HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Jarqui » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 74 Next »

Jarqui

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Aug 23, 2015, 02:58 PM
Number of posts: 6,258

Journal Archives

Trump accuser's journalism teacher says she was 'rattled' after alleged sex assault

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-sex-assault-stoynoff-mclaughlin-professor-1.3804809
(above link has some tweets and parts of this story

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mclaughlin-stoynoff-trump-1.3805012
McLaughlin was Stoynoff's journalism professor, and told CBC's The Current that Stoynoff used to call him for professional advice. He said Stoynoff called him shortly after the alleged incident, and told him how Trump "had come onto her very strongly, very aggressively, and that it could have been much worse if someone who worked for him had not come into the room and interrupted them."

"She was really rattled, as you can understand," said McLaughlin. "She didn't know what to do, she was very conflicted, she was angry, she was really confused about how to deal with this."

'He was aggressive, he was litigious'

After discussing the situation together, McLaughlin said, Stoynoff decided it would be best if she kept the incident to herself.

"It was going to be a he said, she said," McLaughlin said. "And we were talking about one of the most influential people in North America at the time. He was just flying high with The Apprentice, he was aggressive, he was litigious."

Stoynoff ultimately decided to avoid any future assignments involving Trump, which McLaughlin believed was the right decision
.


A Canadian journalism professor, with no obvious dog in this hunt, is backing up her story in a report done by arguably the best TV journalism corporation in Canada (the CBC). In other words, she has some credible backup to her claims against Trump (not that a bunch of folks around here would be surprised by that ... but I thought a little reassurance would't hurt given they'll try to tear her down more).

Obviously, what Trump is doing to her and others is why folks do not report this so I figured posting this would be helping get the supportive word out.

No, Trump, Canadians do not flee en masse for US health care

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/9/13222798/canadians-seeking-medical-care-us-trump-debate
Canada made a rare appearance in a US presidential debate Sunday when Donald Trump accused Hillary Clinton of wanting to turn America’s system into a "catastrophic" single-payer health system like Canada’s.

"You've noticed," he said, "the Canadians, when they need a big operation, they come into the United States in many cases, because their system is so slow."

This idea is often floated by critics of single-payer systems like Canada’s on both sides of the border.

But the best-available research shows it’s simply not true. Canadians are not fleeing en masse to the US seeking medical care.

The most comprehensive look at the issue was published in Health Affairs in 2002. Entitled "Phantoms in the Snow," researchers gathered data on Canadians’ use of the US health care system by surveying US border facilities and America’s top-rated hospitals about how often they see Canadians seeking health care. They found this happened rarely.

They also tracked Canadians' behaviors by examining data from the National Population Health Survey, where 18,000 Canadians were asked if they sought medical treatment in the US. "Only 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them had done so electively."



Like the Khans said, the only thing Trump sacrifices is the truth

Imagine what Trump would be like in the White House for a moment

I know, it's nauseating. But some posters asked me to turn my post into a thread.

To do that, let's look at what has happened in the last couple of days, in no particular order
( and my list is probably incomplete):

- the back and forth with the Khan family that Trump can never win
- the stupid purple heart remark that prompts the Duckworth tweet
- the wacky, unsubstantiated, off-the-wall claim that the election is rigged
- Trump: 'I know far more about foreign policy' than Obama - another claim he cannot win
- McConnell, Christie and Ryan and McCain speak out against Trump's position with the Khans
- Obama hammers Trump as being unfit
- declines to endorse McCain & Ryan and criticizes Kelly Ayotte "as a weak and disloyal leader" who won't endorse him
- Top Maine Republicans decline to attend his rally
- Hillary books $100 mil in ads, Trump < $1 mil
- Hillary raises $90 mil in July, Trump $36 mil
- Trump plummets in the polls
- Trump loses decision in Trump U fraud lawsuit - prepare for discovery
- Trump 'Get the baby out of here' - at his rally
- Trump disparages Harrisburg, PA as looking like a war zone
- Trump goes after CNN, Washington Post and New York Times on twitter
- French President expresses revulsion at Trump
- a few GOP members break ranks expressing they will vote for Clinton
- Trump spokeswoman blames Obama for 2004 death of Cpt Khan
- Trump takes heat for going after fire marshal when Fire marshal was doing what Trump campaign agreed to
- Trump Foreign Policy Adviser Traveled To Russia Prior To Changes In GOP Platform
- Newsweek story comes out: DONALD TRUMP'S MANY BUSINESS FAILURES, EXPLAINED
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/donald-trumps-business-failures-election-2016-486091.html
- Meg Whitman (R), Calls Donald Trump a ‘Demagogue,’ Will Support Hillary Clinton
- Donald Trump Made Boneheaded Comments About Sexual Harassment. Then His Son Made It Worse.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/donald-trump-eric-trump-clueless-sexual-harassment

It's a dizzying shotgun blast of issues at or events with his campaign which is spiraling out of control - arguably because Trump can't handle it

I don't think how he would try to manage the White House would be a lot different.

