Tags Posts tagged with "Donald Trump"

Donald Trump

President Donald Trump suspended entry from seven countries last week. File photo

As an editorial staff, we have an opinion. …

The first half of that sentence isn’t necessary in order to reveal what we think. And that is the exact problem we have had with this past weekend’s news cycle.

Political leader after political leader came out this past Friday, Saturday and Sunday to condemn Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s leaked comments, bragging about being able to commit sexual assault against women.

One of the common themes from legislators who pulled their endorsements was “As a father of daughters” or “As a brother with sisters — or a mother,” they were offended.

Two problems here: You don’t need to be a “someone” in order to be offended, you can simply be offended. And why is it that women are repeatedly being referred to as a sister, a daughter or a mother?

A presidential candidate talked about how he can sexually assault women because he is a star. A woman doesn’t need to be anything to be offended, threatened or violated by that sentiment. A man is also not disqualified from finding Trump’s comments reprehensible simply because he is a man.

Women don’t need to give birth or have a brother before they can be victimized by Trump’s words. Men don’t need to be married to condemn sexual assault. It should not matter your role, your background or your stature — no one should need to back up or justify why they are against sexual assault. They just should be.

Supporters for both candidates are out early on debate day at Hofstra. Photo by Victoria Espinoza

A growing trend this election season amongst newspapers, politics-centric websites, pollsters and even candidates is to fact-check claims made by presidential hopefuls or their litany of staffers during speeches, debates and other public forums in real time.

In theory, that makes perfect sense. Candidates should be taken to task for false claims they make in public when attempting to appeal to voters. During the first presidential debate, Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, each took turns making statements and accusations that were later proven false by the army of fact-checkers listening closely.

Trump asserted that the stop-and-frisk policy did wonders for crime rates in New York City during its short-lived run. Fact-checks by the Associated Press, the Washington Post and CNN yielded no proof of stop-and-frisk impacting crime rates. Trump accused Clinton of “flip-flopping” her position on The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a global trade deal, which she initially supported and referred to as “the gold standard.” The same cast of fact-checking characters nabbed Clinton for switching positions in the debate aftermath.

Fact-checking during and immediately following the first presidential debate was a useful tool for American voters. However, if checking facts were this important throughout the primary process, it’s possible Americans might be choosing from a different slate of candidates Nov. 8.

Our editorial staff wonders how much of an effect fact-checking has on voters. How many Trump and Clinton supporters heard their candidate say something that was later proved false, and actually started reflecting on if that mattered to them? Fact-checking is important, and it’s great that so many media outlets are devoting resources to it. It’s part of what separates news organizations from the rest of the social media storm that ensues during and after major events. We hope the increase in fact-checking doesn’t fall on deaf-ears, and voters take notice of when their candidates are proven wrong.

Supporters for both candidates are out early on debate day at Hofstra. Photo by Victoria Espinoza

By Victoria Espinoza

A historic political event, which carried what felt like an unprecedented level of uncertainty, took place close to home Sept. 26.

Hofstra University was the place to be, as thousands of reporters, protestors, students and politicians flocked to the Hempstead campus to witness a debate featuring the first female presidential nominee of a major political party in United States history and one of the most powerful businessmen in the world. Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R) were the main attraction, but there was so much more to be seen and heard on campus in the hours leading up to show time.

Major news outlets from all over the world covered the event.

The scene was already buzzing around 10 a.m. Businesses set up booths to hand out free debate gear, and MSNBC, Fox News and CNN were already warming up their outdoor stages for a full day of coverage.

Some students carried signs with Clinton and Trump’s name, while others raised humorous, homemade signs with messages like “Mom, please come pick me up, I’m scared.” Freshmen to seniors visited the photo booths and interview stands set up, and seemed enthused and excited to be a part of the historic day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y4EhseIuAE&feature=youtu.be

One of the more popular activities of the day was an inflatable, replica White House for students to jump around in. In the early morning it lit up the parking lot and seemed like a spot students would enjoy a carefree few minutes after the stations focused on national issues were seen.

But soon enough, the inflatable White House became a backdrop for a serious scene.

