ComplexDataLab/Misinfo_Datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

hillary clinton is back on the campaign trail after three days off. she courted hispanic voters in washington as donald trump talked economics in new york. trump unveiled more details of his plan to move the u.s. economy forward. "we must replace the present policy of globalism, which has just taken so many jobs out of our communities and so much wealth out of our country, and replace it with a new policy of americanism," he explained. trump said as president, he will act to tap into the "un-realized potential" of american workers and their dreams. he pledged to create 25 million new jobs and grow the economy over 10 years at an average annual rate of 3.5 percent. u.s. economic growth under president barack obama has never reached 3 percent in any one year -- something that's never happened under any other u.s. president. "i am going to lower your taxes very, very substantially. i am going to get rid of massive amounts of unnecessary regulation. all of these regulations on your business, and in your life," trump insisted. afterwards, trump appeared on the "tonight show." in a lighter moment, host jimmy fallon made one request of the republican presidential nominee, asking him,<u+00a0> "can i mess your hair up? did you say yes?" trump responded, "go ahead!" fallon then proceeded to dishevel trump's hair. meanwhile, clinton was back on the campaign trail in the nation's capital, with the james brown tune, "i feel good," blasting from loud speakers. fresh from three-and-a-half days off resting from pneumonia, she spoke to the national hispanic caucus in washington, d.c. clinton wasted little time renewing her attacks against trump, going after him for telling the washington post he didn't want to answer the question right now of whether or not the president was born in the united states. "this man wants to be our next president? when will he stop this ugliness, this bigotry?" she asked rhetorically. "if we just sigh, shake our heads and accept this, then what does that tell our kids about who we are?" the trump campaign later conceded that he does believe the president was born in the united states. even though polls show many voters don't like either candidate, clinton is facing an enthusiasm gap. only 50 percent of trump's supporters say they're excited to vote for him. the percentage of clinton supporters is even less, with only 43 percent saying they're excited about her. enthused or not, with less than two months to go before election day, both candidates know independent voters hold the key to winning the white house. and clinton says there's another important factor. "what matters is who registers to vote and who is motivated and mobilized to turnout to vote," she said.

trump: 'we must replace globalism with americanism'

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

51.0

8.0

2732.0

0.0

1.0

6.0

0.0

177.0

0.0

61.0

1.0

0.0

17.0

2.0

10.0

4.0

2.0

10.0

4.0

8.0

14.0

8.0

18.0

183.0

61.0

18.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

"you don't hold attorney general nominees hostage for other issues," obama told the huffington post's sam stein in a sit-down interview. "this is our top law enforcement office. nobody denies that she's well-qualified. we need to go ahead and get her done." lynch's nomination has been languishing for more than 130 days. this week, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell (r-ky.) threw up another roadblock, warning that she wouldn't get a vote until his chamber passes human trafficking legislation. democrats object to anti-abortion language in the bill. on wednesday, sen. dick durbin (d-ill.) went after his gop colleagues for the delay in voting on lynch, suggesting that they were treating her differently because of her race. "loretta lynch, the first african-american woman nominated to be attorney general, is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the senate calendar," said durbin. "that is unfair. it's unjust. it is beneath the decorum and dignity of the u.s. senate." "i don't know about that," the president said on friday, referring to the role that race may have played in delaying lynch's confirmation. instead, he pointed to "senate dysfunction" and "stubbornness on the part of republicans to move nominees, period." "what i do know is that she is eminently qualified. nobody denies it," obama said. "even the republicans acknowledge she's been a great prosecutor. she has prosecuted terrorists in new york, she has gone after organized crime, she's gone after public corruption. her integrity is unimpeachable. by all accounts, she's a great manager, and the fact that she has now been lingering in this limbo for longer than the five previous attorney general nominees combined makes no sense. we need to go ahead and get this done." "my guess is that there is probably not a huge racial component to this, that this is really just d.c. politics, washington at its worst," he said. "a battle about something that is not connected to this nominee, holding up this nominee. i think that's the main driver here." lynch, currently the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york, received a bipartisan boost friday, when former new york city mayor rudy giuliani (r) called on republicans to stop stalling her confirmation. the president confirmed friday that holder, who has long been the target of gop lawmakers' ire, has agreed to stay on as attorney general until his replacement is set. "the irony is, of course, that the republicans really dislike mr. holder," said obama. "if they really want to get rid of him, the best way to do it is to go ahead and get loretta lynch confirmed." the huffington post<u+2019>s full interview with president obama will be published on saturday. to be the first to see the whole interview, sign up for huffpost breaking news alerts here.

obama on loretta lynch: 'you don't hold attorney general nominees hostage'

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

74.0

8.0

2818.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

187.0

0.0

67.0

0.0

17.0

15.0

5.0

8.0

11.0

2.0

8.0

4.0

19.0

16.0

24.0

188.0

67.0

17.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the core commitment of the american economy to give workers a fair share of the productivity and profits they have created is seriously in question. it has become abundantly clear over the last few years that the middle class is not sharing in the gains of the economy. <u+00a0>wages are mostly flat, and labor<u+2019>s share of national income is declining as the productivity and profits of many businesses continue to expand. after decades of hoping to expand middle-class ownership of capital <u+2013> stocks, bonds, access to profit-sharing and capital gains <u+2013> during the late 20th century, it has been declining precipitously. even worse, that is happening as the direct result of actual misguided government policies, even as other policies subsidize the concentration of that capital among the wealthy. ownership of capital, particularly through vehicles like grants of stock and stock options, and profit sharing was supposed to be a silver bullet for middle class success. and for a while it was developing. according to the general social survey, in 2002, 21<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>of workers owned some stock in the company where they worked, over 13<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>had employee stock options, and about a third received cash profit sharing, and a quarter some gain sharing, which involves a share paid to workers of increased sales or better customer service. today, the reality is that after decades of productivity gains and stock market gains, for most workers, the amounts received from shares are relatively modest and really don<u+2019>t add up to very much. the most common form of shares, profit sharing, is now the least meaningful. the median adult worker with profit sharing receives only $2,000 per year. the other 65<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>of workers without profit sharing receive zero. <u+00a0>the median worker with gain sharing also receives $2,000 and the other 80<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>of workers without gain sharing receives zero. <u+00a0>while almost half of all workers in the communications and computer services industries had stock options in 2002 and over a tenth of workers nationwide were receiving stock options the availability of stock options to middle class workers has sunk by more than a third nationwide and in america<u+2019>s innovative industries. moreover, the median worker owning company stock <u+00a0><u+2014> only a fifth of workers <u+00a0><u+2014> has employee stock ownership worth only $10,000. <u+00a0>the other 80<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>own nothing in their companies. the principal explanation is not simply corporate greed or structural changes in the economy, but rather a long series of unfortunate government policies that have either eliminated or weakened share plans for the middle class, all while incentivizing policies that benefit the top. <u+00a0>this privileged use of the tax system has to change. employee share ownership expanded in the 1980s and 1990s after the reagan administration set up tax incentives to jumpstart broad-based employee stock ownership plans (esops) in public stock market companies. <u+00a0>this encouraged large corporations to make lower risk grants of their stock to workers with workers not purchasing the stock with their savings. <u+00a0>the incentives allowed lenders to deduct a portion of their interest income when they made loans to corporations to finance purchases of stock that were later granted to middle class employees who often also received dividends. the major wall street investment banks even set up divisions to market such plans, and aggressively proposed broad-based employee ownership to corporations. in the budget cutting that swept the president george h.w. bush administrations, these incentives were almost completely eliminated. other policies began with good intentions, but ultimately undermined middle class shares. in 1993, congress sought to limit corporate tax deductions for the salaries of the top five executives in stock market companies to $1 million per executive. <u+00a0>as this idea wound its way through congress, the proposal was changed so that the deduction limit for the fixed salaries of executives was capped at $1 million, but stock market firms received virtually unlimited tax deductions for profit and equity sharing plans given to those top executives <u+2013> now known as section 162(m) of the internal revenue code. as a result, executive shares have been subsidized by taxpayers with an estimated cost of at least $5-$10 billion a year since 1993 by six presidential administrations with largely unwavering bipartisan support. <u+00a0>as top executives reap billions with federal tax deductions, the tax deductions for share plans for middle class workers have much lower limits. on top of that, the tax mechanisms and encouragements for generous cash and deferred profit sharing plans have also been weakened over the past several decades for a number of reasons. while the federal government has kept some tax benefits for employee stock ownership plans in closely-held companies intact, these benefits have yet to be updated to apply to millions of other closely-held companies called s corporations. and esops and share plans of all kinds are simply not sufficiently encouraged by the federal government in stock market companies. then, in response to the enron and worldcom scandals, the recent administration of president george w. bush advanced accounting reforms of stock options designed to reduce the role of options in executive pay. as recently as 2002, broad-based stock options were common, covering 57<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>of all workers in computer services, 43<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>of all workers in communications, 27<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>of all workers in financial services, and even 23<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>of all workers in the durable manufacturing industry. <u+00a0><u+00a0> by 2010, after the bush administration<u+2019>s <u+201c>reform,<u+201d> the general social survey showed a 70<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>drop in workers in computer services receiving stock options, a 57<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>drop in durable manufacturing, a 45<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>drop in financial services, and an almost 20<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>drop in the communications industry. <u+00a0>the decline in stock options was concentrated among middle class workers, while the top echelon was largely spared. this happened because companies pushed middle class workers and managers out of their stock option plans to reduce the accounting cost of their stock options plans so that the options for the executives could be kept <u+00a0>largely intact. president bush<u+2019>s <u+201c>reform<u+201d> of stock options for executives ended up punishing the middle class, just as the earlier executive pay <u+201c>reform<u+201d> of the 1990s ended up subsidizing executive pay. <u+00a0>the bush administration reforms also led to a huge drop in the very generous employee stock purchase plans whereby large corporations used to generously allow workers to buy stock at a 15<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>discount to market with other provisions that made them low risk. <u+00a0>maybe, as some critics point out, options are not the best way to pay workers, but similar equity plans should not be only for the top. in short, washington has quietly created a subsidized system of grants of free shares financially engineered mainly for the top echelon of the economy. generous tax incentives encourage shares for the top, while zero or the least generous or out-of-date tax incentives are for middle class shares. <u+00a0><u+00a0><u+00a0><u+00a0> the country now needs a robust political discussion of shares for the middle class, and the ill-advised policies on middle class shares must be reversed. the first part of that discussion should be about risk to workers. <u+00a0>cash profit sharing, deferred profit sharing and gain sharing plans are the lowest-risk form of shares, so it was a reasonable place for the clinton campaign to start. <u+00a0>in addition to profit and gain sharing, corporate executives typically receive lower-risk grants of restricted stock or stock options. <u+00a0>while many companies encourage executives to purchase some shares, these grants of equity make up most of their pay package, and the country needs policies that encourage these lower-risk forms of ownership for middle class workers as well. <u+00a0>let me be clear. <u+00a0>i am against any policy encouraging workers to buy more than very modest amounts of company stock with their wages or retirement savings. <u+00a0>as happened with enron, workers can easily get over-invested in company stock they buy with their own wages. <u+00a0>it should not be encouraged by federal policy. a responsible policy on equity shares would also give scaled progressive tax credits to corporations that grant equity to more than a majority of their workers without any worker purchases. <u+00a0>if companies want large tax deductions for their executive share plans, they should be required to have share plans that cover all of their employees. workers could share in the upside gain if the equity value of the firm increases over the long-term. <u+00a0>forms of employee share ownership such as grants of stock to workers through employee stock ownership plans (esops) and other approaches, where workers do not buy the stock but the stock is financed by the company, are sensible to encourage. <u+00a0>the elimination of esop incentives from the first bush administration needs to be reversed so stock market companies and wall street start talking about equity grants to the middle class again. <u+00a0>we need to revise federal policy to encourage firms that offer employee stock purchase plans a greater tax deduction for giving generous discounts to their employees with the level of the sales being reasonable capped to avoid undue risk. beyond this, corporations that wish to receive many special corporate tax incentives should be required to have a fair broad-based profit-sharing plan or an employee share equity plan not based on worker purchases but only on grants, just as executive plans are structured. <u+00a0>this labor day, it is time for the national discussion on wage stagnation to include a plan to revamp shares for the middle class.

profit sharing was supposed to be a silver bullet for middle-class success. what happened?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

90.0

8.0

9771.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

630.0

0.0

143.0

1.0

0.0

88.0

7.0

22.0

7.0

13.0

18.0

14.0

3.0

34.0

26.0

60.0

634.0

143.0

89.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

fox news aired a preview friday of an interview with the leading gop candidate that will air saturday. "and then he apologized like a little baby, like a disgusting, little weak, pathetic baby, and that's the problem with our country," trump said. the real estate developer said o'malley's attempt at being "politically correct" was actually "politically incorrect." "so, ladies and gentlemen, i am officially running for president of the united states, and we are going to make our country great again," trump told the crowd at his announcement. businessman donald trump announced june 16 at his trump tower in new york city that he is seeking the republican presidential nomination. this ends more than two decades of flirting with the idea of running for the white house."so, ladies and gentlemen, i am officially running for president of the united states, and we are going to make our country great again," trump told the crowd at his announcement. "these are all of our stories," cruz told the audience at liberty university in virginia. "these are who we are as americans. and yet for so many americans, the promise of america seems more and more distant." sen. ted cruz of texas has made a name for himself in the senate, solidifying his brand as a conservative firebrand willing to take on the gop's establishment. he announced he was seeking the republican presidential nomination in a speech on march 23."these are all of our stories," cruz told the audience at liberty university in virginia. "these are who we are as americans. and yet for so many americans, the promise of america seems more and more distant." ohio gov. john kasich joined the republican field july 21 as he formally announced his white house bid. "i am here to ask you for your prayers, for your support ... because i have decided to run for president of the united states," kasich told his kickoff rally at the ohio state university. "everyday americans need a champion, and i want to be that champion -- so you can do more than just get by -- you can get ahead. and stay ahead," she said in her announcement video. "because when families are strong, america is strong. so i'm hitting the road to earn your vote, because it's your time. and i hope you'll join me on this journey." hillary clinton launched her presidential bid on april 12 through a video message on social media. the former first lady, senator and secretary of state is considered the front-runner among possible democratic candidates."everyday americans need a champion, and i want to be that champion -- so you can do more than just get by -- you can get ahead. and stay ahead," she said in her announcement video. "because when families are strong, america is strong. so i'm hitting the road to earn your vote, because it's your time. and i hope you'll join me on this journey." , an independent from vermont who caucuses with democrats, announced his run in an email to supporters on april 30. he has said the united states needs a "political revolution" of working-class americans to take back control of the government from billionaires. "this great nation and its government belong to all of the people and not to a handful of billionaires, their super pacs and their lobbyists," sanders said at a rally in vermont on may 26. sen. bernie sanders , an independent from vermont who caucuses with democrats, announced his run in an email to supporters on april 30. he has said the united states needs a "political revolution" of working-class americans to take back control of the government from billionaires."this great nation and its government belong to all of the people and not to a handful of billionaires, their super pacs and their lobbyists," sanders said at a rally in vermont on may 26. "how can you apologize when you say 'black lives matter,' which is true, 'white lives matter,' which is true, 'all lives matter,' which is true," trump asked. "and then they [black lives matter activists] get angry because you said 'white' and 'all' - 'we don't want you to mention that.'" o'malley's campaign responded friday afternoon, saying trump engages in "hate speech." "governor o'malley stands with those who have the guts to stand up to donald trump's hate speech. it speaks volumes about the republican party today that this is their front-runner," said lis smith, o'malley deputy campaign manager. "unlike the rest of the republican field, we're not interested in engaging in a race to the bottom with mr. trump." trump previously criticized democratic presidential hopeful bernie sanders for giving up his microphone to protesters at an event in seattle. "that will never happen with me," trump said. "i don't know if i'll do the fighting myself or if other people will, but that was a disgrace." cnn commentator donna brazile wrote an opinion piece for cnn last month that said "all lives matter" can sound dismissive when used as a response to "black lives matter." "of course all lives matter. but there is no serious question about the value of the life of a young white girl or boy. sadly, there is a serious question -- between gang violence and this police violence -- about the value of the life of a young black girl or boy," she wrote. "so those who are experiencing the pain and trauma of the black experience in this country don't want their rallying cry to be watered down with a generic feel-good catchphrase."

trump: o'malley 'weak' and 'pathetic' for apologizing to black lives matter protestors

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

5.0

86.0

8.0

5412.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

405.0

1.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

45.0

9.0

16.0

8.0

10.0

13.0

15.0

9.0

21.0

36.0

409.0

101.0

45.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington (cnn) with the first democratic debate in the books, a new cnn/orc poll finds most who watched think hillary clinton had the best performance of the night, but her strong showing hasn't boosted her standing in the race for the party's nomination. clinton stands at 45% in the race for the democratic nomination, with vermont sen. bernie sanders behind her at 29%. vice president joe biden, who is considering a run for presidency and did not participate in last week's debate, follows at 18%. behind the top three, former virginia sen. jim webb had 1% support, while former rhode island gov. lincoln chafee, harvard professor larry lessig and former maryland gov. martin o'malley all held less than 1% support. compared with pre-debate polling, sanders' support is up five points since mid-september, but no other candidate showed significant change. as biden mulls whether or not to get in the race, the poll suggests democrats are becoming less enamored of a run from the vice president. in august, 53% of registered democrats said they wanted biden to run, that's down to 47% in the new poll. should biden decide to sit out the race for the democratic nomination, clinton's lead over sanders climbs to 23 points: 56% would back clinton, 33% sanders. overall, 31% of registered democrats say they watched all or most of the cnn/facebook debate, held october 13 in las vegas. more than 6-in-10 democrats who watched say clinton did the best job, almost doubling the 35% who thought sanders had the best performance. on the other side of the coin, 43% of those who watched said chafee had the worst night, 31% thought webb did, 12% o'malley. among those democrats who watched the debate, both sanders and biden are viewed more favorably than they are among democratic voters generally: sanders' favorability number bumps from 62% among all democratic voters to 84% among debate viewers, while biden climbs from 76% to 89% favorable. clinton's numbers are about the same in both groups. despite their positive feelings toward biden, debate-watchers are more apt than others to say biden should stay out of the contest (61% think he should not run, compared with 43% of those who did not watch) and they are far more likely to be satisfied with the democratic field generally (84% compared with 64% among those who didn't watch). assessing the lesser-known candidates, debate-watchers are more positive than other democrats toward o'malley, (44% favorable compared with 20% among democratic voters generally). but webb and chafee are both viewed more negatively among those who watched (for chafee, 32% unfavorable among debate-watchers vs. 18% among all democratic voters; webb is at 37% unfavorable among debate-watchers, 20% among all democratic voters). following the debate, clinton continues to dominate as the more trusted candidate across several top issues, with double-digit advantages over sanders and biden as the candidate who would best handle the economy, health care, foreign policy, race relations, climate change and gun policy. clinton also now holds a small edge over sanders as most trusted on income inequality (43% clinton, 38% sanders). debate-watchers are more likely than others to say they trust sanders on top issues, though even among this more-friendly audience, he continues to trail clinton on most issues. exceptions are income inequality (50% of debate-watchers trust sanders vs. 36% for clinton) and climate change (40% each say clinton and sanders would be best able to handle that). sanders gained no ground, however, on foreign policy. on that question, clinton's strength grows among those who watched: 77% in that group say they trust her most to handle foreign policy, up from 66% among democratic voters overall. on two issues where the debate highlighted differences among the candidates, fissures within the democratic electorate on who would best handle them emerge. income inequality appears to be the most divisive issue, with women, older voters, those without college degrees, moderates and those with lower incomes more apt to trust clinton on the issue, while those with college degrees, liberals, and urbanites are more likely to favor sanders. and on gun policy, there's a sharp gender divide. women are far more likely to say they trust clinton to handle it than men, 50% to 37%. democratic gun owners are more evenly split on the question, with 35% saying they trust clinton most on gun policy, 27% sanders and 21% biden. among those democrats who do not own guns, it's 48% clinton, 21% biden and 16% sanders. overall, democrats aren't much more satisfied with their field now than they were in july before any debates had happened. while the share "very satisfied" has risen from 26% to 33%, the share saying they are at least fairly satisfied has held steady at about 7-in-10. women do report feeling more satisfied with the field than men, but younger democrats, a key group for barack obama's general election victories, are far less satisfied with this field of candidates than older democrats. only about one-quarter of those under age 50 say they are very satisfied, compared with 40% of those age 50 or older. when matched against the top candidates from the republican field, clinton, sanders and biden all top donald trump, who has been leading most polling on the republican nomination contest since this summer. but biden is the only one who holds a significant lead over ben carson, a more recent addition to the top of the republican field. trump trails clinton by 5, sanders by 9 and biden by 10. but against carson, both clinton (47% to carson's 48%) and sanders (46% to carson's 48%) run about evenly with the former neurosurgeon. biden tops carson by 8 points. the cnn/orc international poll was conducted by telephone october 14-17 among a random national sample of 1,028 adult americans. results among the 425 registered voters who say they are democrats or independents who lean toward the democratic party have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

hillary clinton wins debate, bernie sanders rises in polls

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

6.0

58.0

8.0

6078.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

319.0

0.0

102.0

0.0

48.0

5.0

9.0

4.0

7.0

6.0

8.0

4.0

20.0

15.0

25.0

325.0

102.0

48.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

vice president joe biden sounded like someone who wants to be president when he spoke to cnn's "new day" on friday. he talked about america's potential and its role as a global leader, as well as his commitment to helping the middle class. he never mentioned the overwhelming early favorite for the 2016 democratic nomination -- former secretary of state hillary clinton. clearly biden, the longtime senator who now is the white house conduit to blue-collar union workers essential to democratic support, is seriously considering a presidential run. asked by cnn's kate bolduan when he would decide, biden answered a realistic timetable would be the summer of 2015. that response, and a closer look at biden's words friday, also show that if clinton decides to run -- as expected -- then biden will step aside. "he is effectively saying, look, it depends on what hillary clinton decides to do," noted gloria borger, cnn's chief political analyst. here are some of biden's remarks in the interview with bolduan, and a look at what he was really saying: 1) "there may be reasons i don't run, but there's no obvious reason for me why i think i should not run." biden is hedging his bets. he acknowledges it may not happen, but makes clear the reason won't be because he doesn't want to or isn't qualified for the job. that's another way of saying there are circumstances beyond his control, meaning a clinton decision to enter the race. supporters are already raising money for the former first lady and senator who served with biden in president barack obama's cabinet and would be the nation's first woman president. clinton has said she will make up her mind sometime in 2014. polls show her with a commanding lead over other possible democratic contenders, including biden. biden's answer when bolduan asks for a timetable for his decision is the clearest signal that his choice depends on whether clinton runs. to peter hamby, cnn digital's national political reporter, waiting until the middle of 2015 -- just six months or so before the iowa caucuses -- would be way too late to take on clinton. "if these guys are going to get in and run for president, whoever it is, challenging hillary clinton, they really have to start laying groundwork," hamby said. "they have to raise money and hire staff and recruit volunteers in these early states." as vice president, biden has the advantage of constant media focus if desired, which would help him maintain a high profile without some of the normal steps of mounting a presidential campaign. 3) "am i the best qualified person to focus on the two things i've spent my whole life on -- give ordinary people a fighting chance to make it and a sound foreign policy that's based on national interest of the united states, where we not only are known for the power of our military, but the power of our example." biden lays out his rationale for running, stressing his two major strengths as a candidate -- foreign policy and working-class ties. as the former chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, biden has the necessary foreign policy credentials, particularly against candidate abc (anybody but clinton). however, her four years as secretary of state negates some or all of a biden advantage. on appealing to middle class workers, biden showed his strength in the 2010 and 2012 elections when he went to states such as ohio where obama was less popular. in clinton, though, he would face the wife of former president bill clinton, who remains extremely popular among traditional democratic constituencies. in friday's interview, biden didn't mention hillary clinton by name, but she is the biggest factor in whether he goes for it. 4) "it doesn't mean i'm the only guy that can do it, but if no one else i think can and i think i can, then i will. if i don't i won't." the vice president sums up his future decision with two qualifiers -- that no else runs who can do what he can, and that he still thinks he can deliver the goods. biden could decide that he is better qualified than clinton on what he considers the key issues, but he would have to think twice if her already anticipated campaign has started strongly and generated initial momentum. if he were to run and win in 2016, biden would be 74 when he took office, making him the oldest ever to begin a presidency. by the end of his first term, he would be the oldest u.s. president in history. so while he remains energetic and passionate, talking about getting his corvette z06 from zero to 60 in 3.4 seconds, the clock is ticking and biden knows it.

parsing biden's words: if hillary runs, he won't - politics.com

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

5.0

63.0

8.0

4600.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

343.0

1.0

0.0

104.0

1.0

0.0

31.0

5.0

10.0

1.0

2.0

5.0

2.0

23.0

9.0

39.0

349.0

105.0

32.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

a russian passenger plane carrying more than 220 people crashed in egypt's sinai peninsula soon after taking off early saturday from a red sea resort popular with russian tourists and disappearing from radar screens, killing all on board, officials said. the airbus a-321 took off from sharm el-sheikh shortly before 6 a.m. with 217 passengers and seven crew members en route to st. petersburg, russia, and had been in the air for only 23 minutes when it crashed. ayman al-muqadem, an egyptian official with the government's aviation incidents committee, said air controllers lost contact with the plane<u+2019>s pilot after he radioed that the aircraft was experiencing technical problems and that he needed to make an emergency landing. the jet then dropped off radar screens. a ministry statement said egyptian military search and rescue teams found the wreckage of the passenger jet in the remote mountainous hassana area 44 miles south of el-arish, an area in northern sinai where egyptian security forces are fighting a burgeoning islamic militant insurgency led by a local affiliate of the islamic extremist group isis. a branch of isis claimed responsibility for downing the plane in a statement on twitter, sky news reported, adding that the claim had not been verified and it was unclear whether sinai militants have the capability to attack a plane flying at a high altitude. russian transport minister maxim sokolov scoffed at the isis claim, telling the interfax news agency that such reports <u+201c>must not be considered reliable.<u+201d> nevertheless, french airline air france and german air carrier lufthansa said they would avoid flying over the sinai peninsula for safety reasons. a spokeswoman for lufthansa told the associated press that the company had decided in a meeting saturday that the carrier would not fly over sinai as long as the cause for the crash <u+201c>has not been clarified.<u+201d> as many as 50 ambulances were dispatched to the crash site. the bodies of 150 victims, some still strapped to their seats, had been pulled from the wreckage, sky news reported. egyptian officials said they won<u+2019>t know what caused the crash until they examine the aircraft's flight's recorders, or "black boxes" which were recovered. the wife of the co-pilot of the plane that crashed said late saturday her husband had complained about the plane's condition, according to a russian tv channel. in an interview with state-controlled ntv, natalya trukhacheva, identified as the wife of co-pilot sergei trukachev, said her daughter "called him up before he flew out. he complained before the flight that the technical condition of the aircraft left much to be desired." the egyptian officials said the aircraft was cruising at 36,000 feet when contact with the jet was lost. flight-tracking service flightradar24 said the plane was losing altitude at about 6,000 feet per minute before the signal was lost, reuters reported. adel mahgoub, chairman of the state company that runs egypt's civilian airports, said except for three ukrainian passengers all on board were russian citizens. an egyptian cabinet statement said the 217 passengers included 138 women, 62 men and 17 children, ranging in age from 2 to 17. a security officer at the crash site who spoke to reuters on condition of anonymity described it as <u+201c>tragic.<u+201d> <u+201c>a lot of dead on the ground and many who died (were) strapped to their seats," the officer said. "the plane split into two, a small part on the tail end that burned and a larger part that crashed into a rock.<u+201d> egyptian prime minister sherif ismail flew to the crash site with several cabinet ministers on a private jet, egypt<u+2019>s tourism ministry said, according to reuters. mahgoub said the aircraft had successfully undergone technical checks while at sharm el-sheikh's airport. a technical committee from the company was headed to sharm el-sheikh to collect security camera footage of the plane while it sat at the airport, including operations to supply it with fuel and passenger meals as well security checks, he said. airbus said the aircraft was 18 years old and had been operated by metrojet since 2012, reuters reported. the plane had accumulated around 56,000 flight hours in nearly 21,000 flights. moscow-based metrojet said the a321 underwent required factory maintenance in 2014 and was in good condition. the airliner said plane<u+2019>s captain valery nemov had 12,000 air hours of experience, including 3,860 in a321s. russian media said the airliner was operating a charter flight under contract with the brisco tour company in st. petersburg. separately, russia's top investigative body opened its own investigation into the crash. militants in northern sinai have not to date shot down commercial airliners or fighter-jets. there have been persistent media reports that they have acquired russian shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft missiles. but these types of missiles can only be effective against low-flying aircraft or helicopters. in january 2014, sinai-based militants claimed to have shot down a military helicopter; egyptian officials at the time acknowledged the helicopter had crashed, but gave no reason. russian television showed scenes of relatives and friends gathering at st. petersburg's pulkovo airport, awaiting word on the fate of their loved ones. russian president vladimir putin declared nov. 1 a national day of mourning, according to a statement posted on the kremlin's website. two of the passengers on the metrojet flight, elena rodina and alexqander krotov, were newlyweds, a friend of the couple told the associated press at a hotel near the airport. they were both 33. yulia zaitseva said rodina <u+201c>really wanted to go to egypt, though i told her <u+2018>why the hell do you want to go to egypt?<u+2019><u+201d> <u+201c>we were friends for 20 years,<u+201d> she said. <u+201c>she was a very good friend who was ready to give everything to other people. to lose such a friend is like having your hand cut off.<u+201d> she said rodina's parents feel <u+201c>like their lives are over.<u+201d> roughly three million russian tourists, or nearly a third of all visitors in 2014, come to egypt every year, mostly to red sea resorts in sinai or in mainland egypt. click here for more from sky news. the associated press contributed to this report.

russian jet crashes in egypt's sinai peninsula, killing 224 people

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

5.0

66.0

8.0

6250.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

454.0

1.0

0.0

124.0

0.0

55.0

8.0

12.0

3.0

11.0

6.0

12.0

7.0

25.0

20.0

30.0

462.0

125.0

55.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

ed morrissey is senior editor at hotair.com, a columnist for the week and the fiscal times, and author of "going red: the two million voters who will elect the next president -- and how conservatives can win them." the views expressed are his own. traditionally, the spouses of major-party nominees get a speaking slot at the national convention to humanize the candidate. former presidents speak to remind the faithful of their history. bill clinton falls into both categories, but he had a far more difficult task in closing out the second night of the democratic convention in philadelphia on tuesday night; he needed to find a way to knit the party back together again. that's a tall order, and not just because the evening started with a walkout involving hundreds of bernie sanders delegates, according to one estimate . a generation has passed since the former president ascended to lead the democratic party as the first baby boomer major-party nominee, and then defeated the last of the world war ii presidents. back then, bill used his enormous natural political talent to fuse the new left with working class democrats, while "triangulating" on the republican agenda to carve a centrist path in governance. twenty-four years later, it's not bill clinton's democratic party. it might not be hillary clinton's democratic party. if it hadn't been for the establishment-protecting superdelegates and the democratic national convention's efforts to tip the primary scales in her favor, it would likely have been bernie sanders' democratic party -- and on tuesday in philadelphia, with hundreds of empty seats staring back at the stage, it certainly looked as though it was. twenty-four years later, bill clinton isn't the same, youthful physical force, either. at times he seemed frail and at one point a bit distracted. however, clinton proved that his political instincts haven't dimmed much at all. rather than take on the task of unifying through direct debate, clinton delivered a masterful soft-sell by walking through a personal history of his wife that tried to answer the divides in the party.

will bill clinton's best effort be enough?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

42.0

8.0

2113.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

154.0

0.0

45.0

0.0

19.0

2.0

0.0

3.0

1.0

0.0

7.0

5.0

17.0

157.0

45.0

19.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

breaking: black-clad gunmen stormed the paris offices of a satirical newspaper known for lampooning islamic radicals early wednesday, killing 12 and injuring as many as 15 before escaping, french officials said. as many as three kalashnikov-toting shooters were being sought after the attack at charlie hebdo, the newspaper known for challenging muslim terrorists with a 2011 caricature of prophet mohammed on its cover and which recently tweeted a cartoon of islamic state leader abu bakr al-baghdadi. two policemen and several journalists - including the cartoonist behind the newspaper's provocative images, were among the dead. <u+201c>we<u+2019>ve avenged the honor of the prophet!<u+201d> the killers shouted, according to witnesses who spoke to sky news. the gunmen spoke french without any accent, according to le monde the gunmen fled in a stolen car, and may have quickly ditched it and disappeared into the french capital's subway system, according to reports. a pedestrian has been injured by the terrorist<u+2019>s vehicle, and there has been a second shootout, according to le figaro. french president francois hollande branded the attack an act of terrorism and claimed that several other potential terror attacks had been thwarted "in recent weeks." hollande added that the newspaper had been threatened in the past and was already under police protection and surveillance. <u+201c>this is a terrorist attack, there is no doubt about it,<u+201d> hollande told reporters. elsewhere in france, newspaper offices, shopping centers, museums and stations were placed under police protection. officials said the men walked into the ground floor of the newspaper's offices and began shooting before making their way up to the first floor. as they fled the scene, they shot at arriving policemen. <u+201c>it was a real butchery,<u+201d> rocco contento, a spokesman for the unit<u+00e9> police union, told the guardian. benoit bringer, a journalist from the agency premieres lignes tele, whose offices are next door, told the telegraph he took refuge on the building's roof. "three policemen arrived by push bike, but they left naturally as the attackers were armed," he said. the newspaper's offices are in the trendy 11th arrondissement of paris, which includes posh restaurants and retail shops. charlie hebdo's offices were firebombed in 2011 after a spoof issue featuring a caricature of the prophet muhammad on its cover. nearly a year later, the magazine published crude muhammad caricatures, drawing denunciations around the muslim world. one of the dead in wednesday's attack was satirical cartoonist stephane charbonnier, the newspaper's editorial director and the artist behind the caricatures that offended jihadists. he was the subject of a fatwah, and there is a facebook page called "execute stephane charbonnier." british prime minister david cameron condemned the attack and vowed solidarity with france. "the murders in paris are sickening," cameron said. "we stand with the french people in the fight against terror and defending the freedom of the press." the associated press contributed to this report.

at least 12 dead in shooting at office of satirical french magazine

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

67.0

8.0

3083.0

0.0

1.0

6.0

0.0

188.0

0.0

66.0

0.0

21.0

12.0

2.0

4.0

16.0

2.0

9.0

3.0

16.0

21.0

17.0

194.0

66.0

21.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

it's debate season, where social media has brought political spin into real time, favoring speed over contemplation and risking a hardening of polarization. republican presidential candidate donald trump speaks with reporters in the spin room after the first presidential debate against democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton at hofstra university, on monday, sept. 26, 2016, in hempstead, n.y. the next big debate of the 2016 campaign is a day away, and pre-event <u+201c>spin<u+201d> is in full gear. here<u+2019>s how it goes: our guy is great, and your guy can<u+2019>t help your nominee, who<u+2019>s hopeless. reverse the names, rinse, and repeat. the spin will go on in real time via social media and email while gov. mike pence (r) of indiana and sen. tim kaine (d) of virginia duke it out tuesday night in the campaign<u+2019>s one and only vice presidential debate. and after it<u+2019>s over, efforts to sway the media narrative and, ultimately, public opinion will continue, perhaps for days. image-making has been around since the beginning of the republic, but in the era of social media, the art of spin may be changing in profound ways. consider walter podrazik<u+2019>s class on mass media and politics at the university of illinois at chicago. the day after the first trump-clinton debate, he asked his students what struck them about the spin. spin? they didn<u+2019>t need to stick around for that, they told mr. podrazik. <u+201c>they had already experienced it, via twitter, facebook, and other shared messaging, in real time, while the debate unfolded,<u+201d> he says. the <u+201c>before<u+201d> and <u+201c>after<u+201d> spinning is likely to be with us forever, but it<u+2019>s the <u+201c>during<u+201d> part that has changed the game, thanks to social media. for those who enjoy real-time commentary, experiencing a debate solely within one<u+2019>s own social-media ecosystem may point to a hardening of the ideological silos that people inhabit <u+2013> and perhaps a hardening of political polarization. <u+201c>research shows that we tend to interact on social media with people who are kind of like us,<u+201d> says david redlawsk, a political scientist at the university of delaware, newark, and author of the book <u+201c>how voters decide.<u+201d> <u+201c>we don<u+2019>t get overly challenged on our beliefs.<u+201d> that may be no different from old-style socializing <u+2013> at the rotary club or the women<u+2019>s club or the neighborhood corner hangout. but more than ever with major political events, social media has brought analysis and spin into real time, favoring speed over contemplation and setting in motion a narrative that can be hard to change. at the same time, social media can have a democratizing effect. anybody can jump in with a pithy comment or observation. perhaps podrazik<u+2019>s students are a harbinger of the future <u+2013> a world in which a presidential debate ends, and is immediately followed on tv by <u+2026> regularly scheduled programing, not pundits offering analysis and partisans trying to shape impressions of what just happened. and at the debate venue itself, maybe there<u+2019>s no more <u+201c>spin alley,<u+201d> the place where reporters go for a post-game scrum with candidate surrogates. <u+201c>no spin alley,<u+201d> in fact, was one recommendation last year by the annenberg working group on presidential debate reform. the spin room is a <u+201c>tired ritual<u+201d> that adds to the <u+201c>spectacle<u+201d> and cost of the debates, and takes away from the real purpose <u+2013> to get the candidates to hash out the issues of the day, the group<u+2019>s report said. and besides, the spin is already happening via email and twitter, the report added, echoing podrazik<u+2019>s students. the commission on presidential debates saw things differently, and kept the spin room <u+2013> and the live audience, and all the hoopla. which fit right into republican nominee donald trump<u+2019>s plan. as he did after many of the gop primary debates, mr. trump headed straight for the spin room after monday<u+2019>s debate, a first for a major-party presidential nominee. but that<u+2019>s trump, the one-time reality tv star. if there<u+2019>s a limelight, he wants to be in the middle of it <u+2013> no matter how well (or not) he did in a debate. so clearly, it<u+2019>s too soon to write off the old way of experiencing political debates. after all, a record-breaking 84 million people watched the first trump-clinton debate on tv <u+2013> and not everyone, of course, was simultaneously checking the blizzard of insta-punditry available online. <u+201c>tv is still more important than twitter and facebook,<u+201d> says david greenberg, author of the book <u+201c>republic of spin.<u+201d> <u+201c>that may not be true in 20 years<u+2026>. but for now, the average citizen interested in politics is going to watch the debates on a tv channel and will be at least somewhat interested in what the anchors and pundits have to say.<u+201d> many people, too, are curious what the candidate <u+201c>spinners<u+201d> have to say. and as long as the ratings are there, the networks will keep showing it <u+2013> <u+201c>not because we believe it lock, stock, and barrel, but because it<u+2019>s part of the process,<u+201d> says mr. greenberg, an associate professor of history and of journalism and media studies at rutgers university in new brunswick, n.j. viewers know that it<u+2019>s spin, he says, because it<u+2019>s presented as such. <u+201c>we<u+2019>re capable of arguing with it, criticizing it, and seeing through it, if it<u+2019>s phony or cynical, and applauding it if it<u+2019>s done in the service of the candidate we like and we think it<u+2019>s effective,<u+201d> greenberg says. <u+201c>so people aren<u+2019>t easily duped by these arguments.<u+201d> still, there are those who argue for just tuning out once a debate is over. <u+201c>i basically tell people after debates, shut the tv off,<u+201d> says kathleen hall jamieson, director of the annenberg public policy center at the university of pennsylvania in philadelphia. <u+201c>get off social media, and ask yourself, <u+2018>what was important to you? what did you learn that mattered to you?<u+2019> before all this other stuff crowds out your learning.<u+201d> of course, anyone who did so last monday night would have missed the unprecedented spectacle of trump and his entourage descending upon the spin room. <u+201c>all the online polls say i was the big winner,<u+201d> he boasted. that<u+2019>s about as spinny as it gets; instant online polls are notoriously unreliable. more-reputable polls showed hillary clinton winning big. and those arguing for the abolishment of the spin room might well find a reporters<u+2019> revolt on their hands. <u+201c>first came don king, the boxing promoter, clutching an israeli flag and wearing a button with donald trump<u+2019>s face the size of a sandwich," he reports. "then omarosa, the apprentice star, arrived in a low-cut dress and took selfies with the fans. mark cuban <u+2013> the businessman, dallas mavericks owner, and clinton supporter <u+2013> recounted the joys of sitting in the front row of the debate.<u+201d> perhaps it was more side show than real show. though some actual information was imparted. mr. cuban said he<u+2019>s not running for president. trump said he felt the moderator, nbc<u+2019>s lester holt, had done a <u+201c>great job<u+201d> (a view that soon changed). and hordes of campaign surrogates and party officials made their points to reporters, the standard fare of any spin room. for reporters who have a hard time getting the campaigns to return phone calls, it<u+2019>s a chance to grab facetime and a comment from a harried aide. by the next day, the story had already evolved. alicia machado, the venezuelan beauty queen whom trump had fat-shamed 20 years ago <u+2013> an episode raised by clinton during the debate <u+2013> became the center of attention, and remained there for days. debate-night spin was soon old news. now the machado story dominates memories of the debate, just as khizr khan<u+2019>s speech at the democratic national convention about his slain soldier-son (and trump<u+2019>s subsequent attacks on the khan family) became a defining moment of that event. as with the conventions, presidential debates have built up a lore of their own. and on occasion, post-debate commentary has shifted the perceptions of the outcome. in 1976, when president ford debated georgia gov. jimmy carter, initial polls suggested mr. ford had won. then the media highlighted ford<u+2019>s remark about <u+201c>no soviet domination of eastern europe,<u+201d> and mr. carter and the media hammered him on it. ford soon had to respond, and is forever remembered as having misspoken at that debate. today, perceptions in social media of how trump and clinton did in their first debate <u+2013> that clinton trounced him <u+2013> tracked with the assessments of pundits and polls. <u+201c>it was kind of hard to come to any other conclusion,<u+201d> says greenberg. <u+201c>one does have to trust in free speech and<u+00a0>the ability of people to make judgments." by week<u+2019>s end, trump had engaged in a sort of anti-spin via social media <u+2013> a middle-of-the-night tweet storm attacking machado that has only harmed trump<u+2019>s image further. and therein lies the irony in the role of social media in the 2016 campaign. no amount of spinning <u+2013> on social media or otherwise <u+2013> can undo what trump does to himself when he decides to rage on twitter at 3 o<u+2019>clock in the morning. then quickly enough, another big story pops: trump tax documents leaked to the new york times showing a $916 million loss in 1995 that would have allowed him to avoid paying taxes for 18 years. and it<u+2019>s on to another spin cycle <u+2013> both the old-fashioned kind and on twitter.

in era of trump, spin cycle gets a makeover

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

8.0

43.0

8.0

9178.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

639.0

0.0

161.0

0.0

79.0

15.0

22.0

5.0

9.0

11.0

10.0

33.0

24.0

56.0

641.0

161.0

79.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the latest revelations on hillary's emails again point to one thing <u+2192> she is disqualified from being president. https://t.co/wni9lmsppr

clinton camp in damage-control mode over 'top secret' emails

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

60.0

8.0

135.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

13.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

16.0

2.0

0.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

fresh off a new york primary win that all but gave her the democratic presidential nomination, hillary clinton channeled a little bernie sanders on thursday, railing against big banks while at the same time side-stepping one of sanders' campaign demands to release transcripts of her wall street speeches. speaking during a <u+201c>good morning america<u+201d> town hall after her 58-42 drubbing of sanders in tuesday<u+2019>s primary, clinton said the two candidates generally agreed on many issues, and she used rhetoric reminiscent of the vermont senator to drive her point home. <u+201c>i know that we both <u+2013> senator sanders and i <u+2013> we want to tackle inequality,<u+201d> clinton said. <u+201c>we want to raise the minimum wage. we want to make sure that people who are putting our economy at risk are reined in, regulated. <u+201c>no bank is too big to fail, no executive too powerful to jail. we share those views.<u+201d> but many of clinton<u+2019>s critics, particularly on the left, question her authenticity on the topic of income inequality. at issue is a series of highly-paid speeches she made to security firms and banks, such as goldman sachs, after her tenure as secretary of state. the content of those speeches has remained private, and sanders has called on clinton to release them. clinton has refused. <u+201c>now there<u+2019>s a new request to release transcripts of speeches that have been given,<u+201d> clinton said. <u+201c>when everybody agrees to do that, i will as well. because i think it<u+2019>s important we all abide by the same standard.<u+201d> clinton said she didn<u+2019>t regret giving the controversial speeches. <u+201c>i, like everybody who served as secretary of state, have a unique perspective,<u+201d> she said, citing colin powell and condoleezza rice as former secretaries of state who have made speeches after leaving office. <u+201c>when you leave the secretary of state office, people from all perspectives want to know, <u+2018>what do you think<u+2019>s going on in the world?<u+2019> i think that<u+2019>s actually a useful conversation. like all my predecessors i gave speeches to a wide variety of groups and it was predominantly about what<u+2019>s going on in the world.<u+201d>

clinton rails against big banks, but refuses to release wall street speeches

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

76.0

8.0

2070.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

137.0

1.0

0.0

36.0

0.0

10.0

4.0

6.0

1.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

4.0

11.0

9.0

13.0

142.0

37.0

10.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

jeb bush<u+2019>s resignation from the presidential race has already set off a chain reaction within the g.o.p., with the huffington post reporting mitt romney is set to endorse marco rubio following his strong second-place finish in saturday<u+2019>s south carolina primary. and, according to politico, the pressure is already on for bush to do the same. though details of romney<u+2019>s endorsement are <u+201c>still being worked out<u+201d> as of this morning, sources tell the huffington post that romney has been <u+201c>eager to provide his backing to rubio for days<u+201d> but hesitated out of respect for bush. his endorsement could come before tuesday<u+2019>s g.o.p. caucuses in nevada, which dedicated romneyists will recall were twice won by romney himself. for his part, though, rubio doesn<u+2019>t believe the romney endorsement is coming anytime soon. <u+201c>well, that report is false,<u+201d> he told cnn of the romney rumors on sunday. <u+201c>i have no reason to believe that he<u+2019>s anywhere near endorsing anyone. we would love to have his endorsement, but there<u+2019>s nothing forthcoming. i don<u+2019>t know where those reports are coming from, but they<u+2019>re false.<u+201d> should romney indeed endorse rubio, his backing would make sense, as he and rubio have a history: rubio once made romney<u+2019>s vp shortlist, and rubio once chilled at romney<u+2019>s new hampshire vacation home on the fourth of july, which is the most republican sentence that has ever been written. romney<u+2019>s seal of approval is key in that it suggests establishment republican leaders are finally ready to <u+201c>coalesce<u+201d> around rubio, rallying together to defeat the waking nightmare that is donald trump<u+2019>s current front-running status. on the jeb-endorsing-rubio front, things are less clear-cut. the two fellow floridians spent months savaging each other on the campaign trail, and bush dropped out of the race because rubio essentially destroyed him in south carolina. bush needs a few days to cool off, call his mom, and secure his invite to romney<u+2019>s new hampshire vacation home before he<u+2019>s ready to address the florida politicos who are chomping at the bit to know whether he<u+2019>ll <u+201c>endorse the man he long called a friend<u+201d> in public but apparently lambastes in private<u+2014>sometimes in <u+201c>strikingly personal overtones,<u+201d> according to politico. if bush decides not to endorse rubio, it will mark a significant political rift in florida<u+2014>a state where, it should be mentioned, trump remains far ahead in the polls. the clock is ticking for both possible endorsements: floridians are already voting by absentee ballot for the march 15 primary, which means somebody needs to tell them who the hell to vote for before it<u+2019>s too late and trump wins the nomination. <u+201c>no one knows what<u+2019>s going to happen,<u+201d> an anonymous florida house republican told politico. <u+201c>there are a lot of hard feelings. we<u+2019>ll have to wait till the dust settles. make that, the dirt. once the dirt settles.<u+201d>

mitt romney could soon endorse marco rubio. will jeb join him?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

