What Black People Hear When Donald Trump Asks for Their Vote
The Rev. Mark Burns arrives at Trump Tower for a meeting with Donald Trump in New York City on Nov. 30, 2015. Timothy A. Clary/Getty Images
The patronizing, ahistorical nonsense of his black “outreach” isn’t unique to Trump.
By Jamelle Bouie Aug. 30 2016 12:05 PM
To the extent that Donald Trump is reaching out to black Americans, his pitch relies on a bleak vision of black life in the United States and an attack on Democratic Party leadership in those same cities. “Inner-city crime is reaching record levels. African-Americans will vote for Trump because they know I will stop the slaughter going on,” tweeted [ https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/770247094439469058 ] Trump on Monday. “Now that African-Americans are seeing what a bad job Hillary-type policy and management has done to the inner-cities, they want TRUMP [ https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/770253550639251456 ]!”
In a sign of confidence, however, Trump plans to take his message to Detroit [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/us/politics/donald-trump-black-voters.html ], where he’ll hold his first event in a predominantly black community, speaking with Bishop Wayne T. Jackson of Great Faith Ministries. There’s a strong chance he’ll stick to his present pitch, even as it lands flat with the vast majority of black voters.
That fact—black indifference or even antipathy to Trump and his rhetoric—deserves a little more attention. It’s not that black voters are hostile to Trump; it’s that they won’t even entertain his basic message. There’s nothing he could say or do in the realm of possibility that would budge his numbers away from historic lows, much less restore them to the double digits enjoyed by George W. Bush in the 2004 election [ http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2004/ ]. Given the real problems facing black voters—including higher rates of joblessness and criminal victimization—why aren’t they receptive to Trump’s message?
The simple answer is that it’s patronizing, ahistorical nonsense that’s not at all unique to Trump. The problem goes beyond the mere optics of his “outreach”—producing dystopian portraits of black life for predominantly white audiences. And it’s not just the extent to which Trump is talking about black Americans rather than to them. The central issue is that Trump portrays black Americans not as able citizens who need to be convinced, but as mindless followers of a failed regime.
“The Democratic Party has failed and betrayed the African-American community. Democratic crime policies, education policies, and economic policies have produced only more crime, more broken homes, and more poverty,” Trump said in a recent speech [ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439152/donald-trump-black-voter-outreach-democrats-have-failed-black-americans ] in Milwaukee. He continued: “The Democratic Party has run nearly every inner city in this country for 50 years, and run them into financial ruin. They’ve ruined the schools. They’ve driven out the jobs. They’ve tolerated a level of crime no American should consider acceptable.”
In this narrative, black Americans are mere objects—means to a partisan end. They do not choose or act as political agents. There are no black politicians or activists or leaders of any stripe. Instead, they are acted upon, tools of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. And worse, despite the horrors of Democratic governance, they don’t understand that they’ve been used and “betrayed.” They still vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers. They are dupes.
a documentary that claims to show how “people can break free from a form of modern slavery caused by relying on welfare,” and in which a black conservative—the Rev. C.L. Bryant—is the titular “runaway slave” who escapes the implied Democratic “plantation.”
Key to the “plantation” theory is the idea that modern Democrats are direct heirs to the white supremacist Democratic Party of the 19th and early 20th centuries. For proponents, it is a straight line from John C. Calhoun to Jefferson Davis to Theodore Bilbo to Lyndon Johnson to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. You hear this in Trump’s rhetoric as well. “We reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton,” he has said [ https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-remarks-in-milwaukee-wisconsin ], “which panders to and talks down to communities of color and sees them only as votes, not as individual human beings worthy of a better future.” Whereas Bilbo relied on terrorism to suppress blacks, modern Democrats use the welfare state to achieve the same ends. And the apex of this arrangement is in the inner cities governed for generations by ruinous Democratic policies.
These narratives and arguments are bizarre to the point of incoherence, a fourth-rate imitation of history, devoid of any actual meaning. Shaped, influenced, and even driven by black Americans in the middle of the 20th century, the modern Democratic Party is not the literal descendant of the white supremacist party that bore the name for a century; in much of the modern-day South, black Americans are the Democratic Party. Black Americans have had an active role in Democratic Party politics for two generations, culminating in the election of Barack Obama, a black American. More broadly, blacks have not been led astray—they are not victims of false consciousness or some “plantation mentality.” They are political actors making choices based on their interests as they see them.