Dozens of #BlackLivesMatter supporters stood silently arm in arm, in front of the White House. Observers around the area were silent as well.

It was a reminder early on that this debate was not just an exciting event, but also would spur a serious conversation about the state of America, and how it we will be led into the future.

Bernard Coles, a senior at Hofstra, said he wasn’t confident the issues important to #BlackLivesMatter supporters would come up at the debate.

“We’ve been talking nonstop about Brangelina for the past week so I’m not very optimistic about it coming up but I hope so,” he said in an interview. He also said he feels Clinton best represents the #BlackLivesMatter cause.

Black Lives Matter protestors make their presence felt at Hofstra University on debate day. Photo by Victoria Espinoza
Black Lives Matter protestors make their presence felt at Hofstra University on debate day. Photo by Victoria Espinoza

“I feel a thousand times more confident in the direction Hillary Clinton would take the country. She’s been trying to listen to us and support us and represent us for decades and I don’t understand why people are forgetting that.”

Although #BlackLivesMatter was not directly referenced Monday night, moderator Lester Holt asked a question entirely focused on race relations. Both candidates talked about solutions they have proposed to help improve the criminal justice system, while also touching on their personal relationships with ethnic communities.

About a half-mile from the center point of campus was the free speech tent, an area heavily guarded by police where supporters of lesser-known presidential candidates Jill Stein (G) and Gary Jonhson (L) protested their exclusion from the event.

Entrance to the free speech tent required passage through a metal detector and a search of belongings. Officers on horseback lined the street, and at the tent, a man dressed in a polar bear costume spoke out on global warming, and an “election frog” croaked “Rig it, rig it.”

Chris Roy, a Stein supporter, said it was a disgrace that she was not allowed into the debate arena.

“I’m thoroughly disgusted and disturbed and furious,” Roy said in an interview. He questioned why two parties are allowed to make the rules for other minor parties, and said Trump and Clinton should be speaking up to allow the other candidates in.

“She [Stein] is the only one that is in the trenches fighting with the people,” he said. “They’re [Clinton and Trump] both just totally corrupt. They don’t speak out for open debates, which is awful. When you turn on the television all you see is Hillary and Trump.”

Stein has been the presidential nominee for the Green Party for the last two debates, and was escorted off the premises Monday after reportedly failing to present the necessary credentials.

Costumes are used to emphasize political talking points. Photo by Victoria Espinoza
Costumes are used to emphasize political talking points. Photo by Victoria Espinoza

Like Stein, Johnson is not new to the presidential campaign circuit. He has been the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate for the last two elections.

Both candidates have been vocal about being denied the opportunity to debate.

Neither reached the 15-percent polling threshold on national surveys needed by the Commission on Presidential Debates to qualify.

Hofstra students throughout campus donned “Make America Great Again” hats and “I’m With Her” pins, and at the end of the night everyone argued over which candidate had the most success.

After leaving the scene of the debate, and walking out of what felt like a bunker, it seemed like all issues discussed during the day had been forgotten and all that mattered was Clinton and Trump’s performances.

Hofstra’s campus gave a voice to more than just the typical election season rhetoric, and helped remind a reporter like me that this election season is about so much more than just the two candidates who stood on the stage for 90 minutes.

The highly-anticipated first Presidential Debate of the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R) was at Hofstra University in Hempstead Sept. 26. TBR News Media’s Victoria Espinoza was on campus taking in the events leading up to debate time at 9 p.m. Check out photos and follow @TBRNewspapers and @ByVEspinoza on Twitter for more.

by -
1 1106

Monday, we will finally get to see, on the same stage, the presidential candidates who hate each other, find each other unqualified, and who long ago seem to have taken the gloves off in their smackdown.

Here are just a few of the questions I’d ask the man and woman who would like to be our president:

• People don’t like either of you, including politicians in Washington. Secretary Clinton, how will you bring together Democrats and Republicans, when your war with so many Republicans dates back to your years as first lady? And, Mr. Trump, notable Democrats and Republicans seem to find your style and policies confounding. How much can you really accomplish without the broad-based support of Republicans?

