Tags Posts tagged with "Donald Trump"

Donald Trump

Image by Mike Sheinkopf
Image by Mike Sheinkopf

By Elina Mukherjee

In India, 8,431 miles away and 18 months earlier, the American election campaign was an obscure topic of discussion for me. Things would not have changed much to this present day had it not been so much of a ridiculous spectacle. From the outside, when you look at how a country like America would conduct its campaign, you expect suavity for that matter. But even to a layman, what would garner attention is the total brashness of the nature of the campaign and its controversies.

For one, Donald J. Trump has been the star of the show with his specimen of utter cloddishness and hard-hearted comments as a presidential candidate on topics related to Islam, his salacious comments on women and his brashness of belonging to the elite class. Where on one hand, many eminent leaders and visionaries root for peace and unity by bridging the gap between national mind-sets and borders, Trump, in his extremist self, is advocating the very opposite. Building a wall to prevent Mexican invasion of the country or putting an extra scan on Muslims who enter the States, to only name a few, stimulate the fire. What is unprecedented is the staggering number of Trump supporters who think him to be a fresh breath of air in the race for the White House. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has come out better, maintaining a dignified stance and prompting fewer furrowed eyebrows. But overall, this election has been nothing less than a mockery to the world of what America has come to.

Dividing in the name of religion is a potential peril. The unpalatable truth for the citizens is to understand the pressure they are under, bearing the tag of being the foremost nation in the world and always being looked up to, its leader should lead the way to a promising future because the world is in dire need of help. As an Indian, it is sad to see Indian Americans — or a group of Indians back home — supporting Trump primarily on the basis of their common abhorrence of Islam. However dark it may sound, a lot of us harbor grudges or hatred against other communities or peoples or sects. But, if a world leader starts encouraging people to express their grudges overtly, that sets a dangerous example. It unites people based on a wrong cause where the effect of such ill preaching is not limited nationally but tends to go worldwide. In order to maintain a good relationship with India, his camaraderie should be toward Indians in general and not Hindus particularly, as India also has the third largest Muslim population in the world.

Unlike American elections, Indian national elections do not have debates among the candidates. In India, and in numerous other countries in the world, candidates routinely attempt to bolster their position by slandering others, by trading insults. In a democracy, I reckon, having debates between candidates is a progressive step. However, going by the nature of the last three debates, its principal purpose seems to have been defeated for the most part.

America has always led from the front when it comes to being progressive. The cornerstone of much of Trump’s election campaign has been dissemination of negativity and animosity. Many of his proposed policies are regressive to say the least. As an outsider, I — and many others like me — fear that if America chooses divisiveness over integration, it would be a harsh moral setback for many of the developing countries.

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

By Dan Kerr

I did not vote for Donald Trump in the New York primary. His comments about women are loathsome, and I believe it is likely he kissed and groped women during his television career. However, his words and actions pale in comparison to how the Clintons have treated women throughout their careers.

Bill and Hillary Clinton represent what I call the Chappaquiddick wing of the Democratic Party. Under this umbrella, it does not matter how you treat women as long as you support abortion on demand and the appointment of liberal Supreme Court justices. For example, a senator from Massachusetts can leave a young woman to drown at the bottom of a pond, get re-elected, and go on to become “the Lion of the Senate.”

An attorney general from Arkansas can rape a nursing home executive, get elected governor and demand that a low-level state employee perform oral sex on him. The same sexual predator can then go on to become president, use a cigar to penetrate a young woman in the Oval Office, fondle and grope a recent widow who came to him for counsel, lie under oath in a sexual harassment case, get impeached and disbarred from practicing law in Arkansas and before the Supreme Court and go on to become “first gentleman.” It is also OK for Hillary to laugh as she won her first case in Arkansas, when she minimized the sentence of a 41-year-old man who so savagely raped a 12-year-old girl that she could never have children. If you are concerned about how to explain Donald Trump to your daughters, how will you explain the Clintons?