Likewise, the issues in urban America aren’t the product of the Democratic Party or the black mayors and city councilors who took the reins of the cities in the 1970s and 1980s. The decline of Detroit or Cleveland or Baltimore didn’t begin in 1967. Instead, they’re the cumulative result of a century of policies, from redlining and housing discrimination to white flight, federal neglect, and ongoing hostility from surrounding municipalities. There’s no question that these cities have been marred by bad governance, but to understand that in terms of party affiliation—neglecting the effects of deindustrialization, racism, and capital flight—is to show profound ignorance of urban politics and problems.
Beyond incoherent, the ideas underlying Trump’s narrative are racist, full stop. If “plantation” theory is true, then black voters are the mindless drones of American politics. Nefarious Democrats gave them a taste of government, and they never abandoned the hand that fed them. White voters, by contrast, are active citizens—noble republicans in the best tradition of the founders. It’s ironic: For as much as they disdain Democrats as the real racists, it’s the proponents of plantation theory who echo the arguments and propaganda [ http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2008661698/ ] of the pro-Southern, anti-emancipation Democrats of the Civil War era. “The Freedman's Bureau!” sang one poster from the 1866 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election, advocating on behalf of Hiester Clymer and his white-supremacist platform. “An agency to keep the Negro in idleness at the expense of the white man.”
What’s key is that black voters hear this sentiment in the rhetoric used by Trump and other conservatives. It’s one reason that, despite having been peddled in its current incarnation by black conservatives and their allies for the better part of a decade, the argument has never gotten any traction.
The other reason is Barack Obama. Tens of millions of black Americans hold the president and his family in high esteem as exemplars of the black community. For them, he deserves respect regardless of your politics. And if there’s anything that defines the GOP in the present age for black voters, it’s the outsized disrespect for Obama, from South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson’s “you lie [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro (next below; with comments)]”
to the birther crusade pursued so vigorously by Trump and others. Black Americans see this, and they remember.
Somewhere in the multiverse is a world where black voters have warmed to Donald Trump. It’s not this one. In this world, for blacks to reconsider Trump and the Republican Party, they would have to ignore his birtherism; they would have to ignore the push for voter ID and the attacks on civil rights legislation; they would have to downplay the patronizing “outreach” of conservative voices and Republican politicians. For blacks to reconsider Trump, they would have to act as if they were the dupes of his imagination.
Trump’s campaign [id.] announced the event on Monday claiming that the candidate would attend Great Faith Ministries [ http://www.greatfaith.org/ ] to address churchgoers to “outline policies that will impact minorities and the disenfranchised in our country” and answer questions “that are relevant to the African-American community,” according to a statement from Trump surrogate Pastor Mark Burns.
“He’ll be here Saturday. He’s going to sit in service and have the experience in the black church, and then he and I will be in this office and do an interview for the Impact Network that will be aired later on,” Jackson told the paper. “Just like any visitor, there will be fellowship at the service, and he can talk to people one-on-one.”
Jackson, who told the Detroit Free Press that he has always voted for Democrats, said he feels the same way. He also said he plans to ask Trump if he’s a Christian, and if he’s racist.
“He needs to come to African-American communities,” he told the paper. “You can’t talk to African Americans in white venues.”
However, Jackson still believes Trump’s visit, which may include a private meeting with a small group of church-goers, will be beneficial in some way.
“My congregation trusts my judgment,” he said. “They know that I’m not going to put anything or anyone in front of them that I feel is going to be harmful, and I feel we should have an educated conversation about what you’re going to do.”
Supreme Court Denies North Carolina’s Plea To Restore Swath Of Voting Restrictions
A supporter holds a sign as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks at a campaign event in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Carlo Allegri / Reuters
The state won’t be able to enforce them come Election Day.
By Cristian Farias 08/31/2016 Updated August 31, 2016
The state failed to convince at least five justices that three provisions of the contested law - its voter ID requirement, cutbacks to early voting and elimination of pre-registration for certain under-18 voters - were worth putting back on the books. The state had argued the measures were necessary to avoid “confusion [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-carolina-voter-id-law-supreme-court_us_57b23f3ce4b0863b0284666a ]” that might keep people away from the polls.
But three justices - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito - did note that they would’ve granted the state’s request, at least with respect to voter ID and early voting. Justice Clarence Thomas, for his part, would’ve granted North Carolina’s petition in full.