• Mr. Trump, you suggested that Congress shouldn’t consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee and they haven’t. What would you do if you were President Obama and the Senate openly ignored your choice for Supreme Court?

• Mrs. Clinton, there’s a frequent line from courtroom dramas like Law & Order that goes something like this: “You said X when the detectives spoke to you and now you’re saying Y. Which is it? Were you lying then or are you lying now?” People don’t trust you. You don’t seem completely forthcoming, even about your pneumonia, until we see pictures of you stumbling into your SUV. How do we know when you’re sharing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

• Mr. Trump, are you going to release your tax returns? The longer you go without sharing them, the more people wonder if you’re hiding something. You believe your opponent selectively discloses details about herself all the time, but you’re not sharing something most, if not all, candidates have shared. What gives?

• Mr. Trump, you have suggested on a few occasions that advocates of the second amendment might have something to say about Hillary Clinton’s position on gun control. You claim that people misinterpret what you say because you didn’t mean what you said when you wrote it. Your rhetoric, were you to be president, would mean something far different from what it does when you’re tweeting. If you were president, would you tamp down the bluster that people might misinterpret? Do you feel you can and should be able to shoot from the hip, as it were, whenever it suits your interests?

• Neither of you seems ready to say the kinds of things we would hope to teach our children, such as “I’m sorry,” or “I was wrong.” Can each of you name a situation or circumstance in public life when you made a mistake and you recognize that you could and should have done better?

• Okay, turning away from each other, what policy do each of you guarantee wouldn’t change one iota and for which you would be inflexible or unwilling to compromise if either of you became president? Candidates often make promises they can’t keep when they’re elected. Is there anything you will pursue in its current form from your platforms?

• You both must recognize that your own rhetoric has alienated voters and raised concerns among various groups about your ability to lead and act on their behalf. Mrs. Clinton, how would you reconcile with Trump’s “deplorables,” as you put it, and Mr. Trump, how would you represent Muslim-Americans, Americans of Mexican heritage or any of the other people you’ve alienated if you became president?

• This campaign seems steeped in negativity. What is the most positive message each of you can share? How would that positive message make people feel better about the election and, down the road, the prospects for themselves and for this country? Be as specific as possible.

Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls at this point in the election cycle hardly guarantees victory. Image by Mike Sheinkopf

By Helmut Norpoth

Labor Day marks the unofficial end of summer and, in presidential election years, the traditional beginning of the general election campaign. At this juncture Nate Silver’s popular website, FiveThirtyEight, has all but anointed Democrat Hillary Clinton as the inevitable winner over Republican Donald Trump in November. The 538 forecast based on an aggregation of polls gives Clinton a 70 percent chance, give or take a point, to defeat Trump. It is a victory not only in the popular vote but also in the Electoral College. The polling averages produced by RealClearPolitics and The Huffington Post agree. They all have shown a Clinton lead for months, punctured only briefly when Trump clinched the GOP nomination in primaries or won it at the Republican National Convention. Polls are shining a bright light on Clinton’s prospects while casting a dark shadow on Trump’s. So it seems. How serious should we take these poll-driven forecasts?

By now we have lived with scientific polls in American presidential elections for 80 years. It started in 1936, when George Gallup conducted the first poll of a representative sample of American voters. For the record, he got it right that year. Few readers may be old enough to remember. Franklin Roosevelt was running in 1936 against … quick, who was the Republican opponent? OK, it was Alf Landon of Kansas. FDR led him in every poll conducted by Gallup and won in one of the biggest landslides — a great start. Gallup would not always be so lucky. In 1948, his polling consistently showed Republican Tom Dewey defeating Democrat Harry Truman, the incumbent president, who wound up with the victory on Election Day.

Back to Labor Day. At this point during the 2008 election cycle, Republican John McCain was ahead of Democrat Barack Obama 49 percent to 44 percent in the Gallup poll. Many probably don’t remember it. McCain’s lead was famously trumpeted as a “game change,” triggered by his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. The strong showing of the GOP ticket in the polls raised the hopes of the McCain camp for a victory in the November, while unnerving the Obama camp. Then the economy took a sudden nosedive as Lehman Brothers collapsed and Wall Street crashed. As the candidate of the White House party, on whose watch this calamity occurred, McCain saw his fortunes tank in the polls. It also did not help that Palin, his vice-presidential candidate, came across as clueless and tongue-tied on television in interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. So, real-life events unfavorable to the White House party and missteps in the election campaign combined to reverse a lead in the polls that one side, McCain in this case, enjoyed at the beginning of the general election campaign. Lesson: Beware of pollsters bearing election forecasts eight weeks before Election Day.

