Tag Archives: barack

Trump Once Called for Sending US Ground Troops to Fight ISIS and "Take That Oil"

by LashawnFKOP Posted on November 2, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has repeatedly said he has a secret and “foolproof” plan for defeating ISIS. This is not to be confused with his “detailed” public plan for crushing ISIS released by his campaign. In that public plan, Trump states, “My administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS.” (That happens to be President Barack Obama’s current plan.) Trump’s public plan does not say anything about sending US combat troops into Iraq and Syria to engage ISIS. In fact, it includes no proposals related to the level of US troops in the region. But in a 2015 interview with Fox News host Bill O’Reilly on the day Trump entered the Republican presidential contest, the celebrity mogul indicated that he would deploy US combat forces to battle ISIS directly in order to grab oil fields that would then be handed over to US companies.

During this conversation, which was filmed in Trump’s office, O’Reilly asked the reality television star what he would do to beat back ISIS. Trump first answered with rhetoric: “I would hit them so hard your head would spin.” And he claimed, “I said in ’04, we should not go in and do that whole thing with Iraq.” (That was inaccurate—and the invasion of Iraq was in 2003.)

Then O’Reilly asked if Trump would send American ground troops into Syria. Trump replied with a vague statement: “I have a way that would be very effective with respect to ISIS.” O’Reilly pushed him on this: “You’d put American ground troops in to chase them around?” This exchange ensued:

Trump: Take back the oil. Once you go over and take back that oil, they have nothing.

O’Reilly: But how do you take it back?

Trump: You have to go in. You have to go in.

O’Reilly: With ground troops?

Trump: Well, you bomb the hell out of them, and then you encircle it, and then you go in.

This was a clear signal that Trump favored sending in US ground troops to fight ISIS to gain control of oil facilities. After that, he said, US oil companies could move in and seize the oil. “Once you take that oil,” Trump noted, “they have nothing left.” It seems obvious, though, that US oil companies—which actually are transnational companies—would only be able to “take that oil” if large areas of the region were secured by a great number of US ground troops.

Throughout the campaign, Trump has insisted that the United States should “take the oil” from Iraq and areas controlled by ISIS—an idea widely derided by military, international law, and energy experts—without ever explaining how this could happen. The idea of deploying US combat troops (after a bombing campaign) to fight ISIS and then win and control territory with oil facilities in Syria and Iraq—essentially, a US invasion—does not appear in Trump’s public plan. But it’s what Trump had in mind during his O’Reilly interview. Perhaps this is the big secret Trump has steadfastly refused to share with American voters before the election.

Visit site:

Trump Once Called for Sending US Ground Troops to Fight ISIS and "Take That Oil"

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Once Called for Sending US Ground Troops to Fight ISIS and "Take That Oil"

Hillary Clinton Is Slowly Picking Up Ground With Millennials

by BetseyWso690775 Posted on October 26, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Harvard’s Institute of Politics has just released its latest poll of 18-29 year olds, and reports that Hillary Clinton has a “massive” lead over Donald Trump. Over at the New York Times, however, Yamiche Alcindor says the new poll shows that Clinton has “struggled” with millennials and “will have to convince many young people that they should trust her to grapple with some of the nation’s biggest issues.” Nancy LeTourneau is annoyed:

That is the power of narrative. Once you buy into the idea that Clinton is having trouble with millennials, it is almost impossible to break out of it. In the back of Alcindor’s mind, she has to do better than a 28 point lead to be successful with young people. Who knows how high that bar is?

I get the exasperation with this, but the problem is that both the IOP and Alcindor are right. Clinton leads Trump 49-21 percent in the IOP poll, which is indeed a massive lead. At the same time, 49 percent support is less than Democrats usually get from 20-somethings. Like it or not, Clinton is less popular with young voters than any Democrat in the past two decades except for Al Gore. Is this because of the Bernie effect? Because of Clinton herself? Because third-party candidates are getting more attention than usual? That’s hard to say. But whatever the reason, Clinton is underperforming with millennials.

Now, at this point her underperformance is fairly modest compared to anyone other than Barack Obama. And she still has a couple of weeks to make up ground. It’s fair to say that she’s a little behind the usual pace for Democrats, but it’s not fair to regurgitate the narrative from two or three months ago when she was struggling pretty hard with millennial disaffection. It may not make for a great story, but sometimes the truth is a little bit boring.