In essence, this means that the Supreme Court voted 4-to-4 in the dispute, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan swinging against the state. A ninth conservative member in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia might have given North Carolina a key victory.
“This critical rejection of the State’s position will allow the people of North Carolina to exercise the fundamental right to vote this November without expansive restrictions by racist politicians or racist policies,” said the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II in a statement. The American Civil Liberties Union also applauded [ https://www.aclu.org/news/supreme-court-denies-stay-north-carolina-voting-rights-case ] Wednesday’s development.
In legal filings, the civil rights groups had countered that the state’s own prior efforts to comply with the July ruling plus “on-the-ground activity” by election officials - including preparations at the county level [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-north-carolina-voting-rules_us_57b5e8dee4b0fd5a2f41cbd8 ] - flew in the face of the state’s insistence that there was not enough time to get things in order for Election Day.
“Now, almost a month after the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, State and local elections officials have taken nearly all of the steps to comply with that ruling,” the voting rights groups said in a brief opposing North Carolina’s request.
The Obama administration, which in 2013 suffered a big loss when the Supreme Court did away with a key section [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_3429810.html ] of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, filed its own brief urging the justices to deny the state’s plea, and to not read too much into arguments in favor of a law that was properly found to be discriminatory.
In a statement, McCrory lamented there weren’t enough votes at the high court to side with the state, but commended the justices who did vote in its favor - while also taking a jab at state Attorney General Roy Cooper (D), who has refused to defend the voter ID law in court and is also leading in the polls [ http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-north-carolina-governor-mccrory-vs-cooper ] in the race for the North Carolina governorship.
"North Carolina has been denied basic voting rights already granted to more than 30 other states to protect the integrity of one person, one vote through a common-sense voter ID law," McCrory said.
The battle over voting rights in North Carolina now turns to country election boards [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/us/politics/election-rules-north-carolina.html ], which are Republican-controlled and have leeway to pass rules setting hours of operation for polling sites, as well as for on-campus and Sunday voting - all mechanisms that may favor Democrats. All of these changes must be approved by the state election board.
Allison Riggs, an attorney with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which is monitoring these rule changes, was otherwise heartened by the signal the Supreme Court sent.
“Hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians will now be able to vote without barriers,” Riggs said in a statement. “The voting booth is the one place where everyone is equal and where we all have the same say.”
This article has been updated with comment from McCrory and civil rights groups.
Predictive Policing Software Is More Accurate At Predicting Policing Than Predicting Crime Predictive policing is an unproven tool. Its current flaws would result in greater harm than help. By Ezekiel Edwards Director of the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project 08/31/2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/predictive-policing-reform_us_57c6ffe0e4b0e60d31dc9120 [with comments]
--
A record number of Americans now dislike Hillary Clinton August 31, 2016 Hillary Clinton hit her stride after the Democratic National Convention, riding to a double-digit lead over Donald Trump in some national and swing-state polls — her highest of the year. As of today, though, Americans' views of her just hit a record low. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/08/31/National-Politics/Polling/release_441.xml ] shows 41 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of Clinton, while 56 percent have an unfavorable one. That's the worst image Clinton has had in her quarter-century in national public life. Her previous low favorable rating this year was in July, when it was 42 percent, lower than any mark in historical Post-ABC polls except a few points in the 1990s when a large share of the public had no opinion of her. Her previous high for unfavorable views was in June, when 55 percent disliked Clinton. Trump, of course, has long been the more unpopular of the two presidential nominees, and he remains so; 35 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of him, compared to 63 percent unfavorable. But if you look just at registered voters, the new poll actually shows Clinton's image is about as bad as Trump's, with 38 percent having a favorable impression and 59 percent unfavorable, compared to a 37/60 split for Trump. [...] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/31/a-record-number-of-americans-now-dislike-hillary-clinton/ [with embedded video report, and (over 4,000) comments]
Rick Perry Calls On FBI Director James Comey To Resign Over Clinton Emails
