John McCain, Refuses to publicly release his tax returns & allegations of tax evasion, Personal wealth estimated at $250 million, 64 years old, IQ debatable.
Monday 10 November 2008
Looking back at a genuinely historic political moment
Labels:
politics,
U.S. presidential election
Saturday 8 November 2008
Punters who backed Obama should front up to their bookies now
Some of the punter who backed Barack Obama to win the US Presidential Election can front up to their bookie right now and collect their winnings.
In what is indeed a most magnanimous gesture (well, that's how the bookies probably describe it) punters who wagered on Obama with Australian bookmaker Centrebet can get in the queue and collect their winnings now.
Yes, that's correct! Punters do not have to wait until Inauguration Day on 20 January 2009 to collect their winnings.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Centrebet announced it would today begin paying out more than $2 million in winnings to punters who backed Senator Obama to win the US election.
The Herald reported Sportsbet could not be reached for comment.
In what is indeed a most magnanimous gesture (well, that's how the bookies probably describe it) punters who wagered on Obama with Australian bookmaker Centrebet can get in the queue and collect their winnings now.
Yes, that's correct! Punters do not have to wait until Inauguration Day on 20 January 2009 to collect their winnings.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Centrebet announced it would today begin paying out more than $2 million in winnings to punters who backed Senator Obama to win the US election.
This comes after Centrebet was one of two bookmakers that yesterday told media that it would not pay out until the inauguration in January as part of a long running condition.
Sadly, the news for punters who put their hard-earned on Obama with Sportsbet is not so exciting.
Sportsbet said it would not pay out until the January inauguration and this was clearly stated on its terms and conditions.
Centrebet media director Neil Evans said that it had decided to change this long-running policy and begin paying out successful punters from today because it was "the right thing to do''.The Herald reported Sportsbet could not be reached for comment.
Labels:
Obamarama,
U.S. presidential election
Thursday 6 November 2008
The 44th President-Elect of the United States of America
Picture from publicradio.org
Yesterday was an historic day for the United States of America and there is no doubt that Barack Obama fought hard and spent hard to win the White House and his place in the annals of his nation.
While the majority of American voters rejoice, here on the NSW North Coast many are quietly thankful that now, as one born and bred local journalist put it, "the leader of the free world is not a complete nong".
So we can all congratulate Mr. Obama on his gaining the highest office in the land and live in hope that he will live up to his campaign rhetoric and fulfill the perceived promise of his presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)