Originally posted here:  

Hillary Clinton Is Slowly Picking Up Ground With Millennials

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Is Slowly Picking Up Ground With Millennials

Charts of the Day: How Hillary Clinton Beat Donald Trump

by Georgiana06S Posted on October 21, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here are a couple of interesting data points from 538.com. On the left, you can see where Hillary Clinton is picking up votes compared to Barack Obama in 2012. Not from blue states or swing states, which are polling about the same as they did in the last election, but in red states. She’s picked up a whopping 8.4 points from folks in red states who would presumably vote Republican in normal times, but just can’t stomach Donald Trump.

On the right, you can see the cumulative total winning margin in CNN’s post-debate instant polls since 1992. Clinton posted the best record of any candidate ever. Alternatively, you could say that Donald Trump posted the worst record of any candidate ever. It’s not clear which is the more appropriate description, but even if you think Trump’s meltdowns were the decisive turning points, Clinton employed a brilliant strategy for baiting Trump into losing his shit in front of a hundred million viewers. Either way, Hillary Clinton is one of the greatest presidential debaters of recent history.

Link to original: 

Charts of the Day: How Hillary Clinton Beat Donald Trump

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Charts of the Day: How Hillary Clinton Beat Donald Trump

Gary Johnson Thinks Barack Obama and Bashar Assad Are Morally About the Same

by Carey68Hsrqgpwm Posted on October 6, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Gary Johnson thinks our foreign policy should be less interventionist. That’s fair enough. I agree with him. But this is ridiculous:

Attacking Hillary Clinton over what he criticized as her overly interventionist instincts, Mr. Johnson pointed to the hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians killed by forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad, as well as civilian deaths caused by the American-backed coalition, and said Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state, bore at least partial responsibility…He charged that Mrs. Clinton “bears responsibility for what’s happened, shared responsibility for what’s happened in Syria. I would not have put us in that situation from the get-go.”

This is nuts. Hillary Clinton played no role in starting the civil war in Syria, and 400,000 people have died there even though Barack Obama chose not to adopt her policy preferences. Our responsibility for what’s happened in Syria—whether you think it’s large or small—belongs to Obama, not Clinton. Then there’s this:

Johnson drew a parallel on Wednesday between the Syrian government’s targeting of noncombatants in that nation’s civil war and the accidental bombing of civilians by United States-backed forces…When pressed four times on whether he saw a moral equivalence between deaths caused by the United States, directly or indirectly, and mass killings of civilians by Mr. Assad and his allies, Mr. Johnson made clear that he did.

Words fail. Yes, the United States is far from perfect. Yes, we sometimes kill innocent civilians. Yes, we often do too little to make sure civilians are safe. All of this is worth protest until we get better.

But we do try to spare civilians. In fact, our rules of engagement are famously restrictive. Bashar Assad, by contrast, deliberately targets civilians in huge numbers. Civilian or not, if you oppose Assad he wants you dead.

Does Johnson really see no difference there? That wouldn’t pass muster in a freshman ethics class, let alone the real world. I’d like to see the United States rely less on a military approach to the Middle East, too, but I sure wouldn’t want our military in the hands of a guy who apparently sees no real moral difference between a butcher like Bashar Assad and decent but imperfect leaders like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Link:  

Gary Johnson Thinks Barack Obama and Bashar Assad Are Morally About the Same

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gary Johnson Thinks Barack Obama and Bashar Assad Are Morally About the Same

Donald Trump Is Recycling LBJ’s "Pig Fucker" Strategy

by NaomiTcbgaklpum Posted on August 12, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Donald Trump says Barack Obama is the “founder” of ISIS. Let’s hear his explanations for this. First, there’s this, on the Hugh Hewitt show yesterday:

HH: I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.
DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do…. It’s no mistake.

So he meant it literally. Then there’s this, about 20 seconds later:

HH: I’d just use different language to communicate it….
DT: But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?

So he didn’t mean it literally. It was deliberate hyperbole in order to get people talking. Then there’s this, from the wee hours of this morning:

It was just sarcasm! Why don’t you people get this?