62.0

8.0

2852.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

193.0

1.0

0.0

58.0

1.0

0.0

19.0

4.0

15.0

5.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

14.0

17.0

27.0

198.0

59.0

20.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

ashton carter is sworn in as obama's 4th defense secretary the cold and snow that walloped washington overnight didn't stop ashton carter from reporting for work tuesday. carter was sworn in as the 25th u.s. secretary of defense after starting his day with meetings at the pentagon. sworn in by vice president biden at the white house tuesday, carter formally replaces chuck hagel, becoming president obama's fourth defense chief in the past six years. carter's debut at the pentagon this morning was briefly interrupted when his wife, stephanie, "slipped and fell on the icy pavement," the ap reports. "she laughed it off, and officials indicated she was not injured." in taking the pentagon's top job, carter rounds out a career that has included several stints with the department of defense, from leading the acquisitions unit to being deputy defense secretary. npr's john burnett gives an overview of carter's biography: "ashton carter is 60 years old; he's a yale graduate and was a rhodes scholar in theoretical physics at oxford. he never served in the military; he was a long-time faculty member of the kennedy school of government at harvard, and he's the author or co-author of 11 books." as carter takes his post, he inherits a crowded list of important priorities for the department of defense: "carter is expected to testify on capitol hill soon about the defense department's annual budget request that was released in early february. he'll be setting the stage for a big budget battle as the pentagon seeks $534 billion for next year, significantly more than the $499 billion spending cap imposed by the law known as sequestration."

ashton carter is sworn in as obama's 4th defense secretary

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

58.0

8.0

1656.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

93.0

0.0

36.0

0.0

10.0

3.0

9.0

1.0

5.0

1.0

4.0

0.0

13.0

9.0

14.0

95.0

36.0

10.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

mel robbins is a cnn commentator, legal analyst, best-selling author and keynote speaker. in 2014, she was named outstanding news talk-radio host by the gracie awards. this op-ed includes language that some might find offensive. the opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. in what will either go down in history as a brilliant strategy shift or an embarrassing, losing gambit, gop opponents john kasich and ted cruz have announced they are joining forces to take down their common rival, donald trump. trump's response was fast and "on brand." in a tweet he wrote that it was desperation for the two to "collude in order to keep me from getting the republican nomination." wow, just announced that lyin' ted and kasich are going to collude in order to keep me from getting the republican nomination. desperation! for months pundits and politicians have speculated that there would be backroom dealings aimed at denying trump a first-ballot win and a brokered republican convention this summer. that speculation is over; there is going to be a public brawl. you thought politics couldn't get more interesting, nasty or sink any lower. this is like two parents divorcing and begging the kids to pick favorites. it's public, it's ugly, it's confusing -- and it's going to blow up in kasich's, cruz's and the gop's face. what on earth is the republican party doing? once again, on all things strategy, trump is 100% correct. is this an act of too-late desperation? yup. is it collusion? textbook. and how are cruz and kasich joining forces? "game of thrones" style: they are trading states to consolidate delegates, in hope of beating their common enemy, trump. kasich is telling his voters to back cruz in indiana, and likewise, cruz will not compete against kasich in oregon and new mexico. there are three research-backed reasons why this won't work: 1. research proves people like to back a winner. by joining forces, cruz and kasich aren't becoming the underdogs conservatives root for, they're highlighting the fact that trump is the inevitable nominee. that will throw more independents into his camp and push the undecideds. being the perceived winner is a huge advantage. by joining forces, cruz and kasich aren't becoming the underdogs conservatives root for, they're highlighting the fact that trump is the inevitable nominee. that will throw more independents into his camp and push the undecideds. being the perceived winner is a huge advantage. example? on kickstarter, your odds of succeeding are 10 times higher once you reach about half your funding goal. trump is already there with 845 delegates of the 1,237 that he needs. if you like kasich, you will find reason to dislike cruz. and vice versa. if i'm a kasich fan i won't suddenly feel good voting for cruz because my mind is made up: i have already decided kasich is the best candidate. it will take a rallying of uncontrollable variables to make sure that voters in the states the two candidates are divvying up will stick to the plan, all biases aside. there's nothing simple about this kasich-cruz alliance. it translates to voters like this: "so let me get this straight, if i'm a kasich supporter and if i live in indiana, i'm supposed to vote for cruz (who i don't like), in the hopes that we defeat trump and in the hopes that kasich will then defeat cruz (who i just voted for) in the primary? huh? i don't think so, and now i am starting to lose interest." plus, when it's time to vote, voters may wonder: "is everyone else really going to do it?" "will this hurt [kasich or cruz's] chances in the convention?" moreover, unless cruz and kasich are hammering this on the airways at every single stop, it's not going to trickle down to the masses. by all appearances they are not instructing voters to do anything. kasich was campaigning in pennsylvania this morning and, from what i watched, he was using the national air time coverage in a diner to talk about leg pressing 325 pounds, not pushing this cruz-kasich alliance. heck, as he shook hands with diners, he didn't seem to be actually asking people to vote for him. he might want to start doing that. remember, this is a primary and people are pretty focused on whom they like. if this were a national campaign strategy to unite republicans against the democrats, voters would likely be more willing to vote for people they don't like based on their party ties. instead, this gop "anyone-but-trump" strategy will hand the election to hillary clinton, as it games the system, demonizes trump, antagonizes his supporters--and fractures the party even further. apparently the gop does not want to face the reality that it has become so out of touch on social policies that it can't attract moderates. much of the gop's rhetoric scares people; it doesn't even try to attract democrats and can't attract independents. trump is succeeding at all of the above because he is uniting people on one simple belief: politicians are a phony, stuck up lot.

can cruz-kasich strategy really stop trump?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

7.0

43.0

8.0

5027.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

369.0

0.0

92.0

0.0

39.0

15.0

16.0

10.0

9.0

10.0

9.0

15.0

25.0

27.0

370.0

92.0

39.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

<u+201c>the one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world, and there<u+2019>s some steps we could take, not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that they don<u+2019>t happen as frequently.<u+201d> <u+201c>with respect to planned parenthood, obviously, my heart goes out to the families of those impacted. <u+2026> i say this every time we<u+2019>ve got one of these mass shootings: this just doesn<u+2019>t happen in other countries.<u+201d> <u+201c>we are the only advanced country on earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months.<u+201d> <u+201c>you don<u+2019>t see murder on this kind of scale, with this kind of frequency, in any other advanced nation on earth.<u+201d> <u+2014> obama, speech at u.s. conference of mayors, june 19, 2015 <u+201c>at some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. it doesn<u+2019>t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. and it is in our power to do something about it.<u+201d> <u+2014> obama, statement on the shooting in charleston, s.c., june 18, 2015 readers asked us to fact-check obama<u+2019>s broad statement at the dec. 1 paris news conference, that <u+201c>mass shootings just [don<u+2019>t] happen in other countries.<u+201d> critics pushed back on that comment immediately, noting that paris <u+2014> where obama was speaking <u+2014> had just experienced a mass shooting. mass shootings do happen in other countries, and that statement<u+00a0>clearly<u+00a0>is false, worthy of four pinocchios. then, in response to the dec. 2, 2015, mass shootings in san bernardino, calif., obama used more specific language that clarified what he was referring to. indeed, he has made versions of this claim after other recent mass shootings. so we explored the relevant data and definitions, what exactly obama is referring to, and the caveats associated with comparing mass shootings across countries. here<u+2019>s an important caveat to establish: there is no consistent definition of <u+201c>mass shooting<u+201d> or <u+201c>mass public shooting<u+201d> across countries, or even among researchers who track them within the united states. the fbi does not officially define <u+201c>mass shooting<u+201d> and does not use the term in uniform crime report records. in the 1980s, the fbi established a definition for <u+201c>mass murder<u+201d> as <u+201c>four or more victims slain, in one event, in one location,<u+201d> and the offender is not included in the victim count if the shooter committed suicide or was killed in a justifiable homicide, according to a congressional research service report detailing the definitions. after<u+00a0>the 2012 shootings in newtown, conn., congress defined <u+201c>mass killings<u+201d> to mean <u+201c>three or more killings in a single incident.<u+201d> some media outlets and researchers still use the four-fatality definition, and have adopted<u+00a0>the crs definitions of <u+201c>mass shooting<u+201d> and <u+201c>mass public shooting.<u+201d><u+00a0>other researchers include injuries in the victim count. some researchers include acts of terrorism, drug deals gone wrong or gang conflict in their research. others don<u+2019>t. some media reports, such as those of our wonkblog colleagues, and advocates use a broader definition used by the mass shooting tracker maintained via reddit, an online forum. in this case, mass shootings are incidents in which four or more people, including the gunman, are killed or injured by gunfire. by this count, the san bernardino shooting is the 355th mass shooting this year.<u+00a0>(in comparison, crs counted 317 mass shooting incidents from 1999 to 2013.) an fbi spokesman said such counts of shootings to include injuries would be categorized as a <u+201c>mass casualty<u+201d> event. while obama incorrectly said during the paris news conference that mass shootings <u+201c>just [don<u+2019>t] happen in other countries,<u+201d> he often has clarified that he is referring to the <u+201c>frequency<u+201d> of shootings in the united states compared to advanced countries. and his use of <u+201c>frequency<u+201d> appears to be the actual count<u+00a0>of shootings in the united states. white house officials did not say what obama means by <u+201c>frequency,<u+201d> but they sent several news sources to support his claims. they noted how the united states has more gun violence, in general, than other countries, as reported by the washington post and vox.<u+00a0>(the fact checker has examined<u+00a0>obama<u+2019>s rhetoric on gun homicides in the past.) the white house also pointed to research by university of alabama criminal justice professor adam lankford, who declared mass shootings the <u+201c>dark side of american exceptionalism.<u+201d> the paper is not yet published officially, but his findings have been covered widely in the news<u+00a0>and have been used to support obama<u+2019>s argument. lankford ran statistical analyses of the total number of public mass shooters per country from 1966 to 2012 in 171 countries, and controlled for the national population size. he found that the united states had far more mass shooters (90 shooters in the 46 years) than the other countries, which averaged 1.7 public mass shooter per country. his research excluded gang-related shootings, drive-by shootings, hostage-taking incidents, robberies and acts of genocide or terrorism. (lankford requested we not distribute his unpublished study and declined to provide the underlying data, citing ongoing research.) lankford said he looked at the actual count of shooters rather than the per capita rate of incidents because mass shootings are rare events, and small populations of other countries can inflate the rate. he said looking at rates of incidents are <u+201c>wildly misleading<u+201d> <u+2014> for example, due to the umpqua college shooting in roseburg, ore., the city<u+2019>s public mass shooter rate (number of offenders per capita) would be higher than most american cities because of that attack. but the rate would reflect roseburg<u+2019>s tiny population, and not necessarily mean that roseburg is at higher risk in the future, he said. rates need to be interpreted with caution, lankford said. one rate that he calculated was between the united states and the european union, <u+201c>because the populations are so large for each that the rates become more reliable. the number of public mass shooters per capita (the <u+2018>rate<u+2019>) for the u.s. was approximately five times the per capita rate for the european union.<u+201d> state university of new york-oswego public justice professor jaclyn schildkraut and texas state university researcher h. jaymi elsass have been tracking<u+00a0>mass shooting incidents in 14 countries from 2000 to 2014. they compared the united states to 11 other countries (canada, finland, china, britain, australia, france, germany, mexico, norway and switzerland), and found the united states had a lower rate of mass shooting fatalities per 100,000 people than norway, finland and switzerland. other than china, these countries were all member countries of the organization for economic cooperation and development, the common measure for <u+201c>advanced<u+201d> countries. but the actual count of incidents showed the united states had 133 shootings during the period, compared to a maximum of six in each of<u+00a0>the other countries. in their comparison of the united states to 19 other, mostly non-oecd countries, lebanon rated higher than the united states in mass shooting fatality rate. they excluded shootings related to gang violence or targeted militant or terrorist activity. (their breakdowns are embedded at the end of this fact-check.) there are caveats to these data. the researchers also looked at mass shootings that resulted in multiple injuries, not just fatalities. this could have driven the number of shootings up, especially for the united states. for comparison, mother jones<u+2019>s mass shootings database of four or more fatalities from 1982 to october 2015 lists 72 shootings. plus, the schildkraut/elsass list is not exhaustive; they are still compiling the list of shootings in other countries, and it does not include all of the shootings that may fit their definition. it<u+2019>s also important to note that norway, finland and switzerland all had one or two incidents each that left multiple dead or injured. the united states, in contrast, had 133 shootings that killed or injured multiple victims, according to their research. for example, a single 2011 attack in norway, a country of about 5 million people, killed at least 67 people. on a per capita basis, that equates to about 5,000 victims in the united states. in contrast, there were at least four mass shootings that killed four or more victims in the united states in 2011, but it did not add up to the number of people who died in norway, schildkraut said. (politifact used this research to rate obama<u+2019>s claims from june <u+201c>mostly false.<u+201d> the white house sent us an article disputing that rating.) schildkraut said it<u+2019>s <u+201c>absolutely not fair<u+201d> to count the sheer number of incidents of shootings, which shows the united states ranks far higher than any other country. plus, comparing shootings across countries is an apples-to-oranges comparison, because gun policies, politics and attitudes are unique to each country, she said. john r. lott jr., a gun rights analyst who has tracked mass shooting rates in the united states and european countries,<u+00a0>said obama<u+2019>s references to <u+201c>frequency<u+201d> are problematic and inaccurate: <u+201c>if you are going to compare the u.s. to someplace else, if you are going to compare it to small countries, you have to adjust for population. alternatively, compare the u.s. to europe as a whole.<u+201d> comparing to the u.s. to europe (including oecd and non-oced countries) from 2009 to 2015 shows the rate of mass shootings in the united states and europe are about the same, lott said. (lott uses the fbi definition of four or more killings in a public space, excludes gang or crime-related activity, and includes acts identified as terrorism.) astute readers might notice how lankford and lott both compared the united states to grouped<u+00a0>european countries, but their conclusions are vastly different. lott says the rate is about the same, while lankford says the rate is five times higher in the united states. how is this possible?<u+00a0>the researchers are looking at different sets of<u+00a0>years and different sets of countries. (lott looked at europe as a whole; lankford at the european union.) lott uses a broader measure of mass shootings than lankford does. lankford<u+00a0>looks<u+00a0>at the number of shooters; lott uses<u+00a0>fatalities and shooting incidents.<u+00a0>this is an example of how the data and definition can be adjusted to show different findings about<u+00a0>mass shootings, even using a per capita rate. the most accurate way that obama has described shootings, lott said, was his statement after the oregon shooting: <u+201c>we are the only advanced country on earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months.<u+201d> still, lott added: <u+201c>i don<u+2019>t know what sense it makes to say, <u+2018>i have an area of 320 million people, and i<u+2019>m going to compare it to 8 million, or even 40 million people. i would expect, just out of randomness, to have more of whatever event to happen in a country of 320 million people.<u+201d> but john roman, senior fellow in the justice policy center at the urban institute, agreed with the underlying message of obama<u+2019>s statement, regarding the prevalence of mass shooting incidents in the united states. frequency is <u+201c>about how often something happens, not about how many people were affected by any single event,<u+201d> such as the 2011 norway shootings, he said. <u+201c>yes, it does happen in other places. but boy, does it happen a lot in the u.s., and boy, does it happen really frequently,<u+201d> roman said. <u+201c>and it happens without cause, without reason, without some ideological backbone.<u+201d> whenever a mass shooting occurs, a flurry of infographics floods social media, a range of facts are cited, and rhetoric swirls amid developing news. it doesn<u+2019>t help that obama uses inconsistent and sometimes vague language to describe mass shootings in the united states compared to other countries. at times, his description was wholly misleading and inaccurate (mass shootings <u+201c>just [don<u+2019>t] happen in other countries<u+201d>); other times, his description was quite accurate (<u+201c>we are the only advanced country on earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months<u+201d>); and other times, it seemed to be somewhere in the middle (the <u+201c>pattern now of mass shooting<u+00a0>that has no parallel anywhere else in the world<u+201d>). quantitative measures of cross-comparative crime statistics, especially where the crime is not consistently defined (i.e., <u+201c>mass shooting<u+201d>), usually end up being apples-to-oranges comparisons. (we dug deeply into cross-comparative measures of the u.s. criminal justice system to other countries in the world, and it wasn<u+2019>t easy.) <u+00a0>it<u+2019>s not just about population size, but also about differences in gun culture, policies and politics in each country. how can one compare israel (where there are government-issued guns) to china (with stringent gun laws) to the united states (with second amendment rights)? we are sensitive to the tragedy of each mass shooting. our goal is to provide the underlying data and definitions <u+2013> which show there are numerous ways to talk about mass shootings in the united states, and around the world. we urge the president to be more consistent and precise in describing mass shootings in the country<u+00a0>(as he did after the oregon shooting) rather than using vague or misleading phrases <u+2014> which overall earn him two pinocchios. send us facts to check by filling out this form follow the fact checker on twitter and friend us on facebook

obama<u+2019>s inconsistent claim on the <u+2018>frequency<u+2019> of mass shootings in the u.s. compared to other countries

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

9.0

103.0

8.0

13457.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

909.0

3.0

0.0

258.0

0.0

121.0

24.0

17.0

11.0

26.0

9.0

21.0

6.0

46.0

39.0

56.0

915.0

261.0

121.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

a federal appeals court on monday ruled against president obama<u+2019>s plan to shield up to 5<u+00a0>million undocumented immigrants from deportation, dealing another blow to the administration<u+2019>s effort to remake immigration laws and likely setting up a final battle in the supreme court next year. the 2-to-1 ruling from a panel of the u.s. court of appeals for the 5th circuit in new orleans <u+2014> to uphold a lower court<u+2019>s injunction that blocks the administration from implementing a <u+00ad>deferred-action program <u+2014> was not unexpected. it came several months after the same court had denied an emergency stay request from the justice department. the decision means that one of obama<u+2019>s signature immigration initiatives remains on hold nearly a year after he announced it through executive action and leaves in doubt whether the program will begin before his term expires in january 2017. republican presidential candidates have pledged to dismantle the program, creating additional urgency within the obama administration to get it started. <u+201c>the president must follow the rule of law, just like everybody else,<u+201d> texas attorney general ken paxton said in a statement monday. texas led a coalition of 26 states that brought the lawsuit. <u+201c>throughout this process, the obama administration has aggressively disregarded the constitutional limits on executive power.<u+201d> immigration advocates, who feared time was running out to get the case before the high court next year, called on the administration to appeal quickly and maintained confidence that the supreme court would issue a favorable ruling by next june. <u+201c>every single day that goes by means further delays,<u+201d> said marielena hincapi<u+00e9>, executive director of the national immigration law center, who has closely followed the case. <u+201c>once the green light is given [by the supreme court], it will make it that much more difficult for any administration, republican or democrat, to undo the program.<u+201d> a white house official said the administration strongly disagreed with the court decision and was reviewing its legal options. <u+201c>this lawsuit is preventing people who have been part of our communities for years from working on the books, contributing to our economy by paying taxes on that work, and being held accountable,<u+201d> said the official, who was not authorized to speak on the record. there are an estimated 11<u+00a0>million immigrants living in the country illegally. after house republicans blocked a comprehensive immigration bill last year, obama announced plans to use executive action to dramatically expand a 2012 program that deferred the deportations of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who entered the united states illegally as children. under the new program, the undocumented parents of u.s. citizens would be eligible to remain and apply for three-year work permits, provided they had not committed other crimes and lived in the country at least five years. but 26 states, most with republican governors, sued to block the program, arguing they would incur fees associated with the issuance of driver<u+2019>s licenses to the immigrants and asserting the obama administration had failed to abide by federal rulemaking requirements. in february, a u.s. district court judge in brownsville, tex., ruled that the program could not get underway as he continued to review whether the program was constitutional, stopping it just days before the department of homeland security was to begin accepting applications. the 5th circuit panel that ruled monday included two judges <u+2014> jerry smith and jennifer elrod, both appointed by republican presidents <u+2014> who had ruled against the administration<u+2019>s stay request in may and maintained their stances. a third judge, carolyn dineen king, appointed by president jimmy carter, was not on the earlier panel, and she dissented monday, ruling in favor of the obama administration. in a 135-page decision, smith wrote that district judge andrew hanen<u+2019>s decision in february to issue an injunction on obama<u+2019>s program was <u+201c>impressive and thorough.<u+201d> the appeals court dismissed the administration<u+2019>s argument that texas lacked legal standing to challenge a federal immigration program. <u+201c>today<u+2019>s ruling is a slap in the face to the good people in america who have also been waiting for congress and the courts to act with justice, humanity and common sense on the issue of immigration reform,<u+201d> said angelica salas, executive director for the coalition for humane immigrant rights of los angeles.

appeals court rules against obama<u+2019>s immigration plan

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

52.0

8.0

4470.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

345.0

0.0

74.0

0.0

37.0

9.0

11.0

4.0

16.0

7.0

28.0

17.0

38.0

350.0

74.0

37.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the big, gray air force plane carrying the president<u+2019>s limousines flew low, slow and loud over this small farming city, shaking buildings and barns. the noise from its engines rattled the doors at the cattleman<u+2019>s casino, where the owner was hanging an american flag that she had bought that morning, and the windows at the midwest bible camp, where the pastor and his wife hadn<u+2019>t voted for the president but still put up a sign asking god to bless him. it stopped farmers on their tractors and the sisters at the mother of god monastery who dashed up to the roof to watch it pass. it surprised the mayor, who was in the middle of an interview with a radio station 100 miles away in sioux falls. <u+201c>check that out,<u+201d> he said last thursday when he spotted the plane through his office window, although no one listening to his voice on the radio was close enough to know what he was talking about. hundreds of watertown residents were rushing to the airport so they could see it up close and on the ground. in 36 hours, the president would be coming to this city, only the fifth-largest in south dakota, to deliver the commencement address at the local community college. if all went as planned, he would be on the ground for only two hours. there<u+2019>s hardly a state in america that<u+2019>s more hostile to obama than south dakota, where the president<u+2019>s disapproval rating hovers around 70<u+00a0>percent and the local republican party last summer passed a resolution calling for his impeachment. but even in an era of almost unprecedented political polarization, people still want to see their president. that was especially true in watertown, which had never hosted a sitting commander in chief. the cargo plane landed and rolled to a stop. inside the tiny commuter airport terminal, there were three empty couches and a television playing fox news. outside, a light rain was falling, and about 300 people were standing along the airport fence line. a teacher had brought her nursery school class. farther down the metal fence line were locals who had skipped out of work for the morning and retirees balanced on wooden canes. <u+201c>this is definitely not his president,<u+201d> said laurie brandriet keller, gesturing to her husband. <u+201c>i<u+2019>m amazed how excited he<u+2019>s been these last few days.<u+201d> people in the crowd shot video with their cellphones and wondered how the monstrous airplane even stayed in the air. <u+201c>it looked like it was dragging, just about ready to fall,<u+201d> said vernard cordell, 71, who thought the thunderous noise was some sort of farm equipment rolling past his house. then he realized it was coming from the sky, and he sped to the airport. a ramp dropped, and out of the plane came bomb-sniffing dogs, trucks and vans. there were secret service agents with guns. last off were the two presidential limousines, shiny and black, each bearing flags with the presidential seal. the crowd edged closer; hands gripped the fence. the vehicles, including the limousines, formed up into a loose motorcade and drove to a local gas station just outside of the airport, where they filled up with fuel. most of the crowd followed. harley waterman, who had shut down his pawn shop to race out the airfield, lingered by the fence line, still staring at the plane, a raw expression of american power. the actual presidential visit friday was still more than a day away. <u+201c>just look at the size of that thing,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>a once-in-a-lifetime deal.<u+201d> for the vast majority of watertown<u+2019>s 21,000 residents, the only chance to see the president would come as his motorcade sped past them on the way to his lake area technical institute commencement address. the motorcade route was less than four miles and not likely to last much longer than 10<u+00a0>minutes. it was also supposed to be secret, known only to local police, the president<u+2019>s security detail and the mayor. jerry elshere, 70, a retired middle school assistant principal, stood along 10th avenue, about a mile from the community college. in the 1920s, his parents had driven 400<u+00a0>miles to see calvin coolidge, who had gone trout fishing one summer in the black hills of south dakota. now he and his three grandchildren were hoping to catch a glimpse of obama. he<u+2019>d picked the spot based on a tip from a neighbor and the presence of a local policeman. the motorcade wouldn<u+2019>t pass for at least another hour, but already a small crowd was forming on the sidewalk. they huddled under blankets, carried signs and set up lawn chairs. <u+201c>i know, but i can<u+2019>t say,<u+201d> said the lone policeman, a smile slipping across his face. most in the crowd, which was now three or four people deep, were die-hard republicans and had little love for this president. <u+201c>i wonder if he<u+2019>s a christian sometimes,<u+201d> said kristi maas, 47, who owns a small hair salon in town. just the thought was <u+201c>scary<u+201d> to her, she said. <u+201c>he wants to take prayer out of everything. .<u+2009>.<u+2009>. isn<u+2019>t this country supposed to be based on religion?<u+201d> heads nodded around her. the president<u+2019>s plane landed about 30<u+00a0>minutes late. someone tuned a radio to a local station where the dj, who usually announces the watertown high school basketball games, was doing a play-by-play of obama<u+2019>s arrival. the president was coming down the air force one steps, the announcer said. he was shaking hands with the mayor and climbing into one of the motorcade<u+2019>s two black limousines. now, the motorcade was rolling. <u+201c>is the president coming down this road?<u+201d> elshere<u+2019>s granddaughter asked him. a few minutes passed, and the policeman<u+2019>s walkie-talkie, which had been quiet, started to buzz. <u+201c>everyone needs to back up,<u+201d> the officer said. the crowd took three steps from the road and then surged forward again at the sight of the two black limousines shining in the afternoon sun. just before the president<u+2019>s car slowed to make the turn by the cluster of scraggly pine trees on 10th avenue, they raised their cellphones and started to record. from where maas was standing, the light was just perfect. she could see obama smiling and waving through the tinted window for three or maybe four full seconds .<u+2009>.<u+2009>. and then he was gone. <u+201c>oh my gosh, he waved at me!<u+201d> maas said. <u+201c>that was so cool!<u+201d> her cellphone rang with a call from her daughter. <u+201c>i just got waved at by the president!<u+201d> maas said. <u+201c>yeah, he waved at us. he didn<u+2019>t roll down the window, but i could see him smiling as plain as day. he was waving at me!<u+201d> the crowd drifted slowly away. as she walked back to her car with her sister, maas was already reconsidering her opinion of the man who minutes earlier she had believed maybe wasn<u+2019>t a christian <u+2014> the man she worried was ruining the country. <u+201c>i believe in respecting our president,<u+201d> her sister said. <u+201c>you only hear some of the stories about him, not all of them,<u+201d> maas agreed. <u+201c>he<u+2019>s a husband and a father. he has the same feelings we do.<u+201d> the president<u+2019>s commencement address aired live on all of watertown<u+2019>s major television and radio stations. at the cattleman<u+2019>s casino, a two-room bar on the north side of town, all six tvs were tuned to the speech. the smell of cigarettes, stale beer and cow manure from the auction barn across the street hung heavy in air. about 30<u+00a0>people were clustered around the big flatscreen at the front of the bar. for the first, and probably only time in their lives, they were listening to a president talk about their town, their friends and their relatives. stephanie burchatz, who runs a small construction company with her dad and brother, was sipping a $2.50 bud light. her eyes were trained on the president. she had spent most of the day laying new sidewalks, curbs and gutters for the city. now she was listening as the president talked about the girlfriend of one of her employees, a single mom who had gone back to lake area tech to get an associate<u+2019>s degree. <u+201c>by age<u+00a0>20, she was working as a waitress, supporting two beautiful baby girls, lizzie and farah, on her own,<u+201d> the president was saying. <u+201c>this is good,<u+201d> she was saying. <u+201c>this is really, really good.<u+201d> the president was reading the speech <u+2014> his seventh public address of the week <u+2014> off of a teleprompter. but to the people in the bar it seemed as if he were telling their stories from memory. when obama was done, the bar erupted in applause. a woman sitting in the smoking room by the video poker machines had begun crying. <u+201c>most of the time i could care less what he<u+2019>s talking about,<u+201d> said jason hollatz, 37-year-old farmer. <u+201c>are all obama<u+2019>s speeches like that?<u+201d> her brother glanced back at the television where obama, his speech finished, was accepting a lake area tech jacket from one of the new graduates. suddenly his mouth fell open. <u+201c>that<u+2019>s the kid who ran over my mailbox last week,<u+201d> he yelled. one last look obama<u+2019>s motorcade raced back through town to the airport, where a crowd of about 200 was gathering near the southern end of the runway to catch one last glimpse of the presidential plane. there were lawyers, farmers, construction workers and the custodian from the nearby elementary school and his family. an elderly woman balanced on her walker. the temperature had started to drop, and the wind was kicking up. a youth baseball team cut short its practice and wandered over. the runway at the watertown airport was too small to accommodate the president<u+2019>s normal plane, so the white house had switched to a smaller 757, which taxied to the far end of the runway and gunned its engines. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s going to get loud,<u+201d> a mother warned her son, who plugged his ears. the blue-and-white 757 with the presidential seal and <u+201c>united states of america<u+201d> began tearing down the runway, kicking up a cloud of dust and sand in its wake. all eyes turned skyward as the plane lifted off the ground. some filmed the takeoff with their cellphone cameras. others waved goodbye. they kept waving long after there was any chance that the president or anyone inside the plane could still see them standing in the field below.

south dakotans may not like obama, but they<u+2019>d like to see the president

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

71.0

8.0

9922.0

0.0

4.0

3.0

0.0

572.0

2.0

0.0

289.0

1.0

0.0

64.0

10.0

29.0

5.0

17.0

25.0

21.0

16.0

40.0

30.0

64.0

575.0

291.0

65.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

republicans have never passed an obamacare repeal through both houses of congress, forcing obama to veto. that changed wednesday. rep. tom price (r) of georgia, chairman of the house budget committee and a physician, appears before the rules committee on capitol hill in washington tuesday as he sponsors legislation that would repeal president obama's signature health care law. the legislation will be the first order of business as the house returns for the holiday break and will mark the first time a bill repealing the health law makes it all the way to the white house. on wednesday, house republicans passed a bill that guts obamacare <u+2013> their 62nd attempt to repeal or undermine the affordable care act. the crucial difference is that this time it will get all the way to the president<u+2019>s desk, instead of being blocked by senate democrats. but this bill will never become law. at least, not under this president. he will veto it, along with its companion provision to stop federal funding of planned parenthood for a year. congress will not have the votes to override, and so the bill <u+2013> like the other 61 attempts <u+2013> has symbolic value only. house speaker paul ryan (r) of wisconsin says that getting the bill to the president will finally hold him <u+201c>accountable<u+201d> for his <u+201c>disastrous<u+201d> policies. but americans already know where the president stands on these issues. observers say the real point is to remind voters what could happen if a republican is sitting in the oval office and the gop keeps control of congress. lawmakers also want to show critics that they<u+2019>re living up to a campaign promise, or at least trying harder. this bill <u+201c>will sharpen contrasts between republicans and democrats going into a presidential election year,<u+201d> says gop consultant matt mackowiak. but will the voters care? republican voters contacted by the monitor suggest wednesday<u+2019>s vote is neither pointless nor a clear victory. while many like the signal it sends, others see it as yet another hollow gesture. they want action, and this is seen as only a start. travis sawyer, a financial advisor in abilene, kan., says he falls into the camp of folks who view <u+201c>maneuvers<u+201d> like this as generally a waste of time.<u+00a0> however, he does like this move, even though he already knows how the president will react. <u+201c>having him actually have to go through the process of vetoing legislation passed by both houses of congress, it<u+2019>s big. i think it<u+2019>s a big step.<u+201d> he<u+2019>s happy to see lawmakers <u+201c>follow through<u+201d> on their promise. joshua thompson, a warehouse worker in nashua, n.h., is <u+201c>impressed<u+201d> that the bill will get as far as the president. on the other hand, he says, if republicans ever succeed in repealing the health care law, <u+201c>they should at least have something to replace it. something better than obamacare.<u+201d> meanwhile, carol hill, a retired physician from diamondhead, miss., says in an e-mail that the <u+201c>ridiculous <u+2018>show<u+2019> bill<u+201d> repealing obamacare and defunding planned parenthood only <u+201c>feeds the anger<u+201d> of voters. if establishment republicans <u+2013> she calls them the <u+201c>egop<u+201d> <u+2013> wanted to stop either obamacare or planned parenthood, they could have done it in the past by defunding them, she maintains. <u+201c>the egop is totally incapable of understanding how angry conservatives really are.<u+201d> obamacare has receded a bit as an issue, eclipsed by other concerns such as national security. still, a majority of americans disapprove of it and shining the spotlight during a rare presidential veto is beneficial to republicans, says mr. mackowiak, the strategist. he believes that repealing obamacare is <u+201c>going to be a big fight<u+201d> in the general election. anticipating the house vote on wednesday <u+2013> which follows senate approval last month <u+2013> conservative group heritage action sent a letter to gop presidential candidates on tuesday urging them to push obamacare to the forefront in 2016. the letter highlighted the republicans<u+2019> repeal promise <u+2013> which they have been loudly criticized for breaking. it then supported an <u+201c>ironclad commitment<u+201d> to repeal the entire law in 2016 through a rare parliamentary process known as <u+201c>budget reconciliation.<u+201d> the process allows a bill to avoid a senate filibuster and pass by simple majority. it<u+2019>s this procedure that democrats used to pass the health care law in the first place <u+2013> and it<u+2019>s this route that republicans, after gaining control of the senate last year, used to finally get this bill to the president<u+2019>s desk. democratic presidential contender hillary clinton fiercely defended the law on monday, reminding iowans at a rally that it has extended coverage to 19 million americans, doesn<u+2019>t discriminate against preexisting conditions, and sets equal premiums for men and women. <u+201c>they have no plan,<u+201d> she said. republicans <u+201c>just want to undo<u+201d> what democrats have fought for. <u+201c>[i]f there's a republican sitting there, it will be repealed and then we will have to start all over again,<u+201d> she warned. no question, the move to force the president into a veto <u+201c>raises the stakes in the rhetorical war,<u+201d> says amy black, a political scientist at wheaton college in illinois. it will give more attention to the issue and <u+201c>remind voters yet again that obama and democrats are not on their side.<u+201d> but will the veto strategy mean much to voters? she<u+2019>s not so sure. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s a question whether the strategy will work with voters or not.<u+201d>

republicans finally pass an obamacare repeal. do gop voters care?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

3.0

65.0

8.0

5360.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

360.0

0.0

120.0

0.0

51.0

12.0

22.0

7.0

9.0

14.0

7.0

6.0

33.0

19.0

35.0

362.0

120.0

51.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

dan pfeiffer, one of president obama's closest and most trusted advisers, is leaving the white house within weeks. pfeiffer<u+00a0>is one of the president's longest-serving aides, having joined obama during his 2008 presidential campaign. the white house said he will leave in<u+00a0>early march. <u+201c>dan has been beside me on every step of this incredible journey, starting with those earliest days of the campaign in 2007, " obama said in a statement. "and through it all, he<u+2019>s been smart, steady, tireless and true to the values we started with. like everyone else in the white house, i<u+2019>ve benefited from his political savvy and his advocacy for working people.<u+00a0> he<u+2019>s a good man and a good friend, and i<u+2019>m going to miss having him just down the hall from me." the new york times first reported that pfeiffer will leave the white house. pfeiffer is one of a very tight circle of obama aides, often criticized as being too insular, who helped the president win elections and pave the way for passage of the health care law and signing of executive actions on immigration. he was instrumental in helping push forward the white house's social media strategy, becoming one of the first officials to blog and pushing to grow the administration's presence<u+00a0>on networking sites such as instagram and twitter.<u+00a0>an administration official said pfeiffer has recently been spearheading a review of the white house communications structure. pfeiffer told obama that he planned to leave the day after the state of the union, as the president was flying to boise, idaho. a white house official said pfeiffer has been mulling his next move for some time and feels that the white house is strong, allowing him the space to move on. pfeiffer is one of a number of trusted obama aides who have announced their departures in recent weeks - changes that often happen in the second half of a president's second term. white house counselor john podesta will leave this month to help hillary clinton's presidential campaign, should she run. ronald klain, who obama named ebola czar last year, will step down<u+00a0>feb. 15.

dan pfeiffer to leave white house

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

33.0

8.0

2083.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

168.0

0.0

43.0

1.0

0.0

19.0

1.0

8.0

1.0

2.0

8.0

2.0

4.0

14.0

3.0

20.0

171.0

43.0

20.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

why you should vote for me. in january, america is going to have a new president. things are going to change <u+2014> that much is certain. the question is, what kind of change are we going to have? we can build an economy that works for everyone, or stack the deck even more for those at the top. we can keep america safe through strength and smarts <u+2014> or turn our backs on our allies, and cozy up to our adversaries. we can come together to build a stronger, fairer america, or fear the future and fear each other. everything i<u+2019>ve done, as first lady, senator, or secretary of state, i<u+2019>ve done by listening to people and looking for common ground, even with people who disagree with me. and if you elect me on tuesday, that<u+2019>s the kind of president i<u+2019>ll be. here are four priorities for my first 100 days <u+2014> issues i<u+2019>ve heard about from americans all over our country. first, we will put forward the biggest investment in new jobs since world war ii. we<u+2019>ll invest in infrastructure and manufacturing to grow our economy for years to come. we<u+2019>ll produce enough renewable energy to power every home in america within a decade. we<u+2019>ll cut red tape for small businesses and make it easier for entrepreneurs to get the credit they need to grow and hire <u+2014> because in america, if you can dream it, you should be able to build it. we<u+2019>ll pay for it all by asking the wealthy, wall street and big corporations to finally pay their fair share. and this commitment will go far beyond the first 100 days. creating more good jobs with rising incomes will be a central mission of my presidency. second, we will introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation. the last president to sign comprehensive immigration reform was ronald reagan, and it was a priority for george w. bush. i<u+2019>m confident that we can work across the aisle to pass comprehensive reform that keeps families together and creates a path to citizenship, secures our border, and focuses our enforcement resources on violent criminals. this is the right thing to do, and it will also grow our economy. third, to break the gridlock in washington, we need to get secret, unaccountable money out of our politics. it<u+2019>s drowning out the voices of the american people. so within my first 30 days, i will introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united. we should be protecting citizens<u+2019> rights to vote, not corporations<u+2019> rights to buy elections. fourth, we need to get started on end-to-end criminal justice reform. too many people have been sent away for far too long for non-violent offenses. i believe our country will be stronger and safer when everyone has respect for the law and everyone is respected by the law. there<u+2019>s so much more we need to do together, and we certainly won<u+2019>t get it all done in the first 100 days. but we<u+2019>re going to roll up our sleeves and get to work for american families <u+2014> and i<u+2019>ll never, ever quit. i want to be president for all americans <u+2014> democrats, republicans and independents; americans of every race, faith and background. my opponent has run his campaign on divisiveness, fear and insults, and spent months pitting americans against each other. i<u+2019>ve said many times that donald trump has shown us who he is. now we have to decide who we are. because it<u+2019>s not just our names on the ballot this year. every issue we care about is on the ballot, too. this is about who we are as a country <u+2014> and whether we are going to have change that makes us stronger together, or change that pushes us further apart. it all comes down to this. i love our country. i believe in our people. and i think there<u+2019>s nothing we can<u+2019>t achieve if we work together and invest in each other. hillary clinton is the democratic nominee for president. you can read<u+00a0>diverse opinions from our<u+00a0>board of contributors<u+00a0>and other writers on<u+00a0>the<u+00a0>opinion front page,<u+00a0>on twitter<u+00a0>@usatopinion<u+00a0>and in our daily<u+00a0>opinion newsletter.<u+00a0>to submit a letter, comment or column, check our<u+00a0>submission guidelines.

exclusive clinton op-ed: i'll look for common ground

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

52.0

8.0

3978.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

302.0

0.0

53.0

0.0

33.0

8.0

20.0

5.0

6.0

17.0

2.0

7.0

31.0

14.0

34.0

306.0

53.0

33.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

voters say the top issues facing the country are the economy and terrorism. they think donald trump will handle one of them better than hillary clinton, while the candidates tie on the other. a new fox news poll on the 2016 election finds more voters trust trump than clinton on the economy (+5 points). he also bests clinton on handling the federal deficit (+5 points). those are the only issues where he comes out on top. it<u+2019>s a draw on <u+201c>terrorism and national security,<u+201d> as the candidates receive 47 percent apiece. in may, trump led clinton by 12 points on doing a better job on <u+201c>terrorism<u+201d> (52-40 percent). equal numbers of voters say the economy and terrorism are the most important issues facing the country today (22 percent each). education is the only other one to receive double-digit mentions (11 percent). here<u+2019>s the rest of the list: race relations (9 percent), the federal deficit (5 percent), health care (5 percent), climate change (4 percent), immigration (3 percent), foreign policy (3 percent), and drug addiction (2 percent). clinton beats trump by wide margins on education (+23 points), and on the lower priority concerns: climate change (+31 points), race relations (+28 points), drug addiction (+19 points), foreign policy (+16 points), and health care (+11 points). she also has the advantage on one of trump<u+2019>s signature issues -- immigration (+7 points). who would do better picking the next supreme court justice? that<u+2019>s a hot topic this election. voters trust clinton over trump by eight points. they also think she<u+2019>s more likely to <u+201c>preserve and protect the u.s. constitution<u+201d> (+7 points). click here to read the full poll results by a 22-point margin, voters trust clinton over trump when it comes to using nuclear weapons (56-34 percent). that<u+2019>s twice the advantage she held in may (49-38 percent). yet voters are more likely to trust trump to destroy terrorist groups like isis (+9 points). the candidates now tie on restoring trust in government (43-43). that<u+2019>s a shift since may when trump had an eight-point advantage (46-38 percent). despite trump<u+2019>s claim that he understands the concerns of everyday americans, clinton bests him on empathy. by a 51-40 percent margin, voters say she<u+2019>ll do a better job looking out for their family during tough economic times. in june 2012, barack obama topped mitt romney on this measure by 47-36 percent. how do voters feel about trump<u+2019>s praise for russian president vladimir putin? fifty-two percent of voters say it<u+2019>s no big deal. for 44 percent, it<u+2019>s bothersome. most republicans say it<u+2019>s no big deal (72 percent), while two-thirds of democrats say it bothers them (66 percent). the fox news poll is based on landline and cellphone interviews with 1,022 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of anderson robbins research (d) and shaw & company research (r) from july 31-august 2, 2016. the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters.

