|
Post by auntym on May 14, 2016 11:39:23 GMT -6
phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/11/what-hillary-clinton-says-about-aliens-is-totally-misguided/ What Hillary Clinton Says About Aliens Is Totally MisguidedA Blog by Nadia Drake Posted Wed, 05/11/2016 A flying saucer hovers over downtown Ithaca*. Have we been visited by aliens? Hillary Clinton is going to find out. Photograph by Nadia Drake In the spring of 1999, a UFO flew over downtown Ithaca, New York. I was standing on the roof of a house near the Cornell University campus and managed to snap a few characteristically crappy pictures of the alien object, which vaguely resembled a flying saucer wearing a top hat. It hovered above the Ithaca Commons for a minute before turning east and soaring over the Cornell University clock tower. As it flew, the craft made a sound that resembled bacon sizzling in a frying pan. Then, just as quickly as it had appeared on that sunny Saturday afternoon, the UFO vanished. The whole encounter lasted maybe a few minutes. I would later learn that it wasn’t the first time Ithaca had been visited by a UFO. In fact, sightings were pretty common in the area during the latter half of the 20th century—just as they are in some UFO hotspots around the world, like Area 51 in Nevada, the Welsh Triangle, and Wycliffe Well, Australia. Witnesses tend to use similar language when describing spacecraft shapes, sounds, and the aliens themselves, which ostensibly lends credibility to their testimony. After all, how could so many people be wrong? Even Hillary Clinton appears reluctant to doubt the sightings. “There’s enough stories out there that I don’t think everybody is just sitting in their kitchen making them up,” Clinton said during a recent interview. Clinton, it seems, has at least one foot inside the UFO spacewagon, and in recent weeks has promised to get to the bottom of what’s really going on at Area 51. She says that if she’s elected in November, she’ll open up as many of those documents as she can (some are already available) and reveal the truth about possible extraterrestrial visits to Earth. Meanwhile, John Podesta, her campaign chair, appears to be piloting that spacewagon. A rabid X-Files fan (as am I, no shame), Podesta tweeted, “Finally, my biggest failure of 2014: Once again not securing the #disclosure of the U.F.O. files. #thetruthisstilloutthere,” when he left the Obama White House last year. It’s disappointing that influential people are helping fan the flames of conspiracy theories that refuse to wilt beneath the weight of truth. One hopes it’s just a campaign stunt, meant to increase Clinton’s popularity among a group of people who might be inclined to vote somewhat more conservatively. Yet given Podesta’s and Clinton’s track records on the topic, it seems more likely the pair really believes there might be something to expose. Perhaps those documents are tucked into a cardboard box stashed in an old railway car, waiting for Clinton and Podesta to arrive with their flashlights. But I’d wager much more than my house that there’s exactly zero credible evidence supporting alien encounters with this planet—and I’d love for warp drives and battlestars to exist as much as anyone would. CONTINUE READING: phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/11/what-hillary-clinton-says-about-aliens-is-totally-misguided/
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on May 14, 2016 20:26:03 GMT -6
Out Of This World Campaign Promise Hillary Clinton promises to declassifying files on proof of alien life, if there is any, if she's elected president. Theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku weighs in on "MTP Daily."
"I usually avoid talking politics but, when politicians start talking about extraterrestrials and UFOs, welcome to MY world! Check out my recent visit with MSNBC. No matter who becomes our next President, the truth is out there." Michio Kaku
Watch video: on.msnbc.com/27eSZhi
|
|
|
Post by auntym on May 15, 2016 12:46:31 GMT -6
devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15546/can-we-get-a-pulse/ Can we get a pulse?Posted on May 14, 2016 by Billy Cox / devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/author/cox/Whether the media chatter triggered by The New York Times’ reporting on Hillary Clinton’s curiosity about UFOs will inspire meaningful reporting or collapse into noise probably depends on (shivers) The New York Times /CREDIT: contemporaryseeker.com Unrivaled in recent memory, this week’s media dustup over UFOs was at once reaffirming and portentous. Even as news consumers continue deserting analogue-age institutions in droves, once again it took the 165-year-old New York Times to stir the pot. And yet … it took the 165-year-old New York Times to stir the pot. What the Times reported on Tuesday certainly wasn’t new. The story about how Hillary’s 2016 campaign vows to unseal classified UFO documents were set in motion by now-deceased billionaire Laurance Rockefeller goes back 20 years. And it’s been growing stale in the fringe-news bin for at least half that long. Amy Chozick’s Times recap was a mildly expanded and less acerbic rehash of last month’s Washington Post’s take on John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign director, and the way his longstanding exhortation to “open the books” on UFOs has influenced her thinking. Snarky and unimaginative, what the WaPo feature unintentionally conceded was how woefully unprepared its news desk is to cover this issue, and with public interest growing. Unoriginal as it was, look what happened when The Times took a more even-handed approach. The lesser media gods used it as a permission slip to create their own UFO buzz. And the results were wildly disparate: Like, hey, there’s MSNBC Beltway insider Andrea Mitchell going live on Hillary spokesman bob Fallon: “What do we not know about Hillary Clinton and her attitude towards UFOs?” And look over yonder – it’s Mitchell’s uninformed talking-head colleague Chris Hardball lobbing conspiracy-culture softballs to Scientific American senior editor Clara Moskowitz. Moskowitz tells audiences not to worry, there’s not a shred of evidence to support the UFO phenomenon. The obsequious Hardball not only lets her get away with it, he’s grateful for her expertise — “I like your clear thinking and logic.” “If Clinton wants to make a play for voters with beliefs in unproven phenomena,” mewled that ESPN FiveThirtyEight thing, “there are larger constituencies than Roswell truthers.” (That’s a dig in case you’re just too dumb to get it.) Even GQ weighed in. I know, GQ, right? GQ described it as a harmless if not almost endearing idiosyncrasy: “This could easily be written off as a goofy bit of late-night banter, but a closer inspection reveals that Clinton has actually done her homework on the subject.” National Geographic resorted to ad hoc scold Nadia Drake, the predictably defensive daughter of SETI guru Frank Drake. “It’s disappointing that influential people are helping fan the flames of conspiracy theories that refused to wilt beneath the weight of truth,” wrote Drake, steamed that anyone might have the audacity to question the radiotelescope’s monopoly — and dad’s legacy — on contacting ET. “… This is why it’s unhelpful and irresponsible for Clinton and Podesta to be teasing the public as they are.” CNN, whose Wolf Blitzer blew his chance to beat the New York Times while moderating the Democratic debate last month, shifted gears on its next pass and went with a cursory little summary of the Hillary-Podesta thing from Jeanne Moos. But there were also a few surprises. Unlike so many of the usual suspects accusing the former First Lady of pandering to “the UFO vote,” whatever the hell that is, the conservative Weekly Standard had no quarrel with her curiosity: “Clinton’s interest in extraterrestrial activity does not seem to be politically motivated.” Even the Washington Times, a reliable Clinton-basher, held its fire on this one. “The press,” it wrote “… is now covering the Clinton/ET connection from a unique political angle, rather than as a sensational novelty designed to titillate the public and ramp up social media.” Well, that verdict’s still out. Will the press stick with it? Probably not. Aside from the Rockefeller angle, the MSM has yet to demonstrate it knows where to go with this issue. Which means they’ll probably sit around and wait for another green-lighter from the New York Times. And that would suck because the Times hasn’t had the chops for enterprise reporting on UFOs since its revered science writer Walter Sullivan awarded five stars to the University of Colorado whitewash that dispersed the crowds in 1969. Yet, here we are now, five months into an utterly mystifying presidential election cycle. Voter anger is mindless and nurtured by clichés. Nobody trusts establishment or authority figures or experts anymore; even facts are booed and jeered. And this week, into this dispirited milieu, America’s venerated news leader dragged a neglected mystery from the cellars of ridicule and — simply by playing it straight — watched the ripples splash into the mainstream. Within a news cycle or two. Maybe, when it comes to UFOs, a bitterly cynical electorate is fed up with the status quo on that end, too. The smart money should keep an eye on the traffic. devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15546/can-we-get-a-pulse/
|
|
|
Post by auntym on May 19, 2016 14:32:25 GMT -6
devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15537/and-the-meek-shall-inherit-the-earth/ And the meek shall inherit the EarthPosted on May 5, 2016 by Billy Cox / devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/author/cox/From the looks of things, De Void’s probably gonna sound like a broken record for the next six months, so you’ll need to take me off your RSS feed. Oh. Wait. I’m not on anyone’s RSS list anyway. Well then. ? Without further ado: CBS’ venerable & avuncular Wise Man Emeritus Bob Schieffer really went for broke Tuesday night before the Indiana primary results rolled in. The broadcaster who’s seen and covered so much history he might also be called Mr. Beltway Media Establishment was marveling over the unprecedented low-brow tenor of the presidential campaign. No sir, he’d never seen anything like it. Never ever. He cited half a dozen examples of shocking candidate utterances, and lapses of gentility and proportion. De Void would have kittens if Bob Schieffer broke from the pack this way: "Hillary Clinton is engaged in fantasy politics is she thinks she can pull UFOs from behind the veil of national security ..."/CREDIT: CBSnews De Void would have kittens if Bob Schieffer broke from the pack this way: “Hillary Clinton is engaged in fantasy politics if she thinks she can pull UFOs from behind the veil of national security …”/CREDIT: CBSnews “I keep hearing this campaign may be the worst ever, an all-time low,” he offered with a bemused hint of a smile. “I don’t know about that. But I know we’re at the deep end of the pool.” Schieffer’s Captain Obvious shtick made me want to lunge through the TV set, take him by the shoulders and throttle him a few times. “Bob,” I’d say. “Listen to me. Do you even know where the deep end of the pool is?” Then I’d take a-hold of his ears and pull him even closer and say “What about Hillary Clinton’s UFOs? Have you ever heard a presidential candidate talk about declassifying UFO records and letting taxpayers actually know what they’re paying for? When’s the last time that happened? Why don’t you tell your viewers something CBS has never told them before?” Right. Old dogs, new tricks. Same thing Wednesday morning. Clinton has lost Indiana to Bernie, but her lead looks insurmountable; Trump, meanwhile, has bounced Cruz out of the race. Washington Post legend Bob Woodward is on CBS, forecasting the media challenge for Trump/Clinton coverage between now and November. “You know what’s going to determine the results? How much we find out about them. There is so much more to learn,” he says. “(Washington Post owner) Jeff Bezos has said we have to describe, in multi-part series, in detailed digging investigations, who these people are.” Hey, that sounds dogged and righteous. Really getting to know everything about these two. Their motivations. Every unexplored and novel aspect of their agendas. Serious gumshoe stuff. Well, obviously you’ll be hitting the Clinton/John Podesta/UFO angle pretty hard. Like, what the hell’s that stuff all about, right? Here’s an easy suggestion. Take Philip Bump off the story and go with somebody who can do original front-end reporting. Last month, Bump served up some 20-year-old rehash about the Clinton administration’s intrigues with The Great Taboo. That piece probably struck WaPo editors as enterprising and newsy, but Bezos is a smart guy who’s not going to settle for mold on his plate. Bezos is going to want to know why Hillary raised the issue of declassification in the first place, only to turn around and say she’d keep those records secret if they indicate UFOs impact national security, which they clearly do. And The Washington Post is going to blaze this trail first. And Bob Schieffer’s going to follow up with lacerating commentary about why Air Force veterans’ testimony to these events has been ignored for so long. And tornadoes are going to call for a ceasefire on trailer parks. And Wile E. Coyote is finally going to eat Roadrunner. And Lucy van Pelt is going to let Charlie Brown kick the football. And and and … devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15537/and-the-meek-shall-inherit-the-earth/
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jun 3, 2016 14:19:45 GMT -6
devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15553/waiting-for-the-times-again/ Waiting for the Times againPosted on June 1, 2016 by Billy Cox / devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/author/cox/Sure didn’t take long for the dust to settle after the New York Times’ May 10 feature about Hillary Clinton’s gusto for UFOs. The ensuing media blowup – which culminated two weeks ago in the previously unthinkable scenario of the White House press corps actually putting questions to a presidential mouthpiece in the West Wing – was intense but short-lived. Negating the conspiracy crowd’s contention than a sinister unseen hand imposes a gag order on the Fourth Estate when it comes to The Great Taboo, last month’s events tell us a couple of other things too: 1) When it comes to the gorilla in the room, the media still looks to the Times for cover, and 2) beyond that, newsies have no idea how to follow up. “The truth is out there, and now The X-Files are a campaign issue,” began an ABC World News Tonight report, introduced with the hit show’s classic melody/montage but shedding no light on the real controversy. Hey, remember those presidential debate watch-parties where you take a shot of something heinous every time a candidate mentioned “Goldman Sachs” or “terrorism”? Imagine how wasted you’d get if we applied the same rules whenever the MSM includes “the truth is out there” or “out of this world” to its UFO reporting. You’d get smashed to smithereens reading Pulitzer Prize-winning Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page bloviations: “If ‘the truth is out there,’ as they say on ‘The X-Files’ TV show, Hillary Clinton says she’s eager to expose it.” Taking his cue from equally uninformed White House press secretary Josh Earnest’s non-answers to vague questions, Page went on to conclude that humans would probably invent space aliens if they couldn’t be confirmed because we humans are afraid of being alone in the universe: “As we have seen with various other conspiracy theories, people will believe what they want to believe, especially when the truth is far enough ‘out there.’” Nevertheless, to his credit, the day after the Times produced its reheated “scoop” about HRC and UFOs, veteran CBS reporter Mark Knoller at least felt compelled to bring it up during the daily briefing with Earnest. With cameras rolling, Knoller “wondered if the President would like to beat (Clinton) to the punch by showing his degree of transparency on this issue, which is of concern to a lot of Americans.” It was an awkward question because it also conflated UFOs with Area 51, and Earnest did his awkward best to laugh it off: “Well,” Earnest managed, “I know that he has joked publicly before about one of the benefits of the presidency is having access to that information. I don’t know whether or not he has availed himself of that opportunity. But if we have more on this, we’ll let you know.” Right. Definitely. Five days later, even less focused than Knoller was, April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks tried it again. “There’s this increased interest in Roswell. You’re doing your dance at the podium about it,” she began, apparently noting Earnest’s dyspeptic body language. “Is there such a thing? Are you – look at you, you’re drinking so you’re trying to think.” Nervous laughter in the gallery. “Is there such a thing – are you keeping quiet because of security concerns? I mean, are we to think that there might be life beyond here? I mean – seriously. I mean, you need to answer this.” I mean seriously, dude, I mean, how is anybody supposed to totally answer this? Security concerns? Over what, specifically? What was the question again? “I’ll just say, April, there are some questions that even the White House Press Secretary doesn’t have answers to, and this is one of them.” Ryan tells Earnest he’s not going to get off that easy. “Okay, well,” Earnest replies, “you keep trying. “Kevin?” Great to see the press finally growing just a tad more inquisitive. But getting tongue-tied and incoherent is a direct consequence of turning your brains over to the NY Times and not doing your own prep. Will the media wait for the Times to investigate scores of USAF veterans eyewitness accounts of UFOs breaching security over America’s nuclear weapons sites? Will they sit on their hands until the Times gives them permission to ask why U.S. Customs and Border Protection won’t release a three-year-old UFO video that’s already been viewed 381,000 times on YouTube? Will they wait for The Times to start asking why the FAA began censoring radar records nearly 10 years after 9/11 only after researchers began making FOIAs to reconstruct the flight path of a bogey that buzzed President Bush’s “western White House” in Texas eight years ago? And even if one or several corporate media outlets bucked the trend and conducted original reporting? Would anyone notice if the Times didn’t get there first? devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15553/waiting-for-the-times-again/
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jun 4, 2016 12:19:09 GMT -6
Sigh.... I know, Auntym, but this whole ELECTION is "CRUDE"......