“For Comey to stand up and make excuses for Hillary Clinton is absolutely and totally unacceptable.” 08/31/2016 Former Texas governor and newly announced “Dancing With The Stars” contestant [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-perry-dancing-with-the-stars_us_57c4ef71e4b0cdfc5ac8fdca ] Rick Perry is calling on FBI Director James Comey to resign over his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices at the State Department. “The Clintons were clearly trying to hide this server,” Perry said Wednesday in an interview on Fox News, referring to a private email server set up by the former secretary of state. “They did not want that information in. And for Comey to stand up and make excuses for Hillary Clinton is absolutely and totally unacceptable. For a man who prided himself of being the top law official in this country, I would suggest the man ought to resign.” When announcing the results of the monthslong investigation earlier this year, Comey called Clinton “careless” in her handling of sensitive information. FBI investigators found 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified material on the private email server, for example ? contrary to Clinton’s claims that she hadn’t sent classified information. But Comey also said he could not ultimately recommend that the Justice Department bring charges against Clinton based on the facts. In his interview Wednesday, Perry said he disagreed, and accused Comey of being biased toward Clinton. “Ithink [Comey] has some skin in the game somewhere to protect the Clintons at this particular juncture,” Perry said. “It’s an extraordinary failure on his part.” [...] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-perry-comey-clinton_us_57c6dee4e4b0e60d31dc4ee7 [with embedded video, and comments], http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-TeOnwHhgk [includes the excerpt included in the embedded video; with comments]
--
Hillary Clinton addresses the American Legion National Convention
Mexico City Legislature Declares Donald Trump ‘Persona Non Grata’ Deputy Mauricio Toledo speaks before the Mexico City legislature on March 2, 2016. The body voted that day to ask the federal government to ban Donald Trump from entering the country in a non-binding resolution that President Enrique Peña Nieto ignored. The legislative assembly wants President Enrique Peña Nieto to wring an apology out of the GOP nominee. 08/31/2016 Mexico City’s Legislative Assembly declared Donald Trump “morally a persona non grata [ http://www.aldf.gob.mx/comsoc-declara-aldf-moralmente-persona-non-grata-donald-trump--27437.html ]” in a non-binding resolution Wednesday, just hours before the Republican presidential nominee arrived in the country to meet with President Enrique Peña Nieto. The legislative body called on Peña Nieto to demand that Trump publicly apologize for the insults he’s lobbed at Mexico, a list that notably includes the 2015 speech where Trump described the country’s migrants as criminals and “rapists.” The resolution also asks Trump to back off from his promise to build a giant wall along the U.S.-Mexico border that he expects Mexico to pay for. [...] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mexico-trump-persona-non-grata_us_57c72e1de4b078581f10cd5f [with comments]
Donald Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto hold a joint appearance following their meeting in Mexico City today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SKzVg8000c [the joint appearance commences at c. the 6:50 mark and runs through c. the 32:55 mark {followed by a replay, and then other stuff); with comments]
On this Wednesday, August 31 transmission of the Alex Jones Show, political insider Roger Stone covers the latest from the campaign trail, including Trump's visit to meet the President of Mexico. On today's show, author and former U.S. Army intelligence officer James Wesley Rawles joins to discuss how American families can prepare for any widespread epidemic. Also, journalist and editor of WND Jerome Corsi gives his take on how the election is playing out and more. We'll also cover Hillary's poor health.
Ivanka Trump’s Jewelry Business Sought Visas To Hire Foreign Workers Donald Trump portrays immigrants as criminals here to steal American jobs. But he and his daughter aren’t exactly anti-immigrant in their businesses. She’s taking advantage of a policy her father wants to end. 08/31/2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ivanka-trump-foreign-workers_us_57c6e354e4b078581f1048ac [with comments]
Fox News Poll: Voters Think Clinton and Trump will 'Do Anything' to Win
By Dana Blanton Published August 31, 2016
Most voters think Hillary Clinton is dishonest and will do anything to get elected, and many feel it’s likely the Clintons were selling influence through their foundation. At the same time, most think Donald Trump is dishonest and will do anything to get elected, and many think he’s hiding something in his unreleased tax returns.
That’s according to the latest Fox News Poll.
It’s tough to say who stinks more. A large 44-percent minority says both Clinton and Trump are “terrible” candidates. Voters dislike each -- and say they are dishonest and lack empathy.
Only 35 percent say Trump is honest and trustworthy, barely better than the 31 percent who say Clinton is.
Less than half of voters say “cares about people like me” fits Clinton (47 percent) and Trump (37 percent).
Just over half see Clinton (51 percent) and Trump (51 percent) as being “a strong leader.”