poll: voters trust trump on economy, clinton on nukes

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

9.0

53.0

8.0

3035.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

186.0

0.0

55.0

0.0

20.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

5.0

2.0

6.0

5.0

16.0

10.0

18.0

189.0

55.0

20.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

now 68, bacevich is a west point graduate who served a tour in vietnam before taking a doctorate in diplomatic history at princeton. he subsequently taught international relations at west point and johns hopkins before joining the ir faculty at boston university in 1998. bacevich is now emeritus and devotes his time to getting the books out. i met <u+201c>the dissident colonel,<u+201d> as he is known in my household, when he spoke at the providence council on foreign affairs this spring. he spent the evening outlining the book now in his desk, which rests on 10 theses, as he calls them, after the 95 theses martin luther nailed to a church door (supposedly) in wittenberg in 1517. they are a detailed critique of what bacevich considers our 35-year war for the greater middle east. he dates this to 1980, when president carter declared the persian gulf a strategic interest warranting military defense. with the carter doctine, bacevich said that evening in providence, <u+201c>carter lit a fuse without knowing where it led.<u+201d> <u+201c>learning offers a first step toward devising wiser, more effective, and less costly policies,<u+201d> bacevich also said on that occasion. i subsequently traveled to boston to record this exchange. i found him as i had expected: a conservative man in various respects, a scholar with a disciplined mind ungiven to barricades and placards but vigorously opposed to the direction of american policy abroad and well aware of its roots in our consciousness of exceptionalism. you<u+2019>re a critic of american conduct abroad on numerous grounds <u+2014> i would say a critic with a very particular perspective, and i hope we can explore that. for now, a point of confusion, at least for me: in <u+201c>american empire,<u+201d> the 2002 book, you note that american policy, or statecraft, as you call it, lost its coherence in the post-berlin wall period. policy before 1989, you thought, was more or less, as you say, mainly realistic. when we met [at the providence cfr], on the other hand, you traced a certain grandiose streak in u.s. policy to carter<u+2019>s 1980 doctrine, which got us into what you<u+2019>re now calling the war for the greater middle east, a 35-year escapade at this point. can you clarify your thinking on this? when, in your view, did the policy elite lose its way? to clarify a little bit, until roughly 1990 the hierarchy of interests that shaped u.s. foreign policy privileged europe and east asia. those were the two most important theaters in u.s. foreign policy. and notwithstanding horrific mistakes made along the way, vietnam being the most important but by no means the only one, if you look at the period from the late 1940s to the 1990s, in the main u.s. policy in these two pivotal regions qualifies as realistic. there was a certain cohesion to u.s. policy. indeed, one could say there was a strategy. if you wanted to reduce that strategy to a single word, the word would be <u+201c>containment.<u+201d> at least until 1980, the middle east<u+2014>i prefer the term the greater middle east<u+2014>tended to be viewed as peripheral in the hierarchy. my argument is that this began to change in 1980, when jimmy carter, in response to the hostage crisis in iran and the soviet invasion of afghanistan, promulgated the carter doctrine. now, it didn<u+2019>t overnight vault the greater middle east to the top rank of u.s. foreign policy interests, but it began that process. and indeed, the end of the cold war, which tended at least marginally to diminish the importance attributed to europe and east asia, facilitated that. so by the time you get to the 1990s, and certainly by the time you get to 9/11, there<u+2019>s been this substantial change, and the change gets expressed above all and most regrettably in the reorientation of the u.s. military. militarily, the united states doesn<u+2019>t abandon europe, and it certainly hasn<u+2019>t abandoned east asia, but if you look at where we<u+2019>ve sent u.s. forces to fight or to occupy, especially since 1990, it<u+2019>s clear that the focal point now is the greater middle east. and, to further the contrast, unlike the period of the cold war, when you can make an argument that there was a certain cohesion in u.s. policy, there<u+2019>s been virtually none with regard to the greater middle east. what we have is almost a pattern of random military interventionism justified by all kinds of reasons, few of which have produced anything like a positive outcome, and which cumulatively contributed to the destabilization of the greater middle east. i couldn<u+2019>t agree with you more on that latter point. an american imperium bent on incessant expansion and more or less global dominance is among your bedrock descriptions for what we now live with. two of the biggest questions on any paying-attention american<u+2019>s mind are just how dangerous this is and whether there is any plausible prospect of change: a new american ambition, purpose or however you want to put it. what are your views in each case? the danger of it and the plausibility of change. in the danger of pursuing the imperium? yes. you have a lot of non-americans saying the american foreign policy is the single most disorder-creating factor in global affairs today, right? well, the preliminary point is to understand where this urge to create a global imperium came from. and several facts contributed. one of which is the long-standing, deeply embedded claim of american exceptionalism, which assigns to us a responsibility to transform the global order in our own image. that goes back to the founding of anglo-america, the city upon a hill. winthrop<u+2019>s sermon in 1630, to be exact, yes. right. but the end of the cold war and the nearly simultaneous military event we call operation desert storm gave the first twist to that long-standing expectation of what we are called upon to do. the end of the cold war persuaded american elites in both parties, people on the left and people on the right, that liberal democratic capitalism was destined to triumph everywhere, that the last ideological challenger had been vanquished. the <u+201c>end of history<u+201d> is set. the end of history is set. so that seemed to bring the vision of global hegemony that much closer. desert storm seems to demonstrate<u+2014>this is not so inaccurate, misleading<u+2014>that the united states is in possession of military powers such that the world has never seen. we believe by 1991 that we have not only vanquished the last standing ideological opponent, but that we have achieved a military supremacy. now you combine that sort of generalized mission to save the world with the end of history and with the belief that we now possess the means to exercise dominance, and you have a very explosive combination that, by the 1990s, makes global hegemony seem possible. of course, the 1990s is not the decade of the evil neoconservative and the bad republicans. it<u+2019>s the decade of bill clinton, of the liberal democrats calling the shots. but if you look at what happens in the 1990s, you find this expansive rhetoric. they don<u+2019>t use the term <u+201c>empire,<u+201d> but it is an imperialistic rhetoric, and you also find, under clinton, a growing willingness to put that american military power to use. to do what clinton would argue would be good things in the world. and that takes the form of a far greater willingness to intervene. in somalia, in haiti, in kosovo, in bosnia, with the expectation that somehow this interventionism is going to produce stability, spread our values, help to bring into existence this new american-dominated order. problem is, of course, that the results are considerably different. instead of creating stability we create instability, and, of course, the chickens come home to roost on 9/11, with the attacks on washington and new york. we<u+2019>ll come back to this question of exceptionalism in a minute. you<u+2019>ve been proven right times 10 in arguing a long time ago that the thought of post-cold war disarray in american policy circles<u+2014>no aim, no strategy<u+2014>is wrong. the aim from the first bush and clinton onward has been to cast the world in the american image, just as you said: open markets, a sort of extreme capitalism. that leads straight to the problem of exceptionalism, as you<u+2019>ve just suggested. i take it you agree. now, here<u+2019>s the question: if the problem is the consciousness of exceptionalism, the matter of change becomes more daunting. you<u+2019>re not talking about changing a law, you<u+2019>re not yet talking about changing how many divisions we ought to have in guam. you<u+2019>re talking about changing a kind of national consciousness. so, returning to the previous question, how realistic is this? you mentioned in providence, <u+201c>we must learn the lessons.<u+201d> it<u+2019>s a good phrase: of course we must learn the lessons. but, time and again i have to say to myself: i don<u+2019>t see any evidence of learning in washington. they<u+2019>re allergic to the past. they can<u+2019>t stand history. we<u+2019>re a nation of forgetters. how realistic is it to expect them to learn anything? and if we don<u+2019>t learn anything, we<u+2019>re in a very bad track. well, and i am certainly not optimistic about our willingness to learn. you<u+2019>re right, it<u+2019>s easy to say learn the lessons, but you don<u+2019>t learn the lessons unless there<u+2019>s evidence of some kind of willingness. so what<u+2019>s your thought on that? how can we expect to<u+2014> my thought is hope lies, however faint the hope may be, in the possibility of introducing<u+2014>reintroducing<u+2014>into the debate over foreign policy a sense of realism. one of the great obstacles to rethinking u.s. foreign policy is the extent to which both of the major parties buy into, i think for mostly cynical reasons, the premises of american exceptionalism. so here we are, you and i are speaking. we<u+2019>re in sort of the preliminary stages of the 2016 presidential campaigns, and it is not difficult to predict that from both sides we will hear calls for american leadership. the insistence that there is no alternative to american leadership, the promises of sustaining american strength<u+2014> correct. and so, the best one can hope for is somehow<u+2014>not that a critic of foreign policy is going to win a nomination; they<u+2019>re not<u+2014>but somehow, someone capable of critical thinking with regard to foreign policy could at least make it far enough into the primaries to introduce<u+2014> yes, someone you figure like webb or something? [jim webb is a former marine, secretary of the navy and senator from virginia sometimes mentioned as a potential democratic candidate in 2016.] bingo. so my hope: i would love to see webb declare<u+2014>there<u+2019>s not a chance that he will get the nomination. no, but he could influence the conversation. to have webb up on the stage with hillary clinton and the two or three other figures that may make a run for the democratic nomination, and forcing a discussion on, for example, the consequences and cost of the iraq war, would be a helpful thing. there was a time when i would have said the same thing about rand paul on the republican side, but in the present moment i<u+2019>m not so sure. my current sense is that he is so eager to win the nomination that he is willing to compromise on his non-interventionist principles. and if he does, that will be a lost opportunity. in a sense, who ends up being president is, at this stage of the game, of less interest than whether or not the process of presidential campaigning can bear some fruit in terms of opening up a serious discussion of exactly where we are, and how we got here with regard to foreign policy. it<u+2019>ll come over as a very sour view. i<u+2019>m not sure it<u+2019>s mine, but it<u+2019>s becoming mine and there<u+2019>s optimism at the far end of it: i often think we<u+2019>re just going to have to get one bloody nose too many before we come to our senses. it<u+2019>s a matter of very deeply ingrained habits of mind, right? well, i once shared that thought, and now i<u+2019>m despairing even of that, and i<u+2019>ll tell you why. back in 2008, when president obama was running for the first time <u+2014> talk about a bloody nose. i mean, we had two bloody noses. the first was the catastrophic iraq war. the was the financial collapse of that year. i entertained some brief hope that the two of them, the intersection of those two, would lead large numbers of american people to say, <u+201c>what the hell is going on?<u+201d> <u+201c>let<u+2019>s rethink.<u+201d> and one could argue that the election of president obama suggested a desire to see some rethinking, but it sure the heck didn<u+2019>t bear fruit. i was in hong kong that morning<u+2014>it was morning for me when mccain capitulated, 11 at night your time. and then the grant park speech? i don<u+2019>t mind saying i wept. i thought, <u+201c>we<u+2019>ve redressed 150 years of our own history, and on the foreign side, the whole world is going to exhale.<u+201d> that night in hong kong, not only every american there was out in the streets<u+2014>the bars were crammed<u+2014>but many chinese were, too. everyone was relieved. it<u+2019>s a measure of the disappointment to come, but that<u+2019>s another line of inquiry. actually what you said i think is very interesting. there was something very important, symbolically important, in the election of an african-american. and the passage of time has by no means diminished the significance of his election in that regard. the problem was, it sort of reinforced na<u+00ef>ve expectations that i think many americans are susceptible to: that whoever the president happens to be, that person has the capability to change the world. and one of my great convictions has come to be that that<u+2019>s totally malarkey. that we may say, <u+201c>the president is the leader of the free world, the most powerful man in the world.<u+201d> (they<u+2019>ve all been men.) but the truth is that presidents are constrained. ever more, i<u+2019>d say. ever more. and that therefore, expectations that they<u+2019>re going to have a transformative effect simply are na<u+00ef>ve, and that<u+2019>s what we have seen. in this president, who did inspire such extraordinary hope<u+2014>and, yes, i agree with you, hope that extended beyond simply the american electorate<u+2014>he<u+2019>s not a bad president. he<u+2019>s not a failure on the scale of george w. bush. but he<u+2019>s been a disappointing president, even though he<u+2019>s disappointed because so many of us entertained these exaggerated expectations of what he was going to do. had we had realistic expectations we<u+2019>d probably be saying, <u+201c>well, actually he<u+2019>s not done a very bad job.<u+201d><u+2019> i mean, he<u+2019>s avoided catastrophes, which is not a bad standard. i think that the eisenhower revisionism, which seems to be pretty deeply rooted at this point<u+2014>i think not too many people would say that eisenhower was one of the greats: <u+201c>he deserved to be on mount rushmore.<u+201d> but if we look at the run of presidents over the past 60 years or so, we still like ike, because he avoided catastrophes. reading the book by your colleague, what<u+2019>s his name? senior moment. the new york times correspondent. <u+201c>the brothers<u+201d> [on allen and john foster dulles]. stephen kinzer. it was a superb gathering of everything out there. for readers such as me, perfect. one of the things that comes over is that eisenhower was a considerably more complex man than given credit for at the time and for many years thereafter. his resistance to this or that from the dulles brothers<u+2026> i hope he gets his revisionist historian, and i certainly look forward to obama<u+2019>s presidential historians. i hope there<u+2019>s somebody who can bring the complexities of his presidency out properly. anyway, another conversation. the question here: who is more potent as an influence on policy now, or maybe the more detrimental to the development of a constructive one: liberals of the evangelical kind bent on a sort of neo-wilsonian agenda, or traditional hawks such as mccain and others of a similar stripe? neoliberals or conservatives, in other words. well, the answer to the question, in my mind, is both equally, because both tend to share the same expectations about what u.s. military power can do. the right wants to use military power to spread freedom. the left wants to use military power to protect the innocent, but both on the right and on the left, proponents of intervention lack a prudent understanding of what military power can do, what it can<u+2019>t do, and the likelihood of unintended secondary consequences that result from the use of military power. the question of humanitarian intervention keeps popping up, particularly since the clinton years. and now with samantha power, a person i have absolutely no time for at all, at the u.n., is this country, just speaking very plainly and realistically, is this country capable of a humanitarian intervention wherein we can keep our mitts off things and not turn it to some other-than-humanitarian purpose? it<u+2019>s a practical question. i think almost every so-called humanitarian intervention has<u+2014>the proponents of intervention are using the humanitarian notion to justify action that actually derives from other purposes. one exception to that statement could well be the somalian intervention that george herbert walker bush initiated back in 1991, but i think if you look very deeply at things like kosovo, at bosnia, at clinton<u+2019>s intervention in haiti<u+2014>if you look very closely, under the humanitarian rhetoric, there<u+2019>re other factors shaping u.s. policy. the real issue for me is that, for those who do genuinely believe that u.s. foreign policy should have a significant humanitarian dimension, i would urge them to think more deeply about why humanitarianism should express itself by sending in u.s. forces with guns. if we care<u+2014>if we genuinely care, let<u+2019>s say at the present moment, about the well-being of the syrian people<u+2014>there are ways to alleviate the suffering of at least some of them without putting a single american soldier at risk. put simply, remove the people who are in jeopardy from the dangers that they face. bring them here. you want to save 200,000 syrian lives? good, then move 200,000 syrian refugees from the awful, squalid camps that they<u+2019>re inhabiting and let<u+2019>s resettle them here in the united states of america. now to say that, of course, one would immediately respond by saying, <u+201c>that<u+2019>s politically impossible! the american people who live in iowa, or who live in pennsylvania, or who live in new mexico don<u+2019>t want 200,000 syrian refugees in their midst.<u+201d> my response would be: <u+201c>yes, of course, that<u+2019>s true. the impetus is not so much what can we do to benefit people who are suffering: the real impetus is, what can i do to ease my conscience because i<u+2019>m bothered by all these people suffering. oh yes, i know, let<u+2019>s send u.s. forces into the syrian civil war, and that<u+2019>ll make me feel better about our inaction.<u+201d> of course, to do that is to produce the results that you are suggesting<u+2014>simply, to make matters worse. there was an argument that we needed to depose saddam hussein because he was a cruel and oppressive dictator, but the consequences of deposing saddam hussein have not actually been very positive<u+2014> <u+2014> as viewed from a humanitarian perspective. indeed, we have, through our efforts in that country, produced instability, killed people, displaced people, and contributed to such vast human misery as to make a mockery of the humanitarian claims that, to some degree, provided the rationale for invading the country in the first place. i had this question for later, but let me put it to you now. you mention in some of the things you write, it comes up all the time: public indifference. it<u+2019>s reached an astonishing level. i myself wonder if it hasn<u+2019>t been purposely cultivated after the uproar over vietnam. about a month ago the german foreign minister, frank-walter steinmeier, who is a social democrat, finished a year-long review of what the federal republic should do with its foreign policy looking out into the future. it had many different elements. as far as procedure is concerned, create a separate department in which people from all manner of disciplines are put in one room. so you have economists and development people and educators and military people and what have you all there. the policy to emerge is multidimensional. as he put it, there has to be something more than pointless conversation and shooting people. [laughs] that<u+2019>s pretty great. is that the way he phrased it? more than talking<u+2014>pointless talking and shooting people? [laughs] anyway, here it is. do you think it<u+2019>s realistic? i wrote a column about it; i<u+2019>m very impressed with this guy. of course, social democrats from germany don<u+2019>t play well in america, but that<u+2019>s all right. what do you think of this notion? the possibility of a more rounded policy in this country. i<u+2019>ll mention another question, since i<u+2019>m scrambling them up. herbert croly, the great progressive era critic, distinguished between a nation with purpose and a nation with destiny. i don<u+2019>t think i have to explain the difference to you. purpose gives you practical, earthly things to do. destiny gives you ill-defined missions. do you see that this is a transition we have to make, and can we see our way to something along the lines of what steinmeier is talking about? without being attacked as a bunch of milquetoasts who have lost our nerve? is that the direction we need to go in? yes, i think so, and why won<u+2019>t we? well, because powerful people in powerful institutions are deeply invested in the status quo. i mean let<u+2019>s talk about the distribution of clout in the foreign policy establishment, where the department of defense wields such enormous authority, despite the fact that there is little evidence that the prevailing notions of national security actually produce very positive outcomes. there<u+2019>re a lot of people and a lot of institutions that benefit from our reigning understanding of national security. certainly, the armed services, certainly the intelligence community, certainly the defense contractors. certainly a variety of think tanks, even academic programs<u+2014>all would be loath to see mr. steinmeier<u+2019>s conception of statecraft be implemented. but this does get to your earlier point about public indifference, that<u+2014> i forgot to mention one thing about his program, his policies. the most important point, leading to this: he insists that foreign policy be removed from all sequestration<u+2014>my word, not his<u+2014>and involve the public so that a nation<u+2019>s activities abroad reflect the aspirations of its people. that<u+2019>s a big one. you know how<u+2014> that<u+2019>s a real big one! and again, for members of the foreign policy elite, why would they want to do that? why would they wish to surrender their privileged position? why would that want to open the game up to allow genuine involvement on the part of the american public? and there<u+2019>s no need for them to do that, because the public has been so conditioned over the past 60 years to defer, to accept the fact that, of course, things must be done in secret, to accept the notion that there<u+2019>s a cadre of people who are smarter than you and me, who possess insights and expertise to figure out how to navigate our way in a dangerous world. my answer to that would be: they don<u+2019>t have to <u+201c>want to do it.<u+201d> they have to be made to do it. i don<u+2019>t care if they want it or not. i agree, but making that happen would require very intense pressure. the pressure<u+2019>s going to have to come from the american people, and the american people, having been conditioned to see their role as basically a passive one, don<u+2019>t do that. i mean, here as we sit, we are once more, whether we like it or not, involved in an iraq war. the very fact that this new iraq war has begun indicates that the previous iraq war of 2003 to 2011 was a failure. a costly failure. a many-trillion-dollars failure. and yet, there is astonishingly little public interest in requiring any kind of accounting for that debacle. here we are in the 14th<u+00a0>year, we<u+2019>re approaching the 14th<u+00a0>anniversary of the beginning of the afghanistan war, which is another failure. the president says he wants us out of afghanistan by the time he leaves the oval office, and that that would be part of his legacy. but is there any serious human being who thinks that when we leave afghanistan we will be able to claim success? we are going to leave afghanistan, and the afghanistan war is going to continue. well, where is the public outcry for an explanation of how the longest war in american history is on a course to end in failure. why doesn<u+2019>t anybody care? it<u+2019>s like that old movie <u+201c>network.<u+201d> i can<u+2019>t remember the name of the protagonist in <u+201c>network.<u+201d> <u+201c>i<u+2019>m sick and tired of this and i<u+2019>m not going to put up with it anymore!<u+201d> but we live in a country of people that do put up with it. <u+201c>i<u+2019>m mad as hell and i<u+2019>m not going to take it anymore.<u+201d> one of the things kissinger taught us was that you can<u+2019>t conduct a foreign policy in the long term without domestic consensus. that<u+2019>s what we learned in april <u+2019>75. i<u+2019>m not sure that<u+2019>s true anymore. you can if you have one thing: public indifference on a grand scale. as you say: all sorts of things in a majorly wrong direction are done without any kind of domestic objection. i<u+2019>d like to turn to your new work in progress as you outlined it when you spoke in providence. you<u+2019>ve got 10 theses to propose nailing to the door, luther-like. taking apart what you cast as a single war in its fourth decade across the middle east. can you expand on the core thought and the focus of the new work? well, i have been struck by the extent to which the use of military forces since 1990 has tended to see them sent to various places in the islamic world. when i was a young man growing up we fought in asia, whether those wars were well-advised or not, but americans fought and died in korea, americans fought and died in vietnam. when i was a young man, americans were willing to fight for europe, maintain very large-scale u.s. forces in europe until the end of the cold war. but there was no particular interest in having americans fight and die in the islamic world. the single exception to that was eisenhower<u+2019>s very brief and entirely bloodless intervention in lebanon, which was in 1958. all that began to change after carter<u+2019>s promulgation of the carter doctrine, and since then, this is now three and half decades, we have had a long string of u.s. military interventions in the islamic world. my argument is that, rather than seeing these various episodes as unrelated, we should see them as constituting one single war, much as the narrative of the cold war includes u.s. forces going to korea, it includes the berlin airlift, it includes the bay of pigs, it includes intervention in el salvador<u+2014>a whole variety of episodes. much the same can be said with regard to reagan<u+2019>s intervention in lebanon, george herbert walker bush<u+2019>s intervention in iraq, bill clinton<u+2019>s intervention in bosnia and kosovo, etc., etc., etc. whether we are willing to acknowledge it or not, we<u+2019>ve been conducting a war for the greater middle east that began in 1980 and continues to the present day. further, i<u+2014>my new book<u+2014>will argue that that war isn<u+2019>t going well. that three and a half decades later, we haven<u+2019>t won it, we<u+2019>re not winning it, and the likelihood of simply continuing down the path that we<u+2019>re on, with the expectation that final victory lies out there just over the horizon, is an absurdity. so there<u+2019>s great need, in the midst of this war, to recognize that it is a war and to take stock of it. it opens the mind, just a single construct. it opens us to all kinds of new understandings. you have a professional<u+2019>s knowledge of the military, and more exposure than most to the national security apparatus, which you call <u+201c>a dead zone<u+201d> when it comes to new ideas. <u+201c>sclerotic<u+201d> is another one of your terms. could you talk about the actual state of the american military and the national security bureaucracy? i have to assume we<u+2019>re not talking about 1.3 million beetle baileys, but what have we got in terms of<u+2014>people who are opposed to these wars probably don<u+2019>t care, but putting that aside<u+2014>i<u+2019>m just curious, what do we have by way of a fighting force and a national security apparatus? are these sound institutions, or are they in a certain state of not really decay but<u+2014>i don<u+2019>t know what the word is, andrew<u+2026> i think the word is stagnation. on the one hand, there<u+2019>s no question that the u.s. military today possesses enormous capabilities. what<u+2019>s not apparent is that those capabilities are relevant to the political challenges that we face, in particular, in the islamic world. so it is a instrument not well-suited to dealing with the problems where we have insisted on applying it. and sadly, members of the officer corps by and large lack the willingness to confront the consistent failure of our military actions in that region. it<u+2019>s interesting that there are a considerable number of general officers who, once they retire, go public with their critique of u.s. policy. yes, one does notice that. i don<u+2019>t have a sense that that critique is being voiced<u+2014>i don<u+2019>t mean writing op-eds in the new york times<u+2014>but the critical thinking is occurring when those officers are on active duty. and what we get instead, of course, is the recitation of platitudes about having the best soldiers in the world and the best military that the world has ever seen. and yet, an absence of taking stock and an absence of measuring outcomes<u+2014>of acknowledging costs. in the same line, what is your view, as a retired professional, of our dependence on tens of thousands of private contractors<u+2014>in blunt terms, mercenaries. can you address cause and effect in this question? after vietnam, actually toward the end of vietnam, i should say, when president nixon terminated the draft, something he did for cynical political reasons, the effect was to abandon the tradition of the citizen soldier and to base the american military system on the idea of a professional soldier. so we created what the founders of this republic would have called <u+201c>a standing army.<u+201d> founders of this republic viewed the standing army as a suspect institution and inappropriate for a republican form of government, but that<u+2019>s what we did. and, indeed, for a period of time, through to 9/11, the american people generally speaking endorsed that move from a citizen soldier to a professional soldier. it seemed like we were getting good value for the money and it certainly removed obligations from citizens to farm out national security to a special class. a not-inconsiderable cause of the indifference we were talking about earlier. oh, of course. after 9/11, when the bush administration<u+2019>s miscalculations<u+2014> twofold: one, thinking the afghanistan war was won when it wasn<u+2019>t; two, thinking that the iraq war would be won easily by a relatively small force<u+2014>at that point, let<u+2019>s say we<u+2019>re talking 2004, we suddenly find ourselves engaged in these two wars, needing a lot more soldiers than we have. and a lot more soldiers than we can produce if relying on volunteers. so you<u+2019>ve got too much war, too few warriors, what do you do? well, i think the preference would have been to turn to our loyal allies and have them make up the difference. but our allies were either unwilling or unable to fill the gap. they<u+2019>re just not on for them, a lot of what we have<u+2014> well, they<u+2019>re not on for it, and they<u+2019>re also actually<u+2014>the europeans felt disarmed. you know, the notion that there is a big british army or a big french army or a big german army that can supplement u.s. forces is simply no longer the case. the bottom line is, if you<u+2019>ve got too much war and too few warriors, you fill the gap by hiring mercenaries, which we did, and which turned out to be not especially effective and to cause huge complications while imposing enormous financial costs. so we end up with this truly bizarre situation, which, again, everybody knows about and yet remains indifferent to. we<u+2019>re at the height of the iraq war and the height of the afghanistan war. we have more contractors in those theaters than we do soldiers. it is truly an astonishing fact, but it<u+2019>s a fact that quite literally doesn<u+2019>t matter in any meaningful political sense. as a practical matter it doesn<u+2019>t matter. it doesn<u+2019>t matter any more than having trillion-dollar deficits. if you say to the average american, <u+201c>do you like trillion-dollar deficits?<u+201d> <u+201c>no!<u+201d> but that doesn<u+2019>t translate into some sort of collective outrage that is going to result in a balanced budget. <u+201c>do you like having mercenaries?<u+201d> <u+201c>no!<u+201d> but that doesn<u+2019>t translate into any outrage that is going to insist that the practice be revisited. in that sense, it doesn<u+2019>t. substantively, it matters. politically, the issue has no traction. do you accept, and i assume you do but i won<u+2019>t take it for granted, that we live in a multipolar world, one with no so-called indispensable nation anywhere? either way, what would a worthy 21st-century american purpose consist of in your view? my crystal ball is not any better than anybody else<u+2019>s, but my crystal ball does say that we are moving into a globally multiple order<u+2014>that, as we advance into this century, the notion of a single superpower will lose whatever limited utility it once had. what are going to be the poles? well, clearly us. we will remain the most powerful nation in the world. but, also in the first tier, china, probably india, japan, in its weird way, europe. weird in the sense that it has tremendous economic and cultural clout, but limited willingness to use hard power. there is a second tier of other nations whose views will have to be taken into account<u+2014>turkey, russia, korea<u+2014>and the prospects for avoiding the kind of catastrophes that made the 20th<u+00a0>century such a horror lie in the ability of these several nations to produce some semblance of stability. to create an order in which each is sufficiently invested that no one will overturn the apple cart: that<u+2019>s a huge challenge. the failure of the great powers in 1914 to maintain their multipolar order is the warning of what consequences will ensue if we fail to create a new multipolar order that has some semblance of stability. and, of course, the problem there is, from a u.s. point of view, it<u+2019>s unacceptable even to acknowledge that such a world can possibly exist. you can<u+2019>t even use that word inside the beltway. no, and therefore how difficult it is to even have a conversation about that, much less<u+2014>and the other thing going on here, that to me is the big game, well, two big games, are<u+2014>the two big issues, the primary issues<u+2014>are the creation of a multipolar order and also dealing with the prospects of catastrophic climate change. that<u+2019>s where smart people need to be focusing their attention. and yet we find ourselves in a situation where so much intellectual energy is being devoted to trying to sort out the greater middle east by using american military power. it<u+2019>s a futile enterprise. it is, thinking broadly, an issue of secondary importance. the fate of the planet is not going to be decided in the persian gulf. the fate of the planet could well be decided in whether or not we can get along with china, and china can get along with india and if, collectively, we can avoid having the planet be destroyed by the way we exploit nature. given events in the middle east now, do you think that it<u+2019>s a very momentous time? netanyahu, whom i call the most dangerous man in the middle east, has been a curious catalyst, in a certain way. do you think the u.s. has embarked on a fundamental realignment of its position in the region, or what its interests are, who its allies are? i<u+2019>m especially interested in your view on relations with israel and the extent to which washington is at the moment effectively a captive of these relations, unable to rethink its strategy until this relationship loosens. well, see, i<u+2019>m not sure that that assessment pertains. and here i think there is a glimmer of hope, a glimmer of serious strategic thinking, with regard to the region. the issue is iran. now, as you and i speak, we don<u+2019>t know if the details of an iranian deal will be worked out. even if they are, we don<u+2019>t know if the congress will torpedo such a deal. but let<u+2019>s just posit for the sake of discussion that we end up with an agreement accepted by all parties to limit the iranian nuclear program in return for removing the economic sanctions on iran. what are the implications of that? i think the implications actually go far beyond, and i think the purposes of the initiative go far beyond simply the question of whether or not iran will acquire nuclear weapons. no, it<u+2019>s a strategic question, and the strategic purpose is to end iranian isolation, incorporate them into the regional order with the hope, if not the expectation, that then they will be invested in the restoration of regional stability, as opposed to being invested in trying to promote further instability. now whether or not we get that is a huge question, but i am persuaded that that is the underlying logic of the obama administration<u+2019>s policy here. now, let<u+2019>s posit for the sake of discussion that that produces a policy success. the consequences then, for the u.s.-israeli relationship, are likely to be profound: the deference to israel that the united states has shown over the past, whatever, 40 years won<u+2019>t necessarily end<u+2014>it<u+2019>s not like there will be a rupture in u.s.-israeli relations<u+2014>but that deference will subside, and that a u.s. interest will receive priority as opposed to the interests of the state of israel. that reality then could well promote a reconsideration within israel as to how best to pursue its security interests. to oversimplify greatly, israel could potentially become more accommodating with regard to actually finding a solution to the palestinian problem rather than taking the hard-line approach of mr. netanyahu. and i don<u+2019>t for a second mean that netanyahu will change his mind. he won<u+2019>t change his mind. but israel is a democracy, and israeli democracy has tilted to the right in recent years. changes in the regional order that now bring iran back into play and that lead to the united states thinking somewhat differently could produce a tilt in israeli politics in a somewhat different direction. lots of ifs here, lots of uncertainties, but i do think that that<u+2019>s what<u+2019>s really involved. it goes far beyond simply the question of whether or not iran<u+2019>s going to acquire a nuclear weapon in the next 10 years. a couple of rapid-fire questions, as we<u+2019>re near the end here. should we be bombing isis? if not, what? well, i<u+2019>ve come to believe that isis is such a profoundly evil entity that it needs to be destroyed. i<u+2019>m not persuaded that american bombing along with american advisers and trainers trying once more to create an iraqi military is going to produce success, but that is an operational question. what i<u+2019>m more persuaded of is that if we succeed in destroying isis, our success will be limited. in this sense, the conditions that produced isis will still exist. this is one of your 10 theses. and that, therefore, we<u+2019>ll put a stake through that organization<u+2019>s heart but there will be another organization more or less like it. so yes, let<u+2019>s go destroy isis, but let<u+2019>s not delude ourselves into thinking that we will have achieved anything fundamental. we will not have done so. second rapid-fire question: should the administration investigate, charge, and prosecute those responsible for the torture practices after 9/11? is it important one way or another? obama<u+2019>s <u+201c>i<u+2019>m-not-going-to-do-anything-to-anybody policy does come over as rather odd. well i think there<u+2019>s great confusion about the whole question of accountability and that when laws are violated or even when policies fail, who should be held accountable? and i think that needs to be clarified. but the answer, i think, the default response is to go get the little fish and let the big fish get away, and that<u+2019>s a problem. i probably haven<u+2019>t followed the torture issue as much as i should<u+2019>ve, but if you take abu ghraib as a sort of comparable example, where it was entirely appropriate to court-martial the soldiers who were immediately involved in that, but the accountability of the chain of command didn<u+2019>t get any higher than a female reserve one-star, who was reduced to colonel. and everybody beyond that got a pass. i think that was wrong. you can take or leave this question, andrew, but i<u+2019>ve been wanting to ask it ever since i started reading your stuff: there are a few political perspectives from which to critique american policy, just as there were several ways to object to the vietnam war. i wonder what yours is. i certainly would be interested, if you<u+2019>re willing to answer. if you<u+2019>re not, if you find it irrelevant, simply say so. i<u+2019>d like to hear what your political perspective is on all these things. for example, in vietnam we had people who were at the barricades. we had other people who were against the war for the simple reason that we weren<u+2019>t going to win it. it<u+2019>s another way of assessing things. i<u+2019>d be interested in that. well, i see myself as a cultural conservative. in terms of international politics i see myself as a realist. i tend to have a skeptical view of what military power can achieve. i<u+2019>m not a pacifist. i do think there is a need for us to have an effective national security establishment. i think it should be used with caution and care. so it<u+2019>s the promiscuity of u.s. national security policy, especially over the last 25 years or so, that i find so outrageous. that leads to my last question: can you describe some influential moments in the course of your professional career, in the service and post-, that were key in the evolution of your thinking? yes, i think so. i served in vietnam 1970 to 1971, toward the end of the war, and the most profound impression that i took away from that war was the extent to which engaging in a long, futile military undertaking had a deeply damaging effect on american institutions. at that time, my political consciousness had not been raised, and [i] was greatly distressed to see the terrible decay that was occurring within the united states army. i think the second moment was the end of the cold war. as somebody who, as<u+00a0> young person, certainly accepted the necessity of waging of the cold war, but who had come to see the cold war as an emergency, a departure from the norm, a time when we did things because we had to do them<u+2014>for example, raising a large military establishment and stationing it around the world and engaging in interventions in far off land<u+2014>we had to do that, i believe, because the cold war required us to do so. and, therefore, when the cold war ended, i naively assumed that we would revert to becoming something more like a normal nation. we would reduce the size of our military, we would reduce our global footprint, we would become more reticent in terms of our intervention. what happened was just the opposite. we became more inclined to intervene, our claims to understand how the world should work became broader and produced, to my mind, disastrously misguided policies. now, what that caused me to do was rethink my understanding of the origin of u.s. policy. again, as a young person growing up during the cold war, i assumed that we did what we did because we had to in order to counter [the soviets]. they were the problem. subsequent to the end of the cold war, i came to the conclusion that we did what we did because of inner requirements, domestic requirements, ideological requirements, economic requirements, bureaucratic requirements, rather than acting out of a sober evaluation of the way the world works and of our interests and our responsibilities to the rest of the world. i don<u+2019>t want to be reductionist, but to me, more and more, the whole shooting match seems to come down to the problem of exceptionalism and the necessity of breaking that branch. i think it may be the cornerstone and the arch. in other words, if one could discredit the idea of american exceptionalism, then it becomes much easier to have a serious conversation about things like costs. but as long as a president, a presidential candidate, a senator can stand behind the podium and make exceptionalist claims and be applauded, it just seems that undertaking a serious critical conversation about how we got into this mess is going to be very difficult.

<u+201c>where is the public outcry for an explanation of how the longest war in american history is on a course to end in failure?<u+201d>

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

7.0

124.0

8.0

44039.0

0.0

5.0

11.0

0.0

3322.0

4.0

0.0

832.0

0.0

381.0

67.0

74.0

45.0

92.0

47.0

71.0

35.0

116.0

152.0

204.0

3333.0

836.0

381.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

as far as lee bebout was concerned, his arizona state university course, us race theory and the problem of whiteness, was off to a good start. a multiracial, politically diverse group of undergraduates was enrolled. he<u+2019>d prepared a syllabus and was ready to lead them in seminar-style discussions, assigning basic readings and weekly papers on the history of<u+00a0>race in america and other topics. but the class had met exactly once in the beginning of the 2015 spring semester, when news of it <u+2014> or its title, at least <u+2014> spread past campus. bebout was at lunch with his wife in january when a producer for a conservative radio show reached out to book an interview about the course. next, fox news wanted to talk. "i thought, <u+2018>oh god, this might not be a good thing,'" bebout, who tends to talk about the controversy in bemused understatements, remembers. then came the hate mail. lots of it. more than one message commanded the 38-year-old professor, who is white, to "go live in africa." the outrage reached a fever pitch that transcended the everyday internet trolling that goes hand in hand with just about any news that relates to race. "things got obviously weird," he says, "when white supremacist groups came to my neighborhood." it was more than weird <u+2014> it was scary. he<u+00a0>received death threats. all for daring to talk about whiteness. the people campaigning against the course were incensed at what they understood to be an entire semester dedicated to slamming white people. but the problem of whiteness wasn't designed to convince students that white people are a problem. the negative language in the course's title was simply a nod to how tough it can be to talk (or even think) about what it means to be white, when white is so deeply etched in the minds of many americans as a synonym for "raceless" or "neutral." the reaction to the course seemed to prove this thesis. bebout, then an assistant professor of english (the school stood behind him, and he's since received tenure and is a full professor) had previously taught courses like transborder chicano literature and american ethnic literature. he says he created the problem of whiteness for practical reasons: "i can study chicano studies, i can do critical race theory to some degree, but without understanding<u+00a0>whiteness, it felt like there was this big gap that i wasn't able to understand in the field." in other words, you really have to understand the idea of whiteness to even begin to talk about race in america. as columbia university historian barbara j. fields<u+00a0>told the producers of pbs's series<u+00a0>race: the power of an illusion, it was self-identified white americans of european descent who<u+00a0>"invented race during the era of the american revolution as a way of resolving the contradiction between a natural right to freedom and the fact of slavery." slavery is over, but whiteness remains the identity against which ethnic groups are compared and the identity that racism protects. you really have to understand the idea of whiteness to even begin to talk about race in america one white teenager profiled in the new mtv documentary white people put it in plain language: "white is the default. it's the default race." that film, which premiered july 22, is a high-profile exploration how young white people perceive their racial identity in a country that's more ethnically diverse by the year, and where they stand to be outnumbered by people who identify as something other than white by 2042. it's not the first recent effort of its kind. last year, an interactive film project,<u+00a0>the whiteness project, gave a platform to the unfiltered views of white americans, who answered questions like, "can you describe any benefits your receive from being white?" in june, after naacp official rachel dolezal was exposed for going to incredible lengths to distance herself from the white identity she was born with and "pass" as black, and white supremacist dylann roof was arrested for a deadly attack on a predominately black charleston, south carolina, church, the<u+00a0>new york times sunday review asked, "what is whiteness"? the idea that whiteness is deserving of scrutiny is unfailingly and uniquely controversial. many fret that contemplating what it means to be white is no more than a setup to make white americans feel "ashamed," as one disgruntled father of a teen featured in<u+00a0>white people complains. others worry that this focus distracts from the plight of members of racial minority groups, or that it irresponsibly offers a new platform to old racist views, without providing sufficient context or correction. but what's clear is that the days of pretending that whiteness is invisible are over. the turmoil surrounding it is just one of the growing pains of a country that's rapidly changing and struggling to rethink old ways of talking about and analyzing race. one reason bebout didn't fully anticipate the intense backlash against his course is that the topic wasn't revolutionary. examining what whiteness is <u+2014> analyzing it as a race, a culture, and a concept that has fueled racism <u+2014> isn't new, particularly in academia. bebout's assigned reading list included books that had been around for years: the possessive investment in<u+00a0>whiteness (1998),<u+00a0>critical race theory (1996),<u+00a0>the everyday language of white racism (2008),<u+00a0>playing in the dark: whiteness and the literary imagination (1993), and more. bebout points to james baldwin's introduction to<u+00a0>the price of the ticket,<u+00a0>written in 1985. tim wise wrote<u+00a0>white like me: reflections on race from a privileged son in 2005. and contemplating what it means to be white goes back even further than these contemporary texts, to the late 19th century and early 20th century writing of thinkers like w.e.b. du bois. attention to whiteness has had more practical moments, too, like in the curricula of the freedom schools of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, when, as bebout puts it, "a lot of black activists were saying, <u+2018>okay, we need to understand social conditioning of white people.'" in 1988 came peggy mcintosh's essay<u+00a0>white privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack, anchored by a 50-item list of small benefits that white americans enjoy every day <u+2014> like "i can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race," "i can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair," and "i can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me." still widely considered the simplest, go-to explanation of "white privilege" <u+2014> which is fast becoming a household term <u+2014> <u+00a0>it set off a surge of interest in whiteness<u+00a0>studies scholarship in the 1990s that's since ebbed and flowed, but has never been a secret. in recent years, though, something has changed. energy around the idea that white people have a race and a stake in conversations about race and racism has, very clumsily, begun to go mainstream. "controversy about this spikes every five or 10 years. the difference is now we have the internet," bebout says. this development means the topic has emerged from its cozy, nuance-friendly place in academic and progressive circles. in the hands of the public <u+2014> sharing articles, offering reactions on twitter, and typing paragraphs in comment sections <u+2014> it's simultaneously been treated with skepticism, infused with new life, and violently garbled. in mtv's<u+00a0>white people, pulitzer prize<u+2013>winning journalist jose antonio vargas travels the country to interview a cross-section of young, white americans: teachers at a predominantly native american elementary school, a kid from an all-white town who attends a historically black college, a recent high school graduate who frets that she's missed out on scholarships because of her race, and the leader of a workshop on white privilege. their narratives are supplemented by interviews with experts, and statistics and charts about demographics and attitudes that flash across the screen. the point? "we cannot have an honest and real conversation about race in america if we can't talk about what being white means in america," vargas told the<u+00a0>la times in a pre-premiere interview. that concept sounds straightforward enough, but it hasn't been easy to digest. in part due to the provocative language of an initial casting call that asked potential subjects, "are you being discriminated against for being white?" and, "are you being made to feel guilty because you're white?" in addition to, "is something making you question the advantages you've had as a white person?" and the release of a trailer that featured white subjects' unfiltered musings ("you say the wrong thing, and suddenly you're a racist"), the film was met with dread. anticipatory critiques rolled in. there was knee-jerk negativity from the usual <u+2014> often conservative <u+2014> suspects who resist most any conversation about race, and who seem to sniff out that scrutiny of whiteness might lead to thinking critically about racism in america in a way that clashes with their ideology. (they're right: it often does.) rush limbaugh, for example, dismissed vargas as a "a renowned illegal immigrant" and then, honing in on the use of the term "white privilege" in the trailer, offered his conservative listeners an<u+00a0>ominous description of the film, whose potential damage, he seemed to argue, had been underdiscussed. but the disapproval runs deeper and is more complicated than that. mention "whiteness" as an area of study, and some will recoil at the assumption that it's code for "white supremacy," as in the antagonistic "white history month" campaigns that tend to crop up as pushback against african american history month and what critics see as out-of-control multiculturalism. from others, it will elicit eye rolls in anticipation of petty complaints about imagined hardships and reverse racism. "i can't tell if this is actually supposed to be funny or serious but it's kinda hard not to laugh when a white dude exclaims, "you say the wrong thing and suddenly you are racist!" before the words "white frustration"<u+00a0>wrote kristen yoonsoo kim for<u+00a0>complex. "the white people featured in the documentary come from all walks of life, but they have one thing in common: they all seem like a bunch of whiny white people," wrote yesha callahan of the african-american news site<u+00a0>the root. the film has also been criticized by those who saw it in its entirety and thought its aims were worthy but worried that it fell short at times, presenting some white subjects' unsophisticated attitudes and statements without sufficiently challenging their premises. in a conversation between<u+00a0>slate tv critic willa paskin and staff writer aisha harris, the two agreed that it would make an insufficient teaching tool. paskin dubbed it a "pretty great idea for a documentary that was a little too remedial with and gentle on, well, white people." harris agreed, noting, "but we spend so little time with each of them, and the conversations are edited so heavily, that it always felt rushed.<u+00a0>" it's true,<u+00a0>white people is short <u+2014> under an hour long <u+2014> and it was heavier on feelings than on history or scholarship of american racism. but it was, after all, made for mtv. and despite the short viewer attention span that it seemed to anticipate, it managed to offer some instruction, dispelling the myth that white students are at a disadvantage when it comes to college scholarships, criticizing colorblindness as a tool for combating racism, and even giving viewers a peek into an actual classroom lesson on white privilege. and with this topic, even a flawless production would have had to contend with a different issue: not hostility to the message, but disinterest. some members of the main group that must buy into analysis of whiteness for it to work <u+2014> white americans themselves <u+2014> simply don't see the appeal of scrutinizing their own racial identity. and it's fair to ask: if they don't have an academic interest like bebout's, what's in it for them? <u+00a0>as nell irvin painter, a professor of history at princeton university and the author of<u+00a0>the history of white people, wrote for the<u+00a0>new york times, whiteness is often perceived as being "on toggle switch between <u+2018>bland nothingness' and <u+2018>racist hatred,' neither of which is particularly appealing." "whenever the words <u+2018>whiteness' or <u+2018>white privilege' get uttered by nonwhite people, people's reflexes go all the way up," vargas told<u+00a0>buzzfeed news in november 2014, anticipating reactions to the documentary. "white people think race is something outside themselves, and they don't consider themselves a race" perhaps he was primed after the response to<u+00a0>the whiteness<u+00a0>project,<u+00a0>the interactive investigation designed to explore how americans who identify as white think about and experience their ethnicity. the project elicited similar reactions the moment the series of video interviews in which residents of buffalo, new york, responded to questions like, "what does it mean to be white?" hit the internet. "white people think race is something outside themselves, and they don't consider themselves a race," whitney dow, the 53-year-old filmmaker behind the project, said, echoing a common talking point among people campaigning for attention to whiteness. in many cases, his interviews made his point for him, with subjects seemingly wanting to weigh in on anything but whiteness, railing against diversity or affirmative action in responses like, "i just don't buy into the nonsense about discrimination," and, "because slavery happened, does that mean we owe black people something?" dow said the people who initially criticized the concept made up two main groups. "one is from the right, on the conservative side, who say, <u+2018>why are you stirring something up? everybody needs to forget about race and stop talking about it. we just need to move on.' the other side is from the left, who are saying, <u+2018>you're just another white guy who won't let go of the microphone. you're putting all this stuff out here that's incredibly wounding for us to hear, and it's really, really outrageous what you're up to.'" dow ultimately got to explain the project's intended message <u+2014> mostly, that white people do have a racial identity, and that it almost never gets any serious attention <u+2014> in a series of interviews (including<u+00a0>this one, with vox). he said plenty of others looked past the often abrasive <u+2014> and, yes, racist <u+2014> statements of the interviewees to glean larger lesson of the project. while he says the intended audience of the project was his fellow white people, one of his favorite examples of a positive response is from a black woman who he said told him, "it was incredibly cathartic and relieving to see that white people are grappling with the same thing, that they feel like their whiteness is somehow defined in opposition of blackness. seeing that we're grappling with the same things gave me some sort of inner peace." but the whiteness trend is not just fodder for films and internet debates. it's gaining a foothold in american culture <u+2014> the real-life, in-person kind. new york city's private fieldston lower school made headlines in may for<u+00a0>a new program that splits up kids, starting in third grade, into racial "affinity groups" where they are encouraged to have frank conversations about their identities and experiences, and then reunite for a curriculum designed to "foster interracial empathy." what makes the program unique is that it isn't just for the black, latino, and asian students. white students have their own group, too <u+2014> and participation is mandatory. mariama richards, the school administrator behind the program, told<u+00a0>new york magazine's lisa miller that when other schools have affinity groups, "they send the white kids to recess." but true integration, she said, "doesn't happen if only half the people are talking about it. "what i am suggesting is that we all have skin in the game. i'm suggesting that we all need to be involved in this conversation," richards said. that idea <u+2014> that white people have an identity worth thinking about, and a natural stake in tackling racism <u+2014> is taking hold. while the fieldston kids don't have any more of a choice in participating in their groundbreaking, mandatory program than they do in studying math or english, the adults in one boston organization do, and they're coming in droves. this is the description for potential members of meetup.com's<u+00a0>boston knapsack anti-racism group, just one of<u+00a0>the many groups around the country for and by white people who are committed to racial justice. typical events include "book group: reproducing racism <u+2014> how everyday choices lock in white advantage" and "strategies for moving white people into racial justice." the group's name is a nod to mcintosh's "invisible knapsack" essay on white privilege. according to michael martin, a black 28-year-old software engineer from springfield, massachusetts, who is one of the largely white (he guesses about 60 to 70 percent) group's seven organizers, membership has "exploded" in the months since michael brown's death in ferguson, missouri, drew national attention to racially biased policing and larger issues of racial inequality. a lot of white bostonians wanted to know where they fit into the solutions. "once everything happened, there was an immediate response," he said. the group now reports about 100 active members. martin says they show up with varying degrees of literacy about racism, but with an earnest interest in combating it <u+2014> and not in a kumbaya, colorblind, "i don't see race" sense, at least if he has anything to say about it. he considers it his responsibility, as one of the leaders and one of a handful of black members, to keep conversations on track by reminding members that american racism and white supremacy are bigger than one-on-one interactions. "we never let anyone get out of any of our space thinking that there isn't systemic racism that's happening," he said. martin is not surprised by the recent surge of interest in the group. "i definitely think there is a cultural moment" surrounding whiteness and white americans' role in fighting racism, he said. "i think it needs to be pulled more and more out of academia. this is something that's affecting people whether they have a chance to go to a four-year university or not, and we need to have a conversation about it." scrutinizing what it means to be white in america is new, and it's hard. there's the fact that so many people have solidified the view that talking about race is bad or that ignoring the labels we all use is the best way to address it. but even once you get past that, there's a cognitive struggle even among people with the best intentions and most enthusiasm to grasp that "whiteness is not the planet all the other planets revolve around." "i didn't see the value in thinking about whiteness and why that would be important <u+2014> i wanted to talk to people who were different than i was" that's how drew philp, the 29-year-old author of<u+00a0>a forthcoming book expanding on an buzzfeed<u+00a0>essay that grappled with his role as a white man moving into detroit, describes the concept. but he remembers when he didn't get it. as a student at the university of michigan in 2007 he was selected to participate in the school's program for intergroup relations <u+2014> and part of his role was to facilitate a class for his peers. he was not excited. "initially i was very resistant to it, personally," he said. "it was an idea i'd never been exposed to in any manner. i felt maybe that i was being cheated of some experience, and i didn't see the value in thinking about whiteness and why that would be important <u+2014> i wanted to talk to people who were different than i was." he's now come all the way around to appreciate whiteness studies, but the memory of his college experience means he understands people who don't. "a new idea making its way through the culture is difficult in general, and people, myself in included, are trained in a lot of ways when it comes to race. millennials are the first generation when it's been unacceptable to be an overt racist in all public spheres. so talking about whiteness triggers folks. [they worry], <u+2018>maybe we're going to make a wrong step.'" he hasn't held back when it comes to publicly criticizing these missteps, though. in 2014, as a film critic for the detroit metro times, he penned<u+00a0>a scathing review of a<u+00a0>white people, a stage production by brooklyn playwright j. t. roger, arguing that while "the conversation around whiteness is sorely needed," this particular piece of art went awry, with characters who "are all defined, not by their whiteness as something specific and definable, but by their descriptions of people of color and violent interactions with other races." he slammed the show with an astronomy metaphor: "white people looks at the gravity and the satellite moons, forgetting the star. everything but white people." it's a common sentiment. matt johnson, who penned<u+00a0>loving day, a novel in which a biracial protagonist navigates questions or race, color, and identity <u+2014> and who's written about his own biracial identity <u+2014> recently tweeted a concise take on this dilemma: "whiteness can't take being focused on. whiteness only accepts being the lens that focuses." that could partly explain why bebout is used to people recoiling and resisting the concept of his course. his tactic is to diffuse their anxiety with a joke (yes, i teach about how white people are awful), and then, once they're disarmed, deliver a well-honed elevator pitch that tells a more accurate story: "look, what i'm interested in is how white people have experienced race in the united states, and they have not necessarily experienced it the same ways as people of color. they experience it by not talking about it or not seeing it or talking about race in a very coded way. or talking about race in one way at home and another way in public. i'm interested in how white folks experience race and how that experiencing of race is informed by and also reinforces racial inequality." he makes the topic, which has proven to be so complicated, sound simple. and he'll be teaching it again next semester.