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jun 4, 2016 13:36:31 GMT -6
Sigh.... I know, Auntym, but this whole ELECTION is "CRUDE"...... i know swamp...but, it is what it is... ... and i hate that saying too... but, it just seemed to fit...
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jun 5, 2016 9:27:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jun 5, 2016 12:03:44 GMT -6
Neil deGrasse Tyson ✔ @neiltyson
In any election, there are only ever two kinds of voters: those who are informed and those who are not.
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jun 5, 2016 13:26:24 GMT -6
www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/opinion/campaign-stops/and-if-elected-what-president-trump-could-or-couldnt-do.html?ref=opinion And if Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn’t DoBy ERIC POSNER JUNE 3, 2016 DONALD TRUMP clearly holds grudges. He has hurled insults at governors, senators, a judge who recently ruled against him and Miss Universe 2014. He has also attacked the press, arguing that as president he will “open up” libel laws so he can sue newspapers that publish “purposely negative and horrible and false articles” about him. Mr. Trump’s critics wonder whether a man with such a violent temper can be trusted with the presidency. But his defenders, like Senator John McCain and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, assure us that the Constitution will constrain him. “I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Mr. McCain told The New York Times. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania.” Under the principle of separation of powers, the president shares power with Congress and the judiciary. The party system, the press and American political traditions may constrain him as well. But what would this mean in practice if Mr. Trump wins? It depends on what Mr. Trump wants to do. His signature issues are immigration and trade. He could not build the Mexican wall without congressional support. But he could order immigration authorities to deport unauthorized immigrants. And he could bar Muslims from entering the country under existing law, which authorizes him to bar classes of aliens whose entry he determines “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” It wouldn’t be the first time: President Ronald Reagan cited this law, as well as his inherent constitutional powers, to block a flood of Haitian migrants from pouring into United States territory in 1981. Can he slap tariffs on China, as he has threatened? Yes, he can. Congress has delegated to the president the power to retaliate against foreign countries that engage in unfair trade practices like dumping, leaving it to the president and trade officials to determine what that means. In 2002, President George W. Bush imposed steel tariffs on China and other countries for what many observers considered political reasons. The World Trade Organization ruled the steel tariffs illegal in that case. But Mr. Trump could simply ignore its judgment, and indeed withdraw the United States from the W.T.O., just as President Bush withdrew the United States from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. While he’s at it, Mr. Trump could tear up the North Atlantic Treaty, which created NATO, an organization that he has called “obsolete.” In May, Mr. Trump vowed to rescind President Obama’s environmental policies. He would be able to do that as well. He could disavow the Paris climate change agreement, just as President Bush “unsigned” a treaty creating an international criminal court in 2002. He could choke off climate regulations that are in development and probably withdraw existing climate regulations. Even if a court blocked him, he could refuse to enforce the regulations, just as Mr. Obama refused to enforce immigration laws. In wielding executive power in these ways, Mr. Trump would be following in the footsteps of his predecessors. President Bush cited his commander in chief powers in order to justify interrogation, surveillance and detention polices in the wake of Sept. 11. While Mr. Obama has shied away from Mr. Bush’s constitutional arguments, he has interpreted statutes aggressively, while also relying on constitutional authorities, to justify the military intervention in Libya in 2011 and his nonenforcement of immigration laws. Mr. Trump has expressed impatience with his critics and hinted that he would use federal powers against them. He wouldn’t be able to put someone in jail merely for criticizing him. But he could direct agencies to use their vast regulatory powers against the companies of executives who have displeased him, like Jeff Bezos, for example, the founder of Amazon. Mr. Trump has already hinted that he would go after Amazon for supposed antitrust violations. CONTINUE READING: www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/opinion/campaign-stops/and-if-elected-what-president-trump-could-or-couldnt-do.html?ref=opinion
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jun 8, 2016 12:19:08 GMT -6
www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/clinton-still-talks-about-aliens-and-s-good Clinton still talks about aliens, and that’s goodBy Timothy Lavin / Las Vegas Review-Journal Posted June 7, 2016 Among the under-appreciated oddities of the 2016 election is that Hillary Clinton keeps talking about aliens. On the radio, in newspaper interviews, on late-night TV, she and her surrogates are vowing to “go into those files” and “get to the bottom of it.” What she wants to get to the bottom of is Roswell, UFOs, Area 51 — you know, the whole thing. It’s a weird idea to campaign on. And no one is quite taking it seriously. (Almost no one, anyway.) But she’s right. Getting to the bottom of things is a sensible ambition for a president. And those things, those archetypes of American paranoia, have resisted analysis for too long. White House aspirants have been mentioning them for a while, of course. Gerald Ford, as a congressman, asserted that “the American public deserves a better explanation” of UFOs. Jimmy Carter actually saw a UFO and vowed to expose what the government knew if elected. Clinton’s husband claimed that he asked around about secret files but no one would tell him anything. (They never do.) For all their enthusiasm, none of the three revealed anything interesting about UFOs while in office. And the United States is something of a global outlier in this regard. The United Kingdom maintains a government database of unexplained aerial phenomena (the au courant phrase for UFOs). France has a state agency dedicated to studying them. Many other governments — Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand — have recently made once-secret files public. By contrast, silence has been de facto U.S. policy since 1970. American politicians often go into strange oratorical spasms when queried on the topic. What files the government has released, mostly from the FBI and NSA, have been charming models of bureaucratic insolence: page after lovingly redacted page, so comprehensively uninformative that one wonders if a metaphor was intended. The problem is that into this void of official information rush all kinds of inventive fantasies. The main reason a prosaic spy-balloon crash in the New Mexico desert in 1947 became a byword for galactic intrigue was that the government dissembled about the real story for decades. Worse, when people don’t trust what the government says, they’re apt to listen to demagogues and hucksters claiming to expose the truth. And with public trust in most American institutions at historic lows, a colossal cover-up is an appealing explanation of things for those of a certain mind-set. Declassifying more files on UFOs — “disclosure,” in the vernacular — could be a useful rejoinder to that mind-set. It would be a modest victory for transparency in an age of expansive secrecy. It would acknowledge, as other countries have, that just because something is unexplained doesn’t mean it must be withheld from the public. And it would obviously be awesome. What it almost certainly won’t do is provide evidence of extraterrestrials. That would require something bolder of the next president. In 1992, NASA began a formal mission to scan the universe for signs of alien intelligence. It was cheap, ambitious and scientifically compelling. It capped a decades-long effort within the agency to get people to take the idea seriously. And Congress killed it almost immediately. Reconstituting that mission seems prudent. Almost everywhere astronomers look these days, the basic building blocks of life are turning up: on comets, in gas clouds, even on Mars. Data from the Kepler space observatory suggest there may be billions of habitable planets in the Milky Way alone. Academics increasingly support the notion that intelligent species may have evolved elsewhere. Is it really so crazy to look for them? In reality, nothing much happened at Roswell, most UFO sightings are bunk and Area 51 is just an Air Force facility, much as we might hope otherwise. But the most enduring myths tend to express some deep human intuition. The sense that we’re not alone in the cosmos is a potent one. And there’s nothing wrong with embracing it. www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/clinton-still-talks-about-aliens-and-s-good