It's a greatly under appreciated characteristic of President "no drama" Obama. He knows how to manage people by team building and getting them to do things for him and each other effectively. He's not reactionary. He plans and thinks things through. He measures his words so he doesn't inflame problems - he dials them down with careful choices of his words and keeps things thoughtful and civil.

With a dictatorship, which is effectively how the thin skinned racist seems to anticipate he'll govern, we're likely to get the chaos you see in the list above because there is no plan and no thinking. It's shoot from the hip at every little thing - reactionary - rather than picking your spots, mulling it over and executing a carefully thought out next step in the plan. A bunch of this week has been damage control for the stupid diarrhea coming out of his mouth and his childish reluctance to take responsibility for it with an apology - causing days of problems with the Khans rather than one moment. This is not an effective way to govern. It's really stupid.

I've been on the fence trying to find a way to support her.

The fix seems to have been in since before the primary started. This premature calling of the primary is the final nail.

The DNC has never appeared so corrupt and has had their thumb on the scale for Hillary since the outset (ie the debate schedule or the way Sanders data is violated and they do nothing but they howl to the media when Clintons data is exposed for a few minutes - and never get to the bottom of what happened to Sanders data, how they allow Hillary to use their offices around the country but do not offer the same to Sanders, etc).

The number of dirty tricks and voting irregularities in state after state- nearly all associated with the Clinton campaign seems worse than 2008 and as bad or worse than any time I can recall in my 50 plus years following the party.

The critical lies on Bernie's record for Latinos in Nevada, for example, or the auto bail out, go largely unchecked in the media. The media, the great arbitrator of democracy, abdicates it's responsibility because they no longer represent the people - they represent the 1% who own them. Trump gets a couple of hundred minutes of free mainstream media coverage. Hillary a hundred plus. Bernie gets a whole ten minutes. Goodbye to the Fairness Doctrine.

As others have said, the United States is not a real democracy any more. Votes do not really matter any more because the electorate doesn't get fairly informed about their candidates, their positions and the lies. It has become an oligarchy. The 1% have bought and paid for both candidates in the major parties. They cannot lose the general election. for them, that election is already over. The 1% have already won no matter which candidate becomes president.

Hillary lies too much to accept that she will be the defender of Democratic party values. I cannot handle her dishonesty. Therefore, I cannot nor will not support either Clinton or Trump in the general election. I have better things to do with my time. I think the country needs to get what's coming to them in order for real change to come about. It's going to be ugly but short term ugliness gives us the best chance for longer term meaningful change. When it gets ugly enough, people will wake up and try to do something about it. Hopefully, they won't come out of their slumber too late.

Interesting read, good effort

I do not agree with all of it. But I do agree Clinton is in more serious trouble than is being widely acknowledged.

As to why the FBI is taking so long? I have a different theory. First of all, we haven't heard from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community who was also doing an investigation. Some of his results would be classified but I think the State Department indicated that we would be hearing from them sooner than later. I think his report will be more damning and help set the table for the FBI results. But the big thing that taking time is : the Clinton Foundation. It takes time to "follow the money" And there is lot of money ~ $4 billion and a bunch of stuff that appears to be quid pro quo for weapons and visas, etc. It's hard to believe people gave Bill & Hillary four billion dollars for nothing. I think that's what they're taking a good long hard look at and why it's taking time.

In the wake of subpoenas of the Clinton Foundation last fall, the recent report that the FBI is now investigating long time Clinton money bag man and Clinton Foundation Director Terry McAuliffe for activities prior to him becoming Virginia Governor (he resigned from the Clinton Foundation after he was elected) gives the impression that the FBI may be circling the Clinton Foundation wagons. That adds some substance to the Clinton Cash and other media allegations of last year and is a timely result of the subpoenas and investigations.

Now, if the Dems feel that Clinton is going to get gobbled up by this, as I think she is even if she's innocent, the Dems are the ones who should pull the trigger. If they wait to let the GOP and Trump do it, it's too late and their replacement candidate will suffer credibility problems being brought in that way compared with if the Dems take out their own garbage.