white people have a race <u+2014> but everyone flips out when we talk about it

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

10.0

71.0

8.0

22422.0

0.0

1.0

3.0

0.0

1715.0

1.0

0.0

369.0

2.0

0.0

349.0

38.0

54.0

26.0

40.0

32.0

45.0

24.0

68.0

85.0

125.0

1718.0

370.0

351.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

governor's position on gay marriage may reflect and effort to preserve opportunity to run for president in 2016 as activists push states to recognize gay marriages, new jersey gov. chris christie <u+2014> conservative republican governor in a blue state and a 2016 presidential possibility <u+2014> is walking a fine line between two electorates and two elections. christie vetoed same-sex marriage legislation last year and severely criticized the supreme court's decision striking down a ban on federal rights for same-sex married couples. at the same time, he is "adamant'' that same-sex couples deserve equal legal protection, wants a referendum on gay marriage, and vows to abide by a same-sex marriage law if the voters approve it. he's tiptoeing between constituencies. first are the voters of new jersey: polls show they favor same-sex marriage, and christie wants them to reelect him in november by a big margin. then there are republican caucus-goers in iowa. christie needs their backing if he runs for president in 2016; in 2012, evangelical conservatives, who generally oppose gay marriage, made up 57% of republican caucusgoers in the state, according to exit polls. and there is a third group of voters to think about: swing voters across the nation, who might go for a republican presidential nominee who is sufficiently centrist. to appeal to those voters, christie "will want to not be perceived to be as far right as many republicans are,'' says david boaz of the cato institute, a libertarian think tank. "that's a lot of tightropes to walk.'' christie, who is roman catholic, has said he does not believe being gay is a choice, nor is it a sin, and that he has gay friends who argue the issue with him. marriage, he said last year on cnn, is "special and unique in society.'' he followed his veto in of the gay-marriage bill in february 2012 with a call for a statewide referendum on whether to allow same-sex marriage by constitutional amendment. "when you want to change the core of a 2,000 year-old institution, the way to do that is to put it in front of the voters,'' he told reporters july 2. a referendum would allow same-sex marriage to pass in new jersey without his fingerprints <u+2014> or as he said at a town-hall-style meeting last month: "i don't have to compromise my principles that i believe in and someone else doesn't have to compromise theirs.'' christie is in the same position as his party. the republican platform says marriage is only for couples of different sexes, but chairman reince priebus has said that the republican party should be open to those who favor same-sex marriage. "i don't believe we need to act like old testament heretics," he told usa today in march. instead, republicans "have to strike a balance between principle and grace and respect.'' garden state equality, a leading advocate for same-sex marriage in new jersey, opposes a referendum saying civil rights should not be on the ballot. "it should never be up to the majority to vote on the rights of the minority,'' spokesman t.j. helmstetter said. same-sex marriage advocates are now lobbying new jersey legislators to override christie's veto before the end of the year, when the window to do so expires. christie is too powerful a party leader to let that happen, says ben dworkin, director of rider university's rebovich institute for new jersey politics. "i can't envision a situation where the republican votes that are needed to get the two-thirds override would come, given this administration's history,'' dworkin says. "the christie administration sees no reason why any republican should really ever override a republican governor. that's their logic, so i'd be shocked if it ever got to happen." last year, christie nominated a gay judge (a republican) to the state supreme court, a first for the state. last month, when the supreme court ruled on defense of marriage act, he called it "insulting" to the congress and president which passed the law. troy stevenson, executive director of garden state equality, said, "i don't like to pretend i can get inside the mind of the governor, but i think the closer we get to him having future political ambitions the more staunch his opposition gets to marriage equality." but jimmy lasalvia, a founder of goproud, a republican gay-rights group that favors same-sex marriage, gives christie credit for not trying to change the subject. "he's one republican who doesn't say 'i believe marriage is between a man and a woman. we need jobs and the economy is hurting,''' says lasalvia, who now works with the aclu trying to pass same-sex marriage state by state. "he's willing to talk through the issue in a way that no other republican has the balls to do.'' christie has to make his political calculus now, even though "he doesn't know how much public opinion will change between now and 2016,'' boaz says. "will people be more liberal then? is the country? yes. but the republican primary electorate, maybe not so much.'' public opinion on gay marriage has changed rapidly. four years ago, 37% of americans favored same-sex marrage. now, 51% do, according to the pew research center. iowa and new hampshire, traditionally the first states to hold presidential nominating contests, both allow same-sex marriage <u+2013> which could mean voters there no longer focus on it as an issue. "those people in those states have been living with (same-sex marriage) for a while,'' lasalvia says. "i don't think any of us knows how the issue is going to play in 2016 because it's moving so fast.'' an october poll sponsored by the iowa republican, a news site, showed iowans favor gay marriage 49% to 42%. iowa has allowed gays to marry since a 2009 state supreme court decision <u+2013> and voters remain conflicted about it, says pollster ann selzer, who conducts the iowa poll for the des moines register, "you ask them on the street and nobody can say that their lives have been affected. but you ask them if they like it and they don't.'' in a poll taken a month after the 2012 caucuses, 64% of republicans favored a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

n.j. gov. christie walks a fine line on gay marriage

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

52.0

8.0

6122.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

437.0

0.0

97.0

0.0

52.0

13.0

18.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

6.0

3.0

33.0

15.0

43.0

442.0

97.0

52.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

congressional democrats are trying to build support for an effort to bar gun purchases by terror suspects, hoping to take advantage of the same public anxieties about security that gave republicans a ringing house victory. the democratic push seems likely to fall victim to opposition from the national rifle association and congressional gun-rights backers, chiefly republicans, who have smothered firearms curbs for years. if the republicans who control congress block votes on the proposal, democrats hope to profit politically by winning sympathy from angry voters. "by leaving this terrorist loophole open, republicans are leaving every community in america vulnerable to attacks by terrorists armed with assault rifles and explosives purchased legally, in broad daylight," senate minority leader harry reid, d-nev., said friday in a written statement. the bill by sen. dianne feinstein, d-calif., would have the attorney general compile names of known and suspected terrorists, likely drawing from huge lists the government already keeps. federally licensed gun dealers would be barred from selling firearms to people on that list if government officials believed they planned to use the weapons for terrorism. gun dealers are prohibited from selling to 10 categories of people, including many convicted criminals or those with severe mentally illness. but people appearing on the government's terror watch lists <u+2014> including those kept off from airlines <u+2014> are not automatically disqualified from buying weapons from gun dealers. the fbi is notified when a background check for the purchase of firearms or explosives generates a match with the watch list, and agents often use that information to step up surveillance on suspects. by law, people can try persuading the justice department to remove their names from terror lists or can file lawsuits challenging their inclusion. the lists are overwhelmingly composed of foreigners. between 2004 and 2014, people on one terror watch list underwent background checks to buy guns 2,233 times and were allowed to make the purchase 91 percent of the time, according to a march report by the government accountability office, an investigative agency of congress. nra spokeswoman jennifer baker noted that there have been numerous instances of innocent people mistakenly added to terror lists. she also accused democrats of trying to take advantage of heightened public alarm following last week's attacks in paris, which claimed at least 130 lives and for which the islamic state, which has also threatened the u.s., has claimed responsibility. "it is appalling that anti-gun politicians are exploiting the paris terrorist attacks to push their gun-control agenda and distract from president obama's failed foreign policy," baker said. feinstein's measure echoes legislation that the late sen. frank lautenberg, d-n.j., proposed repeatedly over the last decade and that rep. peter king, r-n.y., has long pushed. none of those measures has ever received a vote. feinstein introduced her bill in february. but last week's mass killings in paris have injected new life into terrorism and public safety as top-tier political issues. just thursday, republicans took advantage of voters' security jitters and muscled legislation through the house preventing syrian and iraqi refugees from entering the u.s. until the administration tightens restrictions on their entry. forty-seven democrats voted for the bill, ignoring a veto threat by president barack obama, who said the current screening system is strong and accused republicans of playing on panicked voters. house speaker paul ryan, r-wis., did not respond directly when asked thursday if he favored barring people on terror lists from buying guns. "we are just beginning this process of reassessing all of our security stances," he said. donald stewart, spokesman for senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, r-ky., said mcconnell has not said whether he would be open to a vote on feinstein's bill. but opposition from republicans and some democrats to curbing firearms runs deep, and such legislation would require support from 60 of the 100 senators. democrats could not attain that margin even when they had a senate majority in the months after the 2012 massacre of 20 first-graders and six adults in newtown, connecticut. though the senate had showdown votes on gun curbs in early 2013, it did not revisit the issue as the 2014 elections approached and reid opted to protect vulnerable democrats from potentially angering constituents. the gop-run house has held no votes on major gun control measures since the newtown killings. feinstein's bill isn't the only gun-related measure democrats may pursue. a measure by sen. dick durbin, d-ill., would bar gun sales to foreigners in the u.s. from the 38 countries from which visitors need not have visas.

democrats push to prevent gun sales to terror-list suspects

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

3.0

59.0

8.0

4874.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

330.0

0.0

66.0

0.0

35.0

22.0

9.0

10.0

25.0

5.0

15.0

5.0

26.0

34.0

32.0

333.0

66.0

35.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

donald trump called this morning for the clinton foundation to be "shut down immediately," describing it as "the most corrupt enterprise in political history" in a facebook post. "hillary clinton is the defender of the corrupt and rigged status quo," trump wrote. "the clintons have spent decades as insiders lining their own pockets and taking care of donors instead of the american people." over the weekend, the clinton campaign insisted the clinton foundation would stop accepting donations from foreign countries. they did not explain why such a suspension did not happen when clinton served as secretary of state. critics have pointed to a number of state department-facilitated deals that involved foreign parties that had made donations to the clinton foundation. the 'clinton system' involves selling access to bad guys. "what they were doing during crooked hillary's time as secretary of state was wrong then, and it is wrong now," trump wrote. earlier this year, the fbi reportedly wanted to open an investigation of the clinton foundation after receiving an alert from a bank about suspicious activity by a foreign clinton foundation donor, but the department of justice (doj) nixed it, claiming their own investigation after the book clinton cash (now a documentary)was released could not substantiate those allegations the doj focused on.

donald trump call for immediate shutdown of clinton foundation

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

3.0

62.0

8.0

1357.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

104.0

0.0

25.0

0.0

11.0

3.0

7.0

1.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

3.0

6.0

8.0

9.0

109.0

25.0

11.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

in 2015, vox talked to secretary perez about how social change happens <u+2014> and the role played not just by government and activists, but by individual interactions between people, and by the slow, relentless force of demographics and history. this interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length. perez's track record has made him something of a lightning rod for the right: when he was nominated for labor secretary, then<u+2013>senate minority leader mitch mcconnell called him "a crusading ideologue whose convictions lead him to believe that the law simply doesn't apply to him." his office reflects the importance of both insiders and outsiders: the picture behind his desk is of former labor secretary frances perkins, the namesake of the building where the department is headquartered, but the picture in the anteroom outside his office is of labor leader and activist cesar chavez. at the same time, he's a close ally of democratic politicians; he's spent time campaigning for hillary clinton during the 2016 primary, and is sometimes mentioned as a possible vp pick if clinton wins the nomination. perez has spent the majority of his career inside government, from the staff of senator ted kennedy to the council of montgomery county, maryland. but he's always been closely aligned with activists and movements outside of the government. for a time, he was president of the board of directors of casa de maryland, a leading immigration advocacy group; even when he hasn't had an official title, he's worked closely with lgbt organizations, civil rights groups, and labor unions. progressive activists haven't always loved democratic presidents, and they certainly haven't always loved president obama. at times they've been deeply frustrated with the president and his white house. but at least one senior administration official has remained a progressive hero throughout the entirety of obama's presidency: thomas perez, who ran the department of justice's civil rights division during the president's first term and has served as secretary of labor since 2013. what role does government play in social change? dara lind: i think progressives feel a lot of ownership in having you here in the perkins building. tom perez: that's why her portrait is right behind my back <u+2014> because she's the gold standard. dara lind: over the course of your career, you've been working very closely with a lot of movements, but mostly from the inside. the big question i want an answer to is what role you think government plays in social change. do you see this role as primarily leading public opinion and instituting things that people can then catch up to? or is it mostly responsive to people who are already organizing on the ground and demanding that government respond? when you look at the history of any successful movement, it's always been a partnership. by partnership, i mean there are external forces at work. also in the anatomy of every successful movement that has resulted in change, whether it's the civil rights act of '64 or the voting rights act of '65 or movements before that <u+2014> the fair labor standards act, under fdr, for example. you look at the work of frances perkins leading up to the fair labor standards act, and you look at the work of the external labor movement at that point. and i talk about civil rights and labor rights; i mean, the march on washington was a march for civil rights and a march for labor rights. each one of those forces is indispensable to the movement. they<u+2019>re all really links on a chain. and when you break a link, the chain can be broken. dara lind: how have you seen these kinds of partnerships play out over the course of your career? tom perez: we had a living-wage movement in montgomery county, and it would not have been successful without progressive businesses, without grass-roots leadership and faith leaders, and without folks inside montgomery county government who said, "this is the right thing to do." or moving the needle on the hate crimes bill, for instance <u+2014> which was, for me, a 15-year odyssey. i can tell you a lot about that one, because i really did had a front-row seat on that. who is more responsible? i'll let historians judge that. but i think i can say, fairly, that it was all of us working together. and if you didn't have the inside-government person, you wouldn't have gotten it done. what happens when activists are frustrated with their allies inside government? dara lind: in hindsight, throughout history, it often seems there's a partnership between inside and outside. in the moment, there can be tensions. i think both of us have seen this recently, with the immigrant rights movement and the administration leading up to the executive actions in november. tom perez: oh, sure. and there were tensions in the hate-crimes bill. there was tension during the drafting: there are existing death penalty provisions, and what do you do about that? those are fair questions. those are important questions. the immigrant-rights movement <u+2014> believe me, these are my very, very good friends. <u+2026> that doesn't mean, even when you know you have shared values and shared vision, that we haven't had pitched battles. and it doesn't mean that at the end of the day we don't come out with a very clear vision of where to go forward, and sometimes you don't agree at the end. but i think we<u+2019>re in a good place right now. dara lind: in cases where there is direct pressure on the people who are friends of the movement, when have you seen that kind of pressure be effective in spurring them to do better? when have you seen it entrench attitudes and make people feel underappreciated? tom perez: i consider myself a pretty passionate person, but i have always tried hard not to personalize things. in the heat of the moment, at times, that's easier said than done, so i think it's really important to keep that in mind. in every debate i had when i was at the county council, i saw folks on the left and folks on the right who'd do this: when they disagree with you, they also disagree with who you are. they add, "you're morally bankrupt," or something like that. and, you know, we just have different visions of america at times when we see things differently. one thing i learned from senator kennedy, and from senator paul simon, and others whom i watched firsthand as a staffer, was that you can disagree without being disagreeable. you can be passionate in your views, but you've got to remember that you have got to work with folks. if you're attacking their integrity as opposed to attacking their point of view on an issue, it just makes it harder to get to the finish line. i think people understand that. but people are human. and as a result, sometimes we do things that perhaps don't move the ball forward. dara lind: the president<u+2019>s made some substantial changes recently through executive action <u+2014> on immigration, for example, or raising the minimum wage for federal contractors. there<u+2019>s often a belief in dc that changing policy through the executive branch isn<u+2019>t as permanent as getting it done through legislation or waiting for public opinion to come around. do you feel that's a concern? or do you feel that changes like this set a standard that society will then rise to meet? tom perez: i see them as both. when i look back on the most important civil rights developments in the last hundred years, in the top three for me would be president truman's executive order integrating the armed forces. and i couldn't help but note the parallels in rhetoric with some opponents when he did that, and when we were talking about "don't ask, don't tell," <u+2014> "military readiness," and this and that. i had a trial down in texas when i was prosecuting hate crimes. it was a horrible hate-crime case. i got to be good friends with the attorney for one of the defendants, and he's a world war ii veteran. he said once that he grew up in the segregated south, he grew up with attitudes about african americans, and the singular thing that changed his life was when he fought side by side with them. so i think executive action can be transformational. the deferred action for childhood arrivals program, or<u+00a0>daca, has been in place since 2012. the program applies to many of the "dreamers": young unauthorized immigrants who would have qualified for legalization under the<u+00a0>dream act. under the current daca program, young unauthorized immigrants who meet certain criteria apply for two years of protection from deportation (it's going to be extended to three years under the new set of orders), and can get work permits once they've been "dacamented." an estimated 1.2 million immigrants were initially eligible for the program, and about half of them have actually applied. read this vox feature for more about how well daca has worked so far. there's no substitute for comprehensive immigration reform. daca was transformational, but not sufficiently so. i met a daca kid [see sidebar] yesterday down in carolina when i was there, and she inspires me. she absolutely inspires me. but she can't get in-state tuition, and, you know, there's a ceiling for her, even though she's better off now than before. so i look at executive action and legislative action as two tools in our toolbox of expanding opportunity. how can progressives organize people who don<u+2019>t have the time for political activism? dara lind: what are the lessons you learned while working and serving on the casa board that you took with you when you went back to working for the government? tom perez: it was something that i understood intuitively as a student in the civil rights movement, but then when you live it, you see firsthand: that change happens from the bottom up. you build things from the bottom up, you organize, and that's how you effect change. and so i'm trying to bring that operating principle to our paid-leave discussion; to our skills movement; to the working families, businesses, nonprofits, faith leaders, and educators working side by side. i just talked to 400 community college presidents and trustees this morning. and we have tremendous opportunities. the wind is at our back economically. but we've got to make sure we have shared prosperity, and the long-term key to that is we need to upskill america. we need to equip americans, workers, with the skills to compete. and the community i hear the most about this issue from is the business community. and i said to them, "we need to build a movement around this. i dream of a day when i hear <u+2014> and, more importantly, congress hears <u+2014> as often from the business community about skills as they do about trade or other issues." if you were to commission a poll of 500 employers right now, skills would be in the top three of their priorities. but we haven't built a movement around it. we're building a movement right now around paid leave and childcare. we live in a modern family world, but we have these leave it to beaver principles that are still all too frequently in place. i mean, rebecca, the woman who sat in the box with the first lady at the state of the union <u+2014> to put a finer point on their situation, they have two kids under the age of five, their mortgage is $1,400 a month, and their child-care bill is $1,900 a month. you can't survive like that for any long period of time. dara lind: the question that raises is: what happens when you have someone who's working to support a family and doesn't benefit from paid leave, or needs to work two jobs because he or she isn't being paid minimum wage <u+2014> who might not have the energy to be the forces on the ground? how does it affect the ability to build a movement when the people who are most likely to benefit may not be able, or just may not be terribly motivated, to make change happen, because they<u+2019>re focused on their daily lives? tom perez: that<u+2019>s a huge question. when you look at where we were 100 years ago and you look at where we are now, there was a lot more attachment to institutions <u+2014> your union, the elks, the eagles, bowling, your church or other place of worship. today, there is more bowling alone. in that context, how do we build movements? i'm inspired by people like sarita gupta [executive director of the workers-rights advocacy group jobs with justice], and others, who have recognized that we can organize low-wage workers and we can partner with businesses. she's doing the same thing you and i are talking about. and she's working on behalf of exactly the cohort you described: people who understand at a basic level that their life is a struggle, that the playing field isn't level, but they don't have time to go to the rally or go to the union hall, and they may not necessarily have the wherewithal. they need help. that's the voice we have to give. that's why our work is so important. because there are folks out there with a lot money to spend who are saying, "i wake up every day figuring out how i can screw unions." we<u+2019>ve got to understand this: that there are folks who wake up every day who believe we get ahead in america by squelching workers<u+2019> voices, by making it harder for workers to organize and creating more top-down stuff. and i just refuse. the gilded age was not a golden age in america. that<u+2019>s why we do what we're doing here: to service that voice. that's what gets the president out of bed every morning. these are hard battles, because the people we're fighting on behalf of are working two and three jobs. it's not realistic, oftentimes, to ask them to come down to capitol hill to do hill visits. dara lind: on the one hand, you're saying there are people who are working against the ones you are working for. but on a historical scale, attitudes change: people who would have been opposed to integrating the armed forces 70 years ago aren<u+2019>t opposed today. do you think that kind of change of winning hearts and minds is inevitable? tom perez: usually, i'm optimistic. i believe the moral arc of the universe bends not only toward justice but also toward those who seek to expand opportunity, rather than contract opportunity. at the beginning of the 20th century, there was a big debate about whether to have free access to public education k<u+2013>12. "you're going to give out free high school degrees? you don't need that. come on." i suspect some of the descendants of those folks are the ones who fought medicare 50 years later. "medicare," you know? "you don<u+2019>t need that." there's an album you should look at: ronald reagan speaks out against socialized medicine. there's actually an album. i think i still have the album cover. i gave it to diane rehm one day because i was on her show. not only did reagan say medicare would lead to socialized medicine, he said medicare would lead to socialism in america. that's what he said in the album. and 50 years later i've met all these people. i met a guy, ward, in nashville who got his aca coverage march 1 and got his liver transplant two weeks later. i met a guy, victor, two weeks ago in salt lake; kidney cancer. and what they both wanted more than anything <u+2014> "you know what i want to do most now?" they say. i'm like, "no, what?" i don't know what they're going to say. "i want to work, i want to get a job again, because i was so sick i couldn't work." it just makes me ask the question: what's in it for opponents of the aca for ward and victor not to be able to work? and then they have to become a ward of the state. how is that good for the economy? how is it good for health-care delivery to have the er be their primary care physician? how is that good on any metric of success, putting aside the moral and ethical aspects of that? so i have optimism. because we are on the right of the facts and we are on the right side of history, and that's how the moral arc has historically bent. it doesn't bend on its own. we are talking about movements and movement building. dara lind: over the course of your career, do you think there are any issues that have suffered setbacks <u+2014> where you<u+2019>re now fighting just to get back to where things were when you started out? tom perez: i'm going to selma in a couple of weeks to commemorate bloody sunday and 50 years after bloody sunday and almost 50 years as we come up. [he looks toward a corner of his office.] i'm looking over there right now because it's john lewis, one of my favorite people, in the photo. i find it impossible to believe that 50 years after folks fought, struggled so hard, and gave their lives in some cases, the biggest problem in the voting space is in-person voter id fraud. that is, as colin powell said, "how can a problem be so widespread and yet so undetected?" i firmly believe we should have a pitched battle about policies. democracy is all about having passionate debate <u+2014> respectful but passionate debate. and then at the end of the day, what we should be doing is making sure everybody gets the opportunity to vote. that's why i had some friends on the left who asked me when i was in the civil rights division, "why do you spend so much time making sure that veterans, service members, can vote? because don't you know they vote republican?" and i said, "first of all, i don't know how they vote. second, i don't care how they vote. and third, i'm offended by that. because these folks are serving our country and we need to make sure everyone gets access to the ballot. i'm just thoroughly offended by that suggestion." so we should be having this debate, and then at the end of the day we should all be working together to make it as easy as possible for eligible voters to vote. as opposed to a world in which the strategy is, "i<u+2019>ve got to make it harder for my perceived ideological foe to exercise his franchise." by the way, you might win a short-term victory here and there, but you are swimming into an un-winnable headwind of demographics that will be a tidal wave. and it's totally inconsistent with our values as a nation.

secretary of labor tom perez on how to fight for social change

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

17.0

62.0

8.0

17934.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

1220.0

0.0

360.0

0.0

145.0

31.0

42.0

11.0

32.0

28.0

21.0

17.0

64.0

44.0

99.0

1222.0

360.0

145.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

historically, a vital part of the us presidency is forging relationships with other world leaders. and the going isn't necessarily easier there than it is with the news media <u+2013> a group that seems to rattle donald trump. how snl's 'the bubble' sketch about polarization is all too true us army vet claude copeland, center, speaks during a press briefing outside a donald trump news conference in new york on may 31. following sustained pressure from media outlets, trump announced the charities that received money from a veterans' fundraiser he held earlier this year. if donald trump loses his cool because of the american media, how would he deal with personal challenges from world leaders? or to put it in blunter terms, if mr. trump can<u+2019>t handle abc, how could he stand up to vladimir putin? it<u+2019>s yesterday<u+2019>s combative trump press conference that sparks these thoughts, of course. the presumptive republican presidential nominee harshly attacked reporters for pressing him on his promises of charitable aid to veterans<u+2019> groups. trump called one abc reporter in the room a <u+201c>sleaze.<u+201d> he complained that the press wasn<u+2019>t giving him credit for being generous. <u+201c>you make me look very bad,<u+201d> he said. but trump<u+2019>s evident anger was focused on a contretemps he should have expected. on jan. 28 he held a televised fundraiser at which he said he<u+2019>d raised $6 million for vets, including $1 million from his own pocket. those are things that are easy to check, and reporters did. in late may, the washington post questioned his handling of the money. some veterans<u+2019> groups had indeed received checks, but the total was nothing near $6 million. trump himself did not appear to have donated anything. what was the deal? on tuesday, trump angrily outlined the donations. his foundation had made many of them, including his own $1 million gift, on may 23, after the post story ran. he continued berating the media to the end of the press conference. <u+201c>i find the political press to be unbelievably dishonest. i will say that,<u+201d> he said in closing. <u+201c>ok. thank you all very much. thank you.<u+201d> all in all, trump seemed like someone with a thin skin. and look <u+2013> the us media is one thing. they<u+2019>re unpopular, they<u+2019>re used to being called <u+201c>nazi moron<u+201d> and worse, and it<u+2019>s easy to hurl insults at them. but what<u+2019>s president trump going to do if a foreign leader, having seen this display, decides for his or her own purposes to taunt the new us leader? because they will. personal relationships are a big part of geopolitics, for better or worse. handling them is one of the most important aspects of the presidency. it<u+2019>s where the personality of the person sitting in the oval office really comes into play. think of the blustery soviet leader nikita khrushchev hectoring new us president john kennedy in vienna in 1961. (<u+201c>roughest thing in my life,<u+201d> jfk confided to a columnist afterward.) or the rapport that eventually developed between ronald reagan and the final soviet leader, mikhail gorbachev. it helped ease the end of the cold war. american voters shouldn<u+2019>t worry that trump will behave toward foreign leaders as he did toward us reporters, campaign spokeswoman katrina pierson said yesterday. trump would not talk to a roomful of colleagues that way <u+201c>because they are not treating him the way the media is doing today,<u+201d> ms. pierson said on cnn. well, foreign adversaries can be much rougher than abc or the washington post, if they want. currently trump<u+2019>s problem with foreign leaders isn<u+2019>t rooted in belligerence as much as in credulity, according to one critic. trump seems easy to flatter. thus vladimir putin has said admiring things about trump, and trump has responded in kind. trump has combined some words of admiration for north korea<u+2019>s dictator kim jong-un with criticism, and north korea official media has now come out in favor of trump, notes jay nordlinger of the right-leaning but anti-trump national review. <u+201c>what if the ayatollah khamenei flatters trump? will trump sweeten the iran deal?<u+201d> writes nordlinger. if nothing else, the hillary clinton campaign is eager to bolster the image of trump as an unstable entity. it fits with their contention that he<u+2019>s too risky to entrust with america<u+2019>s nuclear codes. mrs. clinton<u+2019>s already uses it as a talking point to help her pivot away from questions about the propriety and legality of her use of a private e-mail server as secretary of state. asked about the server yesterday in multiple television interviews, clinton responded with the same line: <u+201c>i hope voters look at the full picture of everything i<u+2019>ve done in my career and the full threat posed by a donald trump presidency.<u+201d>

if donald trump gets rattled by press, how would he handle putin?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

13.0

65.0

8.0

4660.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

322.0

1.0

0.0

98.0

0.0

42.0

10.0

11.0

4.0

11.0

10.0

9.0

8.0

22.0

24.0

31.0

324.0

99.0

42.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

a second terrorist took part in the subway bombing tuesday in brussels and authorities believe he may have survived the blast, meaning there are potentially two "mystery bombers" from the twin attacks on the run, according to reports. the development means there is an unidentified bomber in both the attack at the maelbeek metro station, which killed 20, and the earlier blasts at zaventem airport, which killed 11. both unidentified suspects were captured by surveillance cameras with known suicide bombers. the french newspaper le monde and the belgian public broadcaster rtbf reported that a man carrying a large bag was seen on cctv walking with khalid el bakraoui, whom authorities believe blew himself up on a train at the maelbeek station. that possible accomplice also was seen talking to el bakraoui and did not get on the train that was bombed, police sources told afp. what is known of the men suspected of direct involvement in tuesday<u+2019>s attacks: - ibrahim el bakraoui, one of two brothers involved, is believed to be one of two suicide bombers who died at the airport. - najim laachraoui, an isis explosives expert believed to have built the bombs used in both the paris and brussels attacks, was the other suicide bomber who died at the airport. he and ibrahim el bakraoui are believed to be the men seen in a surveillance photo pushing luggage carts and wearing solitary black gloves that may have masked detonators. - a mystery man dressed in white, wearing a dark hat and possibly a disguise who has not been identified was also seen pushing a cart in the surveillance photo. he is believed to have placed a bomb at the airport and fled the scene. authorities are looking for him. - khalid el bakraoui, the brother of ibrahim el bakraoui, is believed to have died in a suicide blast at the maelbeek metro station 79 minutes after the airport attack. - a second man seen with khalid el bakraoui and carrying a large bag at the metro station is believed to have been an accomplice and either died in the blast or is on the run. isis claimed responsibility for the attacks in brussels, which have laid bare european security failings and prompted calls for better intelligence cooperation. belgian prime minister charles michel, in a national mourning speech thursday, said the attacks targeted the "liberty of daily life" and "the liberty upon which the european project was built." "the cries of distress, the cries of pain, the scream of sirens, the apocalyptic images will remain engraved" on memories, he said. security experts have told fox news the bombers were likely targeting americans, because the airport blast happened near the american airlines desk, and the metro station is near the u.s. embassy. in brussels, authorities were still sifting through evidence gathered in a series of raids immediately following the attacks, which came during rush hour tuesday morning. rtbf also reported thursday that a message found on ibrahim el bakraoui's computer tuesday night does not name paris attack suspect salah abdeslam, as had previously been suspected. according to the broadcaster, el bakraoui referenced mohammed bakkali, who was arrested last november following the paris attacks and is suspected of renting out two hideouts to the isis cell in belgium. he is also accused of spying on a top belgian nuclear official. "i don't know what to do, i'm in a hurry, people are looking for me everywhere," chief prosecutor frederic van leeuw quoted the message as saying. "if i give myself up i'll end up in a cell next to him." the message points to a rising sense of panic among the three suicide bombers. police were drawn to the brothers' apartment tuesday night thanks to a tip from a taxi driver who had unwittingly delivered them to the airport, van leeuw said. inside the northeast brussels residence they found an apparent bomb-making factory, including 33 pounds of homemade explosives and nails for use as shrapnel. neighbors told the associated press they had no idea of the brothers' activities and barely saw them until the taxi collected them and their visibly heavy bags tuesday morning. one neighbor, who was willing to give only his first name of erdine, said he was about to drive his son to school when he saw the two men carrying their bags out of the building. "the taxi driver tried to get the luggage," he said. "and the other guy reached for it like he was saying: 'no, i'll take it.'" the associated press contributed to this report.

belgian police hunting 2 mystery bombers believed to have survived brussels attacks

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

7.0

83.0

8.0

4513.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

349.0

0.0

103.0

0.0

24.0

10.0

14.0

4.0

19.0

5.0

9.0

8.0

17.0

20.0

356.0

103.0

24.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

republicans have said for years the first lady hates america, but they defend her words when they come out of mrs. trump<u+2019>s mouth . an entire section of trump<u+2019>s speech<u+2014>focused on the values she and her husband share<u+2014>appears to be lifted directly from obama<u+2019>s comments on the same subject eight years ago. back then, republicans claimed michelle obama wasn<u+2019>t <u+201c>proud<u+201d> of her country; now republicans defend her words when they<u+2019>re coming out of melania<u+2019>s mouth. the controversy capped a chaotic first day of the republican national convention. monday started with trump<u+2019>s campaign attacking popular ohio governor and former presidential challenger john kasich as an <u+201c>embarrassment<u+201d> for not attending the convention in cleveland. by afternoon, conspiracy theorist alex jones was rallying people outside<u+2014>until he was interrupted by a popular comedian asking the fringe radio host to <u+201c>have sex with my wife.<u+201d> not long after, a fight erupted on the convention floor, with anti-trump delegates demanding a roll call vote before the rnc got underway. at another point, rep. steve king was on msnbc suggesting white people are better than any <u+201c>sub-groups.<u+201d> by the evening, speaker after speaker recalled in the most minute detail the attacks on the u.s. compound in benghazi. <u+201c>from a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise; that you treat people with respect,<u+201d> melania said [emphasis added]. <u+201c>they taught and showed me values and morals in their daily life. that is a lesson that i continue to pass along to our son, and we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.<u+201d> <u+201c>barack and i were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you<u+2019>re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don<u+2019>t agree with them. and barack and i set out to build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generation. because we want our children<u+2014>and all children in this nation<u+2014>to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.<u+201d> before the convention, team trump told cnn that melania spent five to six weeks working on the speech. she told matt lauer on monday afternoon that she had <u+201c>as little help as possible<u+201d> writing it. <u+201c>in writing her beautiful speech, melania<u+2019>s team of writers took notes on her life<u+2019>s inspirations, and in some instances included fragments that reflected her own thinking,<u+201d> spokesman jason miller said in a statement late monday. <u+201c>melania<u+2019>s immigrant experience and love for america shone through in her speech, which made it such a success.<u+201d> <u+201c>this is once again an example of when a woman threatens hillary clinton she<u+2019>ll... take her down,<u+201d> campaign manager paul manafort told cnn. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s not going to work.<u+201d>

melania trump plagiarized michelle obama, a woman republicans said hated america

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

80.0

8.0

3174.0

0.0

9.0

0.0

200.0

1.0

0.0

61.0

0.0

28.0

7.0

15.0

4.0

7.0

13.0

6.0

9.0

21.0

14.0

30.0

209.0

62.0

28.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

two climbers made it to the top of el capitan in yosemite national park on wednesday, the first ever to scale the 3,000-foot granite wall using only their hands and feet and safety rope. for 19 days, kevin jorgeson, 30, of santa rosa, calif., and tommy caldwell, 36, of colorado, attempted what many considered impossible on one of the world's most difficult climbs: being the first to "free climb" the sheer face of el capitan's dawn wall. they used safety ropes and harnesses to prevent deadly falls, but did not using ropes or climbing aids to reach the top. the two climbed the wall in 32 rope-length sections that climbers call pitches, and they reached the summit around 3:30 p.m. pt. patagonia, the clothing and gear maker, sponsored the climb. caldwell was the first to finish. he waited on a ledge for jorgeson, who caught up minutes later. the two embraced before jorgeson pumped his arms in the air and clapped his hands above his head. then they sat down for a few moments, gathered their gear, changed clothes and hiked to the nearby summit. in the meadow below, a crowd broke into cheers. caldwell's mother, terry, said her son could have reached the top several days ago, but he waited for his friend to make sure they got there together. "that's a deep, abiding, lifelong friendship, built over suffering on the wall together over six years," she said. president obama sent his congratulations from the white house twitter account, saying the men "remind us that anything is possible." each trained for more than five years, and they have battled bloodied fingers and unseasonably warm weather. the men often climbed at dusk or later, using headlamps to see, because the rock needs to be cold to keep fingers and hands from sweating and slipping. jorgeson fell 11 times over seven days trying to get past one particularly tough section. he took to facebook on sunday to publicly celebrate his victory. "it took everything in my power to stay positive and resolved that i would succeed," he wrote. the climb began dec. 27 and was expected to take two weeks. it is the realization of a dream that began seven years ago when caldwell first began climbing the monster rock formation, he said. they've slept in portaledges <u+2014> tents attached to the face of the wall. el capitan, the largest granite monolith in the world, has about 100 routes to the top. the first climber reached the summit in 1958. in 1970, warren harding and dean caldwell <u+2014> no relation to tommy caldwell <u+2014> climbed dawn wall using ropes and countless rivets over 27 days. that duo turned down a rescue attempt by park rangers in a storm.

yosemite free-climbers reach top of el capitan

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

46.0

8.0

2629.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

140.0

0.0

72.0

2.0

0.0

27.0

3.0

10.0

2.0

7.0

8.0

3.0

12.0

11.0

14.0

143.0

72.0

29.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

three possible republican presidential candidates called for legal protections for undocumented workers saturday, contrasting themselves from the rest of the field. in remarks at the iowa ag summit, former florida gov. jeb bush, former new york gov. george pataki and south carolina sen. lindsey graham also said they support stricter border security, a position in line with the republican party<u+2019>s conservative base.

three likely gop white house hopefuls back legal status for illegal immigrants

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

78.0

8.0

418.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

29.0

0.0

6.0

1.0

0.0

6.0

1.0

0.0

4.0

1.0

5.0

36.0

6.0

7.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

republican presidential candidate scott walker says that building a wall along the country's norther border with canada is a legitimate issue that merits further review. republican candidates have generally taken a get-tough approach on deterring illegal immigration, but they usually focus on the border with mexico. the wisconsin governor was asked whether he wanted to build a wall on the northern border, too, during an interview sunday on nbc's "meet the press." walker says law enforcement officials in new hampshire brought up the topic of building a wall along the u.s.-canadian border during a recent town hall meeting. he says they raised some legitimate concerns, so it's a "legitimate issue for us to look at." the u.s.-canada boundary is the longest international border in the world at 5,525 miles long.

scott walker: wall on canadian border worth reviewing

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

53.0

8.0

821.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

59.0

0.0

19.0

0.0

9.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

3.0

5.0

62.0

19.0

9.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

state department officials have uncovered 17,855 emails sent between a former hillary clinton spokesman and reporters that the agency long claimed did not exist. the trove was among more than 80,000 emails belonging to philippe reines, a clinton aide, that were discovered on his state department account, officials said in court filings aug. 13. in response to a freedom of information act request filed by gawker media in 2013, the state department said it had no responsive records. gawker was seeking official correspondence between reines and reporters from 33 news outlets. but state officials responded thursday with the news that they had inexplicably found 81,159 emails on reines' ".gov" email account despite asserting two years ago that none existed. twenty-two percent, or 17,855, of the emails were likely related to gawker's request.

state dept. uncovers nearly 18,000 missing emails sought from ex-clinton spokesman

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

82.0

8.0

851.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

56.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

4.0

1.0

4.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

9.0

1.0

6.0

60.0

7.0

4.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

in florida, president obama has nominated the first openly gay black man to sit on a federal district court. in new york, he has nominated the first asian american lesbian. and his pick for the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit? the first south asian. reelected with strong support from women, ethnic minorities and gays, obama is moving quickly to change the face of the federal judiciary by the end of his second term, setting the stage for another series of drawn-out confrontations with republicans in congress. the president has named three dozen judicial candidates since january and is expected to nominate scores more over the next few months, aides said. the push marks a significant departure from the sluggish pace of appointments throughout much of his first term, when both republicans and some democrats complained that obama had not tried hard enough to fill vacancies on federal courts. the new wave of nominations is part of an effort by obama to cement a legacy that long outlives his presidency and makes the court system more closely resemble the changing society it governs, administration officials said. <u+201c>diversity in and of itself is a thing that is strengthening the judicial system,<u+201d> white house counsel kathryn ruemmler said. <u+201c>it enhances the bench and the performance of the bench and the quality of the discussion .<u+2009>.<u+2009>. to have different perspectives, different life experiences, different professional experiences, coming from a different station in life, if you will.<u+201d> but obama<u+2019>s biggest obstacle is the senate, where republicans have frequently blocked judicial confirmation votes for months or, in some cases, years. obama has 35 nominees currently awaiting votes by the senate <u+2014> including several holdovers from 2012 who have been renominated this year <u+2014> and there are more than 50 additional vacancies awaiting nominees, according to the federal judicial center. some conservatives are skeptical of the push to name more women and minorities to the bench, arguing that it amounts to unjustified affirmative action. curt levey, an outspoken obama critic who runs the advocacy group committee for justice, said the white house may be <u+201c>lowering their standards<u+201d> to nominate more nonwhite judges. <u+201c>if they<u+2019>re talking about achieving [diversity] through aggressive identification of minority candidates, then that<u+2019>s their prerogative,<u+201d> levey said. <u+201c>if they<u+2019>re talking about doing it through preferences, having a lower threshold of qualifications for minorities, then i don<u+2019>t approve. and it<u+2019>s hard to know which they<u+2019>re doing. unlike a college admissions system, where it<u+2019>s easy to quantify, this is difficult.<u+201d> during obama<u+2019>s first term, judicial nominations often fell by the wayside in the face of the economic crisis and other policy priorities at the white house. many liberal allies complained that the president did little to champion nominees once they were named. <u+201c>republicans will throw up every roadblock they can,<u+201d> said nan aron, president of the liberal alliance for justice. <u+201c>we<u+2019>re counting on the white house and senate leadership to be more assertive in getting nominees confirmed.<u+201d> the white house said it intends to aggressively push for more judicial nominees during obama<u+2019>s second term and is hopeful that changes in filibuster rules will help speed up the process. the senate decided in january to limit debate for district court nominees from 30 hours to two hours, although the restrictions do not apply to nominees for the supreme court or federal appeals courts. obama has already broken more barriers with his judicial appointments than any other president, aides said. at the circuit court level, four states now have their first female justices, five have their first black justices and two have their first hispanics. sonia sotomayor also became the first hispanic to serve on the supreme court. <u+201c>there<u+2019>s a leveling-the-playing-field goal that is kind of a frame that overrides the whole endeavor,<u+201d> ruemmler, who oversees the nominating process, said in an interview. obama, a former constitutional law professor, has long argued for a broad set of criteria in selecting judges. when he picked sotomayor in 2009, obama said <u+201c>experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune<u+201d> was an important qualification for any jurist because it imparts a sense of compassion for ordinary citizens. the diversity of obama<u+2019>s judicial nominees stands in contrast to staff selections at the start of his second term that have been dominated by white men, including white house chief of staff denis mcdonough, secretary of state john f. kerry, defense secretary chuck hagel and treasury secretary jack lew. by contrast, 17 of the 35 pending judicial nominees are women, 15 are ethnic minorities and five are openly gay, according to white house statistics. six are straight white men. during obama<u+2019>s first term, 37 percent of his confirmed judges were nonwhites, compared with 19 percent for president george w. bush and 27 percent for president bill clinton. the trend is similar on gender: 42 percent of obama<u+2019>s first-term judges were women, compared with 21 percent for bush and 30 percent for clinton. of the 874 federal judgeships, 39 percent are held by women and 37 percent are held by non-whites, according to data kept by the federal judicial center. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s very, very important that these courts reflect the diversity of what<u+2019>s coming in terms of demographics,<u+201d> said nancy zirkin of the leadership conference on civil and human rights, an advocacy group. <u+201c>it will be his most long-lasting legacy. .<u+2009>.<u+2009>. obama, by putting on a diverse number of judges, we believe will shape the courts for years to come.<u+201d> obama nominated mary h. murguia for a seat on the u.s. court of appeals for the 9th circuit. murguia<u+2019>s parents emigrated from mexico to kansas, where she was born. others include the first haitian american, afro-caribbean, vietnamese american and korean american judges nominated to their respective positions. one senior republican senate aide, who requested anonymity in order to discuss the nomination process, said, <u+201c>we are going to continue to insist on a level of quality<u+201d> among nominees. <u+201c>we<u+2019>re not advocating or opposing his diversity goals,<u+201d> the aide said. <u+201c>but that should not override the substantive qualifications of the nominees, which are professional competence, judicial temperament, respect for the law, understanding the constitution.<u+201d> liberal groups have been pressuring the white house to look for diversity not just in race, gender or sexual orientation, but also in professional experience. they want fewer corporate lawyers from white-shoe firms and more public defenders and lawyers from outside what is sometimes called the <u+201c>judicial monastery.<u+201d> <u+201c>that<u+2019>s a completely different view than somebody who has only represented general motors,<u+201d> zirkin said. the obama judges, many of them in their 40s, also establish a diverse bench of progressives whom obama or future presidents could tap for supreme court vacancies. one such nominee was goodwin liu, obama<u+2019>s pick in february 2010 for the u.s. court of appeals for the 9th circuit. as a taiwanese american, liu was an historic selection. but republicans stalled his nomination for 15 months, saying that his past writings showing a broad interpretation of the constitution and his sharp criticism of conservative supreme court justices john g. roberts jr. and samuel a. alito jr. were so liberal that he did not deserve an up-or-down vote. <u+201c>goodwin liu should run for elected office, not serve as a judge,<u+201d> sen. lindsey o. graham (r-s.c.) said in a may 2011 statement. <u+201c>ideologues have their place, just not on the bench.<u+201d> according to the white house, obama<u+2019>s first-term nominees took an average of 225 days to be confirmed, compared with 175 days for bush and 98 days for clinton. ruemmler said that there has been <u+201c>very, very little substantive opposition to any of the president<u+2019>s judicial nominees.<u+201d> she pointed to the case of robert e. bacharach, a district court judge from oklahoma whom obama nominated last year for the u.s. court of appeals for the 10th circuit. bacharach<u+2019>s home-state senators, tom coburn and james m. inhofe, both republicans, supported him. <u+201c>i like the guy,<u+201d> inhofe told the oklahoman. <u+201c>i told him that it<u+2019>s not very often the white house and i agree on anything.<u+201d> still, senate republicans filibustered bacharach<u+2019>s nomination. they gave no specific reason other than a vow to block all of obama<u+2019>s circuit court nominees because 2012 was a presidential election year. in 2004 and 2008, senate democrats did much the same to bush<u+2019>s election-year nominees. after 263 days of waiting, bacharach<u+2019>s nomination came to the floor for a vote on feb. 25. it passed, 93 to 0.