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jun 8, 2016 12:49:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jun 8, 2016 18:09:29 GMT -6
www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trump-and-the-legacy-of-long-john-nebel Donald Trump and the Legacy of Long John NebelBy Jeffrey Frank / www.newyorker.com/contributors/jeffrey-frankJune 8, 2016 Long John Nebel, a radio broadcaster, made a living listening to the wild imaginings of late-night America, but even he would probably have been startled by the rise of Donald Trump. PHOTOGRAPH BY SLIM AARONS / GETTY Many years ago, a New York broadcaster known as Long John Nebel would go on the air at midnight and stay on until dawn, reaching an audience of insomniacs and others able to pick up the signal of a faraway AM station—WOR, WNBC, WMCA. Nebel’s guests, often with odd biographies, included a man who said that when he left our planet he’d met “an exquisite miniature woman” who was five inches tall. Another visitor told Nebel that, as he was washing dishes in his London flat, a voice said, “Prepare yourself—you are about to become the voice of Interplanetary Parliament!” The program, which went on the air in the nineteen-fifties and ran for more than twenty years, became the place to learn about the “psychic doctor” Edgar Cayce, the emerging influence of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology, and “regressive hypnosis,” which claimed to reveal the secrets of past lives, such as that of a young American housewife who spoke with the brogue of a long-dead Irish girl named Bridey Murphy. It was perhaps best known for the time that it devoted to U.F.O.s and to people who claimed to have met, and sometimes travelled with, beings in flying saucers, along with the supposed coverup of their existence. Nebel, who didn’t believe any of this, eventually wrote about it in a sort-of-memoir called “Way Out World” (1962), but he was a showman who’d once worked as a carnival pitchman. His audience was surprisingly sophisticated, and, for all the time that he devoted to celestial voyagers, an underlying theme was the irrationality, and susceptibility to conspiracy theory, that has always been part of American life. Donald J. Trump, the reality-show star, litigious real-estate developer, and presumptive Republican nominee for President, would have been a mid-century late-night-radio natural. To see the world through his eyes never ceases to startle, though he has enough self-awareness to gingerly (or cannily) avoid making too many absolute assertions—he makes liberal use of the word “probably.” If he were anyone else, he might already be known by a Trumpian nickname like “Loose-Screw Donald.” Five months before the general election, he continues to show off a talent for throwing dark substances against a wall and hoping that they stick. Most of his tropes are familiar by now. He briefly focussed on the suicide, in 1993, of Vince Foster, an Arkansas friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton and a deputy White House counsel, but may have retreated after getting an informed scolding by CNN’s Jake Tapper. By then, though, Trump had insinuated that Foster’s death was “very fishy” and that “he knew everything that was going on, and then all of a sudden he committed suicide.” Then, in a protective swerve, he added, “I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder. I don’t do that because I don’t think it’s fair.” Trump has an instinct for knowing when he hasn’t struck gold, as when he hinted—actually did more than hint—at a connection between Rafael Cruz, the father of Senator Ted Cruz, his chief rival in the G.O.P. primaries, and Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of President John F. Kennedy: “Nobody even brings it up. They don’t even talk about that. That was reported”—referring to a story in the National Enquirer—“and nobody talks about it.” After the death, in mid-February, of the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Trump said, “It’s a horrible topic, but they say they found the pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow,” then moved on when the suggestion of fishiness didn’t take. It’s a long list, and with all that it was refreshing to hear, last month, the very different way in which Hillary Clinton—who, between the Associated Press’s count of superdelegates and the California and New Jersey primaries, became the presumptive Democratic nominee—ventured into Long John Nebel territory. Without a single lawyerly parse or intimation of a vast right- or left-wing conspiracy, Clinton, in an appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” straightforwardly called for opening government files on U.F.O.s. (Indeed, she informed Kimmel that the approved term of art was actually “unexplained aerial phenomenon,” or “U.A.P.”) Nebel, and the psychologists and writers who sometimes joined him, could be amused by tales of miniature Venusian women and alien abduction, but after years on the air he understood that an attraction to the idea of hidden conspiracies is not so unlike an attraction to cults, or the belief that the government staged the lunar landing, or that it is secretly plotting to take away everyone’s guns, or that, as Trump claimed, in one of his group libels, “thousands and thousands” of Muslims in Jersey City could be seen cheering the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center. Nebel made a living listening to the wild imaginings of late-night America, and may have wondered how a demagogue might shape them. But even Long John probably could not have imagined that we would be hearing that sort of thing from someone like Trump, who is about to be nominated by a major American political party as a candidate for President of the United States. www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trump-and-the-legacy-of-long-john-nebel
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jun 11, 2016 13:57:14 GMT -6
Neil deGrasse Tyson ✔ @neiltyson
Common Evidence of Bias: Your candidate is the best, and you can find absolutely nothing good to say about other candidates.
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jun 13, 2016 12:20:29 GMT -6
devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15557/it-wont-be-news-til-someone-explodes/ It won’t be news ’til someone explodesPosted on June 10, 2016 by Billy Cox / devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/author/cox/With polls showing a razor-thin margin separating Hillary and Bernie less than a week before primary voting in California, the unruffled John Podesta was at it again, making the case for transparency with government UFO records and oblivious to any potential political blowback. Relaxed and conversational, conceding how UFO chatter traditionally “is not a career enhancer,” HRC’s campaign director didn’t shrink from the controversy during a Code Conference forum in Rancho Palos Verdes. Now if only the panelists knew where to go with it … Podesta was recalling how, shortly after leaving the Clinton White House, he had assisted UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record author Leslie Kean in her hunt for recovery/analysis reports on the 1965 Kecksburg crash. Before he could finish, Silicon Valley tech columnist Kara Swisher couldn’t contain herself, dispensed with the foreplay, and blurted it out: “Is this an alien?” Jeez, lady, really? Already? We barely know each other … But Podesta didn’t even blink. “Well, nobody knew what it was,” Podesta replied. “All of a sudden, when the FOIA case was filed, it turned out most of the files had disappeared. It was clear there was an investigation by the Air Force.” “That seems convenient,” interjected political pundit Ezra Klein. “That seemed convenient,” Podesta concurred with a smile. And then he sent out another signal, about how “I meet a lot of politicians, people in Washington, and others who say ‘I’m with you, but I can’t say so,’ right?” Psst, Ezra: That’s your cue to ask who these closet cheerleaders are, exactly how many is ‘a lot,’ their names, or at least their positions, how far up the chain they go, how widespread is the sentiment, military sources too? etc. etc. Nothing? Nada? Don’t do scoops anymore? Ah well, Podesta’s remarks about the futile search for UFO records went to the real heart of the gridlock. Truth is, you can’t really blame Swisher or Klein or anyone else for avoiding specifics, because deciphering the mindset responsible for all those missing documents might be more difficult than answering the Is this an alien? question. Push it too hard and, who knows, we could be talking spontaneous human combustion. Seriously. I’m serious. Unrelenting FOIA-slinging Paul Dean is the latest poor soul to attempt the hopeless pursuit of untangling the gnarly tumor of bureaucratic opacity – metastasizing since World War II – created by the arbitrary military rules and regs blocking access to UFO data. At his UFOs – Documenting The Evidence blog, the Australian researcher has been posting the sort of dense documentation that will no doubt scare off virtually every corporate journalist and editor in the U.S. And that’s why, considering the time and resources it would take for