Woman Charged With Child Abuse Uses Indiana Religious Freedom Law As Defense Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) signed a religious freedom law in 2015. Donald Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, signed the measure into law last year. 08/31/2016 An Indiana woman charged with child abuse is citing the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act in her defense, arguing that her religious beliefs allow her to discipline her child as she sees fit, free from government interference. The case shines an uncomfortable spotlight on the controversial law, which was signed last year by Donald Trump [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/donald-trump/ ]’s running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R). Kin Park Thaing, 30, is facing felony abuse and neglect charges [ http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8097a2dfe5fe47e58701d52751f589e4/indiana-woman-cites-religious-freedom-law-abuse-defense ] for beating her 7-year-old son [ http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2016/08/31/son-had-36-bruises-mom-quoted-bible-defense/88998568/ ] with a coat hanger on Feb. 3, according to documents filed by Thaing’s lawyer in late July and reported by the Indianapolis Star on Wednesday. Doctors found 36 bruises on the boy’s back, thigh and left arm, and a bruise on his cheek in the shape of a hanger hook. Thaing said she needed to stop her son from engaging in dangerous behavior that would have harmed his 3-year-old sister. She allegedly hit both children and told them to pray for forgiveness. “I was worried for my son’s salvation with God after he dies,” Thaing said, according to court documents. “I decided to punish my son to prevent him from hurting my daughter and to help him learn how to behave as God would want him to.” Thaing also quoted the Bible in the documents, saying a parent who “spares the rod, spoils the child.” [...] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/indiana-religious-freedom-child-abuse_us_57c724e7e4b0a22de093b67c [with comments]
*
Mother Accused Of Killing Daughter With Crucifix Says She Was ‘Possessed’ Juanita Gomez is charged with first-degree murder in the Saturday slaying of her daughter. Mother and daughter in happier times. [ https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=175126789299601&set=a.109609185851362.19493.100004068437304 (with comments)] Police say Juanita Gomez “forced a crucifix and religious medallion” down her daughter’s throat “until blood came out.” 08/31/2016 An Oklahoma woman accused of killing her daughter allegedly told police she beat her and repeatedly forced a crucifix down her throat because she feared her daughter was possessed by Satan. Juanita Gomez, 49, of Oklahoma City, has been charged with first-degree murder in the Saturday slaying of her 33-year-old daughter, Geneva Gomez. The elder Gomez ? her hands still badly bruised from the beating she inflicted on her daughter, according to police ? is being held in the Oklahoma County Jail without bond. According to a copy of the probable cause affidavit [ https://www.scribd.com/document/322690735/Juanita-Gomez-Probable-Cause-Affidavit (embedded)] obtained by The Huffington Post, officers with the Oklahoma City Police Department were called to Juanita Gomez’s home Saturday afternoon to check on the welfare of her daughter. “Officers arrived and found [the] victim … lying in the home with a large cross/crucifix upon her chest,” the affidavit reads. “Blood was visible and she had suffered severe trauma around her head and face.” Geneva Gomez was pronounced dead at the scene. Questioned by police, Juanita Gomez said she believed her daughter was “possessed by the devil” and was attempting to “rid Satan” from her body, according to court documents. Juanita Gomez also said she repeatedly punched her daughter and “forced a crucifix and religious medallion down her throat until blood came out of her daughter’s mouth,” the documents continued. After that, the documents state, Juanita Gomez cleaned her daughter up and positioned her body in the shape of a cross. [...] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mother-accused-of-killing-daughter-with-crucifix-says-she-was-possessed_us_57c73afee4b0a22de093d7f3 [with embedded video reports, and comments]
--
LIVESTREAM: Donald Trump Phoenix Rally - MUST WATCH Immigration Speech FULL COVERAGE
Streamed live on Aug 31, 2016 by FOX 10 Phoenix
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is reaffirming that people in the U.S. illegally cannot receive legal status, despite recently suggesting he might be softening his stance on immigration. Trump is telling thousands of supporters in Phoenix that "you cannot obtain legal status by entering the country illegally." His immigration plan will not offer a path to legal status or citizenship: "There will be no amnesty." Those here illegally have "one route and one route only: To return home and apply for reentry like anybody else." Trump is summing up a nearly hour-long talk without effectively changing his overall position, the crux of his campaign for more than a year. He says that the United States welcomes immigrants but that "they have to come into our country legally and properly vetted and in a manner that serves the national interest." Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says he will force nations to accept the return of their citizens who have been deported from the U.S. after being accused of crimes. Trump says the U.S. "will ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported." He is not offering any details. Trump claims at least 23 countries refuse to take their citizens back after they've been ordered to leave. He says, "Not going to happen with me folks. Not gonna happen." Trump is claiming that 13,000 people in the U.S. illegally who were ordered back to their home counties remained in the U.S. between 2008 and 2012, and committed more crimes, including killings, sexual assaults and "some of the most heinous crimes imaginable." Donald Trump is continuing his tough talk on immigration, saying that anyone who entered the country illegally "will be subject to deportation" if he's elected president. Trump is delivering a long-awaited speech on immigration and says that "no one" among the 11 million people who are in the United States illegally "will be immune or exempt from enforcement" on his watch. But Trump says he will set priorities for removing people from the United States.