obama pushing to diversify federal judiciary amid gop delays

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

60.0

8.0

8795.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

673.0

0.0

142.0

0.0

93.0

10.0

21.0

3.0

10.0

13.0

2.0

44.0

26.0

55.0

680.0

142.0

93.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington -- an illinois army guardsman and his cousin, both accused of pledging to wage war on behalf of the islamic state of iraq, were arrested and charged as part of an alleged conspiracy to support the terrorist group, federal prosecutors said. one of the suspects, illinois army national guard specialist hasan edmonds, 22, was arrested late wednesday night at chicago's midway international airport where he was allegedly preparing to travel to syria through cairo to join isil's cause. the other man, jonas edmonds, 29, also was arrested wednesday night at his home in aurora, ill., after allegedly telling an undercover fbi agent that he had planned to attack an illinois military post where hasan edmonds had trained. the alleged intent, jonas edmonds said, was to kill up to 150 people sometime after his cousin left for syria. charges involving the guardsman represent the second time in less than a week that a suspect with u.s. military ties was linked to an isil support case. a new jersey air force veteran was charged last week with attempting to join isil after being turned back by turkish authorities from an alleged planned entry to syria. as recently as tuesday, the two illinois suspects and the undercover agent drove to the military post where edmonds had trained. during the trip, hasan edmonds allegedly described the interior of the installation and "which rooms they should avoid during the attack,'' according to court records. "hasan edmonds also entered the installation and retrieved a military training schedule, which he then gave to jonas edmonds,'' the records state. since late last year, according to the charging documents, the two suspects repeatedly expressed their allegiance to isil in communications with at least two undercover agents who first engaged them through social media. "i am already in the american kafir (infidel) army ... and now i wish only to serve in the army of allah alongside my true brothers,'' hasan edmonds allegedly wrote in a january e-mail to one of the undercover agents. "i pray to just one time step foot in the land ruled by the law of the quran but i am content to fight and die here in the cause of allah whenever the target is set and the order is given.'' in a separate communication later the same month, hasan edmonds allegedly told the undercover agent that the "hardest'' part of their planning effort was "staying under the radar.'' in an apparent reference to the risk posed by undercover government agents, he added: "here, they hide and some even pretend to be friends ... we'd like to cause as much damage and mayhem as possible before being granted shahada (martyrdom).'' both suspects made their initial appearances in a chicago federal court thursday afternoon. their attorneys could not immediately be reached for comment. chicago u.s. attorney zachary fardon pledged an aggressive prosecution, citing isil's "agenda of ruthless violence.'' "anyone who threatens to harm our citizens and allies, whether abroad or here at home, will face the full force of justice,'' fardon said. "distrubingly,'' said assistant attorney general john carlin, who directs the justice department's national security division, "one of the defendants currently wears the same uniform of those they allegedly planned to attack.'' if convicted, both of the suspects face maximum sentences of 15 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

doj: guardsman, cousin charged with supporting isil

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

2.0

0.0

7.0

51.0

8.0

3418.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

228.0

0.0

67.0

1.0

0.0

20.0

14.0

9.0

8.0

28.0

4.0

10.0

3.0

18.0

28.0

20.0

234.0

67.0

21.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

president obama will not endorse a democratic candidate in the 2016 presidential primary race, white house chief of staff denis mcdonough said sunday. "that's not our job,<u+201d> mcdonough said on nbc<u+2019>s <u+201c>meet the press.<u+201d> <u+201c>that's the job of the party to make those decisions and then they'll take a look at the agendas and the positions of those candidates." mcdonough said that obama, in the final 11 months of his presidency, will wait until voters pick a nominee, as he has in the past. <u+201c>when the nominee will be set, then the president will be out there," mcdonough said. obama undoubtedly will back a fellow democrat -- either front-running hillary clinton, vermont sen. bernie sanders or former maryland gov. martin o<u+2019>malley. the president has recently suggested that he will nevertheless get involved in 2016 senate races in which gun control is an issue, following his recently announced plans to tighten federal gun laws through a series of executive orders that side-step congress. obama<u+2019>s decision not to issue an endorsement, however, has some precedent among recent two-term presidents. george w. bush didn<u+2019>t endorse his party<u+2019>s nominee in 2008 until march 5, by which point sen. john mccain, r-ariz., had just about locked up the bid. ronald reagan didn<u+2019>t endorse his sitting vice president, george h. w. bush, as the republican nominee until may 1988. reagan said he wanted to wait until the outcome of the nomination race was clear. bill clinton was the only two-termer in the past 30 years to break with the tradition. he endorsed his sitting vice president, al gore, in december 1999.

obama will not endorse candidate in democratic primary race

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

59.0

8.0

1606.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

106.0

0.0

34.0

0.0

10.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

6.0

5.0

12.0

111.0

34.0

10.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

on monday night, first lady<u+00a0>michelle<u+00a0>obama<u+00a0>gave a heartfelt endorsement of hillary clinton at the democratic national convention, noting that clinton engaged her husband in a fierce struggle for the nomination in 2008. "i trust hillary to lead this country," she said in a speech that provided a parent's-eye view of the white house and its power. while mrs.<u+00a0>obama<u+00a0>has often avoided overt politics, her frustration with trump's rise was evident. without naming him, she warned that the white house couldn't be in the hands of someone with "a thin skin or a tendency to lash out" or someone who tells voters the country can be great again. "this right now, is the greatest country on earth," she said. cnn's wolf blitzer said obama's<u+00a0>speech was by far the best of the night. abc's george stephanopoulos called it "polished, passionate and personal." nbc's tom brokaw and fox news' juan williams used the same phrase. "it was about as pitch-perfect an endorsement as you can get," brokaw said. williams said, "the framing of the speech in terms of her children was so pitch-perfect." here's the full text of her speech: you know, it<u+2019>s hard to believe that it has been eight years since i first came to this convention to talk with you about why i thought my husband should be president. remember how i told you about his character and convictions, his decency and his grace, the traits that we<u+2019>ve seen every day that he<u+2019>s served our country in the white house? i also told you about our daughters, how they are the heart of our hearts, the center of our world. and during our time in the white house, we<u+2019>ve had the joy of watching them grow from bubbly little girls into poised young women, a journey that started soon after we arrived in washington. when they set off for their first day at their new school, i will never forget that winter morning as i watched our girls, just 7 and 10 years old, pile into those black suvs with all those big men with guns. and i saw their little faces pressed up against the window, and the only thing i could think was, what have we done? see, because at that moment i realized that our time in the white house would form the foundation for who they would become and how well we managed this experience could truly make or break them. that is what barack and i think about every day as we try to guide and protect our girls through the challenges of this unusual life in the spotlight, how we urge them to ignore those who question their father<u+2019>s citizenship or faith. how we insist that the hateful language they hear from public figures on tv does not represent the true spirit of this country. how we explain that when someone is cruel or acts like a bully, you don<u+2019>t stoop to their level. no, our motto is, when they go low, we go high. with every word we utter, with every action we take, we know our kids are watching us. we as parents are their most important role models. and let me tell you, barack and i take that same approach to our jobs as president and first lady because we know that our words and actions matter, not just to our girls, but the children across this country, kids who tell us i saw you on tv, i wrote a report on you for school. kids like the little black boy who looked up at my husband, his eyes wide with hope and he wondered, is my hair like yours? and make no mistake about it, this november when we go to the polls that is what we<u+2019>re deciding, not democrat or republican, not left or right. no, in this election and every election is about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives. and i am here tonight because in this election there is only one person who i trust with that responsibility, only one person who i believe is truly qualified to be president of the united states, and that is our friend hillary clinton. that<u+2019>s right. see, i trust hillary to lead this country because i<u+2019>ve seen her lifelong devotion to our nation<u+2019>s children, not just her own daughter, who she has raised to perfection, but every child who needs a champion, kids who take the long way to school to avoid the gangs, kids who wonder how they<u+2019>ll ever afford college, kids whose parents don<u+2019>t speak a word of english, but dream of a better life, kids who look to us to determine who and what they can be. you see, hillary has spent decades doing the relentless, thankless work to actually make a difference in their lives advocating for kids with disabilities as a young lawyer, fighting for children<u+2019>s health care as first lady, and for quality child care in the senate. and when she didn<u+2019>t win the nomination eight years ago, she didn<u+2019>t get angry or disillusioned. hillary did not pack up and go home, because as a true public servant hillary knows that this is so much bigger than her own desires and disappointments. so she proudly stepped up to serve our country once again as secretary of state, traveling the globe to keep our kids safe. and look, there were plenty of moments when hillary could have decided that this work was too hard, that the price of public service was too high, that she was tired of being picked apart for how she looks or how she talks or even how she laughs. but here<u+2019>s the thing. what i admire most about hillary is that she never buckles under pressure. she never takes the easy way out. and hillary clinton has never quit on anything in her life. and when i think about the kind of president that i want for my girls and all our children, that<u+2019>s what i want. i want someone with the proven strength to persevere, someone who knows this job and takes it seriously, someone who understands that the issues a president faces are not black and white and cannot be boiled down to 140 characters. because when you have the nuclear codes at your fingertips and the military in your command, you can<u+2019>t make snap decisions. you can<u+2019>t have a thin skin or a tendency to lash out. you need to be steady and measured and well-informed. i want a president with a record of public service, someone whose life<u+2019>s work shows our children that we don<u+2019>t chase form and fortune for ourselves, we fight to give everyone a chance to succeed. and we give back even when we<u+2019>re struggling ourselves because we know that there is always someone worse off. and there but for the grace of god go i. i want a president who will teach our children that everyone in this country matters, a president who truly believes in the vision that our founders put forth all those years ago that we are all created equal, each a beloved part of the great american story. and when crisis hits, we don<u+2019>t turn against each other. no, we listen to each other, we lean on each other, because we are always stronger together. and i am here tonight because i know that that is the kind of president that hillary clinton will be. and that<u+2019>s why in this election i<u+2019>m with her. you see, hillary understands that the president is about one thing and one thing only, it<u+2019>s about leaving something better for our kids. that<u+2019>s how we<u+2019>ve always moved this country forward, by all of us coming together on behalf of our children, folks who volunteer to coach that team, to teach that sunday school class, because they know it takes a village. heroes of every color and creed who wear the uniform and risk their lives to keep passing down those blessings of liberty, police officers and the protesters in dallas who all desperately want to keep our children safe. people who lined up in orlando to donate blood because it could have been their son, their daughter in that club. leaders like tim kaine who show our kids what decency and devotion look like. leaders like hillary clinton who has the guts and the grace to keep coming back and putting those cracks in that highest and hardest glass ceiling until she finally breaks through, lifting all of us along with her. that is the story of this country, the story that has brought me to this stage tonight, the story of generations of people who felt the lash of bondage, the shame of servitude, the sting of segregation, but who kept on striving and hoping and doing what needed to be done so that today i wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves. and i watch my daughters, two beautiful, intelligent, black young women playing with their dogs on the white house lawn. and because of hillary clinton, my daughters and all our sons and daughters now take for granted that a woman can be president of the united states. so, look, so don<u+2019>t let anyone ever tell you that this country isn<u+2019>t great, that somehow we need to make it great again. because this right now is the greatest country on earth! and as my daughters prepare to set out into the world, i want a leader who is worthy of that truth, a leader who is worthy of my girls<u+2019> promise and all our kids<u+2019> promise, a leader who will be guided every day by the love and hope and impossibly big dreams that we all have for our children. so in this election, we cannot sit back and hope that everything works out for the best. we cannot afford to be tired or frustrated or cynical. no, hear me. between now and november, we need to do what we did eight years ago and four years ago. we need to knock on every door, we need to get out every vote, we need to pour every last ounce of our passion and our strength and our love for this country into electing hillary clinton as president of the united states of america! so let<u+2019>s get to work. thank you all and god bless.

michelle obama's full dnc speech: best of the night?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

5.0

52.0

8.0

9507.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

618.0

2.0

0.0

181.0

0.0

79.0

16.0

33.0

8.0

23.0

34.0

10.0

15.0

59.0

36.0

79.0

620.0

183.0

79.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

on the evening of oct. 7, after the "grab-them-by-the-pussy" tape had been reverberating for a few hours, i tweeted that "the next polls from utah should be interesting." and holy mother of god are they. a y2 analytics poll of 500 likely utah voters from oct. 10-11 was published this morning, and the results are the craziest numbers i've seen in an already unfathomable election year: donald trump and hillary clinton are tied at 26 percent, independent conservative evan mcmullin is closing fast at 22 percent, gary johnson is at 14, and jill stein's at 1. this in a state where mitt romney received 73 percent of the vote in 2012, and which republicans have won since 1976 by an average of 36 percentage points. this is y2 analytics' first utah poll this year, so we don't have a clean before-and-after comparison yet. as i mentioned in the bottom of this saturday post about the mormon-led republican defection from trump, two of only three previous utah polls that included mcmullin looked like this: so as i pointed out in august, trump was already in an unprecedentedly weak position in the beehive state before this latest evidence of his moral vulgarity surfaced. now mormons (who make up an estimated 55 percent of utah's population) look poised to run screaming from the republican party's standard-bearer. the y2 survey found that a whopping 94 percent of respondents were aware of trump's sex-bragging tape, and that mcmullin<u+2014>a utah native, brigham young university grad, and mormon<u+2014>was competitive despite only 52 percent being aware enough of him to form an opinion. in addition, according to the deseret news write-up, "mcmullin soundly beats trump among those in the poll who identified themselves members of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints." the campaigns of both mcmullin and johnson are based in utah, so this poll will intensify what was already a top regional priority for both. the johnson/bill weld shop started its latest fundraising pitch yesterday like so: "a realistic analysis of polling data across the country shows that governors johnson and weld can win 5 or more states by focusing resources in these key purple states." johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states plus washington, d.c.; mcmullin is on just 11 (compared to darrell castle's 24 and rocky de la feunte's 20). in most of those states, mcmullin isn't making much of a measurable dent<u+2014>in virginia this week, for example, he recently registered at 1 percent compared to johnson's 7. but it's also true that his name doesn't always appear on polls, and that many of his states are underpolled to begin with. i would expect him to pull some votes in idaho (a safely republican state with the second-largest concentration of mormons), plus colorado and new mexico, each of which feature 2 percent mormon populations and are easily reachable from the salt lake media market. gary johnson, meanwhile, looks to be most competitive in his home base of new mexico, where a recent poll had him at 24 percent; plus third-party-friendly alaska, where a recent pre-trump-tape poll had him at 18 percent. he was also beating the spread between clinton and trump in 18 states, last time i ran the numbers. if either johnson or mcmullin win a state outright, it would mark the first such success by a third-party presidential candidate since george wallace won five in 1968. with clinton's lead widening over trump of late, the drama of such a milestone would lessen. but it would be a huge deal either for a libertarian party attempting to cement its status as the third alternative in american politics, or for #nevertrump conservatives looking to build from the wreckage of a self-damaging election. there is no doubt that the lp will win the overall bronze in the popular vote, but will the conservative alternative sneak past in the electoral college? the answer to that question will give us some interesting clues about what post-trump politics will look like in america.

mormon exodus: trump, clinton tied in utah at 26%; mcmullin 22%, johnson 14%

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

76.0

8.0

3980.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

247.0

0.0

64.0

0.0

26.0

8.0

16.0

2.0

6.0

13.0

7.0

19.0

13.0

32.0

252.0

64.0

26.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

unless she<u+2019>s indicted, hillary clinton will win the democratic nomination. that kind of sentence is rarely written about a major presidential candidate. but i don<u+2019>t see a realistic third alternative (except for one long-shot, below). clinton is now hostage to the various investigations <u+2014> the fbi, congress, the courts <u+2014> of her e-mails. the issue has already damaged her seriously by highlighting once again her congenital inability to speak truthfully. when the scandal broke in march, she said unequivocally that she <u+201c>did not e-mail any classified material to anyone.<u+201d> that<u+2019>s now been shown to be unequivocally false. after all, the inspector general of the intelligence community referred her e-mails to the justice department precisely because they contain classified material. the fallback <u+2014> every clinton defense has a fallback <u+2014> is that she did not mishandle any material <u+201c>marked<u+201d> classified. but that<u+2019>s absurd. who could even have been in a position to mark classified something she composed and sent on her own private e-mail system? moreover, what<u+2019>s prohibited is mishandling classified information , not just documents . for example, any information learned from confidential conversations with foreign leaders is automatically classified. everyone in national security knows that. reuters has already found 17 e-mails sent by clinton containing such <u+201c>born classified<u+201d> information. and the state department has already identified 188 e-mails on her server that contain classified information. the truth-shaving never stops. take a minor matter: her communications with sidney blumenthal. she originally insisted that these were just <u+201c>unsolicited<u+201d> e-mails from an old friend. monday<u+2019>s document release showed that they were very much solicited (<u+201c>keep <u+2019>em coming when you can<u+201d>) and in large volume <u+2014> 306 e-mails, according to the new york times<u+2019> peter baker, more than with any other person, apparently, outside the state department. the parallel scandal looming over clinton is possible corruption involving contributions to the clinton foundation while she was secretary of state. there are relatively few references to the foundation in the e-mails she has released. remember, she erased 32,000 e-mails she deemed not <u+201c>work-related.<u+201d> clinton needs to be asked a straightforward question: <u+201c>in sorting your private from public e-mails, were those related to the clinton foundation considered work-related or were they considered private and thus deleted?<u+201d> we are unlikely to get a straight answer from clinton. in fact, we may never get the real answer. so clinton marches on regardless. who is to stop her? yes, bernie sanders has risen impressively. but it is inconceivable that he would be nominated. for one thing, he<u+2019>d be the oldest president by far <u+2014> on inauguration day older than ronald reagan, our oldest president, was at his second inaugural. and there is the matter of sanders being a self-proclaimed socialist in a country more allergic to socialism than any in the western world. which is why the party is turning its lonely eyes to joltin<u+2019> joe biden. biden, who at 72 shares the democrats<u+2019> gerontocracy problem, is riding a wave of deserved sympathy. but that melts away quickly when a campaign starts. even now, his support stands at only 18<u+00a0>percent in the latest quinnipiac poll. for him to win, one has to assume that sanders disappears and biden automatically inherits sanders<u+2019> constituency. that<u+2019>s a fantasy, modeled on 1968 when bobby kennedy picked up eugene mccarthy<u+2019>s anti-lyndon johnson constituency. but joe biden is no bobby kennedy. and in a recent iowa poll, biden<u+2019>s support comes roughly equally from clinton and sanders. rather than inheriting the anti-clintonite constituency, he could instead be splitting it. there is one long-shot possibility that might upend clinton: biden pledges to serve one term only and chooses elizabeth warren as his running mate <u+2014> now. one-term pledges address the age problem but they are political poison, giving the impression of impermanence and mere transition. warren cures that, offering the democratic base <u+2014> and the sanders constituency <u+2014> the vision of a 12-year liberal ascendancy. when asked on wednesday whether she had discussed such a ticket with biden, warren answered <u+201c>it was a long conversation,<u+201d> a knowing wink in the form of a provocative nondenial. i doubt a biden-warren ticket will happen, but it remains the only threat to clinton outside of some justice department prosecutor showing the same zeal in going after hillary clinton as the administration did in going after david petraeus. otherwise the democrats remain lashed to clinton. their only hope is that the republicans self-destruct in a blaze of intraparty warfare. something for which they are showing an impressive talent. read more from charles krauthammer<u+2019>s archive, follow him on twitter or subscribe to his updates on facebook.

why clinton remains inevitable <u+2014> almost

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

39.0

8.0

4902.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

354.0

0.0

90.0

1.0

0.0

36.0

11.0

14.0

10.0

18.0

7.0

13.0

3.0

27.0

23.0

41.0

358.0

90.0

37.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

on friday morning, the third day in his four-day new england campaign swing, libertarian presidential nominee gary johnson told a joke. he was the punch line. <u+201c>this is a crazy election,<u+201d> johnson said, looking out at dozens of mainers who had come out for a breakfast meet-and-greet. <u+201c>you know how crazy this election is? i<u+2019>m going to be the next president of the united states. that<u+2019>s how crazy!<u+201d> johnson, a two-term governor of new mexico, has avoided the fringe label that often sticks to third-party candidates. since announcing former massachusetts governor william weld as his running mate, johnson has risen in the polls to the high single digits <u+2014> and to the mid-teens in some swing states. his rallies draw hundreds of voters, bigger than anything he saw during his 2012 bid. he talks about <u+201c>spoiling the party,<u+201d> and voters cheer. despite that, johnson is struggling to grab the prize he has eyed all year: to be invited to the televised presidential debates. he needs to close in on 15 percent in an average of polls, and he is doing what he can. two super pacs are trying to boost him in. it<u+2019>s not clear that they can pull it off. [trump and advisers remain split on how far to move toward the middle] the support johnson has so far is easily explained; in a year of not one, but two historically unpopular major-party candidates, voters are looking for an alternative to democrat hillary clinton and republican donald trump. johnson may hold particular appeal for republicans trying to protect their majorities in congress; he gives voters an alternative to trump at the top of the ticket yet allows them to return to the gop lineup down the ballot. relentlessly positive, bounding from event to event in black nikes and carhartt jeans, johnson approaches the debate problem by talking like he has solved it. in 2012, he briefly ran as a republican <u+2014> the party he was part of in santa fe <u+2014> and was yanked offstage after a first, flailing debate performance. <u+201c>i had 60 seconds to make my pitch, and in the 60 seconds, i was being interrupted,<u+201d> johnson said in an interview here. <u+201c>now, i can say the same thing <u+2014> and i<u+2019>ve got three minutes. uninterrupted! three people onstage, audience bigger than the super bowl. i don<u+2019>t think they<u+2019>d get away with cutting me.<u+201d> they might. the commission on presidential debates, which has controlled the process since 1988, has held fast to its 15 percent threshold. a johnson-backed lawsuit against that threshold was thrown out this month, however, and the voters filing into johnson-weld rallies last week were acutely aware that their man might be kept offstage. <u+201c>i<u+2019>m not for either of the choices<u+00ad> we have right now,<u+201d> said roy hermann, 65, who caucused for bernie sanders but showed up in portland to hear johnson. <u+201c>i<u+2019>m not even sure if i<u+2019>ll vote for this guy, but i have a great deal of respect for him.<u+201d> the day before, at a johnson-weld rally in concord, n.h., 14-year-old aubrey pelletier hoisted a sign that read <u+201c>15%!<u+201d> her father, brad, 39, worried that too many voters limit the news they read and couldn<u+2019>t see the point of choosing johnson. <u+201c>people are afraid of wasting their votes,<u+201d> he surmised. <u+201c>on facebook, i see gary johnson stuff all the time. when i talk to people, they know who he is now.<u+201d> as johnson and weld stumped across new england, they were recognized by voters <u+2014> something new in the past three weeks, they said. fundraising, according to the campaign, has surged in the same period. neither republicans nor democrats know which nominee that helps. the polls that show johnson at or above 10 percent have clinton<u+2019>s lead growing if he is removed as a choice <u+2014> but she has got a lead either way. at rallies in new hampshire and maine, voters with bernie sanders t-shirts stood near people wearing the <u+201c>hillary for prison<u+201d> shirts sold by far-right radio host alex jones. some cheer when johnson calls for ending corporate taxes; some cheer when he insists that <u+201c>black lives matter.<u+201d> all cheer when he endorses ballot measures to legalize marijuana. asked whether he would encourage his voters to pick republicans or democrats when they went down their ballot, johnson demurred. <u+201c>the wonderful thing about being a libertarian is that you don<u+2019>t have to tell anybody to do anything,<u+201d> he said. [new trump campaign chief faces scrutiny over voter registration, anti-semitism] two libertarian efforts are underway to boost johnson past the debate commission<u+2019>s 15-percent hurdle. purple pac, steered by former cato institute president ed crane, began a $1 million ad buy last week, with cable spots casting johnson as an <u+201c>honorable choice<u+201d> who favors tolerance and free markets. <u+201c>they<u+2019>re not as ideological as i would probably prefer,<u+201d> crane said of johnson and weld. <u+201c>but on the broad issues of social tolerance, restraint in foreign policy, markets over crony capitalism, they<u+2019>re very good.<u+201d> alternative pac, launched by former freedomworks president matt kibbe, is spending $50,000 to kick-start a web campaign aimed at millennials. one ad, <u+201c>balanced rebellion,<u+201d> stars an abraham lincoln impersonator who promises that johnson won<u+2019>t <u+201c>send you to fight wars overseas<u+201d> or <u+201c>tell you who to marry.<u+201d> <u+201c>it<u+2019>s like a two-horse race where one horse cheats and the other one eats muslims,<u+201d> the lincoln actor says of the clinton-trump race. the spot was designed by harmon brothers, the firm behind a viral ad in which unicorns defecate rainbow ice cream to promote a toilet aid. johnson is more tactful. in his campaign speech, an optimistic spiel on how free markets (<u+201c>uber everything<u+201d>) and active citizens can fix the country, he tells one joke about trump. the republican nominee, he said, watched the olympics to see <u+201c>how high those mexican pole vaulters could go.<u+201d> neither johnson nor weld is inclined to attack clinton, something they have been trying to correct. <u+201c>you make mistakes along the trail,<u+201d> johnson said in concord, referring to a cnn town hall <u+2014> one of his highest-profile events <u+2014> where he declined to criticize clinton. <u+201c>if i had to do that over again, i<u+2019>d have said: she<u+2019>s beholden.<u+201d> <u+201c>i<u+2019>ve made a mini-career of defending mrs. clinton on the use of the private server,<u+201d> said weld, who added that newer revelations about her email gave him pause. that light tone has become central to the johnson-weld campaign. the two standard-bearers for libertarianism have become some of the least ideological candidates in america. on the stump, weld describes the libertarian party as <u+201c>a six-lane highway going right up the middle between the two parties,<u+201d> and johnson talks about what can be achieved when partisans cross the aisle. that has led to steady criticism from more traditional libertarians, who pounce on every johnson or weld sop to the center as a gaffe. weld, who signed a gun-control bill as governor, struggled to win the libertarian vice-presidential nomination. jason sorens, the founder of the free state project that encourages libertarians to move to new hampshire, said he had seen <u+201c>some demobilization of the lp ticket<u+2019>s natural base over guns.<u+201d> after johnson refused to rule out a tax on carbon <u+2014> only if it were revenue-neutral and it replaced income taxes <u+2014> he was criticized by libertarians on social media. crane, kibbe and other libertarians knew some of this was coming. the republican primary campaign of sen. rand paul (ky.), designed to build on the support of father ron paul<u+2019>s three <u+00ad>libertarian-flavored presidential bids, made a bid for conservative voters that put the base to sleep. <u+201c>i<u+2019>m still on the fence about whether i<u+2019>m going to cast a write-in vote for <u+2018>none of the above<u+2019> or myself,<u+201d> said darryl perry, a new hampshire voter who ran against johnson for the libertarian presidential nomination. <u+201c>i know a few [people] who have said, <u+2018>well, he<u+2019>s the lesser of the evils.<u+2019> the lesser evil is still evil in my eyes.<u+201d> but the dazzling possibility of the debate invite <u+2014> something no libertarian candidate has ever achieved <u+2014> has kept most fellow travelers on board. dan fishman, the campaign<u+2019>s 48-year-old new england director, has walked away from each rally with pages of new sign-ups. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s getting easier and easier to train people,<u+201d> he said, crediting the nationbuilder software that had helped the trump campaign convert its <u+00ad>giant crowds into volunteers. at one rally, in concord, close to 300 people stood in a steady and meteorology-defying rain to hear weld and johnson speak about the six-lane highway between the parties. <u+201c>standing in the rain,<u+201d> johnson said with disbelief. <u+201c>you honor us. you really do.<u+201d>

libertarians hope rallies and ads can nudge them into the presidential debates

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

5.0

78.0

8.0

8558.0

0.0

3.0

6.0

0.0

534.0

2.0

0.0

177.0

1.0

0.0

56.0

16.0

23.0

10.0

19.0

13.0

19.0

15.0

39.0

36.0

50.0

540.0

179.0

57.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

islamic state militants have acknowledged for the first time that they have been defeated in the syrian town of kobani, blaming withering airstrikes by a u.s.-led coalition for forcing them to flee the town on the turkish border. although not a strategic site itself, kobani <u+2014> known by the militants as ayn al-islam <u+2014> had turned into a test of wills between the militants and the coalition. at one point, islamic state fighters controlled almost all of the town of 45,000 people and were on the verge of capturing it outright. in a video released late friday by the pro-islamic state aamaq news agency, two fighters made it clear that the coalition's relentless air assault proved too much for the militants. "a while ago, we retreated a bit from ayn al-islam because of the bombardment and the killing of some brothers," said one masked fighter who spoke arabic with a north african accent. in the video, he vowed to return to drive out the people's protection units known as the ypg, the main kurdish militia in syria, that the fighter referred to as "rats." "the islamic state will stay. say that to (president) obama," he said, pointing toward destruction on the edge of kobani. a second fighter, standing on a road with a green sign sprayed with the name ayn al-islam, described the incessant pounding by coalition aircraft. "i swear by god, their planes did not leave the air, day and night; they did airstrikes all day and night," he said on the video. "they bombarded everything, even motorcycles; they have not left a building standing. but, god willing, we will return and we will have our revenge multiplied." speaking at a meeting with his mexican and canadian counterparts in boston on saturday, secretary of state john kerry said recapturing kobani was a "big deal," afp reported. "we have a long way to go in the overall campaign, but daesh <u+2014> isil as some know it <u+2014> has said all along that kobani was a real symbolic and strategic objective," kerry said. "so pushing them out of there is a big deal. and make no mistake, we will also use the same tools that we used to get there <u+2014> the tools of cooperation and support <u+2014> to defeat violent, transnational criminal organizations, and ensure that the rule of law thrives for all of our people." the islamic state launched its offensive on the region surrounding kobani in mid-september, capturing more than 300 kurdish villages and parts of the city while driving out more than 200,000 kurds. the united states and several arab allies began striking back and providing air cover for kurdish militia to pour in from turkey. the overall allied campaign aims to roll back the islamic state militants who have taken over about a third of iraq and syria and declared the captured territory a new caliphate. as a result of the airstrikes and stiff resistance from the kurds, the islamic state <u+2014> also known as isil or isis <u+2014> began retreating a few weeks ago and lost more than 1,000 fighters, according to the london-based syrian observatory for human rights, which monitors deaths in the syrian civil war. in the last days of the fight, activists reported that the militant group was sending inexperienced fighters and teenagers to the front line because of a lack of recruits, the human rights group said. by monday, activists and kurdish officials reported the town was almost cleared of the militants. the four-month battle for kobani, which was pummeled by airstrikes, mutual shelling and booby-trapped vehicles, left large parts of the town city uninhabitable, the syrian observatory for human rights said. "it's not a city anymore," bulent kilic a turkish photojournalist for the afp news agency told time. "i saw all the bombs that were dropped on kobani during this battle. and there's only debris left, especially in the eastern part of the town from where isis tried to get in."

islamic state admits defeat in kobani; blames airstrikes

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

7.0

56.0

8.0

3858.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

282.0

0.0

75.0

1.0

0.0

42.0

12.0

9.0

5.0

13.0

4.0

7.0

4.0

15.0

30.0

20.0

290.0

75.0

43.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

obama on climate change: 'i actually think we're going to solve this thing' "i actually think we're going to solve this thing." that's what president obama said in a news conference just before he left a united nations summit on climate change. "climate change is a massive problem," obama said. "it is a generational problem. it's a problem that by definition is just about the hardest thing for a political system to absorb, because the effects are gradual, they're diffused. and yet despite all that ... i'm optimistic. i think we're going to solve it." just a few years ago, obama said, nobody would have predicted that more than 150 leaders would come to paris holding plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions. "all of this will be hard," obama said. "getting 200 nations to agree on anything is hard ... but i'm convinced that we're going to get big things done here." obama leaves the conference, but his deputies will remain in paris in an effort to craft a global, legally binding agreement intended to curb climate change. the big goal: to keep the global temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees celsius. at the moment, if you add up all the commitments on the table at the summit and assume that they would be met, the temperature would still rise by 2.7 degrees, obama said. "that's too high," obama said. but "what we expect is that we'll hit these targets faster than expected and ... we could pick up the pace." obama said that is not just "foolish optimism" but an expectation based on past experience. the united states, for example, was able to meet its goals faster than expected. "the key here is to set up the structure so we're sending signals all around the world that says this is happening and we're not turning around," obama said. obama touched on a whole host of other issues during the conference. here are a couple of highlights: <u+2014> obama says that the fact that the peace process for syria is progressing in vienna is a sign that russian president vladimir putin "realizes there is not going to be a military solution to the situation in syria." eventually, obama said, he expects the russians to shift their focus in syria from trying to prop up the regime of bashar assad to fighting the islamic state. "i think mr. putin understands that for him to get bogged down in an inconclusive and paralyzing civil conflict is not the outcome that he is looking for," obama said. in other words, obama said, both the u.s. and russia agree that the only lasting solution in syria will be political. "where we continue to have an ongoing difference is not in the need for a political settlement; it's whether assad can continue to serve as president as that transition goes on," obama said. russia believes assad should play a role, and obama believes that "it is impossible for mr. assad to bring that country together." <u+2014> on the shooting at a planned parenthood clinic in colorado, obama said congress should act. just as the country takes huge, costly steps to fight terrorism, it has to take steps to reduce gun homicides. "at the end of the day, congress, states, local governments are going to have to act in order to make sure that we are preventing people who are deranged or have violent tendencies" from getting weapons that magnify the damage that they can do, obama said. earlier in the day, president obama urged turkey and russia to ease tensions by focusing on a common enemy: the islamic state. the relationship between the two countries has been frayed since turkey downed a russian jet in november. turkey has refused to apologize, saying the russian warplane crossed over into turkish airspace. russia has implemented a series of sanctions. reuters reports that obama said the united states supported turkey's right to defend its airspace, but he also urged the two countries to "de-escalate tensions." "we all have a common enemy. that is isil," obama said using an acronym for the islamic state, according to the ap. "i want to make sure that we focus on that threat."

obama on climate change: 'i actually think we're going to solve this thing'

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

75.0

8.0

4037.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

283.0

1.0

0.0

66.0

0.0

27.0

14.0

10.0

6.0

14.0

3.0

8.0

3.0

15.0

21.0

24.0

289.0

67.0

27.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

former arkansas governor mike huckabee is certainly on the go. he traveled to 38 states last year to help candidates in the midterms and this week alone is in six states. whether he runs for president or continues to work the trail for others, he certainly sees a lot of america and talks to a whole lot of people. in a real sense, he truly does reflect the views of many social conservatives and conservative populists in the heartland. with huckabee, however, who has been going to israel for 42 years, one is compelled to start with prime minister benjamin netanyahu<u+2019>s speech. <u+201c>it was a tremendous speech,<u+201d> he told right turn. <u+201c>it was more than how he said it but what he said. he called attention to the nature of the [iranian] regime.<u+201d> he recited two well-known points <u+2014> iran is the world<u+2019>s largest state sponsor of terror and a regime committed to wiping out israel <u+2014> and reiterated that iran has cheated on every agreement it has ever entered into. <u+201c>if every time i<u+2019>ve bought a car from a used-car dealer <u+2014> 10 out of 10 he<u+2019>s sold me a lemon, do i really want to buy the 11th?<u+201d> he sounds genuinely aggrieved about the president<u+2019>s behavior and the conduct of democrats who refused to go to the speech. <u+201c>what i lamented is that the once bipartisan agreement on israel and national security has been abandoned by the democrats,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>they are more interested in protecting obama<u+2019>s petulance than in protecting israel.<u+201d> he hastened to note that he was in israel yet again last week and met with netanyahu. he makes the keen point that this hardly was a political winner for netanyahu back home. <u+201c>it was divisive back home in israel. what he did was brave. this was a political risk,<u+201d> he noted, pointing to the controversy and criticism the trip generated among his opponents. and running through the list of other middle east countries he has been to (egypt, jordan, saudi arabia, etc.) he observes that this is not just about the jewish state. <u+201c>the egyptians, the jordanians, the emiratis, the saudis are absolutely with israel on this [the iranian threat].<u+201d> he confesses that in watching the president<u+2019>s conduct and the reported concessions, <u+201c>i<u+2019>m stunned. i can<u+2019>t figure out what the president is thinking, what his advisers are telling him.<u+201d> there are few people who know the clintons like fellow arkansan huckabee. he<u+2019>s not surprised in the least about the recent e-mail and foundation scandals. <u+201c>again and again democrats and especially the press are willing to let the clintons skate by. it<u+2019>s pretty bizarre.<u+201d> is he going to run for president? he sticks to his previous statements that he will decide <u+201c>sometime this spring.<u+201d> he cracks, <u+201c>looking at the weather it<u+2019>s premature [to decide].<u+201d> huckabee is an economic populist, to be sure, and takes pride in being attacked for it. <u+201c>i talked about [this economic message] eight years ago. i was being pilloried by the wall street journal and other folks in your community [the mainstream media].<u+201d> he says events have proved him right, and now everyone is talking about wage stagnation. <u+00a0>he asserted, <u+201c>the bottom 90 percent in the past 40 years have had stagnant wages. in the 25 years before that, 90 percent saw an increase.<u+201d> he cites the tax code (it is <u+201c>punishing people who work on their feet. if they take a second job, they are thrown into a new tax bracket); <u+201c>cheap foreign labor that devalues american labor<u+201d>; and <u+201c>cheap products<u+201d> from china. people, he said, are worried about the college grad with debt and no job and the small-business person bedeviled by taxes and regulations. huckabee<u+2019>s diagnosis of what troubles america may be sound, but many conservatives will disagree with his solutions. huckabee may be missing some important pieces of the picture. in the 1950s, europe and asia were not yet economic powerhouses, labor unions kept wages artificially high and most families had only one working adult (so labor was more scare, and hence wages were high). in a global economy, many would argue that huckabee<u+2019>s proposals don<u+2019>t fit the times. in fact, we need to expand markets for our trade, enhance our technological edge and change our immigration system so that we siphon off the best and brightest to work, build businesses and invest in america. that formula <u+2014> becoming a 21st-century economic giant that beats the world competition <u+2014> together with tax, education and regulatory reform, is the building block of the policy agenda of two other potential 2016 contenders, former florida governor jeb bush and sen. marco rubio (r-fla.). those two make for an interesting contrast to economic populists who fear losing what they have and tend not to think about how to get more of the world economic pie. if huckabee would get to the white house, he lists two priorities. <u+201c>at the top of the list would be reestablishing relations with our allies. i<u+2019>ve challenged my democratic friends to come up with one country, just one, that we have better relations with. they can<u+2019>t because there is not one.<u+201d> second, <u+201c>i<u+2019>d evolve power out of washington, d.c.,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s so dysfunctional, i don<u+2019>t think it can be fixed.<u+201d> he<u+2019>d rather give the power back to the states, where <u+201c>people have to balance budgets.<u+201d> it is easy to see why he was such a hit on fox. he<u+2019>s entertaining and an excellent conservative analyst. whether he wants to and can translate that into a presidential platform and campaign remains to be seen. but the candidates who are definitely running might pick up some pointers by watching him.

mike huckabee on netanyahu, wage stagnation, 2016 and more

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

58.0

8.0

5486.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

368.0

0.0

130.0

0.0

43.0

10.0

14.0

3.0

14.0

8.0

12.0

8.0

25.0

30.0

39.0

370.0

130.0

43.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington <u+2014> in a significant setback for president obama<u+2019>s signature domestic initiative, the administration on tuesday abruptly announced a one-year delay, until 2015, in his health care law<u+2019>s mandate that larger employers provide coverage for their workers or pay penalties. the decision postpones the effective date beyond next year<u+2019>s midterm elections. employer groups welcomed the news of the concession, which followed complaints from businesses and was posted late in the day on the white house and treasury web sites while the president was flying home from africa. republicans<u+2019> gleeful reactions made clear that they would not cease to make repeal of obamacare a campaign issue for the third straight election cycle. while the postponement technically does not affect other central provisions of the law <u+2014> in particular those establishing health insurance marketplaces in the states, known as exchanges, where uninsured americans can shop for policies <u+2014> it threatens to throw into disarray the administration<u+2019>s effort to put those provisions into effect by jan. 1. <u+201c>i am utterly astounded,<u+201d> said sara rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at george washington university and an advocate of the law. <u+201c>it boggles the mind. this step could significantly reduce the number of uninsured people who will gain coverage in 2014.<u+201d> at the white house, tara mcguinness, a senior adviser on the law, disputed that. <u+201c>nothing in the new guidance regarding employer reporting and responsibility will limit individuals<u+2019> eligibility for premium tax credits to buy insurance through the marketplaces that open on oct. 1,<u+201d> she said. under the law, most americans will be required to have insurance in january 2014, or they will be subject to tax penalties. the announcement on tuesday did not say anything about delaying that requirement or those penalties. administration officials sought to put the action in a positive light in the online announcements, and they emphasized that the existing insurance coverage of most americans would not be affected. <u+201c>we have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively,<u+201d> mark j. mazur, an assistant treasury secretary, wrote on the department<u+2019>s web site. <u+201c>we recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so.<u+201d> the 2010 affordable care act required employers with more than 50 full-time workers to offer them affordable health insurance starting next year or face fines. some companies with payrolls just above that threshold said they would cut jobs or switch some full-time workers to part-time employment so that they could avoid providing coverage. under the provision to set up state-based marketplaces, subsidies are supposed to be available to many lower- and middle-income people who do not have access to coverage from employers or other sources. it may be difficult, however, for officials running the exchanges to know who is entitled to subsidies if employers do not report information on the coverage they provide to workers. enrollment in the exchanges is to begin oct. 1, with insurance coverage taking effect on jan. 1. <u+201c>we are on target to open the health insurance marketplace on oct. 1 where small businesses and ordinary americans will be able to go to one place to learn about their coverage options and make side-by-side comparisons of each plan<u+2019>s price and benefits before they make their decision,<u+201d> valerie jarrett, mr. obama<u+2019>s senior adviser and liaison to the business community, wrote on the white house web site. but even some supporters of the law dispute that the establishment of the health insurance exchanges is on schedule, especially since progress varies by state and some republican-led states are resisting the health care law and withholding resources for putting it into effect. much of the administration<u+2019>s public effort, especially at the department of health and human services, has been directed toward spreading the word to uninsured americans, especially younger and healthy individuals whose participation is needed to help keep down premiums for everyone else. about 85 percent of americans are insured, so most individuals will be unaffected, at least initially. behind the scenes, however, the administration has been fielding questions and criticisms from businesses about the reporting requirements <u+2014> especially the treasury department, which has responsibility, given its oversight of the tax reporting system. employer groups were quick to applaud the delay. at the u.s. chamber of commerce, which has strongly opposed the law, randy johnson, senior vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits, said in a statement, <u+201c>the administration has finally recognized the obvious <u+2014> employers need more time and clarification of the rules of the road before implementing the employer mandate.<u+201d> e. neil trautwein, a vice president of the national retail federation, said the delay <u+201c>will provide employers and businesses more time to update their health care coverage without threat of arbitrary punishment.<u+201d> mr. mazur, the treasury official, said the delay <u+201c>will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law.<u+201d> <u+201c>second,<u+201d> he added, <u+201c>it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees.<u+201d> within the next week, mr. mazur said, treasury will issue official guidance to insurers, self-insuring employers and other parties that provide health coverage. formal rules will be proposed this summer, he added, but the administration will encourage employers to comply with the law<u+2019>s reporting provisions in 2014, as originally mandated. democrats were all but silent on the news, but a spokesman for senator harry reid of nevada, the majority leader, released a statement late tuesday. <u+201c>both the administration and senate democrats have shown <u+2014> and continue to show <u+2014> a willingness to be flexible and work with all interested parties to make sure that implementation of the affordable care act is as beneficial as possible to all involved,<u+201d> the spokesman, adam jentleson, said. <u+201c>it is better to do this right than fast.<u+201d> but republicans immediately reacted with statements claiming vindication for their efforts to repeal the law altogether. senator john barrasso, republican of wyoming, called the administration action <u+201c>a cynical political ploy to delay the coming train wreck associated with obamacare until after the 2014 elections.<u+201d> and senator mitch mcconnell, the senate republican leader, who faces re-election next year in kentucky, said in a statement, <u+201c>the fact remains that obamacare needs to be repealed and replaced with common-sense reforms that actually lower costs for americans.<u+201d>

crucial rule is delayed a year for obama<u+2019>s health law

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

53.0

8.0

6984.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

494.0

1.0

0.0

126.0

0.0

63.0

8.0

18.0

8.0

11.0

14.0

10.0

6.0

38.0

25.0

48.0

496.0

127.0

63.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

gunmen stormed the offices of the satirical newspaper charlie hebdo on wednesday. french president francois hollande called the deadly assault a terrorist attack. why is angela merkel calling for a ban on the full islamic veil? masked gunmen shouting "allahu akbar!" stormed the paris offices of a satirical newspaper wednesday, killing 12 people including the editor and a cartoonist before escaping. it was france's deadliest terror attack in at least two decades. with a manhunt on, french president francois hollande called the attack on the charlie hebdo weekly, whose caricatures of the prophet muhammed have frequently drawn condemnation from muslims, "a terrorist attack without a doubt." he said several other attacks have been thwarted in france "in recent weeks." there was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack. france raised its security alert to the highest level and reinforced protective measures at houses of worship, stores, media offices and transportation. top government officials were holding an emergency meeting and hollande planned a nationally televised address in the evening. schools across the french capital closed their doors. world leaders including president barack obama and german chancellor angela merkel condemned the attack, but supporters of the militant islamic state group celebrated the slayings as well-deserved revenge against france. the islamic state group has repeatedly threatened to attack france. just minutes before the attack, charlie hebdo had tweeted a satirical cartoon of that extremist group's leader giving new year's wishes. another cartoon, released in this week's issue and entitled "still no attacks in france," had a caricature of an extremist fighter saying "just wait <u+2014> we have until the end of january to present our new year's wishes." the 12 dead included two men who went by the pen names: charb <u+2014> the editor and a cartoonist as well <u+2014> and the cartoonist cabu, spokeswoman agnes thibault-lecuivre of the paris prosecutor's office confirmed. two police officers were also among the dead, including one assigned as charb's bodyguard after prior death threats against him, a police official told the associated press, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. just before noon, multiple masked men armed with automatic weapons attacked the newspaper's office in central paris, nearby worker benoit bringer told the itele network. the attackers went to the second floor and started firing indiscriminately in the newsroom, said christophe deloire of reporters without borders. "this is the darkest day of the history of the french press," deloire said. video images on the website of public broadcaster france televisions showed two gunmen in black at a crossroads who appeared to fire down one of the streets. a cry of "allahu akbar!" <u+2014> arabic for "god is great"<u+2014> could be heard among the gunshots. luc poignant of the sbp police union said the attackers left in a waiting car and later switched to another vehicle that had been stolen. obama's top spokesman said us officials have been in close contact with the french since the attack. "we know they are not going to be cowed by this terrible act," spokesman josh earnest said. on social media, supporters of militant islamic groups praised the move. one twitter user who identified themselves as a tunisian loyalist of al qaeda and the islamic state group called the attack well-deserved revenge against france. elsewhere on the internet, the hashtag #jesuischarlie was trending as people expressed support for weekly and for journalistic freedom. charlie hebdo has been repeatedly threatened for its caricatures of the prophet muhammad and other controversial sketches. its offices were firebombed in 2011 after a spoof issue featuring a caricature of the prophet on its cover. nearly a year later, the publication again published crude muhammad caricatures, drawing denunciations from around the muslim world. wednesday's attack comes the same day of the release of a book by a celebrated french novelist depicting france's election of its first muslim president. hollande had been due to meet with the country's top religious officials later in the day.