policy-makers as well as journalists to catch up with guys like Paul Dean, longtime American investigators are pessimistic about Podesta/Clinton’s well-publicized aspirations for ending UFO secrecy. Consider this riff on just one of Dean’s many threads: The Communications Instructions for Vital Intelligence Sightings (CIRVIS) – the military guidelines for logging potential security threats, from missile launches to UFOS – was first published in 1954, as part of the Joint Army Navy Air Force Protocol manual, or JANAP 146. Although the Air Force announced it was getting out of the UFO business in 1970 after determining The Great Taboo embodied neither superior technology nor a national security threat, JANAP 146 tacitly acknowledged the recklessness of that public gesture by keeping UFOs on its mandatory monitoring list of usual suspects. Then, in 1996, JANAP 146 morphed into Air Force Manual 10-206, or AFM 10-206 — and its CIRVIS instructions continued to itemize UFOs as a separate category of interest. In 2008, AFM 10-206 evolved into Air Force Instruction 10-206, or AFI 10-206. Curiously, three years later, just as they were being pressed for details by Lee Speigel at Huffington Post, authorities revised the manual again and dropped the UFO reference altogether. No reason given, they just did it. What made AFI 10-206 so noteworthy was its reference to OPREP, or Operational Reporting. This system was prioritized into numbered categories, with the bell-clanging number 3 “used by military units at any level of command to report significant events and incidents to the highest levels of command,” according to the language. Dean found UFO-related OPREP-3 links in now declassified telexes from the 1970s, most notably associated with the autumn 1975 UFO wave in which air space above military installations near the Canadian border was repeatedly challenged by elusive intruders euphemistically referred to as “helicopters.” Equally intriguing was a document from 2002, called Defense Department’s Decision Logic Table Instructions for Recording and Handling Visual Information Material, aka DoD 5040.6-M-1. This one instructed military personnel on how to file “imagery that records UFOs and other aerial phenomena not obviously identifiable as conventional aircraft or missiles.” Gun-cam pix? Oh yeah, don’t throw those away. But that wasn’t news to John Greenewald, whose Black Vault website has been posting declassified government documents for 20 years. Greenewald actually used DoD 5040.6-M-1 as an exhibit in his lectures until, by 2005, it was swapped out for DoD 5040.6-M-2 which, again for reasons unknown, eliminated the UFO section altogether. Go figure. For Barry Greenwood, who’s been on this thankless trail for some 50 years, Dean’s blogging tenacity is impressive. “Paul is doing a good job. He’s very careful, and his writing about the past is very encouraging. And I find the OPREP-3 material fascinating.” Co-author of the seminal Clear Intent, which in 1984 detailed the ongoing cover-up from reams of UFO records unclogged by FOIA, Greenwood holds out little hope for a Podesta/Clinton-style openness. For one thing, the declassified material from the early 1950s and ‘60s – vital to understanding how today’s policies were shaped – is voluminous, decentralized, and cost-prohibitive when it comes to digitalization. These are the records we do know about, and they’ve been collecting dust in the public arena for decades. For another, Greenwood says neither he nor his networking colleagues who’ve been immersed in reassembling the fragmented historical context of The Great Taboo have been approached by Podesta. “He keeps talking about wanting to open the books on UFOs, but we’re not sure where he’s getting his information from or which records he’s talking about,” Greenwood says. “If he’s advising Hillary Clinton on this, he needs to get information that isn’t tainted, that’s historically accurate. If she gets bad information and starts using it, the Trump campaign is going to absolutely annihilate her.” De Void can’t wait for Trump to start talking UFOs.
devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15557/it-wont-be-news-til-someone-explodes/
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jun 14, 2016 15:28:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jun 15, 2016 13:16:28 GMT -6
Wikileaks Is About to Ruin Hillary Clinton’s Chances of Becoming President June 13, 2016
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says his next leak will virtually guarantee an indictment of Hillary Clinton.
In a recent interview with ITV, Assange said the whistleblowing website will soon be leaking documents that will provide “enough evidence” for the Department of Justice to indict the presumptive Democratic nominee. Wikileaks has already published 30,322 emails from Clinton’s private email server, spanning from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014. While Assange didn’t specify what exactly was in the emails, he did tell ITV that Wikileaks had “accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton, which could proceed to an indictment.”
Assange hinted that the emails slated for publication contain additional information about the Clinton Foundation. He also reminded ITV’s Robert Peston that previously released emails contained one damning piece of communication from Clinton, instructing a staffer to remove the classification settings from an official State Department communication and send it through a “nonsecure” channel. Assange then pointed out that the Obama administration has previously prosecuted numerous whistleblowers for violating the government’s procedures for handling classified documents.
In regard to the ongoing FBI investigation, however, Assange expressed a lack of confidence in the Obama administration’s Justice Department to indict the former Secretary of State. “[Attorney General Loretta Lynch] is not going to indict Hillary Clinton. It’s not possible that could happen. But the FBI could push for new concessions from the Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment.”
Wikileaks has long been a thorn in the side of the former Secretary of State, who called on President Obama to prosecute the whistleblowing site after its 2010 leak of State Department cables. Julian Assange remains confined to the Ecuadorian Embassy in downtown London, as Ecuador has promised to not hand over the Wikileaks founder to US authorities.
www.press24.us/wikileaks-is-about-to-ruin-hillary-clintons-chances-of-becoming-president/
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Sept 17, 2016 14:57:15 GMT -6
www.apnewsarchive.com/2016/WHY-IT-MATTERS-A-sampling-of-issues-at-stake-in-election-and-their-impact-on-Americans-and-the-world/id-3f1d64ddd623443f9f77b275f01feb26 WHY IT MATTERS: Issues at stake in electionby AP , Associated Press Sep. 17, 2016 WASHINGTON (AP) — A selection of issues at stake in the presidential election and their impact on Americans, in brief:IRANLast year's nuclear deal with Tehran has removed for now the threat of a U.S.-Iranian military confrontation. But the deal rests on shaky ground. The accord curtailed Iran's nuclear program, pulling it back from atomic weapons capability in exchange for the end of many economic sanctions. But the next president could have his or her hands full, dealing with Iran in general and the agreement in particular. Various restrictions on Iran start ending in about seven years. For Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it's basically a question of continuity versus change. As secretary of state, Clinton helped lay the groundwork for the pact. She supports it, while taking a generally tougher tone on Iran than President Barack Obama. Trump hates the deal. But he contends that he can renegotiate its terms. Both are prepared to use force to prevent Tehran from acquiring the bomb. If the deal collapses or expires without sufficient safeguards, that possibility is back in play. ___ REFUGEESWith millions of Syrians displaced by a yearslong war and hundreds of thousands of people fleeing to Europe, countries around the world are being pressed to help resettle people seeking refuge. The United States pledged to accept 10,000 such refugees by the end of the budget year in September and did so, a month early. Republicans have balked at the idea of allowing people from Syria into the United States and Donald Trump has called for a halt on refugee resettlement for them. He says vetting of these refugees is inadequate. Hillary Clinton has pledged to expand the Syrian refugee program and allow as many as 65,000 such refugees into the United States. The fate of the program almost certainly hinges on the outcome of the November election. ___ CHILD CARE/PAY EQUITYIn much of the U.S., families spend more on child care for two kids than on housing. And if you're a woman, it's likely you earn less than your male colleagues. That's according to the latest research, which suggests that while the U.S. economy has improved, women and their families are still struggling to make the numbers work. Clinton wants a 12-week government-paid family and medical leave program, guaranteeing workers two-thirds of their wages up to a certain amount. Trump proposes six weeks of leave for new