For those who claim I'm just a Bernie supporter trying to get him the nomination, well I do not think Bernie will be handed the nomination. I think the Dems will parachute in Biden or someone like that. I doubt it will work out for Bernie unless he's taken as a VP.

I also think Hillary is in a lot more trouble that people realize or accept. The sooner Democrats realize that, the better the chances will be that Trump doesn't get the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I think this story has some legs and some concern for the Clintons

Sorry for the delay but I took the time to look it over

Here's some of the media coverage (can't shoot the messenger on all of it):

CNN: Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe under federal investigation for campaign contributions

Gov. Terry McAuliffe under federal investigation for campaign contributions

Washington Post: Clinton Foundation donors gave $13 million to Terry McAuliffe

120 Clinton Foundation Donors Gave $13.4 Million To Terry McAuliffe’s Campaigns

Prosecutions rare under law cited in McAuliffe probe

McAuliffe heads off probe that could hurt Clinton

Authorities investigate whether Terry McAuliffe violated lobbying restrictions

Terry McAuliffe’s failing memory

McAuliffe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_McAuliffe#Fundraising_career_and_relationship_with_the_Clintons
- Clinton friend for 30+ years
- McAuliffe and his staff raised $275 million, then an unprecedented sum, for Clinton's causes while president.
- co-chairman of President Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign
- McAuliffe guaranteed the Clintons' $1.35 million mortgage for their home in Chappaqua, New York. The deal raised ethical questions
- In 2000, McAuliffe chaired a fundraiser with the Clintons; setting a fundraising record of $26.3 million.
- named by Bill Clinton as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, from 2001 to 2005, - chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.
- was a director of the Clinton Foundation during his time as Chairman of the DNC, from early 2000s until Nov 2013. (fyi Cheryl Mills was also a director during that period and continues as of 2014)

Then there's this site (shoot the messenger warning - video by Citizen's United):
http://fastterry.com/



There's this recent story from a Virginia paper to back up the video
Founded by McAuliffe and funded by foreign investors, GreenTech misses targets, damages credibility, feds say

Washington Post: Report: Va. governor received special treatment from Homeland Security
McAuliffe was among several politically powerful individuals from both parties, including Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), seeking special visas for foreign investors through a program administered by the department. But intervention on behalf of McAuliffe’s GreenTech Automotive company by Alejandro Mayorkas, now the department’s No. 2 official, “was unprecedented,” according to the report.

The long-anticipated report found no evidence of law-breaking. But members of the department’s staff perceived Mayorkas’s actions as “politically motivated,” and the report concluded that he had “created an appearance of favoritism and special access.”

The report is likely to stir up renewed scrutiny of the department’s management of the EB-5 visa program, which allows foreign nationals who create jobs in the United States to obtain green cards. And it is likely to rekindle examination of McAuliffe and GreenTech, which at the time of Mayorkas’s actions was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission over its conduct in soliciting foreign investors.

Initially popular with lawmakers from both parties, the visa program has prompted accusations from detractors that it puts visas up for sale — and doesn’t provide sufficient oversight to ensure that the promised jobs materialize.


The troubling thing with the EB-5 visas is that this isn't the only time it's come up with the Clinton Foundation.

Fortune: The dark, disturbing world of the visa-for-sale program

Hillary’s Brother Saw The Clintons As His Road To Riches
His company was sister company to McAuliffe's car company locaed right beside each other.

I read about visas and the Clinton Foundation last year - a suggestion that they were doing people favors in return for contributions to the Foundation- I'm trying rattle my brain to dig that up - had something to do with South America and other visas I think. That was the thing that triggered me to look at McAuliffe more closely. So this isn't the first time visas and the Clinton Foundation has been kicked around. McAuliffe as a long time director of the Clinton Foundation - until he became governor - is being investigated for what he did before he became governor - while a director of the Clinton Foundation. So this touches pretty close to home to the Clintons in several ways.

This is worth keeping our eyes on because there is a lot of smoke around it that isn't all right wing media/GOP driven.

Some of this stuff reminds me a bit of the Watergate break-in

because it wasn't necessary either. Nixon was already headed to a landslide victory.

I'm not saying Hillary is as bad as Nixon but they do have a lot in common.

The term flip-flop was first used in Nixon's era for his flip-flop on wage and price controls (and on the Vietnam war, etc). I can't think of any politician who has done it as brazenly and as frequently as Hillary.