noteworthy (if slightly chopped) opening prayer begins at c. the 1:08:30 mark; Joe Arpaio's dazed and seemingly somewhat drunken comments begin at c. the 1:43:20 mark; Giuliani's frothing fulminations begin at c. the 2:05:10 mark; Jeff Sessions's batshit batsqueeze begins at c. the 2:13:55 mark; Mike Pence's introduction begins at c. the 2:18:55 mark; Trump's performance begins at c the 2:24:05 mark; with comments] [also at e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc82gmQtf6s (with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaF_NwVbIgo (with comments), and, Trump's performance only, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGWZUce9syE (with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBSuRTM1TGY (with comments)]
*
David Duke @DrDavidDuke Excellent speech by Donald Trump tonight. Deport criminal aliens, end catch and release, enforce immigration laws & America First. 7:48 PM - 31 Aug 2016 https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/771177837072048129 [with comments]
David Duke @DrDavidDuke Since LSU at 18 I fought to stop immigration. Ecstatic over Trump speech. CAN'T WAIT TO BE YOUR VOICE IN U.S.SENATE & TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK! 9:06 PM - 31 Aug 2016 https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/771197501672009729 [with comments]
*
Here’s what Donald Trump said in his big immigration speech, annotated August 31, 2016 Donald Trump delivered his long-awaited speech outlining his immigration policy on Wednesday night in Phoenix, the city where he launched his campaign on the same issue last year. A transcript of Trump's speech is below. Sections in yellow have been annotated by The Fix team and will offer more information when clicked. [...] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/31/heres-what-donald-trump-said-in-his-big-immigration-speech-annotated/ [with embedded video of Trump's full performance, and comments]
FactChecking Trump on Immigration As he explains his plan on illegal immigration, Trump gets several facts wrong. August 30, 2016 Summary Over the past week, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has twisted the facts on illegal immigration, and the plans of his opponent, Hillary Clinton, as he struggled to explain what he would do with the estimated 11 million people who are living in the U.S. illegally. • Trump was wrong in saying that “using the existing laws, millions of people are deported every year.” The peak for removals based on deportation orders dating to 1892 was 435,498 in fiscal 2013. • Trump wrongly said “nearly 200,000 illegal immigrants” booked into Texas jails “were responsible for more than half a million criminal offenses.” State data show 130,000 were arrested over a five-year period, and their convictions, over their lifetimes, totaled 157,000. • Trump said that “nobody even knows” if there are 11 million immigrants in the country illegally, adding that the number could be 30 million or 5 million. But several independent estimates agree on the 11 million number, and experts say it’s impossible for the number to be as high, or as low, as Trump says. • Trump exaggerated when he said Clinton will “close down detention centers for border crossings, meaning she will have an open southern border that will bring … crime and destruction.” Clinton has said she would replace privately run centers with government-run facilities. • Trump claimed Clinton’s immigration plan “would functionally end enforcement of visa overstay rules — another open border decree.” But her plan does not address visa overstays. To the contrary, Clinton supported a 2013 Senate bill that included a provision to create a new system to track, locate and remove visa overstays. • New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Trump supporter, falsely said that “everybody … whether you’ve been a criminal or not” would become “American citizens” under Clinton’s plan. In fact, Clinton has specifically said she would deport “violent” or “dangerous” criminals, “terrorists” and “anyone who threatens our safety.” Analysis [...] http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/factchecking-trump-on-immigration/
Donald Trump speaking in Arizona on Wednesday. Travis Dove for The New York Times
Charles M. Blow AUG. 31, 2016
Donald Trump is the internet troll of presidential politics. When he’s securely removed from the objects of his scorn, he’s tough as nails; when he’s in their presence, he quivers like a bowl of Jell-O.