mothers, with the government paying wages equivalent to unemployment benefits. Both candidates propose tax relief for child care costs. Trump's plan provides for a new income tax deduction for child care expenses, other tax benefits and a new rebate or tax credit for low-income families. Clinton says no family should spend more than 10 percent of its income on child care and has called for child-care subsidies and tax relief offered on a sliding scale. Clinton also favors forcing businesses to disclose gender pay data to the government for analysis. Trump says only that working moms should be "fairly compensated." Women comprise about 57 percent of the labor force and many of them have young children. If they aren't getting paid enough to make ends meet, more families will seek out government aid programs or low-quality, unlicensed daycares for their children. EDUCATIONEducation is a core issue not just for students and families, but for communities, the economy, and the nation as a global competitor. The country has some 50 million K-12 students. Teaching them, preparing them for college and careers, costs taxpayers more than $580 billion a year, or about $11,670 per pupil per year. A better education usually translates into higher earnings. And while high school graduations are up sharply and dropout rates down, the nation has a ways to go to match the educational outcomes elsewhere. American schoolchildren trail their counterparts in Japan, Korea, Germany, France and more. For students seeking higher education, they face rising college costs and many are saddled with debt. Hillary Clinton has proposed free tuition at in-state public colleges and universities for working families with incomes up to $125,000 — free for families, that is, not for taxpayers. Donald Trump has focused on school choice, recently proposing to spend $20 billion in his first year in office to expand programs that let low-income families send their children to the local public, private, charter or magnet school that they think is best. ___ IMMIGRATIONThe future of millions of people living in the U.S. illegally could well be shaped by the presidential election. The stakes are high, too, for those who employ them, help them fit into neighborhoods, or want them gone. Republican Donald Trump at first pledged to deport the estimated 11 million immigrants in the country illegally. Not only that, he'd build a wall all along the Mexican border. But his position has evolved. He's sticking to his vow to build the wall and make Mexico pay. But he's no longer proposing to deport people who have not committed crimes beyond their immigration offences. Still, he's not proposing a way for people living in the country illegally to gain legal status. Democrat Hillary Clinton, in contrast, would overhaul immigration laws to include a path to citizenship, not just legal status. Illegal immigration has been at nearly 40-year lows for several years. It even appears that Mexican migration trends have reversed, with more Mexicans leaving the U.S. than arriving. Billions of dollars have been spent in recent years to build fencing, improve border technology and expand the Border Patrol. Nonetheless the Mexican border remains a focal point for those who argue that the country is not secure. ___ CLIMATE CHANGEIt's as if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton live on two entirely different Earths: one warming, one not. Clinton says climate change threatens us all, while Trump repeatedly tweets that global warming is a hoax. Measurements and scientists say Clinton's Earth is much closer to the warming reality. And it is worsening. The world is on pace for the hottest year on record, breaking marks set in 2015, 2014, and 2010. It is about 1.8 degrees warmer than a century ago. But it's more than temperatures. Scientists have connected man-made climate change to deadly heat waves, droughts and flood-inducing downpours. Studies say climate change is raising sea levels, melting ice and killing coral. It's making people sicker with asthma and allergies and may eventually shrink our bank accounts. The American Association for the Advancement of Sciences says warming can be highly damaging to people and the planet and potentially irreversible. ___ ROLE OF GOVERNMENTIt's the Goldilocks conundrum of American politics: Is the government too big, too small or just right? Every four years, the presidential election offers a referendum on whether Washington should do more or less. Donald Trump favors cutting regulation and has promised massive tax cuts, but his plans are expected to add trillions to the national debt. Unlike most conservatives, he supports eminent domain and has spoken positively about government-run health care. And don't forget that massive border wall. Hillary Clinton has vowed new spending on education and infrastructure that could grow government, too. She strongly supports "Obamacare," which most small government proponents see as overreach. At its heart, the debate about government's reach pits the desire to know your basic needs will be cared for against the desire to be left alone. For the last few decades, polls have found Americans generally feel frustrated by the federal government and think it's wasteful. A smaller government sounds good to a lot of people until they're asked what specific services or benefits they are willing to do without. ___ DEBTThe federal government is borrowing about one out of seven dollars it spends and steadily piling up debt. Over the long term, that threatens the economy and people's pocketbooks. Most economists say rising debt risks crowding out investment and forcing interest rates up, among other problems. At the same time, rapidly growing spending on federal health care programs like Medicare and the drain on Social Security balances caused by the rising tide of baby boomers could squeeze out other spending, on roads, education, the armed forces and more. It takes spending cuts, tax increases or both to dent the deficit. Lawmakers instead prefer higher spending and tax cuts. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump has focused on the debt. Trump has promised massive tax cuts that would drive up the debt and he's shown little interest in curbing expensive benefit programs like Medicare. Clinton, by contrast, is proposing tax increases on the wealthy. But she wouldn't use the money to bring down the debt. Instead, she'd turn around and spend it on college tuition subsidies, infrastructure and health care. ___ TRADEIn this angry election year, many American voters are skeptical about free trade — or hostile to it. The backlash threatens a pillar of U.S. policy: The United States has long sought global trade. Economists say imports cut prices for consumers and make the U.S. more efficient. But unease has simmered, especially as American workers faced competition from low-wage Chinese labor. Last year, the U.S. ran a $334 billion trade deficit with China — $500 billion with the entire world. The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are both playing to public suspicions about trade deals. Hillary Clinton broke with President Barrack Obama by opposing an Asia-Pacific trade agreement that she had supported as secretary of state. Donald Trump vows to tear up existing trade deals and to slap huge tariffs on Chinese imports. But trade deals have far less impact on jobs than forces such as automation and wage differences between countries. Trump's plans to impose tariffs could start a trade war and raise prices. ___ SUPREME COURTThe ideological direction of the Supreme Court is going to tip one way or the other after the election. The outcome could sway decisions on issues that profoundly affect everyday Americans: immigration, gun control, climate change and more. The court has been operating with eight justices since Antonin Scalia died in February. His successor appears unlikely to be confirmed until after the election, at the earliest. The court is split between four Democratic-appointed, liberal justices and four conservatives who were appointed by Republicans — although Justice Anthony Kennedy has sided with the liberals on abortion, same-sex marriage and affirmative action in the past two years. The ninth justice will push the court left or right, depending on whether Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump becomes president. President Barack Obama has nominated Merrick Garland to take Scalia's seat, but the Republican Senate has refused to consider Garland's nomination, in an effort to prevent a liberal court majority. CONTINUE READING: www.apnewsarchive.com/2016/WHY-IT-MATTERS-A-sampling-of-issues-at-stake-in-election-and-their-impact-on-Americans-and-the-world/id-3f1d64ddd623443f9f77b275f01feb26
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Sept 17, 2016 15:34:21 GMT -6
Excellent points! Sadly, with all of the hyperbole and name calling being the focus of both campaigns, these are not included in the "discussions". Of course, with the Congress we'll have, I'm not sure any of this will get fixed, regardless of who wins.....
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Sept 26, 2016 13:48:39 GMT -6
This just in....... Hillary will NOT be attending tonight's debate; she got hung up.