Both are well known for lying (Hillary's untrustworthy polls).

Nixon, it has been alleged with some evidence, undermined the Vietnam peace talks and kept the war going for several more years. Hillary voted for the Iraq war. It could be argued both supported war for their own personal political gain or reasons - until Hillary flip-flopped to be against the war for her own personal political gain or reasons.

Both were known for alleged dirty tricks in campaigns. "Tricky Dick" Nixon's dirty tricks ultimately cost him the presidency when he didn't need to do them. Nevada is at the end of a fairly long list of allegations of dirty tricks done by Hillary's campaign that started against Obama in 2008. And at this juncture, they're unnecessary if we're to believe her campaign's math argument (which is difficult to refute).

Does that mean I'm lobbying for Trump? No chance. Can't stand that racist meathead.

I protested Nixon and his flip-flop support for the Vietnam war. I couldn't stand his dishonesty, his flip-flopping, his dirty tricks or his war mongering. He was the first president I really disliked. Now, I'm being asked to hold my nose and support a liar, flip-flopper, and war supporter who reminds us of all that when her campaign pulls dirty tricks like this Nevada convention delegate sleaze - because she's a "democrat" (that I see as Republican lite).

And when I question this hypocrisy I'm being asked to commit or lay it bare to talk about, I'm in danger of being banned or getting my post hidden because I exercised first amendment rights on a democratic forum.

Cut some of us a little slack. From where I sit, things look pretty f**ked up and I'm having a struggle with it.

Something maybe not that important that bugged me ..


I was looking into the Panama thing in Hillary's emails and came across this:

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05774372.pdf

Philippe Reines says

"With 7ish months left, plenty of time to run up the score on total countries. 110 is a reasonable goal. Here are the 94 countries left to choose from (asterisks appear next to countries you visited prior to becoming SecState, but not since - so they would count): "


So I read that and said to myself "Man, what a dick. Sending childish crap like a country count to a Secretary of State of the United States. Like she doesn't have more important things to do or think about in her busy schedule, etc instead of fussing around with a silly country visited count and running up the score - as if that seriously matters compared to her serious duties."

Next email I see is a reply from Hillary:
http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05794958.pdf

"Fw: 22 Additional Countries ... Pis print."


My reaction: omfg

If you're interested in Hillary's emails, interesting article, if not, skip this thread

I do not mean that to be rude. I understand that a lot of folks have probably heard enough on this.

I've too have read a fair amount on this. I like a little legal stuff now and then. This case has had some interesting issues if you like that sort of thing.

This article is written by someone claiming to be a Clinton supporter.

It is one of the longest articles I've ever read. 20 pages?. But I think it's quite good.

The person writing it is not a lawyer but I didn't mind that - she wrote very well about the arguments and issues.

I'll also tell you right now that it does't end well for Hillary. She thinks she'll be indicted and goes to great legal lengths to say why - while remaining quite objective and balanced - presenting the other side of the issue - each step of the way.

Do I Really Need to Worry About Hillary’s Emails? Yes. She Will Be Indicted

I can't say I agreed with everything said. I'm not positive they are right in their conclusions.

There's probably just a small percentage of people that will make it through the article. You probably have to be really into this story to read it and stay with it and maybe already know it well.

But I thought the effort deserved a link. Whoever wrote this obviously worked very hard on it.

It's really a very insulting premise.

Some people around here sincerely care about others. As I approach retirement age, I kind of feel that I've had my shot and what matters more to me is the kind of place I'm leaving to my kids.

The people dying without healthcare just eats me up - really upsets me. I can't stand it. I'm sick of it. But I know that if the GOP win the White House, it won't get better - it might get worse. And I also know if Hillary wins, there is no single payer in the cards and I feel her chances of universal are slim because she's not popular enough to carry the House and Senate.

I've been protesting wars since Vietnam. I've lost family members to war. Hillary and the GOP present a much greater chance of more war that than Sanders. I get to live in quiet fear of that if Bernie loses.

How many more black people do I have to watch get shot in the back by police? I do not have the words to describe the horror of such scenes of injustice in our society. I do not have faith in Hillary to solve that.

I fought against NAFTA before it had a name. I knew what it was going to do. It devastated the lives of many dear friends. Only one candidate can be relied upon to stop that bleeding.

I could go on and on. Climate change, Citizens United, etc, etc.

Like I said, after fighting for progressive causes since I was a young teenager, the notion of the top post is insulting.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 74 Next »