So why does Trump do this stuff? The most likely explanation, of course, is that he’s a child who can’t control his mouth, and then invents transparently dumb excuses when he’s caught with his hand in the cookie jar. But there’s another possibility.

Everyone remembers the famous LBJ quip about why he called his opponent a pig fucker, right? Johnson admitted it wasn’t true, but “I want him to have to deny it,” he explained.

Well, what have we been talking about for the past few days? First, that Hillary Clinton doesn’t really want to eliminate the Second Amendment. She just wants background checks and so forth. Then, that Obama and Clinton aren’t really the founders of ISIS. They just created the vacuum that helped ISIS thrive.

This probably won’t help Trump. But it might. Getting the media to obsess for days about Hillary Clinton’s position on gun control and her part in the rise of ISIS doesn’t really do her any good. When you’re explaining, you’re losing.

In fact, done more adroitly, this might be a pretty diabolical strategy. Unfortunately for Trump, he’s so ham-handed about it that it hurts him more than it does Hillary. So far, anyway. But if he gets better at it, you never know.

See original: 

Donald Trump Is Recycling LBJ’s "Pig Fucker" Strategy

Posted in Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Is Recycling LBJ’s "Pig Fucker" Strategy

Melania Trump Stole Part of Her Convention Speech From Michelle Obama

by FatimaLangley Posted on July 19, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but in the era of Google you should at least be a little more careful about doing it on live national TV:

Michelle Obama, 2008
Melania Trump, 2016

Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them. And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generation.

From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life: that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise; that you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily life. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son, and we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow.

This comes via Jarrett Hill. I’m sure Donald will have a suitably belligerent explanation about this tomorrow. Or maybe via Twitter later tonight. I’m hoping for a declaration that Michelle actually stole it from Melania.

BY THE WAY: It’s interesting that one of the phrases Melania left out was about treating people with dignity and respect “even if you don’t know them.” How very Trumpish.

From:

Melania Trump Stole Part of Her Convention Speech From Michelle Obama

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Melania Trump Stole Part of Her Convention Speech From Michelle Obama

Republicans Talk a Better Game on the Economy Than Democrats

by ElisabethFulker Posted on July 5, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Over the weekend Brad DeLong wrote a post about Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and how his disastrous tax cuts have decimated the state’s economy. It prompted several of the usual comments, and DeLong highlights this one in particular:

The process Brownback has put the state on isn’t something he regrets. And obviously over the next several years, Kansas will recover in that it won’t get worse and will have growth that more or less tracks national growth. And at that point the state will declare Brownback’s policies to be a “success.”

This reminds me of something I’ve meant to point out for a while: economies always recover eventually.1 Conservatives take advantage of this fact by loudly and clearly insisting that their proposed tax cuts will supercharge economic growth. They know that eventually there will be growth, and when it happens they can then loudly and clearly insist that their tax cuts were responsible. Since they’ve been loudly and clearly saying this all along, ordinary citizens conclude that they’re right.

Democrats don’t really do this. When Barack Obama put together his various economic initiatives in 2009, for example, he was pretty circumspect about what they’d accomplish. Ditto for Bill Clinton in 1993. When they ran for reelection, both of them touted their economic achievements, but only in fairly broad terms. Obama didn’t insist that his stimulus bill was a magic bullet and Clinton didn’t claim that tax hikes and deficit reductions were always and everywhere the key to economic growth. Because of this, ordinary citizens never strongly associated the policies of either man with economic growth.2

Why is this? Stimulus programs and deficit reductions have about as much to do with economic growth as tax cuts: some, but not a lot. And none of them can truthfully claim to be the secret sauce for all economic woes at all times.

But that doesn’t bother Republicans. They’ve been focused like a laser beam on tax cuts as economic miracle workers for more than 30 years now. The fact that virtually no evidence supports this claim doesn’t matter. Democrats, conversely, can’t quite bring themselves to make the same unequivocal claim. Are they too embarrassed to just flatly lie about it? Too disorganized to agree on any one thing? Too muddled to make their points loudly and clearly? It is a mystery.

1Except maybe for Greece. We’ll see.

2Until much later, that is. Bill Clinton is now generally associated with the strong economy of the 90s, but it took a decade of weak economic growth to make him look so good.