at least 12 dead after terror attack at paris newspaper office (+video)

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

71.0

8.0

4238.0

0.0

2.0

3.0

0.0

274.0

0.0

85.0

0.0

32.0

13.0

15.0

6.0

21.0

7.0

10.0

6.0

18.0

25.0

277.0

85.0

32.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

more floods, more drought inevitable. how bad do we want it to get? world leaders are meeting in paris this month in what amounts to a last-ditch effort to avert the worst ravages of climate change. climatologists now say that the best case scenario <u+2014> assuming immediate and dramatic emissions curbs <u+2014> is that planetary surface temperatures will increase by at least 2 degrees celsius in the coming decades. this may sound like a small uptick, but the implications are profound. rising temperatures will destroy plant and animal habitats, and reduce yields of important food crops. more people will be exposed to the ravages of flooding and drought. but if the nations involved in the paris talks stay on their current emissions track and don<u+2019>t reduce greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures could go up by almost 6 degrees celsius this century, according to the committee on climate change, an independent body that advises the u.k. government on climate issues. the consequences of a heating globe are already being felt in alaska, which is warming twice as fast as the rest of the u.s. rising temperatures have thawed frozen soil in some areas, leaving coastlines vulnerable to storms and tidal activity. shishmaref, a remote village that sits on an island 30 miles outside the arctic circle, is losing as many as 9 feet of land a year <u+2014> chunks of coastline that simply break into the sea. each year, more species are losing their habitats to climate change. an increase of 4 degrees celsius in average planetary temperatures could result in severe habitat loss for almost two-thirds of plant species and one-third of mammal species. species losing at least half their habitat source: committee on climate change crop estimates assume that crop varieties and planting times are adjusted to optimize yeild. plant and animal estimates assume that species disperse to new areas at historically observed rates. charts show median estimates. even if nations meeting in paris curtail carbon emissions, a growing number of communities will be exposed to threats caused by climate change. vulnerable populations that live near water or in arid places will face massive disruptions to their way of life: flooding and severe drought are on course to become much more common. human activity since industrialization has led to a huge increase in the production of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to rising global temperatures. scientists warn that if carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at their current rates, earth<u+2019>s temperatures could increase dramatically in future decades, leading to catastrophic and irreversible climate change. the 10 largest emitters produced about 26.4 gigatons of carbon dioxide in 2013. (a gigaton is 1 billion tons, or roughly the equivalent of the annual emissions from every passenger car in the u.s. each year.) they are highlighted in red. countries producing most of the world<u+2019>s carbon promise big cuts countries responsible for two-thirds of global emissions have made commitments to curb their greenhouse gas production. that group includes some of the biggest emitters like china, india and the u.s. china, the world<u+2019>s biggest carbon producer, has promised that its carbon emissions will peak by 2030. projected emissions by 2019, in gigatons of carbon dioxide china will aim to reach maximum carbon emissions by 2030. after that, it will lower its carbon dioxide emissions by 60 to 65 percent relative to 2005 levels. by 2025, the u.s. aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent relative to 2005 levels. by 2030, the eu aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent relative to 1990 levels. by 2030, the eu aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent relative to 1990 levels. by 2030, india aims to reduce the ratio of emissions to its gdp by 33 to 35 percent relative to 2005 levels. by 2030, india aims to reduce the ratio of emissions to its gdp by 33 to 35 percent relative to 2005 levels.

the devastating consequences of a 'small' rise in global temperatures

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

69.0

8.0

4033.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

298.0

1.0

0.0

42.0

0.0

28.0

4.0

8.0

3.0

7.0

3.0

7.0

2.0

12.0

13.0

17.0

301.0

43.0

28.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

president obama<u+2019>s executive action sparing millions of illegal immigrants from deportation will be the biggest federal program rollout since obamacare -- and administration officials are hoping its launch, set for may, will be a lot smoother. <u+201c>the deputy secretary and i are very focused on this, and i believe we're going to get it right,<u+201d> department of homeland security secretary jeh johnson told fox news on thursday. still, republican opposition to the plan that would block deportation of as many as 5 million illegal immigrants -- most of them parents of children already here legally -- is nearly as intense. dhs has leased a massive office building in crystal city, virginia, just across the potomac river from washington, where a thousand federal workers and a thousand more contractors will process applications. though forecasting turn-out of applicants is largely a guessing game, dhs predicts as many as 1.3 million people may apply in the first six months alone. the crystal city office demonstrates to critics<u+00a0>just one of many problems with the president<u+2019>s executive action. "those employees are not going to ask people from all over the country to come to crystal city to be interviewed. they're not going to be effectively interviewed. they<u+2019>re going to do online most of their work,"<u+00a0>said senator jeff sessions, r-ala.<u+00a0><u+00a0>he believes the online interview process is a recipe for fraud. there's also the cost of the plan -- officially known as deferred action for parents of americans<u+00a0> -- estimated at $324 million to $484 million over the next few years, according to dhs documents obtained by the los angeles times. supporters note taxpayers won't be footing that bill <u+2013> they say applicants will instead, through a $465 fee. "the program operates slowly and exclusively on the funds that are contributed by those that participate in the program, said rep. luis gutierrez, d., ill. <u+201c>you get a million of them to apply, you have $500 million,<u+201d> he said. "that<u+2019>s an absolute misrepresentation,<u+201d> said sessions. <u+201c>congress has the power to control all money, whether it comes in by fee, or not." even with a fee-based payment, sessions said immigration and customs enforcement is already<u+00a0>overburdened by the wave of childhood arrivals and will<u+00a0> be further hard pressed by the new plan to carry out basic enforcement duties. <u+201c>they've told us they're unable now to do their job. they've made clear that it<u+2019>s placing america at risk. now we're talking about another five million the president wants to be reviewed for legal status," he added. sessions warned the plan will lower wages in an already job-scarce economy, while gutierrez said applicants toil at jobs many americans refuse to do. <u+201c>who does he really think is going to pick those onions in 110 degrees in south texas?<u+201d> asked gutierrez. <u+201c>seventy percent of the agricultural workers that do the picking, that do the hard labor, are undocumented,<u+00a0>we know that. so let's not kid ourselves, the folks are already here working.<u+201d> by coming out of the shadows through the plan, many immigrants could also suddenly find themselves subject to the maze of tax laws, tax penalties, loopholes and liabilities and benefits <u+00a0>that u.s. citizens already face, a confounding code that could potentially drive some applicants back into the shadows. doug mckelway joined fox news channel (fnc) in november 2010 and serves as a washington-based correspondent. click here for more information on doug mckelway.

cost, logistics of obama immigration plan raise concerns before launch

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

70.0

8.0

3471.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

225.0

0.0

55.0

0.0

26.0

8.0

9.0

4.0

7.0

5.0

8.0

5.0

9.0

17.0

19.0

231.0

55.0

26.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

growing approval for economy and president obama - emily swanson: "americans' views of president barack obama have improved slightly in the past two months, and opinions are more positive about the direction of the country and the health of the economy, an associated press-gfk poll finds... forty-seven percent of those surveyed approve of how obama is doing his job, compared with 41 percent in december, and 51 percent approve of his handling of unemployment, compared with 44 percent before. nearly half say the economy is good now, while 41 percent thought that in december. in december 2013, only one-third called the economy good. approval of the way obama is handling the economy improved slightly, 41 percent to 45 percent, over the past two months<u+2026>but people still feel that their own recovery is lagging, the poll shows, with only 35 percent saying their own family has completely or mostly recovered from economic downturn. just 27 percent see the job market where they live as being most of the way to recovery, far less than the number that thinks big businesses (55 percent) and the stock market (53 percent) have bounced all the way back. in spite of growing optimism about politics and the economy, 8 in 10 people questioned have little confidence that obama and republicans in congress can work together to solve the country's problems." [ap] how high is the ceiling on obama's approval? - david lauter: "president obama's standing with the public likely will continue its recent upward trend following the latest positive economic news, but new data on the country's polarized politics suggests he'll soon bump up against a low ceiling. the labor market data released by the federal government on friday showed the best three months of job growth since the mid-1990s, an increase in the percentage of americans who are working and the first signs of wage growth. that's the kind of good news that usually sends presidential approval ratings upward. but political polarization exerts a powerful pull in the other direction: much like president george w. bush before him, obama faces near unanimous disapproval from opposing partisans that is deeply dug in and unlikely to change<u+2026>.in the past half century, the only years that showed more polarization than obama's sixth year were his -- and bush's -- fourth and fifth years. all of that suggests that obama's overall approval rating probably will not rise much above 50% for any sustained period." [la times] four signs of an improving u.s. jobs situation - drew desilver, summarizing bureau of labor statistics: "[1] more people are getting back into the labor market, even if they don<u+2019>t immediately find jobs. [2] more people who want work are actually looking for it. [3] more people are quitting their jobs. [4] the unemployed are spending less time out of work." [pew] another nh poll shows no gop candidate over 20 percent - michael bender & lisa lerer: "jeb bush has taken a slight lead over other potential republican presidential candidates in a new bloomberg politics/saint anselm new hampshire poll...bush now leads with just 16 percent. senator rand paul of kentucky is second with 13 percent, wisconsin governor scott walker is at 12 percent, and new jersey governor chris christie, coming off a controversy-filled overseas trip, is at 10 percent...the poll also shows former secretary of state hillary clinton dominating her potential democratic rivals. clinton, who won the state<u+2019>s presidential primary in 2008, is the first choice of 56 percent of democratic primary voters. senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts, who has said she isn't running, is second at 15 percent, while vice president joe biden and senator bernie sanders of vermont both have 8 percent." [bloomberg] what to make of early polls, walker 'surge'? - jonathan bernstein: "let<u+2019>s talk early-stage presidential primary polls. wisconsin governor scott walker has had something of a surge over the last week. what should we make of it? is there any information to be squeezed out of these polls?...the latest polls tell us almost nothing about voters. most people aren<u+2019>t paying attention yet, which is why a bit of positive publicity for a candidate can shift polling quite a bit. voters aren<u+2019>t reporting firm decisions; they<u+2019>re just responding to what<u+2019>s been in the news lately. if these early polls are important, it is only because of the way the people who pay close attention to republican party politics react to them. that<u+2019>s the real thing to watch, going forward." [bloomberg] cq researcher: broad overview of political polling - chuck mccutcheon: "smart phones, social media and the internet have made it easier than ever for people to make their views known, but the new technology can make it harder for political pollsters to gather and measure public opinions with precision or consistency. they face public suspicions of partisanship, reluctance to provide candid answers and <u+2014> as cellphone use grows <u+2014> difficulty reaching respondents by the traditional method of random calls to household landlines<u+2026>polling has become entangled in the nation<u+2019>s prevailing polarized political climate, with both politicians and the public questioning the validity of polls." the cqr report provides a broad overview of recent issues and controversies facing the polling world. it is available by subscription or single issue purchase only. [cq researcher] huffpollster via email! - you can receive this daily update every weekday morning via email! just click here, enter your email address, and click "sign up." that's all there is to it (and you can unsubscribe anytime).

huffpollster: growing economy good news for obama

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

38.0

49.0

8.0

5629.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

367.0

0.0

83.0

0.0

47.0

8.0

18.0

4.0

11.0

6.0

8.0

26.0

13.0

45.0

369.0

83.0

47.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

police responded to reports of gunshots at about 5:15 p.m., tuesday, when they found the victims' bodies. the shooting happened in a neighborhood that is mostly rental apartments where students live, and crime there is low, according to the news and observer. that night, frantic parents waited outside finley forest condominiums, where police were investigating the triple homicide, the daily tarheel reports. one mother broke down in tears after she inquired about her daughter and son-in-law, while a father screamed, "it's been hours! just tell me if he's alive!" "why do i cry?" farris barakat, deah's brother, wrote on facebook. "so many times i've grabbed my phone to text my brother, yusor, and razan. except seconds later i realize that i've taken them for granted and imagine their phone laying by their bodies. that's not okay guys." "we understand the concerns about the possibility that this was hate-motivated and we will exhaust every lead to determine if that is the case. our thoughts are with the families and friends of these young people who lost their lives so needlessly," chief chris blue of the chapel hill police department said at a press conference. update 3:15 p.m.: in a press conference, hicks' wife of seven years, karen, said she "never would have expected this." she said that the shooting had nothing to do with race or religion, and everything to do with parking problems. "this incident had nothing to do with religion or victims<u+2019> faith but instead had to do with the longstanding parking disputes that my husband had with the neighbors," she said, choking back tears. "he often champions on his facebook page for the rights of many individuals. same sex marriages, abortion, race, he just believes that everyone is equal. doesn<u+2019>t matter what you look like or who you are or what you believe." she said she didn't know what drove hicks to allegedly shoot three people, but her lawyers said that the suspect didn't single out the victims and had problems with other neighbors in the past. hicks' ex-wife, kristen, told the huffington post that she hadn't "heard from or seen him in 10 years," and had no further comment. "it was execution style, a bullet in every head," he told the news observer. "this was not a dispute over a parking space; this was a hate crime. this man had picked on my daughter and her husband a couple of times before, and he talked with them with his gun in his belt. and they were uncomfortable with him, but they did not know he would go this far." "we<u+2019>re still in a state of shock and will never be able to make sense of this horrendous tragedy," she said. "we ask that the authorities investigate these senseless and heinous murders as a hate crime ... we ask that you celebrate the memories of our family members." the gruesome scene has sparked an outcry on facebook and twitter, as word circulated that hicks described himself as an "anti-theist" and criticized religions online, according to the independent. that revelation, as well as a lack of media attention to the shooting tuesday night, reportedly led to a "#muslimlivesmatter" hashtag. less than two weeks before he was killed, barakat -- a dental student at unc -- was involved in a debate over the gaza strip on twitter, the new york daily news reports. one of his tweets went viral when news of his death spread. it reads: "it's so freaking sad to hear people saying we should "kill jews" or "kill palestinians". as if that's going to solve anything smh." each of the young family members was a student. yusor -- who married barakat in december, according to their facebook profiles -- recently graduated with a degree in human biology at north carolina state university. razan was studying architecture and environmental design at north carolina state university last year, according to her facebook page. barakat was a regular volunteer and helped organize an effort to raise money to provide free dental care to students of the salaam school in turkey, according to wral. his final facebook post features a photo of efforts to hand out dental supplies to the homeless in north carolina. he also started a fundraising page for a trip this summer to turkey, where he planned to provide dental care to syrian refugees. supporters sent in thousands of dollars after the shooting, and the fundraising goal was exceeded by more than $10,000 wednesday morning.

3 members of muslim family shot dead in chapel hill

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

51.0

8.0

4398.0

0.0

2.0

6.0

0.0

284.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

34.0

16.0

15.0

8.0

22.0

9.0

17.0

10.0

17.0

31.0

24.0

290.0

100.0

34.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

three days after a heavily armed muslim couple who lived in a home investigators described as "an ied factory" burst into a southern california office building and gunned down 14 people, the fbi finally -- and awkwardly -- acknowledged friday that it is treating the case as an act of terrorism. in an unusual and brief address to reporters at which attorney general loretta lynch appeared and questions were not taken on camera, fbi director james comey affirmed the bureau's la office's characterization earlier in the day. "this is now a federal terrorism investigation," comey said, alluding to evidence collected from electronic devices and reports that syed rizwan farook and tashfeen malik may have been sympathetic to radical terrorist groups prior to the attack. after his comments, comey asked pool reporters if they had any questions, but the pre-taped event, which was later distributed to media outlets, was cut off abruptly and no questions were permitted. the director, a republican appointed in 2013 and a former deputy attorney general under president george w. bush," did not allude to the muslim faith of suspects syed rizwan farook and tashfeen malik. but in pronouncing it a case of terrorism, he seemed to be stating the obvious while at the same time going farther than president obama has been willing to go and possibly hinting at some behind-the-scenes dissent. sources told fox news lynch was there to "ensure [comey] didn't take it too far" in his characterization of the attacks. on thursday, in the face of mounting evidence of a terror motive, president obama refused to rule out an office dispute as the possible motive for the attack. the equivocation stoked outrage among many of obama's critics, who noted his insistence on labelling as "workplace violence" the 2009 fort hood shooting, in which a muslim army major killed 13 people and injured another 30 while shouting <u+201c>allahu akbar<u+201d> and his ongoing refusal to characterize acts of terror as driven by radical interpretations of islam. "if you can't come to a conclusion at this point that this was an act of terror, you should find something else to do for a living than being in law enforcement. i mean, you're a moron," former new york mayor rudy giuliani, who led the city during the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath, thundered hours later on fox news. then, on friday, hours before the fbi announcement, fox new confirmed that malik had pledged her allegiance to isis as the morning attack began. she and her husband were killed hours later in a shootout with police just two miles away. those developments confirmed the suspicions of many, and left it obvious that malik, at least, was driven by radical islam. "we are investigating it as an act of terrorism, for good reason," david bowdich, the assistant fbi director in charge of the los angeles office, told reporters in an afternoon news conference before his boss spoke. bowdich, who said neither of the two were on law enforcement's radar prior to the attack, cited several factors for the focus on terrorism, including "extensive planning" that went into the attack. the pair attempted to cover up their digital trail, damaging hard drives and other electronic devices, bowdich said. investigators did find two cell phones recovered from trash cans near the couple's redlands home, and recovered evidence of communications with others who are now being investigated. <u+201c>they tried to wipe out their digital fingerprints,<u+201d> he said, adding that digital communications will likely provide further substantiation of the motive, but "it's not a three-day process." the post by malik, in which she pledged allegiance to isis leader and self-proclaimed <u+201c>caliph<u+201d> abu bakr al-baghdadi, was confirmed by facebook official. they said she posted the pledge just before she and farook stormed a san bernardino party for his co-workers before escaping. the couple died hours later in a shootout with police, and in the aftermath the 29-year-old pakistani woman has remained largely a name without a face. no confirmed pictures of her have surfaced, and few details have emerged. the aura of mystery surrounding malik has given rise to suspicions she may have been the radicalizing force who turned farook from an aloof county restaurant inspector into her cohort in carnage, an islamist fanatic capable of murdering co-workers who had embraced him for years. "usually it's isis supporters trying to radicalize young girls online as they try to find new wives, but this may be the first case i know of where the opposite happened," said ryan mauro, a national security analyst for clarion project, which tracks international terrorism. mauro noted that farook's older brother, who shares his name, served in the u.s. navy, which would seem to indicate that farook's radical leanings did not come from within his own family. "it is possible that she radicalized him or that suspected terrorists inside america he was communicating with are responsible for the radicalization, which led him to be attracted to a more hardline salafi girl," mauro said. what is known is that malik met farook online and that the two became engaged after farook traveled to saudi arabia in september 2013. malik applied for a k-1 visa at the american embassy in islamabad in may, 2014 and two months later farook again traveled to saudi arabia, met her there and brought her to the u.s. on a k-1 visa, a 90-day visa given to fianc<u+00e9>s planning to marry americans. <u+201c>tashfeen remains the biggest mystery,<u+201d> said a leader of the area<u+2019>s pakistani-american muslim community. <u+201c>she<u+2019>s the one no one knows anything about and has little to no presence on the internet or having interacted with others in the muslim community.<u+201d> they were married on aug. 16, 2014, in nearby riverside county, calif. according to their marriage license. the marriage and passage of criminal and national security background checks using fbi and department of homeland security databases resulted in a conditional green card for malik in july 2015, two months after she gave birth to their baby daughter. malik and farook, an american citizen born in chicago and raised in southern california by parents of pakistani descent, lived with their daughter and his mother, rafia farook, in a redlands, calif., apartment described by one investigator as an <u+201c>ied factory<u+201d> and ammo arsenal. however, farook<u+2019>s mother claimed not to have suspected any potential plots or problems pertaining to her son and daughter-in-law, telling others that the weaponry didn<u+2019>t raise any eyebrows as he <u+201c>was always into guns<u+201d> from a young age and shooting was very much a part of his life. attorneys representing farook's family said at a late afternoon press conference that none of farook's relatives had any indication he or his wife held extremist views. federal officials confirmed that the four guns malik and farook carried when they were killed in a shootout wednesday afternoon, some three hours after storming the san bernardino social services facility where his department was holding a holiday party, were purchased legally. law enforcement sources told fox news that investigators believe the couple's death prevented a second attack wednesday, though they have not established what the target would have been. there have been reports farook had ties to radicals in pakistan and had a trip made there in recent years, but a source connected to the pakistani consulate in los angeles told foxnews.com that he did not possess a pakistani passport and that there is no record of him applying for a visa to travel to pakistan through his local consulate. that did not preclude the possibility that he may have entered the country illegally or obtained a visa overseas or elsewhere. farook is a third-generation american from a family hailing from karachi. sources close to his family insisted that his marriage to malik was not arranged. he told co-workers, who hosted a baby shower for him and his wife earlier this year, that malik was a pharmacist. the california board of pharmacy has no record of her working as either a pharmacist or a pharmacist<u+2019>s assistant. farook was a devout muslim who prayed every day and recently memorized the koran, according to brothers nizaam and rahemaan ali, who attended dar al uloom al islamiyah mosque in san bernardino with farook. rahemaan ali said he last saw farook three weeks ago, when he abruptly stopped going to the mosque. ali said farook seemed happy and his usual self, and the brothers never saw a violent side. "he never ever talked about killing people or discussed politics, or said that he had problems at work," rahemaan ali said. "he always had a smile on his face." prior to their marriage, farook had multiple online dating profiles claiming he was a sunni muslim from a <u+201c>religious but modern family<u+201d> and that he was <u+201c>looking for a girl who has the same outlook, wear hijab, but live life to the fullest, be my partner for snowboarding, to go out and eat with friends, go camping, working on cars with me.<u+201d> farook was remembered as reserved by co-workers, who said he had grown his beard out in recent months <u+2013> often a sign among muslims of heightened religious devotion. he also had gotten into several heated arguments with a co-worker, nicholas thalasinos, about islam. thalasinos reportedly questioned whether farook<u+2019>s faith was truly a <u+201c>religion of peace.<u+201d> he was one of the 14 killed in wednesday<u+2019>s attack. neither malik nor farook had a criminal record, and the couple did not mix with the larger pakistani-american community, and few people claim to have seen, let alone met, malik, including neighbors. the pakistani-american muslim community leader, who asked that his name not be used, said the community believes is is clear that someone radicalized farook. <u+201c>this event has shaken everyone,<u+201d> said the source. <u+201c>the fact that syed and his wife seemed to be so removed from the community and no one really knows much about him or his wife at all can often be a key indicator something is wrong.<u+201d> fox news channel's matthew dean, adam housley and hollie mckay contributed to this report

stating the obvious? fbi awkwardly acknowledges san bernardino massacre likely terrorism

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

11.0

88.0

8.0

10149.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

750.0

1.0

0.0

197.0

0.0

63.0

25.0

16.0

28.0

21.0

19.0

12.0

45.0

36.0

57.0

757.0

198.0

63.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

on the eve of the new hampshire primary, hillary clinton<u+2019>s quest to become the country<u+2019>s first female president has encountered an unexpected problem: she is having trouble persuading women, young and old, to rally behind her cause. the latest sign came sunday, when a new cnn-wmur survey here showed sen. bernie sanders of vermont beating clinton among women by eight percentage points <u+2014> which represents a big shift from the results last week in the iowa caucuses, where clinton won women by 11 points. the survey followed unintentionally problematic comments over the weekend by madeleine albright and gloria steinem, older trailblazers who were trying to encourage younger women to support clinton. steinem apologized sunday for saying on a tv appearance friday night that younger women were supporting sanders because <u+201c>the boys are with bernie.<u+201d> on saturday, albright drew criticism for saying that <u+201c>there<u+2019>s a special place in hell for women who don<u+2019>t help each other,<u+201d> even though she has expressed that sentiment many times before. clinton<u+2019>s struggles with women underscore the extent to which she has not yet figured out how to harness the history-making potential of her candidacy in the same way that barack obama mobilized minorities and white liberals excited about electing the first black president. [meet the feminists who want a man in the white house] cognizant of the challenge, the clinton campaign has sought in recent days here to address the problem, tweaking her speeches to put a focus on clinton as an advocate for women. clinton spent part of friday with a group of female u.s. senators she calls the <u+201c>sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits.<u+201d> at the saturday event with albright, clinton offered an aspirational message <u+2014> saying that the country<u+2019>s history is <u+201c>one of rising, of knocking down barriers, of moving toward a more perfect union<u+201d> <u+2014> that appeared designed to present her candidacy as a milepost on that national journey. in an appearance on nbc<u+2019>s <u+201c>meet the press<u+201d> on sunday, clinton defended albright, saying that her words were a <u+201c>lighthearted but very pointed remark, which people can take however they choose.<u+201d> <u+201c>i think what she was trying to do, what she<u+2019>s done in every setting i<u+2019>ve ever seen her in going back 20-plus years, was to remind young women, particularly, that you know, this struggle, which many of us have been part of, is not over,<u+201d> clinton said. steinem wrote on her facebook page that her remarks to comedian bill maher in which she seemed to say that pro-sanders feminists were just looking for dating opportunities was a case of <u+201c>talk-show interruptus.<u+201d> <u+201c>i misspoke on the bill maher show recently, and apologize for what<u+2019>s been misinterpreted as implying young women aren<u+2019>t serious in their politics,<u+201d> she wrote. even so, steinem<u+2019>s comments pointed to the unexpected obstacle facing clinton and her backers: a deep divide among women and feminist activists over how voters should respond to her. while many older women<u+2019>s rights advocates see the election of clinton as the next logical step in a broader movement, some younger activists have expressed resentment at the notion that they should feel obligated to vote for clinton simply because she<u+2019>s a woman. some have argued in recent months that sanders, with his calls to end income inequality and make college free, is arguably the more feminist candidate. [in flint, clinton casts herself as a problem-solver <u+2014> and looks past n.h.] <u+201c>hillary doesn<u+2019>t seem to address those huge issues,<u+201d> said alexis isabel moncada, whose @feministculture twitter account launched in april and boasts 170,000 followers. moncada, who is 17 but will be old enough to vote in november, said clinton<u+2019>s personal wealth and her life as a former first lady and secretary of state create a <u+201c>disconnect with the entirety of women.<u+201d> on the trail, clinton has begun to show more openness and reflection about the challenges of running as a woman in office, sometimes in response to challenges from other women. at a student town hall at new england college on saturday, a young woman told clinton that she supported her in 2008 but has doubts about her candidacy now. <u+201c>my concern is that your answer that nothing new was found in the benghazi hearings continues to give me some doubts,<u+201d> the woman said. <u+201c>everybody knows you can<u+2019>t write 30,000 emails to your yoga instructor.<u+201d> another young woman asked why her peers think that clinton is too buttoned up and <u+201c>rehearsed.<u+201d> <u+201c>i do have a somewhat narrower path that i<u+2019>ve tried to walk. i do think sometimes it comes across as a little more restrained, a little more careful, and i<u+2019>m sure that<u+2019>s true,<u+201d> clinton answered. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s not just about me, it<u+2019>s about young women, women of all ages, the expectations that are put upon you and how you deal with them and how you find your true voice and how you stand up for yourself and who you become.<u+201d> many women<u+2019>s rights advocates say they are proud to back clinton, not just because of her gender but also because of her vast experience as a lawyer, first lady, senator and secretary of state. [the fix: why won<u+2019>t clinton release the transcripts of those paid speeches?] in recent weeks, clinton has won endorsements from numerous women<u+2019>s rights organizations, including the planned parenthood action fund, the national organization for women, emily<u+2019>s list, naral pro-choice america and the feminist majority. feminist majority<u+2019>s president, eleanor smeal, who launched a campaign on clinton<u+2019>s behalf, she<u+00a0>wins we win, said in an interview that clinton has not only fought for women<u+2019>s rights here and overseas but is <u+201c>probably the strongest single candidate that has ever challenged for the presidency.<u+201d> some have argued that they will vote for clinton precisely because she<u+2019>s a woman. <u+201c>there has never been a president who knows what it<u+2019>s like to menstruate, be pregnant, or give birth,<u+201d> kate harding, 41, wrote in the online women<u+2019>s magazine dame shortly after clinton declared her candidacy. nor, harding said, has there been a president who has faced such blatant sexism <u+201c>for showing too much cleavage, or having <u+2018>cankles,<u+2019> or wearing unflattering headbands.<u+201d> a question for clinton is whether she can use what is looking to be an extended primary campaign against sanders to energize women for the general election should she win the nomination. republican front-runner donald trump traded accusations of sexism with clinton, prompting a reexamination of the support clinton won from feminists in the <u+2019>90s when she defended her husband against accusations that threatened to derail his presidency. [new wave feminism: today<u+2019>s generation embraces feminism on its own terms] kate michelman, a former naral president and a prominent supporter of clinton<u+2019>s candidacy, echoes clinton<u+2019>s own evocation of a <u+201c>vast right-wing conspiracy<u+201d> in arguing that <u+201c>the forces of sexism and anti-feminism are going to be loud and clear in their attempt to make sure no women get the presidency of this country.<u+201d> and some self-identified feminists say they feel less urgency to elect a woman in 2016 than they did eight years ago, perhaps because this is the second time a woman has come so close. shelby knox, 29, subject of a documentary about campaigning for sex education in texas schools, was living and working with steinem in 2008 and said she found the attacks so painful she was <u+201c>almost scared<u+201d> to see clinton announce again. <u+201c>when hillary lost, i had this horrible fear that gloria [steinem] would never see a woman president,<u+201d> said knox, <u+201c>as if the nation would reject any woman.<u+201d> this time around, she is confident clinton will win. and even if she doesn<u+2019>t, knox thinks she will live to see a female president. <u+201c>it will be impossible for us not to have a woman president,<u+201d> she said. <u+201c>i have no doubt it will happen.<u+201d> sellers reported from washington. karen tumulty in concord contributed to this report.

clinton looks to sisterhood, but votes may go to sanders

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

6.0

56.0

8.0

7906.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

526.0

0.0

140.0

0.0

40.0

21.0

24.0

7.0

21.0

24.0

22.0

12.0

37.0

30.0

55.0

528.0

140.0

40.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the hillary clinton campaign denied access to the print pool reporter on monday, reigniting reporters' longstanding concerns about the campaign's commitment to running an open and transparent campaign. david martosko, the u.s. political editor for london's daily mail, reported showing up at the campaign's breakfast stop in new hampshire only to be told that he would not be allowed to pool the day's events. pool reporters are responsible for sending reports from the trail to the rest of the press corps. "your pooler showed up at the puritan backroom in manchester on a rainy new hampshire morning at 7:45 and was greeted in the parking lot by meredith thatcher, a press staffer with the new hampshire democratic party. thatcher told your pooler that he wasn<u+2019>t the approved print pool reporter for today<u+2019>s pooled events," martosko reported in his first pool report. (note: thatcher is actually a press staffer for "hillary for new hampshire," not the state's democratic party.) "asked to call her boss, harrell kirstein, she did so and then reported: 'so i'm afraid it's a no. you're not on the list.' she said [campaign press secretary] nick merrill should be phoned with questions,"<u+00a0>martosko continued. "asked if the print pooler was being prohibited from getting on either of the pool vans, thatcher replied: 'i'm afraid that's right.' asked why, she responded: 'all i know is what harrell has told me. i got an email saying the print pooler would be changed for today. sorry.'" denied a ride in the pool van, martosko told<u+00a0>thatcher that he would drive to the first campaign stop in rochester on his own, "in the hope that things would be sorted out during the 75-minute drive." reached via email,<u+00a0>martosko declined to comment.<u+00a0>he apologized for any typos, noting, "i'm dictating to phone as i drive." daily mail spokesperson sean walsh said the organization is "seeking an explanation from the clinton campaign as to why this occurred as mr. martosko was scheduled to be the designated print pool reporter in new hampshire this morning." merrill, the campaign's traveling press secretary, did not respond to a request for comment. however, he did provide an additional explanation to martosko, which<u+00a0>martosko relayed in a report on the daily mail's website: merrill said that the campaign<u+2019>s position is that the daily mail does not qualify because it has not yet been added to the white house<u+2019>s regular print pool <u+2013> something martosko informed him was a timing issue, not a white house choice, since francesca chambers, the mail's white house correspondent, has been vetted and has a hard pass. ...<u+00a0>'we<u+2019>re just trying to follow the same process and system the white house has,' said merrill. ...<u+00a0>merrill then insisted that the decision had 'nothing to do' with the campaign considering the daily mail foreign press. ...<u+00a0>'we don<u+2019>t consider you foreign press,' he said. <u+00a0>...<u+00a0>merrill then added; 'this isn<u+2019>t about you. it<u+2019>s about a larger...' and did not continue his sentence. ...<u+00a0>merrill later insisted that his reasons were not based on the foreign-press question, but that the campaign simply wanted a day to 'have a conversation' about how to proceed. "we want a happy press corps as much as the press corps does. and we work very hard to achieve that in tandem with them.<u+00a0> it's a long campaign, and we are going to do our best to find equilibrium and best accommodate interest from as many news outlets as possible, given the space limitations of our events." after some confusion about the location of the morning's early childhood education summit in rochester, nh, your pooled determined that it was at the ymca of strafford county and arrived at about 10:20. ...<u+00a0>secret service at the main entrance refused to let your pooler in and advised to go in through another entrance near a playground. ...<u+00a0>visiting that doorway, another agent asked for your pooler<u+2019>s name and outlet, to which the pool replied <u+201c>david martosko with the daily mail.<u+201d> a voice from behind the door, whom your pool later learned was the head of mrs. clinton's secret service detail, was heard saying <u+201c>oh. no.<u+201d> <u+00a0>...<u+00a0>the first agent sent your pooler back to the front door, advising that the head of the detail insisted. at the front door again, your pooler was asked to wait while the first agent on duty checked to see if the pool would be admitted. ...<u+00a0>the answer: "no. you can't come in." pooler was advised by that secret service agent that he had contacted someone <u+201c>with the campaign<u+201d> named <u+201c>pollard,<u+201d> who personally said no, your pooler could not come in. it<u+2019>s unclear who pollard is. ...<u+00a0>your pooler asked if he could come inside to use the restroom. the secret service agent advised that the area had been swept already, so he should <u+201c>hit the woods.<u+201d> ...<u+00a0>pool saw a wmur-tv truck outside and confirmed with a reporter from a competing local station that there were indeed pool journalist inside from photo and video. ...<u+00a0>with a light rain falling, your pooler went back to his rental car to file this report, after counting about 210 cars in the parking lots and on the street. ...<u+00a0>both press pool vans from manchester were visible outside, along with the now-famous black <u+201c>scooby<u+201d> van and a contingent of new hampshire state trooper vehicles. "we have been working to create an equitable system, and have had some concerns expressed by foreign outlets about not being a part of the rotation. the journalists who coordinate the pool are in touch with them as are we, and we simply asked that until we can work all of that out that we send an outlet in keeping with previous precedents."

clinton campaign denies access to pool reporter

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

47.0

8.0

5589.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

354.0

0.0

114.0

0.0

41.0

4.0

12.0

3.0

4.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

20.0

11.0

29.0

357.0

114.0

41.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

as the polls continue to take shape after the conventions, we<u+2019>re seeing hillary clinton further solidify her lead with african americans, latinos, voters under 30 and women. she<u+2019>s made considerable gains with independents and is, miraculously, chipping away at donald trump<u+2019>s lead with white americans. but what we don<u+2019>t know is which side of the aisle a critical voting bloc will land: seniors. in the latest cnn/orc poll, clinton received just 35% of the 65 and older vote as trump earned 53% <u+00a0>from the aarp wing. this could spell bad news for clinton as seniors have only increased their voting power. in the 2000 election, voters 65 years and up made up 14% of the electorate and in the 2012 election, the same group made up 16% of all voters and had become considerably more republican. senior voters have become one of the biggest voting groups, eclipsing both african americans and latinos who made up 13% and 10% of the 2012 vote respectively. in an election where trump will not do as well as previous republicans have with latinos, african-americans and women, it is crucial that trump over performs with senior voters if he wants any chance of winning this race. a february poll found that a majority of senior voters feel neglected by the candidates. indeed, 70% said that clinton and trump weren<u+2019>t paying enough attention to their issues <u+2013> a big gamble as seniors are a bloc that actually show up to vote. in the november 2010 midterm elections, 61% of citizens 65 and older turned out to vote. this was higher than any other voting contingent. just like all voters, seniors want to know that the candidates understand their particular set of circumstances. and after the last few years when low interest rates have dealt a serious blow to retirement plans hurting the wallets of seniors across the nation, both clinton and trump need to spend more time talking dollars and cents with older americans. so what can the candidates do? hit the two most important issues in this election, the economy and national security, hard with seniors<u+2019> circumstances in mind and do the same for healthcare, an obvious high priority for the elderly. donald trump<u+2019>s bleak description of the state of the american economy may resonate with seniors. a bring the vote home poll found that 63% of senior citizens disapprove of barack obama as president. in addition, the same poll reported that 76% of senior<u+2019>s feel that the country is on a seriously wrong track. while trump hopes to woo elder voters with his promise of a new direction he thus far lacks the specificity of policy to dramatically win this argument. clinton should emphasize her well detailed platform while also playing off president obama<u+2019>s endorsement as the most qualified person to ever run for president. and she should play up her role as the candidate to protect americans from national security threats. in a july pew poll, 80% of americans stated that terrorism and national security are top issues in deciding who they<u+2019>re voting for this november. hillary clinton can win senior voters by continuing the <u+2018>patriotic shift<u+2019> of the democratic party they framed at the convention. she must take in stride the label of being tough on isis and speak of her experience hunting down osama bin laden as proof that she will keep america safe. finally, to keep seniors on their side, both candidates need to reiterate their support to protect healthcare programs that are working, especially when costs have been skyrocketing and approval for the president<u+2019>s signature plan continues to struggle. to accomplish this, both candidates should show their support for medicare part d, a program created in 2003 to subsidize the costs of prescription drugs, mostly benefitting senior citizens. hillary clinton has suggested reforms to part d by introducing medicaid-style rebates for part d beneficiaries. what she does not realize is that mandatory rebates leads to increased premiums and limited choice. in an economy where many senior citizens are struggling to keep their heads above water, this is not a policy position that will help her gain their critical votes. on the republican side, donald trump has broken with much of the gop by calling for medicare to negotiate its own prices. this goes against trump<u+2019>s open-market, capitalist spirit as allowing medicare to negotiate its own prices would lead to a $36 billon loss in research and development for biopharma companies. clearly, too much is at stake for the presidential candidates to be pushing these unsound policies for medicare part d. not only would the overwhelming majority of senior citizens who rely on part d be adversely affected, but those individuals' families and their healthcare providers would be left to pay a considerable price. medicare part d should be lauded for its success and efficiency, especially in economic terms, not used as a political pawn leaving our senior citizens at risk. after all, in an election<u+00a0>where the majority of seniors are already feeling like their votes aren<u+2019>t being courted, both trump and clinton can<u+2019>t afford to further alienate this crucial voting bloc. douglas e. schoen has served as a pollster for president bill clinton. he has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. he is also a fox news contributor and co-host of "fox news insiders" sundays on fox news channel at 7 pm et. he is the author of 13 books. his latest is "putin's master plan" (encounter books, september 27, 2016). follow doug on twitter @douglaseschoen.