Such is the way of a bully.
Furthermore, when he is surrounded by supporters who cheer his base nature, he amplifies the enmity. When the applause of hostility is out of earshot, he tones down his vitriol to a whimper.
He is not only a bully, it seems to me, but also something of a coward, who lacks the force of his convictions — or who lacks basic convictions at all. He seems to be simply playing to the audience, whatever that audience may be. He’s amenable to the mood of any particular room.
This is the most frightening type of man, whose basic character is vile but not inviolable, who springs from darkness and bends toward anything that casts light, even if that light is, as the internet loves to say, a dumpster fire.
Case in point: Trump has spent the whole of his campaign maligning Mexican immigrants, people of “Mexican heritage” and the country of Mexico itself.
They included calling the Mexican government “totally corrupt” and the Mexican court system “dishonest” and saying that “Mexico is not our friend” and ”I want nothing to do with Mexico other than to build an impenetrable WALL and stop them from ripping off U.S.”
Indeed, one of Trump’s main focuses has been the wall — which he has insisted from the beginning that he would make Mexico pay for — and a “deportation force [ http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/theres-going-to-be-a-trump-wall-564264515912 ]” to round up and deport all of the approximately 11 million immigrants who are in this country illegally.
These are the Mexican immigrants who Trump initially described this way [ http://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-mexico-sends-its-problems-to-the-u-s-465592899915 ]: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
And yet, when he made the quick decision to visit Mexico Wednesday and meet with that country’s president, Enrique Peña Nieto, Trump was much more contrite in his comments. Indeed, for most of the subsequent news conference, Trump looked lost and confused.
“I happen to have a tremendous feeling for Mexican-Americans not only in terms of friendships, but in terms of the tremendous numbers that I employ in the United States and they are amazing people, amazing people. I have many friends, so many friends and so many friends coming to Mexico and in Mexico. I am proud to say how many people I employ. And the United States first, second and third generation Mexicans are just beyond reproach. Spectacular, spectacular hard-working people. I have such great respect for them and their strong values of family, faith and community.”
Huh? Who is this guy? Of course, this time he was reading a speech. This is no doubt some soft-pedal written by his aides to make him sound more human and less monstrous.
Kellyanne Conway, you are one of the best ventriloquists in politics, the way you put words in this man’s mouth. But I’m not buying it. You can repackage your bigot if you choose, but the basic contours of the man betray your efforts to remake him. And, your support and promotion of him makes you one of the most dangerous, though soft-spoken, people in America at this moment.
According to Trump, he didn’t even discuss with Peña Nieto that he would demand that Mexico pay for the Southern border wall. But Peña Nieto disputed that account, tweeting [ https://twitter.com/EPN/status/771118159654891520 ] in Spanish: “At the start of the conversation with Donald Trump, I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall.” If you believe Peña Nieto, Trump, the self-proclaimed tough negotiator, not only choked but openly lied about choking.
And this is the supposedly brassy billionaire people support because he’s tough and tells it like it is? Trump is a paper tiger if ever there was one.
And then, a few hours later in Arizona, at what was billed as a major policy speech on his now muddled stance on immigration, and before his jeering acolytes, he gave a speech full of fear, about murderous immigrants, and reiterated that he would build a southern border wall and, you guessed it, Mexico would pay for it.
Trump was back to his hate. He was back to his hyperbolic histrionics.
This is what every voter must remember: Trump has two faces and two sets of facts and too much latitude to spread his animus, anti-intellectualism and lies, and he must never see the inside of the Oval Office.