The Sunday New York Times included “I Live in a Lie: Saudi Women Speak Up.” It documents the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia. A March 8, 2015, New York Times article (“Hillary Clinton Faces Test of Record as Women’s Advocate”) disclosed that Saudi Arabia had given more than $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. While Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, the State Department faulted Saudi Arabia for “a lack of equal rights for women and children,” and said “violence against women, human trafficking and gender discrimination, among other abuses, were all common there.” Apparently, the Chappaquiddick wing provides cover to “fight for women” while simultaneously collecting tens of millions from Saudi Arabia and the like-minded misogynist states of the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei.

Today in The Hill, Assistant FBI Director James Kallstrom (the man who headed the TWA 800 investigation) stated, “the Clinton’s are a crime family.” I am reminded of the climactic scene in “Godfather II” when Kate confronts Michael Corleone over her recent miscarriage. “Oh, Michael. Michael, you are blind. It wasn’t a miscarriage. It was an abortion. An abortion, Michael. Just like our marriage is an abortion. Something that’s unholy and evil … It was a son, Michael! A son! And I had it killed because this must all end!” For the good of this country, I believe the “unholy and evil” reign of the Clintons must end as well.

A few days before FBI Director Comey’s letter to Congress, Kimberley Strassel wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “This is how the Clintons operate; they do not change. Anyone that pulls the lever for Mrs. Clinton takes responsibility for setting the nation up for all of the blatant corruption that will follow.” The Clintons are the greater of two evils.

by -
0 1293

One fact that we can all agree on at the tail end of this clamorous and divisive election season is how happy we are that it is almost over. In a presidential campaign that has been part entertainment, part embarrassment, only slightly about the grave issues of the day, but wholly history making, the people are exhausted. Bombarded relentlessly with political messages, robocalls, knocks at the door, endless campaign literature and ugly ads, citizens are yearning for an end. May it all truly be over next Tuesday night.

For all the talk, though, about how insufferable the electioneering has been, the candidates have gotten the attention, albeit negatively, of the electorate. At business lunches, during hair-stylist appointments, at cocktail parties and the daily exchanges at the bus stops, the latest election tomfoolery is the topic of the day. Conversations about the weather, that perennial conversation fodder, are finally being overtaken by the latest political revelations. For a nation that has long been declared apolitical, we breathlessly keep up with who has hurled what insult at whom and what new leaks the media are revealing. It seems to matter little if the leaks are corroborated or not, and social media, the preferred vehicle for dissemination, does not automatically offer any fact checking. Anyone can get away with saying anything, and the more outrageous and indecent, the greater number of viewers. The gloves of decency and civility are off.

In our presidential election, we are exploring the twists and turns of sexual accusations — out in the open for everyone to see. London’s backbenchers in Parliament pale with their insults compared to us. At least theirs are often witty. Except for Saturday Night Live, there has been little in these last two years of intense campaigning to earn a good laugh.

Has our country demonstrated less bigotry by naming a woman as standard-bearer for one of the two major parties? Or has our obvious double standard become only more painfully obvious, with so many men declaring publicly their unwillingness to ever vote for a woman as leader? The same question, about race rather than gender, was posed eight years ago when we elected the first black president. With painful irony, amidst our self-congratulatory open-mindedness, it seems more racial incidents have played out since that election than when George Wallace stood in the doorway and refused entry to black school children. Will the same ironies ensue in the event of a Clinton victory?

Perhaps it is cleansing to have our faults out in the open — acknowledgement as the first step toward healing. At least there has been no talk about ageism the way there was during the Reagan campaign in 1980. Both candidates today are within a couple of years of each other and of the biblical endpoint of three score and ten. At least that is something to be grateful for.

In this election season, as with every other during which we have been publishing, we have tried hard to remain as neutral as possible and present you, our readers, with the news in a balanced fashion. There are a number of local races, all critically important for their ultimate effects on our daily lives. As we have always done, we have spent hundreds of hours throughout the month of October interviewing candidates for each local office, two-by-two, and we have asked them questions and passed the answers along to you in our election section this week. We have also distilled this information during many more hours of discussion among our editorial board members and offered endorsements on our editorial pages. In no way do we intend this to dictate how you should vote. Rather we are telling you how we will vote after the journalistic privilege of personally questioning the candidates and covering the incumbents throughout their terms.

We owe you, our readers, no less.

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 1265

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.