doug schoen: trump, hillary and the forgotten swing vote -- seniors

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

6.0

67.0

8.0

5545.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

397.0

1.0

0.0

98.0

0.0

54.0

17.0

18.0

9.0

13.0

15.0

18.0

8.0

35.0

26.0

46.0

400.0

99.0

54.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

as republicans jockey for their party<u+2019>s top spot in the 2016 presidential election, more than two dozen gop governors are meeting in las vegas to discuss how best to promote and capitalize on their executive winning streaks at the national level. with a slight advantage over republicans in electoral votes and growing support from hispanic and asian-american voters, conventional wisdom holds that democrats are favored to win the white house in 2016. but president obama will leave few coattails in 2016 <u+2013> only 27 percent of registered voters would vote for him again, giving republicans a meaningful shot at making gains at the state and national level. the dissatisfied majority of american voters will be looking for real change in 2016. they want a leader they can support <u+2013> someone who understands the economy and will support job creation, not create broad, business-choking rules often overturned by federal courts. the eventual gop presidential nominee has an opportunity to capitalize on this era of public discontent and lead our country forward, united behind a shared goal of economic prosperity and growth.<u+00a0>and he or she should start by taking cues from the republican chief executives leading some of the most prosperous states in the nation. over the last four years, the gop has excelled at the state level. in the last election cycle, republicans picked up seven governorships, including swing states won by president obama <u+2013> maine, michigan, new mexico and wisconsin <u+2013> and true blue states like illinois, maryland and massachusetts. since 2006,<u+00a0>44 of the 50<u+00a0>states have had a republican governor.<u+00a0>and the trend continues. on nov. 3, voters in kentucky<u+00a0>elected<u+00a0>their second republican governor in four decades, matt bevin, in a big upset. voters increasingly look to governors to make tough choices against special-interest groups. that<u+2019>s why presidential contenders should take a cue from them. if republicans present a vision of the american dream boosted by free-market innovation, choice in jobs, choice in providers of services and a well-run government making tough decisions for a better future for our children, they will capture and inspire american voters. between 2011 and 2014, gop governors cut taxes by $36 billion, while democratic governors raised them by $58 billion. and republican governors are pushing back against unions by eliminating mandatory union membership, government union-dues collection, union-mandated labor for government projects and the protection of incompetent teachers. the 10 most business-friendly states in america are run by republican governors. republican executive leadership is about more than just fiscal competence, however. it<u+2019>s rooted in a philosophy that citizens are adults and can make decisions on what they want better than government can. this gop message of choice should resonate with voters across the political spectrum. republicans support choice in doctors and health care savings accounts, choice in urban schools, choice for workers on whether to join unions, choice in construction workers for government projects, discretion in sentencing for nonviolent crimes and choice of taxicabs or uber, hotels or airbnb. this message works. in the november election, voters in san francisco overwhelmingly<u+00a0>rejected<u+00a0>a measure that would have made it much harder for airbnb to operate in the city. too often, the left speaks with a unified voice, but their loyalty to interest groups such as teachers, unions and trial lawyers means they often struggle to affect change through choice or challenge the status quo. democratic presidential hopefuls are selling smoke and mirrors, pushing for new and broader regulations and new taxes. they<u+2019>ll promise a cornucopia of seemingly free gifts <u+2013> college tuition, student-loan forgiveness, greater entitlements and more unemployment compensation. today, more americans identify as independents than with either major party <u+2013> a trend that is accelerating. a gallup poll released in january found the number of self-identifying independents had grown to<u+00a0>43 percent of the electorate, up from 35 percent in 2008. that increase in the number of independents is concomitant with an overall decline among respondents self-identifying as democrats or republicans. as the gop finalizes its national party platforms, republicans should focus on the benefits of the sharing economy, greater use of technology, data-based decision making, less litigation, clear and simple regulations, and empowering americans and free markets. these are the critical issues driving our economy and sure to drive american voters to the polls next november. gary shapiro is president and ceo of the consumer technology association (cta)<u+2122>, the u.s. trade association representing more than 2,200 consumer technology companies, and author of the new york times best-selling books, ninja innovation: the ten killer strategies of the world<u+2019>s most successful businesses and the comeback: how innovation will restore the american dream. his views are his own. connect with him on twitter: @garyshapiro

how the gop can take back the white house

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

8.0

41.0

8.0

5094.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

363.0

2.0

0.0

69.0

1.0

0.0

39.0

7.0

18.0

2.0

6.0

16.0

10.0

6.0

35.0

14.0

51.0

365.0

71.0

40.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

conservative and liberal advocacy groups are gearing up for a ferocious political brawl over president obama<u+2019>s pick to fill the supreme court vacancy created by the weekend death of justice antonin scalia, and already the battle is spilling from the presidential campaign into some of the nation<u+2019>s most hotly contested senate races. white house deputy press secretary eric schultz repeated monday that the president intends to <u+201c>fulfill his constitutional responsibility<u+201d> by nominating a new justice and predicted that senate republicans, despite their current loud opposition, will ultimately hold a confirmation hearing and vote for the nominee. <u+201c>this is not the first time the republicans have come out with a lot of bluster only to have reality sink in,<u+201d> schultz said. <u+201c>we need a fully staffed supreme court.<u+201d> schultz quoted president ronald reagan, who pressed for a vote on his supreme court nominee anthony m. kennedy, who was confirmed in 1988: <u+201c>every day that passes with a supreme court below full strength impairs the people<u+2019>s business in that crucially important body.<u+201d> but across the board, republicans have argued that obama should allow his successor to make the pick and that they would block any attempt to confirm a new justice this year. [why blocking obama<u+2019>s pick could cost republicans the senate] one consideration that may force republicans to recalibrate their strategy is the prospect of political damage to some of the embattled senate incumbents up for reelection this fall. sens. kelly ayotte (n.h.), ron johnson (wis.) and rob portman (ohio), all republicans in swing states, have called for the senate to disregard any obama nominee. other republicans in tight races have remained silent so far. democrats see a potential confirmation battle as an opportunity to put republicans on the defensive and as a wedge issue that could help them retake control of the senate. in ohio, former democratic governor ted strickland, who is vying for his party<u+2019>s nomination to challenge portman, said monday that by opposing an obama nominee, portman was <u+201c>failing to do his job, shirking his responsibilities to our nation, jeopardizing the institutions of our democracy and engaging in exactly the kind of dysfunctional behavior that frustrates ohioans about congress.<u+201d> p.g. sittenfeld, a cincinnati city council member running against strickland in the democratic primary, declared monday that portman was advocating actions that would <u+201c>put the senate in violation of both historical precedent and the clear language of the constitution itself.<u+201d> portman responded in a statement monday that the next president should choose scalia<u+2019>s replacement: <u+201c>with the election less than nine months away, i believe the best thing for the country is to trust the american people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the supreme court for generations,<u+201d> he said. conservative activists are drawing up plans to mobilize support and pressure lawmakers to reject any nominee. freedomworks, a group that pledges to promote <u+201c>smaller government, lower taxes, free markets, personal liberty and the rule of law,<u+201d> said it would wage a grass-roots campaign to oppose democrats who would <u+201c>ram liberal judicial nominees through the senate .<u+2009>.<u+2009>. occasionally with the help of unprincipled, big government republicans.<u+201d> carrie severino, chief counsel and policy director for the judicial crisis network and a former clerk for justice clarence thomas, said conservatives are still mourning scalia. but, she added, <u+201c>if the president tries to pack the court, as it is apparent he may, then jcn will be leading the charge to delay a senate vote until the american people decide the next president.<u+201d> liberal groups are working hard to undercut the prevailing republican argument that it is inappropriate for obama to nominate a supreme court justice at this late stage of his presidency. americans united for change, a group closely allied with the white house, is trumpeting an article written by now-senate majority leader mitch mcconnell (r-ky.) in 1970. mcconnell wrote that <u+201c>the senate should discount the philosophy of the nominee<u+201d> and that <u+201c>the president is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological direction of the supreme court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a presidential platform.<u+201d> nan aron, president of the alliance for justice, said the sudden supreme court vacancy has mobilized progressive groups and broadened the coalition usually assembled for nomination fights. <u+201c>what<u+2019>s unusual about this moment, and this effort, is that the community as a whole is coming together,<u+201d> said aron, whose group focuses on federal judicial nominations. <u+201c>in addition to organizations focused on judicial selections, others that aren<u+2019>t realize what<u+2019>s at stake and are weighing in already.<u+201d> moveon.org and credo action, liberal advocacy groups, have launched petitions calling on the senate to fill scalia<u+2019>s seat. as of monday evening, each petition had garnered more than 100,000 signatures. people close to the administration expect that obama<u+2019>s choice this time will resemble his earlier ones. <u+201c>i think the best way to think about who the president might appoint is to look at who he has appointed,<u+201d> said caroline fredrickson, president of the american constitution society for law and policy. <u+201c>he has picked people who are qualified beyond question and with an eye toward making the court more diverse. i think those will be the main touchstones.<u+201d> a person close to the administration, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect those relationships, said the pick is likely to be someone <u+201c>super-qualified<u+201d> who had been confirmed by overwhelming majorities of currently sitting republicans; that would make it difficult for the gop to argue that the nominee is unqualified. meanwhile, a wall of silence went up monday around scalia<u+2019>s final hours and the confusion after his death. local officials in rural west texas, where he died, spent hours trying to locate a justice of peace after his body was discovered. the justice who was eventually found, presidio county judge cinderela guevara, pronounced scalia dead without seeing his body <u+2014> which is permissible under texas law <u+2014> and declined to order an autopsy. a second justice has said that one should have been performed. scalia<u+2019>s family opposed an autopsy, and guevara said sunday that she determined by telephone that scalia died of natural causes because he was having <u+201c>health issues.<u+2019><u+2019> she cited information from federal officials at the scene and a conversation she had with scalia<u+2019>s physician. she said she was awaiting a statement from the physician to complete the death certificate. scalia<u+2019>s physician, brian monahan, declined to divulge any details about scalia<u+2019>s health when reached by telephone at his home in maryland on monday. <u+201c>patient confidentiality forbids me to make any comment on the subject,<u+2019><u+2019> he said, before hanging up. jerry markon, sari horwitz, lena sun and alice crites in washington, and eva ruth moravec in austin contributed to this report.

battle over scalia<u+2019>s replacement already spilling into senate races

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

3.0

67.0

8.0

7138.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

536.0

0.0

122.0

0.0

52.0

24.0

22.0

10.0

20.0

11.0

15.0

7.0

45.0

39.0

57.0

541.0

122.0

52.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

a verdict in 2017 could have sweeping consequences for tech startups.

clinton struggles to contain media barrage on foreign cash

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

58.0

8.0

69.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

8.0

0.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

now we know why she didn't want those wall street speeches made public. the stream of hacked wikileaks emails <u+2014><u+00a0>the latest trove dumped thursday <u+2014><u+00a0>from inside hillary clinton<u+2019>s campaign opens up a troubling prospect<u+00a0>far beyond their revelations about the differing public and private faces of the democratic presidential nominee. the leaks show that the russian government might<u+00a0>be trying to interfere with the u.s. presidential race, aiming<u+00a0>cyberattacks at the very heart of american democracy:<u+00a0>its fair and open elections. if an fbi investigation proves that to be the case, the hacked emails represent an electronic version of watergate,<u+00a0>the 1972 burglary of democratic national headquarters that ultimately forced richard nixon from the white house. only this time, the threat<u+00a0>comes from a foreign adversary rather than a presidential administration. for now, though, most of the public attention is on the content of the emails themselves, which make clear why clinton balked at releasing<u+00a0>transcripts of the high-dollar speeches she delivered<u+00a0>to audiences on wall street and elsewhere<u+00a0>in 2013 and 2014. assuming the wikileaks emails are accurate, clinton portrayed herself to bankers as more supportive of free trade, and more flexible on industry regulation, than she has been<u+00a0>during<u+00a0>her drive for the presidency. sounding like an ardent free-trader in a 2013 speech, clinton told one group of bankers:<u+00a0><u+201c>my dream is a hemispheric common market with open<u+00a0>trade.<u+201d> this was consistent with her stance as<u+00a0>secretary of state in 2012, when she praised the proposed trans-pacific partnership (tpp) as <u+201c>the gold standard<u+201d> of free trade agreements. by 2016, however, clinton faced<u+00a0>populist challenges first from bernie sanders and then from donald trump. she<u+00a0>now opposes<u+00a0>the tpp and has few good things to say about free trade. these days, she also proclaims her disdain for<u+00a0>income inequality and<u+00a0>wall street, having asserted<u+00a0>in february that <u+201c>wall street can never be allowed to once again threaten main street, and i will fight to rein in wall street.<u+201d> that was not her tone three years ago, when she told new york<u+2019>s goldman sachs that the industry needs to be a part of fashioning industry regulation, and commiserated with the investment bankers<u+00a0>over <u+201c>the bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives.<u+201d> true, many politicians change positions <u+2014> none more so than trump<u+00a0><u+2014><u+00a0>and some say things in private they never want the public to hear. but they pay a price for duplicity when they fail to come clean, and the comments ultimately do become public. clinton had two ways to inoculate herself against any damaging leaks from her wall street speeches.<u+00a0>one is that she could have released the transcripts months ago, inconvenient as that might<u+00a0>have been. the other is that<u+00a0>she could have turned down the speaking engagements in the first place. as the purported champion of the middle<u+00a0>class, clinton<u+00a0>might have thought twice before taking $225,000 <u+2014><u+00a0>what it takes a typical american household four years to earn <u+2014><u+00a0>for an hour or so of work from an industry that helped push the economy to near-collapse and forced millions of americans into foreclosure. now, amid the steady drip of embarrassing private emails, the speeches have come back to bite her. the wounds would have gone deeper if disclosures of trump<u+2019>s lewd sexual comments and alleged assaults<u+00a0>had not overshadowed them. for clinton and other politicians, the lesson is if you fear something<u+00a0>will become public, don<u+2019>t do it. or at the very least, disclose it yourself rather than let others control the story. for american voters, the lesson is to beware of foreign governments seeking to damage democracy. that harm, if confirmed, will last far longer than<u+00a0>memories about the content of particular<u+00a0>emails hacked from clinton<u+2019>s campaign manager. usa today's editorial opinions are decided by its<u+00a0>editorial board, separate from the news staff. most editorials are coupled with an opposing view <u+2014> a unique usa today feature. to read more editorials, go to the<u+00a0>opinion front page<u+00a0>or sign up for the<u+00a0>daily opinion email newsletter.<u+00a0>to respond to this editorial, submit a comment to<u+00a0>[email protected].

what wikileaks hack says about clinton: our view

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

7.0

48.0

8.0

4197.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

268.0

0.0

92.0

0.0

29.0

11.0

18.0

5.0

12.0

11.0

6.0

4.0

18.0

25.0

30.0

273.0

92.0

29.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

catherine r. squires is a professor of communication studies at the university of minnesota, twin cities. she is also the director of the race, indigeneity, gender and sexuality studies initiative. facebook is a for-profit company that makes money packaging its users' information to sell to advertisers and other entities. the company's goal is not to produce a "balanced" information diet for its users. people who are shocked that facebook might be skewing their newsfeed probably shouldn't have trusted them with their news diet in the first place, given its history. remember those confusing and ever-changing privacy settings, and that experiment to see whether users' moods could be manipulated by changing the newsfeed? this is not the company i'd trust to tell me what's important in the world. but the uproar over the role of human editors at facebook <u+2014> or at least, in the "trending topics" section <u+2014> does revive an important question: in an information age when people can customize their news diet, how should facebook editors decide what issues, opinions or events deserve prominence? given their newfound reliance on social media companies like facebook, traditional media editors have been grappling with the same question. any news publication with a website makes ad revenue off of popular articles, but that can be a dangerous incentive. though important news can also be popular, all of the major publications are guilty of publishing dumbed down "clickbait" to attract wider audiences. so then, perhaps the question is whether facebook, or even the news media, is narrowing the field of news so that we, as citizens, are unable to engage in effective political and social discussions. a facebook newsfeed that was completely dictated by algorithms without human interference wouldn't be any better. algorithms reflect the imperfect biases of the humans that build them. algorithms rely on data sets, which are structured by the decisions of data gatherers guided by particular goals. for example, as most of the people who work in computing are male, it's not surprising that scholars found a gender bias in the google's image search: in searches for c.e.o., 11 percent of the people depicted were women, compared with 27 percent of u.s. c.e.o.s who are actually women. data and news can be skewed on many levels on the internet, but competent editors could explain how they and their algorithms work. then, at least, the public would know how and why news sites elevate certain stories. but bias in the media is not new. these basic questions have to be worked out by each generation, confronted by each new development in media technology. they are ethical and practical questions that require a human touch.

providing balanced information is not facebook's goal - nytimes.com

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

67.0

8.0

2738.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

194.0

0.0

49.0

0.0

39.0

5.0

8.0

0.0

1.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

13.0

8.0

27.0

201.0

49.0

39.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

like his third-party forefathers, gary johnson gets irate when you call him a spoiler. <u+201c>we<u+2019>re giving people a chance to vote for something, as opposed to the lesser of two evils,<u+201d> the libertarian presidential nominee<u+00a0>shouted last week at a bloomberg politics reporter who asked about his invisible path to victory. in truth, there are only two reasonable outcomes for johnson's long-shot campaign, neither of which ends with him in the white house. in one scenario, he is no more than a nuisance for hillary clinton or donald trump, an afterthought to either major party's march to victory. in the other, johnson<u+2019>s campaign alters the contours of the presidential race, drawing votes that would have otherwise gone to trump or clinton. his own view notwithstanding, the johnson-as-spoiler scenario is highly plausible this year.<u+00a0>in both traditional battlegrounds and in states that would be safe terrain in a normal election year, third-party protest votes have the chance of<u+00a0>flipping results<u+2014>and electoral votes. for months, the assumption has been that one-time republican presidential candidate johnson and his running mate, bill weld, both former republican governors, might<u+00a0>be an attractive option for members of trump<u+2019>s party resistant to their nominee, and that remains true. but this year<u+2019>s spoiler threat is not just<u+00a0>a one-party worry. close to a month before election day, clinton and her campaign are anxious that johnson, along with green party nominee jill stein, may look just as desirable to disenchanted members of her democratic coalition<u+2014>particularly young voters<u+2014>as they do to republicans. johnson will be on the ballot in all 50 states this november; stein will be on it in all but six. the name of an independent candidate, anti-trump conservative evan mcmullin, will be seen in a dozen states, though others allow people to write it in. all three candidates fell short of the polling criteria that would have put them on the stage at the first presidential debate<u+2014>and thus in living rooms of 84 million people. but that doesn<u+2019>t change the number of voters who are unenthused<u+00a0>about their major-party choices this november. no matter who wins next month, clinton and trump have already made history as the most disliked nominees ever. both have comparably high unfavorable ratings, nearing 60 percent, and that<u+00a0>explains why johnson has been able to maintain solid poll numbers deep into the fall. and the clinton campaign has reason to be concerned.<u+00a0>nationwide, polls show that johnson supporters are a mixed bunch who tend to skew younger and more suburban, with an equal representation from conservatives and liberals<u+2014>a jumbled demographic profile that suggests the group may contain just as many clinton doubters as trump deserters. for this reason, clinton<u+2019>s highest-profile surrogates have hit the campaign trail with a new line of persuasion: urging disaffected<u+00a0>lefties not to waste their ballot. last week, president barack obama used a radio interview with steve harvey to brand third-party votes as a boon for trump. the same day it aired, first lady michelle obama warned voters at a clinton rally in philadelphia that they will <u+201c>help swing an entire precinct for hillary<u+2019>s opponent with a protest vote or by staying home out of frustration.<u+201d> for clinton, potential supporters most susceptible to the third-party lure are those most weakly bonded to the party<u+2014>those members of the obama coalition without much of a record voting in non-obama elections. among the trump cohort, third-party voters are more likely to be gleaned from base republicans who reject their party<u+2019>s unconventional standard-bearer. johnson has received endorsements from several conservative newspaper editorial boards, including<u+00a0>the<u+00a0>detroit news, the new hampshire union leader, and the chicago tribune, which dubbed this election a <u+201c>moment to rebuke the republican and democratic parties.<u+201d> usa today, which normally abstains from presidential endorsements, chose to <u+201c>disendorse<u+201d> trump, but refused to throw support behind clinton, tacitly opening a door for johnson. not all third-party pressures are equal in the electoral college. some states have long histories of strong independent leanings<u+2014>among them are alaska, utah, and johnson's home of state of new mexico. johnson is polling strongly in all three. and while alaska and utah are liable to stay their usual color,<u+00a0>new mexico, traditionally blue, is surprisingly close at this point, the result of johnson siphoning votes from clinton. but the bigger questions are in<u+00a0>swing states, and states<u+00a0>on the cusp of becoming competitive battlegrounds. third-party candidates essentially take votes out of circulation, lowering the win number. the spoiler problem arises when those votes come disproportionately from one side.<u+00a0>quantifying<u+00a0>the democrats<u+2019> nightmare scenario, in which support for johnson and stein grows to a significant enough level by, say, drawing a quarter of clinton<u+2019>s get-out-the-vote targets and an eighth of her base, clinton could lose strongholds such as washington and pennsylvania.<u+00a0>places like florida, ohio, north carolina, and nevada would become safely republican. if, conversely, the third parties garner enough votes mostly by flipping a quarter of<u+00a0>republicans'<u+00a0>base and an eighth of their<u+00a0>get-out-the-vote targets, it would flip the most competitive battlegrounds back to blue, while putting montana, arkansas, indiana, and even oklahoma within clinton<u+2019>s reach. in 1992, ross perot scooped up nearly a third of the votes in maine and utah, pushing major-party candidates into third place, while getting closer to 19 percent of the nationwide popular vote. this year, there is no indication that even johnson and stein combined could reach that level of support, anywhere. independent candidates typically see support drop as election day nears because many voters appear to come around and settle for one of the major party candidates. still, the unpopularity of both clinton and trump has helped johnson poll as high as 13 percent in states such as<u+00a0>colorado. johnson's strength means that a significant part of these last several weeks<u+00a0>will be spent playing a three-sided persuasion game in which the goal<u+00a0>is to scare wary voters into voting for the lesser of two evils rather than casting a protest vote. on a macro level, that's exactly why the obamas<u+00a0>and bernie sanders have all been out warning voters that a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for trump. but communicating with these disaffected voters on a more granular level is<u+00a0>difficult, because there is little targeting information available to help strategists pick out potential protest votes buried among their base and mobilization targets. even if campaigns could precisely identify these voters, it<u+2019>s hard to know if they<u+00a0>will turn to a third party or just stay home. below is an analysis of three states where third parties could make a big difference. democrats insist that they<u+2019>re not worried about losing colorado this november. loyal democrats make up three-fourths of the votes needed to win the state, and a recent influx of hispanics and millennials has broadened clinton<u+2019>s get-out-the-vote options. trump<u+2019>s low standing with latino communities may alienate him from more than one-fifth of colorado<u+2019>s population. additionally, his campaign message, which feeds on pessimism about the trajectory of american society, may be<u+00a0>less potent to those living the<u+00a0>rocky mountain lifestyle<u+2014>colorado's cities are often listed among<u+00a0>the nation<u+2019>s happiest places to live. trump's appeals to economic insecurity are also probably better directed elsewhere, as unemployment in the state is under 4 percent, the lowest of any 2016 battleground state besides new hampshire. religious unease with trump presents him yet another source of worry in colorado: one-fifth of the republican base lives in the colorado springs area, home to focus on the family and a hotbed for politically active christians. but that doesn<u+2019>t make the third-party threat any less real. libertarianism has always been most prevalent out west, and the growing number of young voters on colorado's voter rolls<u+2014>nearly a third of the state<u+2019>s voters are under 35<u+2014>represent a large chunk of the electorate with little historical loyalty to either party. for any campaign, the key to a colorado victory is its universe of persuadable voters, which is more than four times larger than in nevada, the nearest battleground. among these persuadable group, campaigns will find middle-aged and educated residents of the denver area; they'll<u+00a0>also find voters who are pro-marijuana and<u+00a0>pro-choice. it<u+2019>s with these groups that johnson, who may benefit from name recognition from his time as governor of neighboring new mexico, is polling best. a recent cnn/orc survey of colorado shows the libertarian with 13 percent support statewide, most of it coming from self-identified independents. as johnson works to expand that support, his likeliest targets will be the nearly half of unreliable democrats who are under the age of 35. six out of 10 of the party<u+2019>s get-out-the-vote targets are likely to have college degrees, and statistical models project 97 percent support among them for legal marijuana, which was enacted four years ago. clinton<u+2019>s campaign will start worrying if third-party candidates start to attract more disenfranchised democrats than irritated republicans. if, say, third-party candidates were drawing a combined 16 percent of the total vote by siphoning off a quarter of clinton's mobilization targets and one-eighth of her base, colorado would flip, giving trump an<u+00a0>approximate four-point<u+00a0>edge. this year will be the first presidential<u+00a0>election in which colorado conducts its voting entirely by mail. nearly two-thirds of the electorate is expected to cast ballots before election day, one of the highest rates in the nation, with six out of 10<u+00a0>persuadable voters likely to commit to a candidate before november. if clinton is worried about dissension within her coalition, she may want to delay her gotv tactics<u+2014>the so-called "chase" programs that nudge voters to return their mail ballots<u+2014>until she's had more time to sway them. during<u+00a0>a decade in which president obama has significantly expanded the democratic map into the south and west, missouri is the largest one-time battleground state to have moved safely into the republican column. bill clinton won there twice, but population decline in urban areas<u+00a0>has kept missouri out of democratic reach since. obama came within 3,600 votes of winning in 2008, but did not even compete for missouri four years later, losing the state by 9 percentage points to<u+00a0>mitt romney. in a two-way race, hillary clinton would likely face a similar fate. her democratic base is roughly 60 percent<u+00a0>the size of the one missouri's republicans count on. she could presumably turn out her entire mobilization list, while swinging every single persuadable voter her way, and still fall short. keep up with the best of bloomberg politics. your guide to the most important business stories of the day, every day. you will now receive the business newsletter the most important market news of the day. so you can sleep an extra five minutes. you will now receive the markets newsletter insights into what you'll be paying for, downloading and plugging in tomorrow and 10 years from now. you will now receive the technology newsletter what to eat, drink, wear and drive <u+2013> in real life and your dreams. you will now receive the pursuits newsletter the school, work and life hacks you need to get ahead. you will now receive the game plan newsletter this year<u+2019>s third-party variable may be the only thing that could change that arithmetic. with clinton not actively competing in missouri, trump may have to worry less about losing the center to her than about johnson's incursions on his right flank. trump barely eked out a victory in missouri<u+2019>s march 15 primary, losing the state<u+2019>s most educated and wealthy republicans to ted cruz. the 380,000 cruz voters<u+2014>amounting to one-sixth of the general electorate<u+2014>may represent johnson's best chance to eat into the republican coalition.<u+00a0>missouri evangelicals, whom trump lost in the primary by 16 percentage points, make<u+00a0>a<u+00a0>promising (if unlikely) audience for the libertarian, despite his party's traditional disdain for the politics of morality. johnson might be able to<u+00a0>package some of his small-government positions like a ban on federal spending for abortions to exploit existing doubts about trump's commitment to religious priorities. recent polls have trump up by a comfortable nine points, and johnson in single digits. but if johnson were able to pull at least a quarter from trump<u+2019>s gop base and an eighth from his gotv targets<u+2014>pushing him to 14 percent of the vote overall<u+2014>missouri would become one of the nation<u+2019>s tightest races. under normal circumstances, new mexico would be a pipe dream for trump. democrats begin with a 145,000-voter head start over the republican<u+2019> coalition in the state, and new mexico's small number of persuadable voters leaves the trump campaign with few options to outmaneuver clinton<u+2019>s ground-game forces. third-party support could reach as high as almost a fifth of likely voters and trump would still find the state difficult to win. but an early october poll by the albuquerque journal found that clinton<u+2019>s 10-point lead in a head-to-head with trump in new mexico shrinks to a slight 4-point edge when third-party candidates are considered. the reason: johnson, the former two-term republican governor of the state, is hauling in a massive 24 percent of likely voters. that support is primarily made up of independent voters and appears to be evenly split among men and women, while also pulling equally from both republican and democratic coalitions. clinton could possibly head off a johnson challenge by locking up support among the hispanic voters that make up 45 percent of her get-out-the-vote targets. trump, on the other hand, should probably worry most<u+00a0>about losing votes to johnson from within the majority of his base that is likely to have college degrees. for new mexico to slip from clinton<u+2019>s grasp, johnson would have to win<u+00a0>close to a quarter of voters and pull a majority of them from the<u+00a0>democratic<u+00a0>ranks.<u+00a0>to do that, he'd need to tap more than a quarter of clinton<u+2019>s less-reliable mobilization targets, as well as the equivalent of at least an eighth of her base voters, without dipping too much into trump<u+2019>s coalition. this is the fourth<u+00a0>in a series of eight battlegrounds 2016 stories on<u+00a0>the unique arithmetic that governs presidential elections in<u+00a0>battleground states.<u+00a0>read more about how the battleground game is played.

which states can gary johnson and jill stein spoil?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

6.0

51.0

8.0

14720.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

964.0

0.0

228.0

0.0

103.0

22.0

26.0

13.0

31.0

13.0

24.0

16.0

47.0

61.0

69.0

968.0

228.0

103.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

presumptive republican nominee donald trump has officially secured a majority of gop delegates, giving him the "magic number" required to clinch the gop nomination. trump passed the 1,237 mark after unbound delegates from north dakota, colorado and pennsylvania pledged their support for him. nbc news declared the real estate mogul to be the presumptive republican nominee after his remaining gop competitors dropped out of the race in early may. trump will not officially become the nominee until he accepts the nomination at the republican convention in cleveland in july. earlier in the race, trump foes within the republican party hoped to prevent him from reaching the so-called "magic number" of a majority of delegates, forcing a contested nomination process that would have prompted a potentially chaotic power struggle between different factions of the gop on the convention floor. but trump deflated the hopes of rivals like ted cruz and john kasich after decisively winning the indiana primary on may 3 and putting himself easily within reach of a majority of delegates before the end of the primary process.

trump hits 'magic number' of delegates required for nomination

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

5.0

62.0

8.0

1125.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

71.0

0.0

25.0

1.0

0.0

7.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

8.0

76.0

25.0

8.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

as pieces of luggage, human remains, wreckage and what could be a tell-tale oil slick were found early friday in the mediterranean sea, one aviation expert said telemetry received by satellites from the doomed plane suggested a fire could have started onboard, knocking out computers and control mechanisms. david learmount said the fire could have started in the plane's avionics compartment. such a scenario could indicate an electrical fire, and not terrorism, brought down egyptair flight 804 on thursday. the first physical clues to the crash of flight 804, which carried 66 passengers, crew and security officers, surfaced about 190 miles off the coast of the egyptian city of alexandria. reports of debris being found on thursday proved false, but the verified debris field could bring authorities closer to the all-important flight data recorder, which could provide insight into what caused the crash. an egyptair official said midday friday that wreckage of the missing plane has been found, including body parts, luggage and passengers' seats. the announcement came hours after a greek official also reported evidence being found. "a short while ago we were briefed by the egyptian authorities... on the discovery of a body part, a seat and baggage just south of where the aircraft signal was lost," defense minister panos kammenos told reporters in athens, according to reuters. the cairo-bound flight had left charles de gaulle airport in paris late wednesday night, and disappeared from radar as it neared its destination. authorities have said terrorism is more likely than technical failure, but the investigation is still in the early stages. a flotilla of international ships and boats were searching a wide swath of the sea thursday and during the night for debris from the ill-fated airbus 320. the mile-long oil slick was identified from satellite images from the european space agency, which cautioned that there was no guarantee the slick was from the missing aircraft. the agency said the slick was about 25 miles southeast of the plane's last known location, and passed the information to relevant authorities late thursday. the egyptian presidency friday expressed its "deep sadness and extreme regret" over the deaths of the passengers and crew members aboard the flight -- the first official recognition of the tragic crash. egypt<u+2019>s military also confirmed for the first time friday that plane debris and passengers<u+2019> personal belongings were found in the mediterranean sea. egyptian army spokesman brig. gen. mohammed samir wrote on his facebook page that egyptian jets and naval vessels participating in the search for the missing plane had found "personal belongings of the passengers and parts of the plane debris." egyptian airport officials said friday that three french and three british investigators and an airbus technical expert had arrived in cairo to join the investigation. no terror groups had taken credit for the disaster as of friday morning, and authorities were going through the passenger manifest, crew members' backgrounds and airport staff for possible links to terror. authorities said the plane swerved and spun wildly before plummeting into the sea. the egyptian military said that no distress call was received from the pilot. in paris, french authorities scoured charles de gaulle airport, the country's main hub, for any sign of a security breach prior to the flight's departure. reuters reported that investigators were interviewing officers who were on duty at the airport wednesday night to determine whether they heard or saw anything suspicious. "we are in the early stages here," a police source told reuters about the investigation. the wall street journal reported that french investigators were poring over surveillance footage from the airport, as well as performing background checks of those on board the plane and anyone who may have had ground access to the aircraft. flight 804 was carrying 56 passengers, including one child and two babies, three security staff and seven crew members, officials said. egypt's aviation minister, sharif fathy, described those on board as including 15 french passengers, 30 egyptians, one briton, two iraqis, one kuwaiti, one saudi, one sudanese, one chadian, one portuguese, one algerian and one canadian. families of the victims spent the night in a hotel in the egyptian capital, cairo, while they awaited the news of their loved ones. egyptian officials said some arrived from paris late thursday, among them eight relatives of the 15 french passengers on board the missing jet. later friday, the relatives of those killed held prayers for the dead at sultan hussein mosque in cairo. some of them cried as they prayed. among those killed were salah abu laban, his wife sahar qouidar, their son ghassan abu laban and daughter-in-law reem al-sebaei the relative, abdel-rahman al-nasry, told the associated press, "i ask god for forgiveness. this is very hard for the family." magdi badr, a family friend, said, "we pray for the victims." in the u.s., los angeles international airport announced thursday that it was stepping up security in the wake of the egyptair disappearance. a statement from airport authorities said they were eliminating or restricting airport worker access to 150 doors in the terminals. the statement also said additional airport police officers had been assigned to monitor employee access points and conduct random screenings. the associated press contributed to this report.

possibility of fire aboard egyptair flight raised as body parts, debris found in mediterranean

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

94.0

8.0

5530.0

0.0

11.0

0.0

397.0

0.0

98.0

2.0

0.0

40.0

7.0

14.0

8.0

20.0

8.0

14.0

5.0

26.0

22.0

33.0

408.0

98.0

42.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

donald trump delivered a knock-out punch to sen. ted cruz, winning an astounding victory in indiana tuesday night. the state was cruz's last stand, but he was unable to deliver. that means trump is now the presumptive gop nominee for president. "it really looks like a massive victory and looks like we win all 57 delegates," a subdued trump told supporters tuesday night. with trump now only about 200 delegates away from what he needs to secure the nomination, even rnc chairman reince priebus acknowledged that trump is the party's presumptive nominee. "we need to unite and focus on defeating hillary clinton," he tweeted. meanwhile, a disappointed cruz announced he's suspending his campaign, saying, "we gave it everything we got, but the voters chose another path." and now it is clear the path is a washington outsider, with republicans preferring a non-politician, a brash and outspoken billionaire businessman over the tea party candidate. in new york, trump told his supporters america needs to win again because it's been losing all the time. "we lose with our military--we can't beat isis. we lose with trade. we lose with borders. we lose with everything," he said. "we're not going to lose, we're going to start winning again and we're going to win bigly, believe me." but the question now is can trump win his race for the white house against hillary clinton? the former secretary of state has 92 percent of the delegates she needs to secure her party's nomination. but democrat socialist sen. bernie sanders -- who upset clinton to win the indiana primary -- has yet to concede defeat, insisting said he has momentum. "i understand that secretary clinton thinks that this campaign is over. i've got some bad news for her," sanders told supporters. but with many super delegates already pledged to clinton, it seems mathematically impossible for sanders to win his party's nomination. nevertheless, he promises to stay in the race. although their party conventions and official nominations are still more than two months away, trump and<u+00a0> clinton will now focus their campaign efforts against one another.

presumptive nominee? trump indiana win creates big challenge to unite party

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

3.0

75.0

8.0

2134.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

155.0

0.0

35.0

1.0

0.0

19.0

8.0

6.0

5.0

7.0

3.0

10.0

5.0

7.0

11.0

162.0

35.0

20.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the reporter who broke the watergate scandal wide open, bob woodward, says the hillary email scandal reminds him of nixon<u+2019>s drawn out battle over the white house tapes 40 years ago. just a few weeks ago hillary clinton seemed unstoppable: a shoo-in to win the democratic nomination, and favored to win the presidency. now there is open speculation that her candidacy is in trouble, and that she could be held criminally liable for mishandling highly classified documents <u+2013> a crime that has sent lesser-known people to jail. woodward is right. hillary<u+2019>s troubles are taking on the tones of nixon<u+2019>s demise. i was a young staffer in the nixon white house, working in the west wing before, during and after the watergate scandal. there are eerie similarities. in 1972, richard nixon was headed for a landslide re-election: his foreign policy successes were stunning -- the opening to china, arms control with the ussr, ending the vietnam war -- and the economy was good. but then the democratic national committee headquarters, in the watergate office building, was broken into just before the election and files stolen. the burglars were traced back to several mid-level people on nixon<u+2019>s staff. congress eventually formed a watergate committee to investigate wrongdoing. the justice department created a special prosecutor with subpoena powers. one by one my colleagues in the west wing were brought in to testify publicly before congress, and summoned to meet behind closed doors with the special prosecutor. every week investigative reporters bob woodward and carl bernstein had a new story on the front page of the washington post, with details of the investigation. one revelation involved a previously unknown oval office taping system that recorded the president<u+2019>s meetings. the special prosecutor wanted nixon to turn over those tapes. nixon refused. in late july 1974 the supreme court ruled that nixon had to turn over the tapes. there were hours and hours of tapes, but three seemed to implicate nixon personally in the watergate cover-up, and one <u+2018>smoking gun<u+2019> tape condemned him. nixon<u+2019>s support in congress, which had waned for months, collapsed overnight. suddenly the most powerful man in the world, who had been re-elected less than two years before in the greatest landslide in u.s. history, was forced to resign the presidency or face impeachment, trial and removal from office for <u+201c>high crimes and misdemeanors.<u+201d> nixon never went to trial or did jail time. his guilt was never proved, and recently released evidence indicates that the rush to indict nixon was probably more about politics than policies. but nixon<u+2019>s presidency was over. on august 9, 1974, i walked from my west basement office to the east room to watch a man who had dominated american politics for a generation say farewell to the staff. it was one of the most stunning political reversals in modern times. for years, commentators have wondered why nixon didn<u+2019>t just destroy the tapes when he had the chance. today it seems like d<u+00e9>j<u+00e0> vu all over again, to quote yogi berra. did hillary rodham learn from nixon<u+2019>s mistakes? did hillary rodman clinton think if she destroyed her email server, or wiped it clean, she could avoid nixon<u+2019>s fate? the problem is in the digital age nothing is permanently wiped away. even if hillary succeeded in deleting the emails, they probably exist on other people<u+2019>s computers. why did clinton have a private email system in the first place? did she think by keeping her email and files under her control she could decide what to make public and what to keep out of prying eyes? she is famously rigorous about her statements and public image. did she believe if she could control the historical record she could fashion her own legacy? why did clinton, like nixon, refuse to turn them over in the first place? does she have something to hide? she claims the emails she did not turn over were personal, about her yoga schedule and her mother<u+2019>s funeral. she claims they were deleted because of convenience. but she is the one who made that call, not some neutral third party. nixon claimed his tapes were his property, too. he claimed the ones that were not turned over contained top secret national security information. was secretary clinton trying to hide some wrongdoing? are those missing emails about the benghazi scandal? about a relationship between the clinton foundation donors and her decisions at the state department? why has the administration suddenly reversed course to allow inquiries into hillary<u+2019>s emails? it<u+2019>s hard to believe that in one of the most partisan administrations of all time, the sudden onslaught of executive branch investigations are an accident. she is now being investigated by three government agencies <u+2013> the justice department, the state department and the intelligence community. if so, why? has someone at 1600 pennsylvania avenue concluded they do not want hillary clinton to succeed president obama. will the investigations find any evidence of wrongdoing? once special prosecutors are appointed, or congressional investigations begun, they always find something. watergate, iran-contra, whitewater. secretary clinton has gone from saying she never received classified emails on her personal email account, to saying she never received emails that were marked classified. that<u+2019>s a big leap. if they were classified, and someone deleted the classification, that<u+2019>s an offense. we are not at the end of investigations into hillary clinton. they are likely just beginning. once the emails are recreated, which they will be with time, where will the trail lead? it may not be as earth shattering as nixon<u+2019>s forced resignation from office in august 1974. but it could present secretary clinton with insurmountable difficulties in her quest to be the first woman president. the greatest irony of all? one of the staff members on the watergate committee that investigated nixon<u+2019>s files and tapes was a young lawyer named hillary rodham. d<u+00e9>j<u+00e0> vu, all over again. kathleen troia "k.t." mcfarland is a fox news national security analyst and host of foxnews.com's "defcon 3." she served in national security posts in the nixon, ford and reagan administrations

is the hillary email scandal watergate all over again?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

54.0

8.0

6221.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

448.0

1.0

0.0

126.0

0.0

35.0

15.0

20.0

8.0

28.0

10.0

21.0

10.0

24.0

45.0

34.0

452.0

127.0

35.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

<u+2014> to join the few and the proud who police britain<u+2019>s streets with a gun, first you have to walk the beat unarmed for years. then there is the rigorous selection process <u+2014> an unforgiving complement of fitness tests, psychological appraisals and marksmanship exams. finally, there is the training, which involves endless drilling on even the most routine scenarios. <u+201c>they rehearse those situations like a seal team trying to get into osama bin laden<u+2019>s compound,<u+201d> cambridge university criminologist lawrence sherman said. yet, in a country where the vast majority of police officers patrol with batons and pepper spray, the elite cadre of british cops who are entrusted with guns almost never use them. police in britain have fatally shot two people in the past three years. that<u+2019>s less than the average number of people shot and killed by police every day in the united states over the first five months of 2015, according to a washington post analysis. as the united states reckons with that toll <u+2014> and with the constant drip of videos showing the questionable use of force by officers <u+2014> lightly armed britain might seem an unorthodox place to look for solutions. but experts say the way british bobbies are trained, commanded and vigorously scrutinized may offer u.s. police forces a useful blueprint for bringing down the rate of deadly violence and defusing some of the burning tension felt in cities from coast to coast. of course, british and u.s. police are patrolling different societies. the united states has some of the world<u+2019>s loosest gun laws and some of the highest rates of gun ownership. britain is the opposite, with handguns and assault rifles effectively banned. that inherently changes the way police officers do their jobs. phil palmer was a british police officer for 15 years and was stabbed twice in the line of duty. <u+201c>but in all my time, i never expected to have to deal with anyone with a firearm,<u+201d> he said. during a year in the united states teaching and working with new york city police officers, he quickly realized that they had a very different expectation. <u+201c>they were very professional. but every time they got out of their car to talk to someone, their hand would hover over the gun,<u+201d> said palmer, now the co-director of the institute of criminal justice research at britain<u+2019>s university of southampton. <u+201c>police in america are more aggressive, and i think that<u+2019>s because they have to be.<u+201d> but there are also enough similarities that the british model carries special relevance. like the united states, britain is large, urbanized, democratic and diverse. police have to reckon with gang violence, organized crime and islamist extremists, all amid persistent allegations that they unfairly target minority communities. that puts britain in a different class than the handful of other nations that largely forgo firearms when policing, including new zealand, iceland, ireland and norway. few here would argue that the united states should adopt britain<u+2019>s nearly firearms-free approach. but as increasingly horrified british officers and commanders have watched videos of american police officers firing on civilians, they say they hope that some of their strategies and practices can be translated across the atlantic. sir peter fahy, chief of the greater manchester police, commands 6,700 officers <u+2014> just 209 of whom are armed. those authorized to carry guns, he said, face extremely tight protocols governing when they can be deployed and under what circumstances they can fire. shooting at moving vehicles, at people brandishing knives and at suspects fleeing a scene are all strictly forbidden except under extreme circumstances. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s very controlled,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>there<u+2019>s a huge emphasis on human rights, a huge emphasis on proportionality, a huge emphasis on considering every other option.<u+201d> all officers, he said, are taught to back away from any situation that might otherwise escalate and to not feel that they have to <u+201c>win<u+201d> every confrontation. <u+201c>i constantly remind our officers that their best weapon is their mouth,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>your first consideration is, <u+2018>can you talk this through? can you buy yourself time?<u+2019><u+2009><u+201d> that mantra helps explain why, across england and wales over the past decade, there has been an average of only five incidents a year in which police have opened fire. so, too, does the stringent screening process. officers must serve for years before they can apply to carry a gun, and the selection of those deemed worthy is intensely competitive. when mark williams applied to be a firearms officer in 1995, he was among a group of 16 who started the grueling regimen of physical and psychological trials. three made it. williams was among them, but that wasn<u+2019>t the end of the testing. he and his fellow firearms officers faced regular drills challenging them to find creative ways out of confrontations and spent long nights at the shooting range to upgrade their marksmanship. <u+201c>if you fired the kind of rounds we did, you<u+2019>d be bankrupt,<u+201d> said williams, who is now chief executive of the police firearms officers association. <u+201c>we can put a lot of effort into the ones who are armed, because there aren<u+2019>t that many.<u+201d> some aspects of british policing are more easily transferrable. sherman, the cambridge criminologist, recently told a white house task force that the united states should create a national college of policing, that states should set up police inspectors general to provide oversight and that local police forces should merge to achieve a minimum standard of 100 officers per department. all are steps, he said, that have worked in britain. of course, police shootings here can still arouse intense debate. one of the most prominent came in 2005, when a brazilian electrician, jean charles de menezes, was mistakenly identified as a would-be suicide bomber and shot nine times in the head by elite officers in a tube station in london. prosecutors chose not to charge anyone with his killing, a decision his family is challenging this week at the european court of human rights. in 2011, police shot dead a 29-year-old black man, mark duggan, prompting several nights of riots across london. an inquest later ruled the killing had been lawful because police had ample reason to believe that duggan was armed. but rights groups say the killing, and others like it, raise questions about police practices that echo concerns in the united states. <u+201c>they may well be fewer here, but they raise similar issues,<u+201d> said deborah coles, co-director of inquest, an advocacy group. still, there is little doubt that britain has a more uniform and transparent process for reviewing such cases. every police killing here is subject to an independent inquiry, and even nonfatal shootings are meticulously tracked and evaluated. sir denis o<u+2019>connor, a former police chief who later served as a royally appointed independent overseer of british police work, said cops here take seriously the idea of <u+201c>policing by consent.<u+201d> they see themselves as working for the public, he said, rather than for the state itself. they also know that someone is always looking over their shoulder. <u+201c>the cops here tend to fear getting it wrong and being criticized by a judge,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>cops in the u.s. fear getting shot. those are two very different worlds.<u+201d> after 800 years, britain finally asks: do we need a written constitution? world crises may be multiplying, but campaign turns britain further inward

do britain<u+2019>s gunless bobbies provide answers for america<u+2019>s police?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

66.0

8.0

7482.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

550.0

0.0

135.0

1.0

0.0

94.0

24.0

19.0

5.0

26.0

16.0

11.0

8.0

40.0

37.0

61.0

557.0

135.0

95.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

i<u+2019>ve been involved in policy for three decades, since aol played a pivotal role in getting the nation online in the early days of the internet. initially, my focus was on commercializing the internet, expanding access and putting appropriate rules of the road in place. in the past decade, my focus shifted to encouraging pro-growth policies that foster innovation, generate jobs, help start-ups and create opportunity. i was proud to work with a democratic president and a republican house to help get the jumpstart our business startups (jobs) act passed four years ago, and i have spent countless hours meeting with members of both parties on immigration reform, patent reform and pro-start-up economic ideas. despite my active engagement on policy, however, i<u+2019>ve tried to steer clear of politics. i<u+2019>ve avoided endorsing candidates or making big contributions to campaigns. i<u+2019>ve wanted to be nonpartisan, able to work with people on both sides of the aisle. indeed, i<u+2019>ve been troubled by the hyper-partisanship that has defined our politics of late, and by the resulting gridlock that has set in. the united states faces many challenges, but in my view our greatest threat may not be external forces but rather our inability to work together to move our country forward. so my inclination is to continue to stay out of politics and continue to quietly build working relationships with both republicans and democrats. i<u+2019>d prefer to be positioned as a builder of bridges and consensus. but i<u+2019>ve decided to make an exception this election. i have concluded that i cannot sit on the sidelines this year. at this pivotal time, the choice is too important. i<u+2019>ve decided to back hillary clinton for president for four reasons. first, i think she<u+2019>d be better for our economy, especially with respect to innovative technology and start-ups. donald trump knows business, but his campaign has been backward-looking on the economy and oddly absent of ideas to spur creation of the jobs of the future. clinton understands what we need to help start businesses and will invest in education, advanced manufacturing and basic research. she<u+2019>s not promising a return to a bygone era <u+2014> she<u+2019>s focused on making our economy strong for our children and their children. these forward-leaning policies are essential to ensure continued u.s. economic leadership. second, clinton is right on immigration. to win in the global economy, our country must win the global battle for talent. immigrants don<u+2019>t take u.s. jobs; they create them. more than 40 percent of fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or their children: think how many fewer jobs we<u+2019>d have in the united states if these entrepreneurs and their parents had been kept out by a wall. trump<u+2019>s harsh policies will cost us jobs, and his even harsher rhetoric will chase away immigrant families whose children could grow up to be the next steve jobs (whose father was a syrian refugee) or sergey brin (an immigrant himself). third, while trump has been largely silent on technology issues facing the new economy, clinton has put forward an agenda that has won considerable acclaim among technology leaders. she wants to appoint a chief innovation adviser, expand science, technology, engineering and math, or stem, education and more. and she shares my view that it<u+2019>s not enough to support a booming silicon valley <u+2014> we need policies that promote the <u+201c>rise of the rest<u+201d>: a spread of start-ups to all parts of our country. we need to level the playing field so anybody, anywhere, has a shot at the american dream. fourth, i agree with clinton on the need to control the deficit. despite his populist rhetoric, trump wants to give huge tax breaks to people like me, the very folks who have benefited greatly from the innovation economy, while many others have been left behind. in the process he would blow up our deficit and make the economy more unequal. i agree we need to simplify the tax code, but if we are going to give tax relief, let<u+2019>s make sure it is in incentives for start-ups to grow and create jobs. i think i get why trump has been such a potent political force this year. i am well aware that millions of people are angry about their prospects and fearful that the forces of globalization and digitization have left them behind. i also recognize many are frustrated by politics and feel we need an outsider to shake things up. but i don<u+2019>t think trump is the answer, for those people or for the country. i don<u+2019>t agree with everything clinton has said and done. i take issue with some aspects of her platform, and i worry about her inclination to all too often view the government as the solution to problems. if she becomes president, i<u+2019>m sure there will be plenty of times i will disagree with her. but for 2016, i believe hillary clinton represents the best choice for the united states <u+2014> and our best hope to remain the most innovative and entrepreneurial nation in the world.