Trump anti-immigrant speech follows dark pattern of US history
The Rachel Maddow Show 9/1/16
Rachel Maddow shows how throughout American history, when normal politics breaks down, fringe voices gain prominence scapegoating immigrant groups. Duration: 16:12
María Teresa Kumar, president of Voto Latino, talks with Rachel Maddow about the vitriolic nature of the language and tone of Donald Trump's anti-immigrant rally in Arizona. Duration: 7:00
How Russia Often Benefits When Julian Assange Reveals the West’s Secrets Julian Assange looking out from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London in February. Having lived there for four years, he is increasingly isolated. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in March. Mr. Assange initially said that WikiLeaks’ targets would be “highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia.” Mr. Assange looking out from a prison van with red windows as he arrived at a London court in 2010. His lawyer has said that even if Sweden declined to prosecute him, he still feared being turned over to the United States. American officials say Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services. But the agendas of WikiLeaks and the Kremlin have often dovetailed. AUG. 31, 2016 Julian Assange was in classic didactic form, holding forth on the topic that consumes him — the perfidy of big government and especially of the United States. Mr. Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks, rose to global fame in 2010 for releasing huge caches [ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/war-logs.html ] of highly classified American government communications that exposed the underbelly of its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and its sometimes cynical diplomatic maneuvering around the world. But in a televised interview last September, it was clear that he still had plenty to say about “The World According to US Empire,” the subtitle of his latest book, “The WikiLeaks Files.” From the cramped confines of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, where he was granted asylum four years ago [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/world/europe/julian-assange-under-watch-at-ecuadorean-embassy.html ] amid a legal imbroglio, Mr. Assange proffered a vision of America as superbully: a nation that has achieved imperial power by proclaiming allegiance to principles of human rights while deploying its military-intelligence apparatus in “pincer” formation to “push” countries into doing its bidding, and punishing people like him who dare to speak the truth. Notably absent from Mr. Assange’s analysis, however, was criticism of another world power, Russia, or its president, Vladimir V. Putin, who has hardly lived up to WikiLeaks’ ideal of transparency. Mr. Putin’s government has cracked down hard on dissent — spying on, jailing, and, critics charge, sometimes assassinating opponents while consolidating control over the news media and internet. If Mr. Assange appreciated the irony of the moment — denouncing censorship in an interview on Russia Today, the Kremlin-controlled English-language propaganda channel — it was not readily apparent. Now, Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks are back in the spotlight, roiling the geopolitical landscape with new disclosures and a promise of more to come. In July, the organization released nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee emails [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html ] suggesting that the party had conspired with Hillary Clinton’s campaign to undermine her primary opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders. Mr. Assange — who has been openly critical of Mrs. Clinton — has promised further disclosures that could upend her campaign against the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump. Separately, WikiLeaks announced that it would soon release some of the crown jewels of American intelligence: a “pristine” set of cyberspying codes. United States officials say they believe with a high degree of confidence that the Democratic Party material was hacked by the Russian government, and suspect that the codes may have been stolen by the Russians as well. That raises a question: Has WikiLeaks become a laundering machine for compromising material gathered by Russian spies? And more broadly, what precisely is the relationship between Mr. Assange and Mr. Putin’s Kremlin? Those questions are made all the more pointed by Russia’s prominent place in the American presidential election campaign. Mr. Putin, who clashed repeatedly with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, has publicly praised Mr. Trump, who has returned the compliment, calling for closer ties to Russia and speaking favorably [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/world/europe/ukraine-trump-crimea-politics.html ] of Mr. Putin’s annexation of Crimea. From the outset of WikiLeaks, Mr. Assange said he was motivated by a desire to use “cryptography to protect human rights,” and would focus on authoritarian governments like Russia’s. But a New York Times examination of WikiLeaks’ activities during Mr. Assange’s years in exile found a different pattern: Whether by conviction, convenience or coincidence, WikiLeaks’ document releases, along with many of Mr. Assange’s statements, have often benefited Russia, at the expense of the West. Among United States officials, the emerging consensus is that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services. But they say that, at least in the case of the Democrats’ emails, Moscow knew it had a sympathetic outlet in WikiLeaks, where intermediaries could drop pilfered documents in the group’s anonymized digital inbox. In an interview [in two parts: https://www.facebook.com/nytimes/videos/vb.5281959998/10150889009744999/ , https://www.facebook.com/nytimes/videos/10150889048719999/ ] on Wednesday with The Times, Mr. Assange said Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats were “whipping up a neo-McCarthyist hysteria about Russia.” There is “no concrete evidence” that what WikiLeaks publishes comes from intelligence agencies, he said, even as he indicated that he would happily accept such material. WikiLeaks neither targets not spares any particular nation, he added, but rather works to verify whatever material it is given in service of the public, which “loves it when they get a glimpse into the corrupt machinery that is attempting to rule them.” But given WikiLeaks’ limited resources and the hurdles of translation, Mr. Assange said, why focus on Russia, which he described as a “bit player on the world stage,” compared with countries like China and the United States? In any event, he said, Kremlin corruption is an old story. “Every man and his dog is criticizing Russia,” he said. “It’s a bit boring, isn’t it?” [...] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-julian-assange-russia.html [with comments]
--
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (other) following, see also (linked in):
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