Helmut Norpoth is a political science professor at Stony Brook University and has designed models to forecast elections in the U.S. and abroad. He will be contributing ongoing election analysis ahead of the 2016 election.

by -
0 1232

When we need each other, we come together. That, as much as anything else, is the legacy of 9/11. Its 15th anniversary falls this Sunday.

Every year, we in the news business and, indeed, in society, struggle to know how to remember that terrible day in 2001. Years ago, the editor in chief at the New York Daily News, where I was working, asked me when we should stop running the names of the people who died that day, when 9/11 should no longer be on the front page, and when we should respect the day but give it less coverage. I told him I couldn’t imagine that day.

Those of us who knew people that died think about those people regularly, not just on an anniversary or at a memorial. They travel with us, the way others we’ve lost over the years do, in our hearts and in our minds.

Those first few days and months after the attacks, people in New York stopped taking things for granted and saw the things we share with each other as a source of strength.

This year, in particular, seems a good time not only to remember what makes us and this country great, but also a time to reflect on who we want to be and how we want to interact.

We have two candidates for the White House who seem intent on acting like impetuous Greek gods, shooting weapons at each other and describing each other’s faults and weaknesses to us.

Debate and disagreement are part of this country, just as they were in 1858, when Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas famously debated across Illinois. And yet, despite their disagreements and their passion for office, they held each other in considerably higher esteem than the two unpopular candidates who now want to be president.

How can the two parties that seem so intent on running in opposite directions today, and the two candidates who genuinely loathe each other, work together, come together, and inspire us when they are so obsessed with their animosity?

This Sunday, and maybe even this week, we should remind them — and ourselves — about all the things we Americans felt and did on those days after 9/11. Certainly, we mourned those we’d lost and we wondered aloud about our enemies.

But we also visited with each other, made calls to friends and family, checked on our neighbors, and offered support wherever and however we felt able. Some people donated to charities, while others gave blood, time or energy to helping the survivors and the families of those who lost loved ones.

Yes, we looked to protect ourselves and to understand who and what we were fighting, but we the people — the ones our government is supposed to protect, represent and reflect — became more patient in lines and became less upset over the little things. We looked out for each other.

It’s easy to imagine a boogeyman everywhere we go. Generations of Americans have pictured and envisioned monsters from within and without our borders, intent on destroying our way of life.

We can’t let fear and hatred dictate our actions. I don’t want to hear Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump shout about how unqualified each of them is for office. I want them to reflect a respect for all Americans, their opponents included, on this solemn day and during this solemn week. I don’t doubt that each of them loves America. Instead of telling us how they’ll be great leaders, demonstrate it to us by coming together.

Trump's diet has been brought to the forefront during this election year.

By David Dunaief, M.D.

Donald Trump could learn a thing or two from Bill Clinton. No, we are not talking about politics; we are talking about health. Trump is a public persona, and his diet has been brought to the forefront. As was Clinton’s when he was the United States’ 42nd president. An Aug. 8 New York Times article discussed Trump’s love for fast food and his ironic obsession with cleanliness (1).

Trump’s approach to diet seems to be eerily similar to the standard American diet — with the added detriment of fast food. Though he likes the cleanliness of fast food chains, his arteries may not like the “dirtying” effect of atherosclerosis, or arterial plaques.