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Sept 27, 2016 14:49:54 GMT -6
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-time-trumps-interruptions-insults-and-insinuations-arent-enough/2016/09/26/fcdce978-845c-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html?utm_term=.80b0113639bf What worked for Trump in the primaries failed him against Clinton ... VIDEOSBy Dana Milbank Opinion writer / www.washingtonpost.com/people/dana-milbank/September 27, 2016 Donald Trump was trying very hard to be on his best behavior. In the opening minutes of the first presidential debate Monday night, the Republican nominee began an answer by saying, “In all fairness to Secretary Clinton” — then turned to his opponent with exaggerated cordiality. “Yes? Is that okay? Good. I want you to be very happy. It’s very important to me.” But even Trump’s best behavior was not quite good enough. Within minutes, he was hectoring and interrupting Clinton when she spoke, glowering, pursing his lips, shaking his head and interjecting one-word retorts. “Wrong!” he told Clinton. “Wrong!” he told the moderator, NBC’s Lester Holt. “Wrong!” “Wrong!” “Wrong!” he said, over and over again. But it was Trump who was wrong — on the facts, but also in his approach to the debate. [Trump bombs on the ultimate reality TV show] Trump had done well in the primary debates with his insults, interruptions and one-liners. Monday’s 90-minute, one-on-one debate, however, was a format that did not work well for him. Clinton had crammed for the encounter, practicing heavily. Trump ostentatiously avoided preparation — playing the proverbial high school slacker drinking beer behind the bleachers while the teacher’s pet was in the library. But Monday night was the revenge of the nerd. Trump was louder and nastier. But Clinton was cool and measured, continuing to make her case while Trump tried to talk over her. Again and again, she put him on the defensive (“I’m extremely underleveraged,” he assured everybody), and his one-line retorts did not serve him well. Clinton and Trump clash during first presidential debate in New York View Photos Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton face off in the first 2016 presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. Clinton speculated that he wasn’t releasing his tax returns because he hadn’t paid income tax for several years. “It would be squandered,” Trump said, not denying the allegation. Clinton noted that Trump hadn’t paid federal income taxes for several years previously. “That makes me smart,” he said. Clinton accused Trump of rooting for the housing market to collapse in 2006. “That’s called business,” Trump said. At one point, Trump took a dig at Clinton because she “decided to stay home,” presumably to practice for the debate. Clinton was ready: “I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And, yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president.” Trump was prepared to do what he has done for 18 months: spout falsehoods. But while that works on Twitter and at campaign rallies, it didn’t go well in the 90-minute debate. Clinton, with an occasional assist from Holt, was able to take some 100 million viewers on a tour of what she called Trump’s “own reality.” [Last night’s debate, or the mansplaining Olympics] “Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese,” Clinton pointed out. “I did not!” Trump protested. He did say so, on Nov. 6, 2012, at 2:15 p.m., on Twitter. Clinton noted that Trump “supported the invasion of Iraq.” “Wrong!” Trump declared. He did, on Sept. 11, 2002, on Howard Stern’s radio show. Holt mentioned that New York’s stop-and-frisk policy was ruled unconstitutional because it induced racial profiling. “No, you’re wrong,” Trump told Holt. Holt was right. Clinton noted that murders have continued to decline in New York. “No, you’re wrong.” Clinton was correct. Trump repeated the oft-debunked canard that Clinton aides were the first to question Barack Obama’s American birth in 2008. And he dismissed the widely held view among cybersecurity experts that Russia was behind the recent hack of the Democratic National Committee. “It could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?” This was the shot at Trump that Low-Energy Jeb, Little Marco and Lyin’ Ted never had: an extended, one-on-one encounter to test the bilious billionaire. Trump’s playground taunts sounded juvenile. He declared that Clinton “tells you how to fight ISIS on her website! I don’t think General Douglas MacArthur would like that too much.” “Well,” Clinton replied, “at least I have a plan to fight ISIS.” “No wonder you’ve been fighting ISIS your entire adult life,” Trump volleyed. It was a curious allegation, given that the Islamic State, also called ISIS, is only a few years old and Clinton has been an adult for half a century. Trump, ignoring Holt’s admonitions, kept up his interruptions: “You didn’t read it! . . . Who gave it that name? . . . Lester, how much?” CONTINUE READING: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-time-trumps-interruptions-insults-and-insinuations-arent-enough/2016/09/26/fcdce978-845c-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html?utm_term=.80b0113639bf
|
|
|
Post by lois on Sept 27, 2016 21:10:44 GMT -6
Auntym I did not even watch the debate. I knew he would lie and hang himself. They did not even need Hillary here.
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Oct 8, 2016 13:52:45 GMT -6
www.express.co.uk/news/weird/719054/Hillary-Clinton-aliens-Wikileaks-e-mails-UFOs-star-wars-ETsHillary Clinton leaked e-mails reveal shocking discussions on SPACE WARS, UFOs and ETsA LEAKED e-mail has revealed one of Hillary Clinton's closest allies had been talking about space wars, UFOs and extraterrestrials with a former American astronaut who believed in aliens just months before the ex-NASA pilot died.By SUZ ELVEY / www.express.co.uk/search?s=Suz%20ElveyPUBLISHED: 17:30, Sat, Oct 8, 2016 Leaked Hillary Clinton e-mails have revealed top level discussions on aliens WikiLeaks website, founded by Julian Assange in 2006, has published an e-mail received by John Podesta, the chairman of Mrs Clinton's presidential campaign, from Edgar D Mitchell, one of the Apollo 14 astronauts and the sixth man to walk on the moon, in August last year. The e-mail, in which Mr Mitchell and Mr Podesta appear to be on first name terms, reveals the pair were intending to have a conversation via Skype, apparently about the potential for war breaking out in space. Mr Mitchell warned his acquaintance that ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) would "not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space". However, despite their apparent intolerance, he described the ETI as nonviolent. We're arguably closer than ever to war in space The leaked e-mail to John Podesta The e-mail published by Wikileaks show a discussion on space wars and UFOsMr Mitchell, who worked on the Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, wrote: "We're arguably closer than ever to war in space. Most satellites orbiting Earth belong to the US, China and Russia. And recent tests of anti-satellite weapons don't exactly ease the scare factor. "It sounds like science fiction, but the potential for real-life star wars is real enough."He said: "Take a moment to think about everything satellites do. GPS, surveillance and communications all depend on them. And the Scientific American notes you can disable satellites without missiles. Simply spray-painting lenses or breaking antennas is enough." This is not the first time Mrs Clinton has been linked to UFOs and extraterrestrials. She has vowed to open America's top secret X-Files, containing details about UFOs and military base Area 51 in the Nevada desert if she becomes president in November. He included links in the e-mail to several online articles on the possibility of war in space pooled from various sources. Mr Mitchell said Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O Work spoke to Congress about space war last summer and President Barack Obama requested $5billion for space defence in the 2016. He said: "Take a moment to think about everything satellites do. GPS, surveillance and communications all depend on them. And the Scientific American notes you can disable satellites without missiles. Simply spray-painting lenses or breaking antennas is enough." This is not the first time Mrs Clinton has been linked to UFOs and extraterrestrials. "But there are enough stories out there that I don’t think everybody is just sitting in their kitchen, making them up. "I think that people see things. What they see, I don’t know. But we have got to try to give people information. I believe in that.” Mr Mitchell died, aged 85, in a hospice in February this year - on the eve of the 45th anniversary of his lunar landing. She has vowed to open America's top secret X-Files, containing details about UFOs and military base Area 51 in the Nevada desert if she becomes president in November. Earlier this year she was a guest on radio show Power 105.1 Breakfast Club in New York where she met host Lenard McKelvey - also known as Charlamagne the God - who believes he has been abducted by aliens several times. She told Mr McKelvey she would open tyne files unless it posed a threat to national security. When asked whether she believed in aliens, Mrs Clinton replied: "I don’t know. I want to see what the information shows. "But there are enough stories out there that I don’t think everybody is just sitting in their kitchen, making them up. "I think that people see things. What they see, I don’t know. But we have got to try to give people information. I believe in that.” Mr Mitchell died, aged 85, in a hospice in February this year - on the eve of the 45th anniversary of his lunar landing. CONTINUE READING: www.express.co.uk/news/weird/719054/Hillary-Clinton-aliens-Wikileaks-e-mails-UFOs-star-wars-ETs
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Oct 8, 2016 14:24:07 GMT -6
Auntym I did not even watch the debate. I knew he would lie and hang himself. They did not even need Hillary here. hi lois...i rarely watch these debates because i think they're boring...but i didn't miss this one...LOL...and i'll watch the next 2...