Continued here: 

Republicans Talk a Better Game on the Economy Than Democrats

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Talk a Better Game on the Economy Than Democrats

These Americans Have Never Seen a White President Before

by RoxieKwc42100 Posted on June 28, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In 2009, Barack Obama was sworn into office as the 44th president of the United States, the first black man to run the White House. While the upcoming presidential election could be the first time the US sees a woman in that job, that wouldn’t be the only historic aspect of a Hillary Clinton victory for a certain swath of Americans. The above video, produced by BET, surveys some special young citizens about their opinions on the Obamas, Donald Trump, and their prospects for witnessing the “first white president.” Enjoy.

Link: 

These Americans Have Never Seen a White President Before

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These Americans Have Never Seen a White President Before

John Oliver Slams "Absolutely Insane" Brexit Campaign

by JimmieBryan Posted on June 20, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Ahead of Thursday’s referendum to decide whether Britain will leave or stay in the European Union—a campaign commonly referred to as Brexit—John Oliver took to the latest “Last Week Tonight” to urge the people of the United Kingdom to vote to maintain its EU membership.

“The EU is not perfect: it’s large, confounding, and relentlessly bureaucratic,” Oliver said. “Think of it like Gerard Depardieu: it’s an unwieldy European body that’s a source of great bewilderment. But Britain leaving it would be a huge destabilizing decision, so you would expect the Brexit camp to have some pretty solid arguments. Unfortunately, many of them are bullshit.”

Many international leaders, including President Barack Obama, have warned against Britain leaving. And as Oliver showcased with a series of disturbing clips, those on the other side tend to be anti-immigration—and sometimes downright racist.

To help make his case, Oliver delivered a brilliant, profanity-laced anthem in hopes it would convince the United Kingdom to vote “no” this Thursday.

From – 

John Oliver Slams "Absolutely Insane" Brexit Campaign

Posted in Brita, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Oliver Slams "Absolutely Insane" Brexit Campaign

Obama Just Cracked Down on Pollution From Fracking

by Betsy1054icbdyl Posted on May 12, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday released the final version of new federal rules intended to curb emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas. Methane, which is the main component of natural gas, had previously been unregulated. There’s a mounting pile of evidence suggesting that as the United States relies increasingly on gas to produce electricity, methane emissions are much higher than most people expected them to be.

That’s a problem for the fight against climate change. Methane emissions are far lower than carbon dioxide emissions, and methane survives in the atmosphere for a relatively short period of time. But methane is far more effective at trapping heat than CO2 is, which makes it a significant near-term warming threat. As I reported in a deep dive on methane yesterday:

When unburned methane leaks into the atmosphere, it can help cause dramatic warming in a relatively short period of time. Methane emissions have long been a missing piece in the country’s patchwork climate policy…The natural gas system produces methane emissions at nearly every step of the process, from the well itself to the pipe that carries gas into your home. Around two-thirds of those emissions are “intentional,” meaning they occur during normal use of equipment. For example, some pneumatic gauges use the pressure of natural gas to flip on or off and emit tiny puffs of methane when they do so. The other one-third comes from so-called “fugitive” emissions, a.k.a. leaks, that happen when a piece of equipment cracks or otherwise fails.

The lack of regulations on methane was one reason why President Barack Obama’s climate strategy, which hinges on swapping the country’s coal consumption for natural gas, has been frowned upon by some environmentalists. Even today’s regulations are only a partial solution, since they only apply to new and modified natural gas infrastructure, not systems that already exist. And by some analysts’ reckoning, more than 70 percent of gas-sector methane emissions from now until 2025 will come from sources that already exist.

Still, the regulation announced today achieves one of the final remaining big items on Obama’s climate checklist. It aims to reduce gas-sector methane emissions 40 to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025 by tightening the allowed emissions from pumps, compressors, wells, and other infrastructure; requiring more frequent surveys for leaks; and implementing a data-gathering survey that will give officials and companies a better understanding of just how much methane leakage there really is. The EPA expects the regulations to cost $530 million by 2025 but to produce $690 million in environmental benefits.

View original:  

Obama Just Cracked Down on Pollution From Fracking

Posted in Anchor, bigo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Just Cracked Down on Pollution From Fracking