Admittedly, I don’t know anything about his family history, including whether or not cardiovascular disease is an issue; nor his blood chemistries, such as cholesterol levels; nor whether or not he has high blood pressure. However, one thing is clear: He is overweight with a significant amount of visceral fat, or belly fat. This type of body fat is considered the most dangerous because it surrounds the internal organs such as the heart (2). This promotes potential cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

For a long time, Bill Clinton also had a love for fast food and the standard American diet. However, this resulted in atherosclerosis, which caused significant blockage of coronary arteries and resulted in coronary artery bypass surgery involving four arteries in 2004. Since then, he has been on a mission to reform his diet. Through the influence of physicians like Drs. Dean Ornish and Caldwell Esselstyn, both advocates of plant-based diets, Clinton has done much better and lost significant weight, as well.

Thus, this is more about the standard American diet, with its high saturated fat, high sugar, refined grains, processed meats and elevated salt versus the nutrient-dense, more likely plant-based, approach with fruits, vegetables and whole grains and their respective effects on cardiovascular disease, atherosclerosis and even mortality.

These type of plant-based diets include the Mediterranean-type diet, the DASH diet, the Ornish diet and the Esselstyn diet.

If we look solely at the differences between saturated fats and unsaturated fats, a recent study involving over 120,000 participants showed that when just 5 percent of pure saturated fats in the diet were replaced with unsaturated fats, this resulted in a significant reduction in all-cause mortality of up to 27 percent over 32 years (3). For more details on this study analysis, see my recent article, “Let the dietary fat wars begin,” which can be found online at www.tbrnewsmedia.com.

I am a firm believer in leading by example. I think it is a powerful way to get patients to follow through with lifestyle changes, especially diet and exercise. That is why the dietary changes I ask my patients to make, I also have been following for years.

Data on cardiovascular disease

Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data about cardiovascular disease that is downright depressing. From 2000 to 2010, the risk of dying from this disease was decreasing by almost 4 percent a year in both men and women (4). However, from 2010 to 2014, this decrease slowed precipitously to 0.23 percent in men and 1.17 percent in women. The reason for this slowdown is that we may have reached a ceiling in the effectiveness of traditional medical interventions. The suggestions are that we concentrate more efforts on lifestyle modifications, specifically diet, physical activity and not smoking.

At the same time, 2011-2012 NHANES data showed a significant increase in obesity and diabetes (5). The bad news is we have not changed our lifestyles enough, especially diet. The good news is that there is a large upside for change and progress!

Reversing heart disease

This research includes both Ornish and Esselstyn. Both physicians have shown it is possible, through a plant-based approach, to have a significant impact on cardiovascular disease, reversing atherosclerosis and preventing a cardiovascular event such as a heart attack.

Esselstyn’s research includes a small study with 24 of his own patients (6). Of these, 18 patients completed the five-year study. These 18 patients had experienced 49 cardiovascular events in the previous eight years. Results show that with a plant-based diet, none of the 18 had a cardiovascular event. Eleven patients chose to have angiographic analysis to determine stenosis, or blockage. None of the 11 progressed; in fact, eight showed regression in atherosclerosis.

Though this was a small study with no control group, the duration, the reversal of atherosclerosis at the study end point and the severity of cardiovascular disease prior to the study make these results intriguing and impressive.

This study was extended to 12 years with similar results and only one additional patient dropping out. Interestingly, those who discontinued the study had a subsequent total of 13 cardiovascular events. One of the key study markers was keeping total cholesterol to lower than 150 mg/dL. The diet emphasized fruits, vegetables, beans, legumes and whole grains.

Then, Esselstyn’s group looked at 198 patients with cardiovascular disease (7). The results were similar to the smaller initial study, with those in the adherent group following a nutrient-dense, plant-based diet experiencing a most astonishing cardiovascular event rate of only 0.6 percent, while the 21 who were nonadherent (the unbeknownst control group, per se) experienced an event rate of 62 percent over 3.7 years.

What about Ornish’s research? Not surprisingly, the results were very similar to Esselstyn’s. In the Ornish study, results showed a reversal in atherosclerosis of 7.9 percent in the treatment group compared to baseline, whereas those in the control arm over the same period showed a 27.7 percent increase in atherosclerosis or plaques in the arteries (8). Also, the control group experienced more than two times as many cardiovascular events as seen in the treatment group. The patients in the treatment group were on a plant-based diet.