i found the first debate to be entertaining...and i feel pretty sure the next 2 will not be disappointing...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 16:59:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Oct 10, 2016 10:16:09 GMT -6
www.factcheck.org/2016/10/factchecking-the-second-presidential-debate/ FactChecking the Second Presidential Debate We found a mountain of false and misleading statements in the second meeting of the presidential nominees. By Robert Farley Posted on October 10, 2016 ST. LOUIS — In a sometimes nasty second presidential debate, there were again several calls by the candidates for fact-checkers to referee competing statements, which we are happy to oblige. But even when Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton weren’t calling out each other on the facts, we found many of their uncontested claims to be misleading or false. *Clinton exaggerated when she said the U.S. was now “energy independent.” The country imported 11 percent of total energy consumed in 2015. *Trump falsely said he never tweeted “check out a sex tape” in the wee hours of the morning a few days after the first presidential debate. He did. *Trump told Clinton “after getting the subpoena” to turn over documents related to the Benghazi investigation “you delete 33,000 emails.” A contractor managing Clinton’s server deleted the emails. There is no evidence Clinton knew when they were deleted. *Trump also said Clinton’s emails were “acid washed,” calling it a “very expensive process.” Neither statement is true. The emails were deleted using a free software program that does not involve the use of chemicals. *Clinton said there is “no evidence that anyone hacked the server I was using.” That is true, but the FBI said it was “possible” that her email system was hacked because she sent and received emails in “the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” *Clinton said intelligence officials said this week that Russians were behind political hacking attacks in the U.S. Trump said, “She doesn’t know if Russia is doing the hacking.” Clinton is closer to the truth. *Clinton claimed she was holding up Abraham Lincoln as an example of leadership when she defended “back room” deals. Turns out, she did. *Trump distorted the facts about a rape case that Clinton was involved in as a legal aid lawyer in 1975, wrongly accusing Clinton of “laughing at” the victim. *Both candidates distorted the other’s tax plan. Trump said Clinton was “raising everybody’s taxes massively,” when two analyses concluded almost all of the tax increases she proposes would fall on the top 10 percent. And Clinton claimed Trump’s plan “would end up raising taxes on middle class families.” Some families would see increased taxes, but on average middle-income taxpayers would get a tax cut. *Trump wrongly claimed that Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager said on TV that the campaign had started the false rumor that Obama was not born in the U.S. *Trump wrongly claimed that Clinton wanted to implement a government-run, “single-payer,” health care system, like Canada’s, and he cherry-picked high proposed premium increases in the Affordable Care Act exchanges. *Clinton went too far in saying an ACA provision to allow young adults to stay on their parents plans until age 26 was “something that didn’t happen before.” At least 31 states had similar provisions before the law was enacted. *Trump said that “Ambassador [Chris] Stevens sent 600 requests for help” before he was killed in an attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012. But not all 600 were requests for security upgrades, nor were they all from Stevens. *The candidates disagreed over Clinton’s role in a U.S. response to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Both had a point. Clinton was in office when President Obama said Assad’s use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line for us,” but she was gone when Obama failed to back up his threat. *Clinton claimed that since the Great Recession the gains have all gone to the top, but a 2016 economic report said that in 2014 and 2015 “the incomes of bottom 99% families have finally started recovering in earnest.” *Trump again claimed without evidence that “many people saw the bombs all over the apartment” of the San Bernardino shooters. And there were more claims that we’ve heard before on trade, foreign affairs and nuclear weapons. Note to Readers: Deputy Managing Editor Robert Farley was at the debate at Washington University. This story was written by Farley with the help of the entire staff, based in the Philadelphia region and Washington, D.C. An annotated transcript of the debate with our fact-checks can be found here. transcripts.factcheck.org/presidential-debate-washington-university/Analysis The second of three presidential debates was held on Oct. 9 at Washington University in St. Louis. The much-anticipated town hall-style matchup came as both candidates were facing renewed scrutiny: Republican nominee Donald Trump for lewd comments about women made in 2005 but just released on Oct. 7; and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for the public release of hacked emails from her campaign. As in the first debate, we found plenty of distortions of fact. CONTINUE READING: www.factcheck.org/2016/10/factchecking-the-second-presidential-debate/FACT CHECKING: transcripts.factcheck.org/presidential-debate-washington-university/FACT CHECKING DONALD TRUMP: correctrecord.org/fact-checking-donald-trump-at-the-second-presidential-debate/
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Oct 10, 2016 12:24:42 GMT -6
www.newsweek.com/how-donald-trump-ditched-us-steel-workers-china-505717 How Donald Trump Ditched U.S. Steel Workers in Favor of ChinaBy Kurt Eichenwald / www.newsweek.com/authors/kurt-eichenwald-0 10/3/16 Plenty of blue-collar workers believe that, as president, Donald Trump would be ready to fight off U.S. trade adversaries and reinvigorate the country’s manufacturing industries through his commitment to the Rust Belt. What they likely don’t know is that Trump has been stiffing American steel workers on his own construction projects for years, choosing to deprive untold millions of dollars from four key electoral swing states and instead directing it to China—the country whose trade practices have helped decimate the once-powerful industrial center of the United States. A Newsweek investigation has found that in at least two of Trump’s last three construction projects, Trump opted to purchase his steel and aluminum from Chinese manufacturers rather than United States corporations based in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. In other instances, he abandoned steel altogether, instead choosing the far-less-expensive option of buying concrete from various companies, including some linked to the Luchese and Genovese crime families. Trump has never been accused of engaging in any wrongdoing for his business dealings with those companies, but it’s true that the Mafia has long controlled much of the concrete industry in New York. Throughout his campaign, Trump has maintained that some controversial decisions for his companies amounted to nothing more than taking actions that were good for business, and were therefore reflections of his financial acumen. But, with the exception of one business that collapsed into multiple bankruptcies, Trump does not operate a public company; he has no fiduciary obligation to shareholders to obtain the highest returns he can. His decisions to turn away from American producers were not driven by legal obligations to investors, but simply resulted in higher profits for himself and his family. WATCH VIDEO & CONTINUE READING: www.newsweek.com/how-donald-trump-ditched-us-steel-workers-china-505717TRUMP BUYS CHINESE STEEL: www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-chinese-steel/
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Oct 10, 2016 14:36:59 GMT -6
www.newsy.com/videos/what-s-so-damning-about-the-clinton-emails-from-wikileaks/ What's So Damning About The New Hillary Clinton Emails From WikiLeaks? A recent WikiLeaks email dump concerning Hillary Clinton came up during the debate. Here's what made it a big deal.By Jake Godin / www.newsy.com/team/jake-godin/ October 9, 2016 So what was most damning about the recent WikiLeaks email dump on Hillary Clinton? Probably this single, long email: wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927It contains excerpts from Clinton's much-discussed-but-never-revealed paid speeches to Wall Street. In the sampling, Clinton says she supports open borders on trade policy, suggests Wall Street insiders are what is needed to fix Wall Street and signals a preference for Canadian health care and single payer. Essentially, Clinton comes off as having different ideas on policy in private with big businesses than she does in public on the campaign trail. This is what Donald Trump's surrogates have used to ding her. The contents of the speeches became an issue during the primaries when Sen. Bernie Sanders called on Clinton to release them. WATCH VIDEO: www.newsy.com/videos/what-s-so-damning-about-the-clinton-emails-from-wikileaks/
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Oct 10, 2016 20:39:05 GMT -6
Here's my political rant for today... Since politics has turned into a circus I may as well make fun of the clowns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 1:41:31 GMT -6
|
|