There were 48 patients with moderate to severe cardiovascular disease at the beginning of the study, with 28 patients in the treatment group and 20 assigned to the control arm. Of these patients about 75 percent in each group completed the study. The duration of the study was five years. Again, these results are intriguing, and each study reinforces the others.

A clinical example

In my practice, I recently had a 69-year-old white male patient with cardiovascular disease and an extensive family history of the disease, who went to the cardiologist prior to working with me. The initial carotid Doppler (sonogram of the neck arteries) showed a 16 to 50 percent blockage in both carotid arteries. After a year, the carotid Doppler results had been reduced to between 1 and 15 percent blockages in both carotid arteries. The patient’s total cholesterol had dropped to 146 mg/dL, and this result included discontinuing his cholesterol medication, though it was not a statin. Of course, this is anecdotal, but it is consistent with the results mentioned in the studies above.

In conclusion, now you see why Bill Clinton followed the advice of at least two very wise physicians after his quadruple bypass surgery. Lifestyle with a nutrient-dense, plant-based diet not only can prevent cardiovascular disease but may be able to arrest and even reverse plaques in the arteries. Trump would be wise to follow suit and focus on cleanliness of his arteries rather than just cleanliness of the restaurant, as we all would.

References: (1) NYTimes.com. (2) Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2007;6(2):51-59. (3) JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(8):1134-1145. (4) JAMA Cardiol. online June 29, 2016. (5) cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes. (6) J Fam Pract. 1995;41(6):560-568. (7) J Fam Pract. 2014;63(7):356-364b. (8) JAMA. 1998;280(23):2001-2007.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, visit www.medicalcompassmd.com or consult your personal physician.

by -
0 1138

The media coverage of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump misses the point. While the race for president is about each person, the process, the scandals, the outrage and the stories that have a life of their own are not about the people — they are about the “brand.”

The most passionate advocates for each candidate have defended and supported them, recognizing their shortcomings but urging us to believe each candidate will be better because they just are better — the way any brand with a loyal following just is.

Newspapers and advocates of each side shout at the top of their lungs about this historic election, offering evidence of Clinton’s inappropriate handling of emails and Trump’s personal attacks.

In the latest battle, Trump has taken to the airways to respond to Khizr Khan, the parents of a Muslim-American war hero.

The question isn’t whether this reveals something new about Trump, the person. It doesn’t. Surely anyone who has watched Trump over the last year or so realizes that his personal style, and the brand under which he is running for the highest office in the land, emanate from a scripted character. He doesn’t let anyone question him or his brand without counterattacking. He has become a talking head in touch with his irascible side.

That may be what attracts people to him. There is no political correctness, a term he utters with such disdain that he says it as if he is standing at a podium filled with soiled diapers. The Trump brand and playbook mandate that a best defense is a good offense.

If he’s offensive in the process, who cares? He doesn’t — and on the whole it appears many of his supporters don’t, either. He may have been right that he could shoot somebody in Times Square and not lose votes because outrageous words and actions are a part of his brand.

While I don’t agree with the slash-and-burn approach to the personal and political battles he fights, I recognize he’s probably not fighting for the little guy, the medium-sized guy or the big guy so much as he’s fighting for his brand. In a country where products and marketing are so inextricably intertwined, he is the best advocate for Brand Trump. Does being Trump prohibit him from saying “I’m sorry” or “I’m wrong”?

Those who hated him before have more ammunition in their battle with him. But what does he care? If they weren’t loyal to the brand and they weren’t his customers, he hasn’t lost anything.

What will cause voters loyal to Brand Trump — or, put another way, those who are angry, fearful or resentful of the Clinton brand — to change their minds? How far can he go before some of those who identify with him decide he shouldn’t become president?

Does this pitched battle with the Khans — parents of a slain and decorated war hero — do for the Trump brand what the attack on the U.S. Army did for Sen. Joseph McCarthy? His pursuit of communists damaged and destroyed lives and careers in the early 1950s until Joseph Welch, the chief counsel for the Army, asked McCarthy in 1954 if he had “no sense of decency.”

For Brand Trump, decency doesn’t seem to have been a priority up until now. The question, however, is whether those buying the product will care enough about what he says or thinks to force a change in the brand before they, themselves, choose the other brand.