steve case: why i<u+2019>m voting for hillary clinton

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

3.0

46.0

8.0

4947.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

368.0

0.0

80.0

0.0

37.0

9.0

11.0

2.0

11.0

7.0

10.0

5.0

19.0

20.0

35.0

372.0

80.0

37.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington (cnn) donald trump's attacks against hillary clinton are entering a new, more personal phase in an already raucous election season. the firefight started last week after trump said clinton "got schlonged" by president barack obama in the 2008 primaries -- taking the yiddish word for penis and making a verb out of it, which shocked even yiddish scholars the following day, clinton unloaded on trump in an interview with the des moines register , saying that was "not the first time he's demonstrated a penchant for sexism." there was a cease fire of sorts over christmas but trump restarted the next day, turning clinton's words back on her and attempting to pull bill clinton into the fight. "hillary clinton has announced that she is letting her husband out to campaign but he's demonstrated a penchant for sexism, so inappropriate!" trump tweeted saturday. trump was even more explicit about bill clinton's past indiscretions during an interview on tuesday on nbc's "today" in which he said monica lewinsky, paula jones and "many" other women who have accused him of having affairs with them would be "fair game" in his continuing fight. the interview marked the first time trump explicitly named the clinton accusers. the war of words comes as bill clinton is slated to hit the campaign trail for his wife next weeks after spending months in a mostly behind-the-scenes role. and it offers a preview of the type of race that may be in store later in 2016 if trump and hillary clinton win their party's nominations -- even though the first primary races are still weeks away. the hits on bill clinton's past have long been simmering in the republican primary. sen. rand paul kept up his attack monday, saying that bill clinton was hillary's "women's problem." but it wasn't until trump brought them up that they caught fire. "when [trump's] insults are directed at women, immigrants, asian-americans, muslims, the disabled, or hard working americans looking to raise their wages -- hillary clinton will stand up to him, as she has from the beginning," a campaign spokeswoman said. she was asked about his attacks tuesday while campaigning in new hampshire on tuesday, but declined to answer reporter questions from the ropeline. it's a long way from the phone call between bill clinton and trump just seven months ago, where trump alleged that clinton urged him to run for president -- clinton denied that he asked trump to run -- and even further from the chummy appearance of bill and hillary clinton in photos with the donald at his third wedding, in 2005. to get an idea of just how far the relationship between trump and the top members of the clinton family have fallen, rewind to october 2008, when, in one sentence trump argued then-president george w. bush should be impeached for marching the nation to war and clinton's impeachment over the lewinsky affair wasn't merited. "look at the trouble bill clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. and they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. and yet bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true," trump told cnn's wolf blitzer in 2008. "well if you look at the different situations, of course you could name many of them, i could get you a list and i'll have it sent to your office in two seconds. but there certainly were a lot of abuse of women, you look at whether it's monica lewinsky or paula jones, or any of them, and that certainly will be fair game," trump said on nbc. "certainly, if they play the woman's card with respect to me, that will be fair game." on tuesday evening clinton passed up a chance to comment on trump. speaking to a group of about 200 people in berlin, new hampshire, she only made an oblique reference to the gop front-runner's famous catchphrase. "i happen to think that america is great and if we work together, we will be greater," clinton said.

week of donald trump-hillary clinton feud a taste of things to come

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

10.0

67.0

8.0

4009.0

0.0

1.0

4.0

0.0

286.0

0.0

75.0

0.0

29.0

13.0

8.0

6.0

12.0

3.0

7.0

3.0

8.0

22.0

16.0

290.0

75.0

29.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

presumptive republican nominee donald trump called for charges to be filed against democratic candidate hillary clinton saturday after the former secretary of state met with the fbi regarding the agency<u+2019>s investigation into her use of a private email server for official correspondence. "it is impossible for the fbi not to recommend criminal charges against hillary clinton," trump tweeted saturday afternoon. "what she did was wrong! what bill did was stupid!" the clinton campaign said the voluntary meeting lasted about three-and-a-half hours and took place at fbi headquarters in washington. clinton <u+201c>is pleased to have had the opportunity to assist the department of justice in bringing this review to a conclusion<u+201d> campaign spokesman nick merrill said in a statement. he also said clinton, the presumptive democratic presidential nominee, would have no further comment about the interview. the campaign issued the statement saturday shortly before 12:30 p.m. et, practically minutes after clinton returned to her washington home, then departed again about 30 minutes later. <u+201c>hillary clinton has just taken the unprecedented step of becoming the first major party presidential candidate to be interviewed by the fbi as part of a criminal investigation surrounding her reckless conduct,<u+201d> said republican national committee chairman reince priebus. "we must ask ourselves if this is the kind of leadership we want in the white house.<u+201d> there was no immediate comment from the fbi or justice department saturday. clinton<u+2019>s use of a private server and email address -- and whether classified information was mishandled as a result of that setup -- has cast a shadow over her campaign from the start. the fbi investigation is purportedly coming to a close, and the clinton interview is considered among the final steps in the case. trump has seized on the email issue and repeatedly said the probe undermines clinton's fitness for office. trump has called his opponent "crooked hillary" and said she cannot be trusted in the white house. the former first lady and new york senator has argued that she is more trustworthy than trump on handling the issues that matter to most americans: foreign policy, national security and running the economy. but the email investigation has lingered throughout her campaign, and trump has asserted that clinton will receive leniency from a democratic administration. earlier this week, the entire, ongoing email scandal grew when clinton<u+2019>s husband, former president bill clinton, initiated an impromptu meeting with attorney general loretta lynch on her airplane in phoenix. "the american people need to have confidence that the obama justice department is conducting a fair and impartial investigation, but when the attorney general meets secretly with bill clinton just days before hillary<u+2019>s interrogation<u+00a0>is conducted discreetly over a holiday weekend, it raises serious concerns about specialtreatment,<u+201d> priebus also said. there was already speculation about whether an agency under the obama administration could conduct an unbiased probe, which only intensified after clinton met with lynch, a president obama appointee who decides whether to bring charges in the case. lynch says she will accept whatever recommendations she receives from the agency's career prosecutors and lawyers. clinton has said relying on a private server was a mistake but that other secretaries of state had also used a personal email address. the matter was referred for investigation last july by the inspectors general for the state department and intelligence community following the discovery of emails that they said contained classified information. the state department's inspector general, the agency's internal watchdog, said in a blistering audit in may that clinton and her team ignored clear warnings from state department officials that her email setup violated federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers. clinton declined to talk to the inspector general, but the audit reported that clinton feared "the personal being accessible" if she used a government email account. agents have already interviewed top clinton aides including her former state department chief of staff cheryl mills and huma abedin, a longtime aide who is currently the vice chairwoman of clinton's campaign. the staffer who set up the server, bryan pagliano, was granted limited immunity from prosecution by the justice department last fall in exchange for his cooperation. the fbi as a matter of course seeks to interview individuals central to an investigation before concluding its work. the emails were routed through a server located in the basement of clinton's new york home during her tenure as the nation's top diplomat from 2009 to 2013. dozens of the emails sent or received by clinton through her private server were later determined to contain classified material. clinton has repeatedly said that none of the emails were marked classified at the time they were sent or received. as part of the probe, she has turned over the hard drive from her email server to the fbi. the associated press contributed to this report.

trump calls for charges against clinton after fbi interview in email investigation

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

9.0

82.0

8.0

5194.0

0.0

2.0

10.0

0.0

403.0

0.0

104.0

0.0

22.0

6.0

16.0

4.0

12.0

6.0

9.0

4.0

27.0

20.0

40.0

413.0

104.0

22.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

as the national furor continues over a controversial religious freedom law in indiana that critics say could allow businesses to discriminate against lgbt customers, one troubling fact is being left out of the debate: in 29 states, it's already legal for a store owner to deny service to a gay person based on his sexual orientation. while legal experts doubt indiana's religious freedom restoration act (rfra) could be used to justify discrimination when it takes effect on july 1, most states, including indiana, have long allowed it to happen because they don't have civil rights laws that would prohibit discrimination against lgbt people in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, and other places that serve the general public). it's not the religious freedom laws that allow discrimination; it's the lack of civil rights laws. as a result, in many states an employer can legally fire someone because he's gay, a landlord can legally evict someone because she's lesbian, and a hotel manager can legally deny service to someone who's transgender <u+2014> without citing religious grounds. it's not the religious freedom laws that allow discrimination; it's the lack of civil rights laws indiana in particular has no statewide nondiscrimination law for lgbt people, although about a dozen cities, including indianapolis, have local measures. "that's what's missing in the indiana debate," robin wilson, a law professor at the university of illinois, said. "if there's a 'license to discriminate,' it's the fact that the state hasn't said this is an unacceptable basis for saying no to people." but it's not just indiana. depending on how you add it up, as many as 33 states don't have full protections for all lgbt people, because a few states with nondiscrimination protections don't protect trans people, and some don't ban all anti-lgbt discrimination in public accommodations. currently, 19 states ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, while three additional states ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. some other states protect public but not private employees from discrimination. many municipalities have nondiscrimination laws that only apply within their local borders. and some companies prohibit discrimination in their own policies. the protections sometimes vary from state to state. massachusetts's protections for gender identity and utah's protections for sexual orientation and gender identity don't apply to public accommodations. some states, like utah, also include exemptions for discrimination based on religious grounds. lgbt advocates argue the civil rights act of 1964 already protects lgbt workers from discrimination, but that interpretation of the federal law hasn't been proven in court.

think indiana is bad? it's legal to deny service to gay and lesbian people in 29 states.

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

8.0

88.0

8.0

2795.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

253.0

0.0

26.0

1.0

0.0

27.0

9.0

7.0

4.0

6.0

1.0

9.0

0.0

10.0

17.0

14.0

261.0

26.0

28.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the national security agency considered abandoning its secret program to collect and store american calling records in the months before leaker edward snowden revealed the practice, current and former intelligence officials say, because some officials believed the costs outweighed the meager counter-terrorism benefits. after the leak and the collective surprise around the world, nsa leaders strongly defended the phone records program to congress and the public, but without disclosing the internal debate. the proposal to kill the program was circulating among top managers but had not yet reached the desk of gen. keith alexander, then the nsa director, according to current and former intelligence officials who would not be quoted because the details are sensitive. two former senior nsa officials say they doubt alexander would have approved it. still, the behind-the-scenes nsa concerns, which have not been reported previously, could be relevant as congress decides whether to renew or modify the phone records collection when the law authorizing it expires in june. the internal critics pointed out that the already high costs of vacuuming up and storing the "to and from" information from nearly every domestic landline call were rising, the system was not capturing most cellphone calls, and program was not central to unraveling terrorist plots, the officials said. they worried about public outrage if the program ever was revealed. after the program was disclosed, civil liberties advocates attacked it, saying the records could give a secret intelligence agency a road map to americans' private activities. nsa officials presented a forceful rebuttal that helped shaped public opinion. responding to widespread criticism, president barack obama in january 2014 proposed that the nsa stop collecting the records, but instead request them when needed in terrorism investigations from telephone companies, which tend to keep them for 18 months. yet the president has insisted that legislation is required to adopt his proposal, and congress has not acted. so the nsa continues to collect and store records of private u.s. phone calls for use in terrorism investigations under section 215 of the patriot act. many lawmakers want the program to continue as is. alexander argued that the program was an essential tool because it allows the fbi and the nsa to hunt for domestic plots by searching american calling records against phone numbers associated with international terrorists. he and other nsa officials support obama's plan to let the phone companies keep the data, as long as the government quickly can search it. civil liberties activists say it was never a good idea to allow a secret intelligence agency to store records of americans' private phone calls, and some are not sure the government should search them in bulk. <u+00a0>they say government can point to only a single domestic terrorism defendant who was implicated by a phone records search under the program, a san diego taxi driver who was convicted of raising $15,000 for a somali terrorist group. some fault nsa for failing to disclose the internal debate about the program. "this is consistent with our experience with the intelligence community," said rep. justin amash, r-mich. "even when we have classified briefings, it's like a game of 20 questions and we can't get to the bottom of anything." the proposal to halt phone records collection that was circulating in 2013 was separate from a 2009 examination of the program by nsa, sparked by objections from a senior nsa official, reported in november by the associated press. in that case, a senior nsa code breaker learned about the program and concluded it was wrong for the agency to collect and store american records. the nsa enlisted the justice department in an examination of whether the search function could be preserved with the records stores by the phone companies. that would not work without a change in the law, the review concluded. alexander, who retired in march 2014, opted to continue the program as is. but the internal debate continued, current and former officials say, and critics within the nsa pressed their case against the program. to them, the program had become an expensive insurance policy with an increasing number of loopholes, given the lack of mobile data. they also knew it would be deeply controversial if made public. by 2013, some nsa officials were ready to stop the bulk collection even though they knew they would lose the ability to search a database of u.s. calling records. as always, the fbi still would be able to obtain the phone records of suspects through a court order. there was a precedent for ending collection cold turkey. two years earlier, the nsa cited similar cost-benefit calculations when it stopped another secret program under which it was collecting americans' email metadata -- information showing who was communicating with whom, but not the content of the messages. <u+00a0>that decision was made public via the snowden leaks. alexander believed that the fbi and the nsa were still getting crucial value out of the phone records program, in contrast to the email records program, former nsa officials say. after the snowden leaks, independent experts who looked at the program didn't agree. a presidential task force examined nsa surveillance and recommended ending the phone records collection, saying it posed unacceptable privacy risks while doing little if anything to stop terrorism. the task force included michael morell, a former deputy cia director, and richard clarke, a former white house counter terrorism adviser. "we cannot discount the risk, in light of the lessons of our own history, that at some point in the future, high-level government officials will decide that this massive database of extraordinarily sensitive private information is there for the plucking," the report said. times, dates and numbers called can provide a window into a person's activities and connections. a separate inquiry by the privacy and civil liberties oversight board concluded the same thing. david medine, chairman of that board, said the concerns raised internally by nsa officials were the same as theirs, yet when nsa officials came before the privacy board, they "put on a pretty strong defense for the program. except their success stories didn't pan out," he said.

before leak, nsa mulled ending phone program

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

26.0

44.0

8.0

6389.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

428.0

0.0

128.0

0.0

52.0

11.0

20.0

5.0

18.0

8.0

13.0

6.0

28.0

25.0

39.0

429.0

128.0

52.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

a new report from the solar foundation has found that the solar industry added jobs almost 20 times faster than the national average last year, adding over 31,000 jobs in the sector between nov. 2013 and nov. 2014. in the last five years, the number of people employed in the solar industry also grew by 87 percent, from 93,000 jobs to 173,807. almost 90 percent of jobs added in the sector were in installation, meaning that more and more americans are opting for the power source, thanks to falling prices and various financing options. <u+201c>that has made it a no-brainer for a lot of people to go solar,<u+201d> said andrea luecke, executive director of the solar foundation, in an interview with the washington post. <u+201c>if you can get solar installed on your roof for zero down and pay less than what you<u+2019>re currently paying your utility and not have to worry about maintenance, it<u+2019>s a pretty easy sell.<u+201d> according to the report, the solar installation sector beat out the oil and gas pipeline construction industry and the crude oil and natural gas extraction industry in 2014, creating almost 50 percent more jobs than those industries did. the report also expects solar jobs to continue to grow in 2015, predicting that more than 36,000 jobs will be added over the next 12 months. overall, the report found that one out of every 78 jobs created in the u.s. last year were related to solar. still, the boom may not last forever<u+2013>installation<u+2019>s growing efficiency means that the industry expects a slowdown in growth in 2017. <u+201c>solar power is a key component of our all-of-the-above approach to american energy, creating good-paying american jobs that support our growing clean energy economy,<u+201d> said energy secretary ernest moniz in a statement. <u+201c>this diverse and vibrant workforce is vital to achieving the president<u+2019>s goal of doubling electricity generation from renewable sources yet again by 2020.<u+201d>

report: solar industry added jobs 20 times faster than the national average last year

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

85.0

8.0

1896.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

115.0

1.0

0.0

24.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

6.0

1.0

6.0

2.0

1.0

13.0

4.0

17.0

120.0

25.0

6.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

back in the early days of the great recession, there was a lot of foreign policy pundit panic that china would somehow use its holdings of american<u+00a0>debt as an economic lever to force washington to kowtow to beijing. also back in those early days,<u+00a0>i argued that this was nonsense. seven years later, i like to occasionally bring up<u+00a0>this fact, mostly because it<u+2019>s one of the rare<u+00a0>times i think i was unequivocally right. today, however, i<u+2019>m bringing it up because we<u+2019>ve just witnessed<u+00a0>saudi arabia exercise a weak<u+00a0>echo of that gambit. the new york times<u+2019> mark mazzetti reported late last week that the saudi government has warned u.s. officials<u+00a0>about the economic repercussions of a bill moving through congress: saudi arabia has told the obama administration and members of congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars<u+2019> worth of american assets held by the kingdom if congress passes a bill that would allow the saudi government to be held responsible in american courts for any role in the sept. 11, 2001, attacks. the obama administration has lobbied congress to block the bill<u+2019>s passage, according to administration officials and congressional aides from both parties, and the saudi threats have been the subject of intense discussions in recent weeks between lawmakers and officials from the state department and the pentagon. the officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation. the los angeles times<u+2019> michael hiltzik provides some useful context behind saudi concerns: since the saudis long have been suspected of complicity in the attacks, it<u+2019>s fair to say they<u+2019>re the prime target of the legislation. but the saudis<u+2019> immediate concern is that their u.s.-based assets could be frozen by a court for the lengthy period it would take for lawsuits for<u+00a0>damages to make their way through the judicial system. that makes their representation about u.s. assets look a bit less like a threat than an expression of defensive strategy. regardless of the saudi threat, the obama administration<u+2019>s resistance to this bill makes a bit more sense. what<u+2019>s interesting about all of this has been the american reaction to the revelation of the saudi economic threat. seven years ago, all china had to do was clear its throat on the matter and there were paroxysms of news coverage about threats to the u.s. economy. this time around, there has been some minor hand-wringing, but most of the analyses have echoed what the new york times<u+2019> binyamin appelbaum wrote about the threat: if saudi arabia follows through on its recent threat to sell off its investments in the united states, the financial maneuver could be painful <u+2014> mostly for saudi arabia<u+2026>. such a fire sale might roil financial markets or cause problems for companies that lost funding, but experts say it is hard to imagine a significant or lasting impact on the american economy. global investors continue to shovel money into the united states; if the saudis go, the experts say, others will take their place. to elaborate a bit more, the current saudi threat is way<u+00a0>weaker than the implicit chinese threat of seven years ago, because: the one difference in the saudis<u+2019> favor is that the kingdom is a u.s. ally, while china is viewed as a rival. this helps explain the administration<u+2019>s position on this issue (though i suspect its concern is about the precedent this bill would set if it became law). the thing is, recent obama interviews and news stories highlight the ways in which these ties are fraying. and the very fact that this threat got publicized is not going to improve u.s. attitudes toward riyadh. no, the most interesting thing about the revelation of this threat has been the lack of pundit panic in washington. if anything, the response has been either a shrug of the shoulders or an insistence<u+00a0>on calling the saudi bluff. maybe this is just the fact that memories of 9/11 trump appraisals of economic statecraft. or maybe, just maybe, washington has learned not to panic as much about these kinds of empty threats.

the teachable moment of saudi arabia<u+2019>s economic threat against the united states

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

80.0

8.0

4053.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

307.0

2.0

0.0

85.0

1.0

0.0

32.0

9.0

8.0

4.0

12.0

3.0

6.0

4.0

17.0

20.0

19.0

313.0

87.0

33.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

political scientists have known for years that political polarization is largely a one-sided phenomenon: in recent decades the republican party<u+00a0>has moved to the right much faster than democrats have moved to the left. as thomas mann of the brookings institution has described it, "republicans have become a radical insurgency<u+2014>ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of their political opposition." the data backing this claim up are pretty solid. the most widely-used measure of political polarization, a score of ideology based on voting developed by kenneth poole and howard rosenthal, has shown that the republicans in the senate and especially the house have drifted away from the center far more rapidly than democrats. the chart below, taken from the most recent slice of their data released just last month, illustrate this pretty clearly: right around 1975, the republican party sharply turned away from the center line and hasn't looked back. the democrats have been drifting away from the center too, but nowhere near as quickly. every once in awhile an op-ed writer will come along and make a qualitative argument along the lines of "no, really, it's the<u+00a0>democrats who are polarizing!" peter wehner, a former official in three previous republican presidential administrations, did just that in the pages of the new york times last week. his argument amounts to the notion that since president<u+00a0>obama has pursued some policies that are more liberal than bill clinton's,<u+00a0>"the democratic party has moved substantially further to the left than the republican party has shifted to the right." well, no -- just look at the chart above! here's another way of looking at it: how many moderates are in each party? here's another interesting chart from the poole-rosenthal data, showing the number of house members in each party who are<u+00a0>not<u+00a0>centrists -- that is, whose ideological scores put them on the more extreme ends of the partisan scale. as you can see, in the most recent congress nearly 90 percent of republican house members are<u+00a0>not politically moderate. by contrast, 90 percent of democratic members<u+00a0>are moderates. it's quite difficult to square a chart like this with a claim that democrats are abandoning the center faster than republicans. as the chart shows, there are plenty of centrist democrats left in the house -- but hardly any centrist republicans. it's worth pointing out that none of this is happening in a vacuum -- house republicans are become more extreme because republican voters are electing more extreme candidates. we see many of these same patterns playing out among the electorate as well, as a massive pew research study demonstrated last year.

this astonishing chart shows how moderate republicans are an endangered species

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

79.0

8.0

2845.0

0.0

2.0

5.0

0.0

182.0

1.0

0.0

55.0

0.0

21.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

3.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

14.0

6.0

16.0

187.0

56.0

21.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

in the run-up to the 2016 election, republicans are trying to position themselves as the party of the middle class. in a recent essay, thomas edsall writes, <u+201c>the republican appropriation of leftist populist rhetoric (and even policies) poses a significant threat to liberal prospects in 2016.<u+201d> it may well work, but not because republicans are in fact reformist, but rather because voters and pundits eschew data and instead focus on rhetoric. when it comes to actual empirical evidence, the answer is indisputable: democrats preside over far more income growth for the middle class than republicans. princeton university<u+2019>s larry bartels has two studies on politics and income distribution, and together they encompass almost a century. his finding: under republicans, the poor and middle class see almost no income growth, while under democrats, they see dramatic growth (see charts). as he notes elsewhere, even after numerous controls, these partisan differences remain. <u+201c>every republican president in the past 60 years has presided over increasing income inequality, including dwight eisenhower in the midst of the <u+2018>great compression<u+2019> of the post-war decades,<u+201d> bartels writes. <u+201c>and every democratic president except one (jimmy carter) has presided over decreasing or stable inequality.<u+201d> in another recent study, alan blinder and mark watson find that on a number of economic indicators, the country fares far better when a democrat is in office. gdp growth is 1.8 point higher under a democratic presidency, unemployment is lower, corporate profits are higher, the s&p grows faster and wages grow faster. this difference is not found in other countries, suggesting that the particularly rabid nature of american conservatism may be an important factor. it could also be that the effect is purely luck (although there is evidence to suggest that left-wing governments can facilitate growth). but the fact that the economy grows faster under democrats is not enough to explain why the middle-class fares better. as the chart below shows, much of the distribution leg-work occurs after taxes and transfers. this isn<u+2019>t to say democrats don<u+2019>t shape the pre-tax distribution (they do), but rather that simple differences in market distributions of income can<u+2019>t explain the difference. as john b. judis argued<u+00a0><u+2014> contrary to his seminal proposition of an <u+201c>emerging democratic majority<u+201d> <u+00a0><u+2014> the future now belongs to the republican party. it<u+2019>s increasingly likely that democrats will continue to have a slight advantage in the electoral college, but struggle elsewhere, for reasons i<u+2019>ve previously discussed. so, while judis<u+2019> thesis that middle-class whites are dramatically shifting right is contestable, he raises an important point: middle-class americans like services but dislike taxes, and democrats currently appear to be the party of taxes. and so, the struggle for democrats is what suzanne mettler refers to as the <u+201c>submerged state.<u+201d> that is, the way the government actually benefits the middle class often goes unseen, while taxes, particularly the income tax, are very obvious. mettler notes that our federal tax code is full of handouts like the mortgage interest deduction, but these tax benefits primarily benefit the affluent and middle class. <u+201c>our government is integrally intertwined with everyday life from healthcare to housing, but in forms that often elude our vision,<u+201d> she argues. the implication is that many people who believe themselves independent of government support in fact rely heavily on it. the congressional budget office<u+00a0>estimates that the 10 largest tax breaks cost the government $900 billion in 2013. but the benefits accrue to the wealthy: the top 1 percent gets 17 percent of the benefits and the bottom quintile only 8 percent. as the new york times reported in 2012, as christopher howard notes in his book, <u+201c>the hidden welfare state,<u+201d> <u+201c>there is, still, a misconception that u.s. social programs primarily benefit the poor. that is not true for the visible welfare state direct expenditures, and it is an absurd claim to make about the hidden welfare state.<u+201d> as the political science literature shows persuasively, democrats are far better for economic growth, and particularly middle-class and poor income growth, than republicans. yet even liberal commentators often fail to notice this. (kevin drum, for example,<u+00a0>argues<u+00a0>that<u+00a0><u+201c>democrats simply don<u+2019>t consistently support concrete policies that help the broad working and middle classes.<u+201d>)<u+00a0>by focusing on major policies, these critics miss what nathan kelly calls, <u+201c>market conditioning,<u+201d> or the ways in which left-leaning governments shift market distributions through regulation, monetary and fiscal policy and other non-explicitly redistributive functions. in fact, there is a strong literature showing that parties on the left shift the income distribution. one notable example: while conservatives savagely attack unions, which dramatically shift the income distribution, while democrats leave them alone. further, democrats tend to favor expansionary economic policies, while republicans try to clamp down on inflation <u+2014> which primarily benefits the rich. a cross-country study by isa camyar finds that firms perform better under left-wing governments because such governments spend more money on public fixed investment. this will naturally lead to higher wages. and while the real value of the minimum wage has increased 16 cents a year under democratic presidents, it has decreased by 6 cents per year under republicans. liberal governments also do more to reduce unemployment, which is significant for earnings at the bottom of the income distribution. so, while there is evidence that the in the era of globalization and finance, liberal parties can<u+2019>t do as much to impact the distribution of income, it is nonetheless clear that liberals matter, as bartel<u+2019>s recent data extend to 2012. on the other hand, the conservative premise <u+2014> that inequality will increase growth and thereby benefit the poor and middle class <u+2014> has been so thoroughly demolished that it can<u+2019>t be stated with a straight face. a large body of empirical literature suggests that massive tax cuts for top earners do little but increase incomes at the top. branko milanovic and roy van der weide find, <u+201c>high levels of inequality reduce the income growth of the poor and, if anything, help the growth of the rich.<u+201d> dan andrew, christopher jencks and andrew leigh find that whatever modest effect that inequality has on growth is mitigated by the impact of inequality on the bottom. intelligent conservative commentators have essentially surrendered the supply-side debate. it<u+2019>s clear a democratic party is better for middle- and low-income growth. however, while it<u+2019>s entirely mythological that the poor tend to vote republican, it is still true that democrats have trouble with the white middle class. an important reason for this is that democrats are often seen as the party that benefits the poor, particularly poor black americans. my investigation of anes data shows this phenomenon in action: whites are opposed to welfare, but support helping the poor (see chart).<u+00a0>a<u+00a0>large<u+00a0>literature<u+00a0>shows<u+00a0>that opposition to welfare and government is driven by racial animus. to<u+00a0>this day, the historical portion of slaves in a county predicts republican support and racial resentment. because of our strange political system, middle-class white americans can therefore believe that the government only takes from them and only helps black americans. in fact, government programs frequently exclude people of color, and those that do benefit them are always on the chopping block. whites, particularly southern whites, often oppose programs that would help them simply to ensure that people of color remain in abject poverty. they see the bad parts of government in the form of taxes, but their welfare is hidden in a maze of subsidies. if you had to collect the mortgage interest deduction at the welfare office, democrats would never lose another election.

dems<u+2019> scary electoral future: why the progressive sales pitch is getting harder

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

79.0

8.0

8020.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

560.0

1.0

0.0

153.0

1.0

0.0

71.0

19.0

15.0

9.0

15.0

11.0

16.0

5.0

32.0

38.0

51.0

564.0

154.0

72.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

who has trump appointed to his cabinet so far? donald trump added three new men to his list of cabinet picks friday. get to know them.

onpolitics | 's politics blog

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

29.0

8.0

135.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

9.0

0.0

3.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

13.0

3.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

a public service announcement from your friends here at vox: there will be an enormous amount of false information on facebook, the internet, and tv this election day. do yourself (and the country) a favor and ignore it. politicians have always played fast and loose with the truth, cable news networks have always gotten stories wrong, and the internet has always been a place for conspiracy theories and misleading stories and photos. but the 2016 campaign has seen an unprecedented increase in the sheer number of false news stories being shared on facebook or posted to genuine-looking but entirely fake news sites run by tech-savvy young people looking to make some money off this long and bitter election. take the denver guardian, which earlier this month ran a story with the attention-grabbing headline <u+201c>fbi agent suspected in hillary email leaks found dead in apparent murder-suicide.<u+201d> the article ricocheted across facebook and gained tens of thousands of shares despite the fact that there is no such thing as the <u+201c>denver guardian<u+201d> and that the <u+201c>story<u+201d> in question is a complete fabrication. it<u+2019>s a dynamic that deeply concerns president barack obama, arguably the savviest user of social media in american political history <u+2014> and the politician who has been targeted in the majority of facebook<u+2019>s most paranoid, conspiracy-minded, and outright racist viral posts. <u+201c>as long as it<u+2019>s on facebook<u+2026>people start believing it,<u+201d> he said during a campaign stop in ann arbor, michigan, on monday. <u+201c>it creates this dust cloud of nonsense." to make matters even dicier, many current and former us officials believe that russia may try to deliberately spread false information on election day to make would-be hillary clinton voters stay home or simply to shake overall confidence in the american political system. all of which means that if you see or read something on election day that appears too dramatic to be true, there<u+2019>s probably a good and simple reason: it isn<u+2019>t. in november 2012, fox news aired a video clip showing a member of the black panthers standing outside a polling station in philadelphia. it was a single person at a single polling station in a heavily black, heavily democratic area, but fox anchors strongly suggested that it was part of a broader pattern of voter intimidation by militants determined to stop then-gop nominee mitt romney. the segment was rebroadcast frequently throughout the day. flash-forward four years. it<u+2019>s certainly possible that fox news <u+2014> or a left-leaning station like msnbc <u+2014> will find a similar type of clip and present it in a way that is deliberately misleading. amazingly, though, that could literally be the least of our problems. a much bigger concern is the proliferation of entirely fake news sites with entirely fake stories, often operated by tech-savvy entrepreneurs living overseas. a buzzfeed article earlier this month found that young people in the macedonian town of veles (population 45,000) had created more than 140 pro-trump news sites running posts every day that <u+201c>are aggregated, or completely plagiarized, from fringe and right-wing sites in the us.<u+201d> to take one example from the story, a website called conservativestate posted an article with the headline <u+201c>hillary clinton in 2013: <u+2018>i would like to see people like donald trump run for office; they<u+2019>re honest and can<u+2019>t be bought.<u+2019><u+201d> the story was a complete fabrication, but it immediately went viral, racking up more than 480,000 shares, reactions, and comments on facebook in less than a week. by contrast, buzzfeed noted that the new york times bombshell revealing that trump had declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns drew a comparatively small 175,000 facebook interactions over an entire month. that kind of traffic is lucrative business for the macedonians, some of whom told buzzfeed that they made up to $5,000 per month pushing information they knew to be untrue. <u+201c>yes, the info in the blogs is bad, false, and misleading,<u+201d> one of these youngsters told buzzfeed. <u+201c>but the rationale is that <u+2018>if it gets the people to click on it and engage, then use it.<u+2019><u+201d> trump is also getting a boost from paid trolls in russia who pretend to be american on multiple social media accounts that they use to make pro-trump comments on traditional publications like the new york times as well as on facebook and twitter. the lies and false information often gets parroted by both conservative news outlets like fox news and trump himself. <u+201c>are russian trolls to blame for that?<u+201d> a female troll asked comedian samantha bee. <u+201c>maybe people are to blame too. they<u+2019>re lazy and believe everything they read.<u+201d> the bitter race between clinton and trump may end up being the kind of excruciatingly close race where small pockets of voters in key states ultimately decide our next president. that makes dirty tricks like recent ads wrongly telling clinton supporters that they could vote by text all the more dangerous. as the washington post reported, the fake ads circulated on twitter with the exact fonts and imagery used in real clinton campaign materials. they told clinton backers that they could <u+201c>save time<u+201d> and <u+201c>vote from home<u+201d> by texting her name to a five-digit phone number. one english-language ad read, <u+201c>vote early. text <u+2018>hillary<u+2019> to 59925.<u+201d> another was written entirely in spanish. they were lies, of course. you can vote by mail or in person, but you most definitely cannot do it by texting clinton<u+2019>s first name to a random phone number. it<u+2019>s unclear how many would-be clinton voters fell into the trap, or who specifically was responsible for setting it. but in a race where every vote matters, the fake ads could easily have real impact. and that<u+2019>s the biggest thing to keep in mind on election day. facebook<u+2019>s enormous reach means that lies and distortions <u+2014> regardless of whether they come from gop dirty tricksters, partisan journalists, paid trolls in russia, or money-seeking entrepreneurs in macedonia <u+2014> can genuinely impact the outcome of the campaign. be careful with what you read, be careful with what you retweet, and be careful with what you share on facebook. there are bad actors out there hoping to mess with our election. don<u+2019>t make it easier for them.

facebook is full of fake news stories. on election day, don<u+2019>t fall for them.

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

19.0

76.0

8.0

6236.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

418.0

1.0

0.0

90.0

1.0

0.0

61.0

13.0

15.0

7.0

12.0

15.0

12.0

11.0

28.0

32.0

45.0

421.0

91.0

62.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

on wednesday, after defeat in indiana, john kasich is announcing he is<u+00a0>suspending his campaign. which raises the question: why? why now? what changed? it was not as though he was ever winning. losing indiana seemed like a classic kasich move. i thought his whole strategy was: <u+201c>win ohio, and then just sort of amble along<u+00a0>the campaign trail<u+00a0>until the convention, at which point some kind of miracle will occur.<u+201d> that was even what his ads suggested! they<u+00a0>bordered on the fantastical. they were all missing several key steps.<u+00a0>he appeared to be running a full <u+201c>south park<u+201d> underpants gnome strategy (<u+201c>phase one, collect underpants. phase two, ?, phase three, profit<u+201d>) with a big question mark hanging high in the sky until the convention. <u+201c>john kasich is the nominee,<u+201d> his pac<u+2019>s<u+00a0>ads ran, <u+201c>because [mumble mumble].<u+201d> this, i thought, was the plan. somehow, out of a clear blue sky,<u+00a0>everyone<u+00a0>was supposed to<u+00a0>wake<u+00a0>up and realize<u+00a0>what was<u+00a0>going on, and do the right thing. this was already a science fiction premise. i thought <u+201c>oblivious<u+201d> was the strategy. i thought this was the campaign equivalent of a filibuster, where you just keep going until everyone around you is exhausted and succumbs. was he not doing this on purpose? he kept pointing out that he was good enough and smart enough and, durn it, people liked him, especially in counterfactual scenarios. the theme of the kasich campaign was<u+00a0>the sound of one hand hypothetically clapping. (not to be confused with the<u+00a0>jeb!<u+00a0>campaign, the sound of one hand forgetting to clap.)<u+00a0>he was a particular favorite of hypothetical voters in a hypothetical general. unfortunately,<u+00a0>these days, hypothetical voters are not enough. still, i thought that he was supposed to continue along on the road runner principle where, if you never look down, you never notice that you are<u+00a0>running basically unsupported and can coast on to victory. you don<u+2019>t need supporters as long as people basically don<u+2019>t mind that you are sticking around. as donald trump kept pointing out, the percentage of states kasich won got smaller and smaller with each new state added to the total. what was keeping him in the race? the dream of a contested convention? look, the odds that, if trump failed to get 1,237 delegates, those who made<u+00a0>it to the floor would<u+00a0>wind up choosing kasich were<u+00a0>only marginally better than the odds that trump reached 1,237 delegates and they miraculously picked kasich anyhow. <u+201c>some miracle occurs<u+201d> was always an integral part of the kasich strategy. why not stay, just in case? when you are the last thing standing between the gop and trump is not the time to suddenly remember how this is supposed to work.

why now, john kasich?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

21.0

8.0

2663.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

159.0

0.0

61.0

0.0

12.0

3.0

10.0

5.0

4.0

7.0

5.0

10.0

12.0

17.0

160.0

61.0

12.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

top dems want white house to call off part b demo <u+2014> the next cancer drug shortage

house approves syrian refugees bill

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

35.0

8.0

81.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

5.0

1.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

donald trump once again found himself the lightning rod of the republican presidential race wednesday, as he tangled with a debate stage full of rivals trying to position themselves as the best alternative to the gop front-runner. the second republican primary debate veered into serious policy territory <u+2013> covering everything from iran to russia to planned parenthood to immigration. but, at times to the visible frustration of candidates trying to stick to those issues, few segments passed without a sparring session between trump and one of his opponents. almost every time, trump hit back <u+2013> and it was unclear whether any candidate would be able to dent his front-runner status. the candidate perhaps most eager to knock the billionaire businessman down a peg was former florida gov. jeb bush, who lost his lead to trump over the summer. repeatedly, bush challenged trump on his record and past comments. he told trump to apologize to his wife for suggesting her being from mexico makes bush more sympathetic to mexicans <u+2013> trump refused. he accused trump of once giving him money as he sought casino gambling, unsuccessfully, in florida. trump denied it, and when bush criticized trump for bragging about demanding hillary clinton attend his wedding, trump teased him, saying: <u+201c>more energy tonight, i like that.<u+201d> (bush answered back at the end of the debate <u+2013> asked what his secret service codename would be, bush said, <u+201c>very high energy, donald,<u+201d> and the two shared a high-five.) <u+201c>it was such a disaster those last few months that abraham lincoln couldn<u+2019>t have been elected,<u+201d> trump said. bush responded that his brother <u+201c>kept us safe.<u+201d> trump answered, <u+201c>you feel safe right now?<u+201d> some of the most heated exchanges at the cnn debate also came between trump and former hp ceo carly fiorina, both business leaders. after trump called her former company a <u+201c>disaster,<u+201d> she cited his repeated bankruptcy filings and questioned why america should trust him to manage its finances. new jersey gov. chris christie interjected and said middle-class americans <u+201c>could care less about your careers.<u+201d> he told the two to <u+201c>stop this childish back and forth.<u+201d> fiorina also got her chance at the debate to respond to trump<u+2019>s controversial jab at her, where in a magazine article he said: <u+201c>look at that face <u+2013> would anyone vote for that?<u+201d> asked to respond, she said, <u+201c>i think women all over this country heard very clearly what mr. trump said.<u+201d> fiorina received loud applause for the line, and trump added, <u+201c>i think she<u+2019>s got a beautiful face, and i think she<u+2019>s a beautiful woman.<u+201d> despite all the attention on trump, his dominant lead in the polls means his rivals may be battling at this stage for runner-up, for now. retired neurosurgeon ben carson currently holds that status after vaulting into second place in the polls <u+2013> yet was able to avoid the fray for most of wednesday<u+2019>s debate. he took one light-hearted jab at trump, after trump discussed his views on vaccines and said there are cases of children getting sick <u+2013> and having autism <u+2013> after getting them. asked about trump<u+2019>s medical opinion, carson said, <u+201c>he<u+2019>s an okay doctor<u+201d> <u+2013> in reference to a comment trump recently made about him. carson went on to say there<u+2019>s no documented association between autism and vaccines, but doctors are probably giving too many vaccines in a short period of time. after the exchange about george w. bush, carson also noted that he did not want bush to <u+201c>go to war<u+201d> in iraq. he added that radical jihadists now are an <u+201c>existential threat to our nation<u+201d> and leaders can<u+2019>t <u+201c>put our heads in the sand.<u+201d> aside from the sparring with trump, the candidates did have a chance to stake out their positions on a range of policy issues. fiorina, in an impassioned moment in the debate, appealed to congress to defund planned parenthood following videos exposing organ harvesting from aborted fetuses. <u+201c>this is about the character of our nation. and if we will not stand up and force president obama to veto this bill, shame on us,<u+201d> she said. former arkansas gov. mike huckabee slammed a federal judge for temporarily jailing kentucky clerk kim davis, saying the u.s. has made religious <u+201c>accommodations<u+201d> for guantanamo detainees and the fort hood shooter, but davis is facing a <u+201c>criminalization of her faith.<u+201d> and texas sen. ted cruz said of the agreement with tehran, <u+201c>i will rip to shreds this catastrophic iranian nuclear deal.<u+201d> ohio gov. john kasich urged against going that far. florida sen. marco rubio also focused on foreign policy, warning about china<u+2019>s military build-up, and <u+201c>gangsters in moscow<u+201d> meddling on the world stage. on this, rubio challenged trump<u+2019>s global affairs knowledge. trump vowed, <u+201c>i will know more about the problems of this world<u+201d> as president. and he criticized rubio for missing votes. trump<u+2019>s fitness to be commander-in-chief was a common theme for his rivals. fiorina said, when asked if she<u+2019>s comfortable with trump controlling america<u+2019>s nuclear weapons: <u+201c>i think mr. trump is a wonderful entertainer.<u+201d> she said <u+201c>judgment<u+201d> and <u+201c>temperament<u+201d> will be revealed <u+201c>over time and under pressure<u+201d> in the race. trump answered: <u+201c>i may be an entertainer. <u+2026> but i will tell you this. what i am far and away greater than an entertainer is a businessman.<u+201d> trump also went after sen. rand paul, saying he shouldn<u+2019>t even be on the stage. <u+201c>there<u+2019>s a sophomoric quality that is entertaining about mr. trump,<u+201d> paul answered, but he added he<u+2019>s concerned about him being in charge of nuclear weapons. paul chastised trump for his <u+201c>visceral response,<u+201d> including attacking people on their appearance which he likened to <u+201c>junior high.<u+201d> trump said he never did that to paul, quipping: <u+201c>believe me there<u+2019>s plenty of subject matter right there.<u+201d> wisconsin gov. scott walker also zinged trump, saying: <u+201c>we don<u+2019>t need an apprentice in the white house. we have one right now.<u+201d> walker and bush have both seen their polling numbers drop in recent weeks as trump, and now carson, have risen. walker is trying to refocus his campaign on his record as governor, and record battling labor unions; the latter issue did not surface much during wednesday<u+2019>s debate, though. in his closing remarks, walked vowed that as a leader, <u+201c>i won<u+2019>t back down any day, any way, anyhow.<u+201d> an unexpected clash also broke out at the end, when paul made a veiled reference to bush having smoked marijuana years ago as paul challenged federal marijuana policy. bush acknowledged paul was talking about him and said: <u+201c>40 years ago, i smoked marijuana, and i admit it.<u+201d> paul then claimed people with <u+201c>privilege<u+201d> don<u+2019>t go to jail for marijuana, but others do. the main stage at the ronald reagan presidential library in simi valley, calif., wednesday night featured the 11 top-polling candidates. it followed an earlier undercard debate of four lower-polling candidates. fiorina, while rising in the polls, is still averaging just over 3 percent nationally, according to realclearpolitics. bush, once the front-runner, is at about 8 percent. walker is down to 3 percent. cruz and rubio remain in the middle of the pack, trailing slightly behind bush. but with carson and trump attracting the support of roughly half of primary voters, the other 14 candidates are fighting for relative scraps. trump<u+2019>s national lead now tops 30 percent. at the earlier undercard debate, sen. lindsey graham, r-s.c., tangled often with his gop rivals, positioning himself as an experienced, practical lawmaker not beholden to conservative activist causes. he focused squarely on the need to defeat radical islamic terrorists, while louisiana gov. bobby jindal focused at that debate on religious freedom issues.

round 2: gop rivals try to ding trump at debate <u+2013> front-runner hits back

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

5.0

72.0

8.0

7677.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

525.0

0.0

138.0

1.0

0.0

36.0

17.0

15.0

8.0

23.0

18.0

16.0

36.0

38.0

48.0

528.0

138.0

37.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

many americans of different political stripes share concerns about the integrity of the presidential election. citizen 'observers' can be a good thing if they are respectful. intimidation is the concern. a row of voting booths is seen at a polling station during early voting in chicago on oct. 14. as the commander of the largest white nationalist organization in the united states, jeff schoep has worn brown shirts and militant all-black uniforms. on election day, however, mr. schoep, of litchfield, minn., will don his civvies to blend in <u+2013> for the most part. amid concerns of election fraud, schoep and his fellow members of the national socialist movement are planning to stand by polling places around the country, particularly those in predominantly black areas. schoep says he has ordered his colleagues to be respectful and discreet as they look for evidence of wrongdoing, but he acknowledges that he might not be beyond pushing the boundaries here and there: he<u+2019>s considering wearing a small nsm insignia on his street clothes. <u+201c>confucius says a wise man considers the possibility of anything, and i do,<u+201d> says schoep, whose organization numbers in the hundreds. <u+201c>i<u+2019>m not saying for sure that there<u+2019>s some federal conspiracy and the system is going to rig this election, but it<u+2019>s a concern and a possibility, and i think people need to be mindful of it. there<u+2019>s a lot of mistrust of the federal government coming to a head this year.<u+201d> the national socialist movement, a recognized political party that critics call a neo-nazi group, is one of myriad organizations and individual americans on both the right and left vowing to keep an extra close watch on the elections this year. concerns are percolating, with stories about dead people voting in philadelphia, vote-switching machines in texas, and a female trump supporter in iowa arrested for trying to vote twice. such stories partly miss the point, voting experts say. <u+201c>the only way you<u+2019>re going to succeed in stealing an election <u+2026> is massive absentee ballot fraud or being an insider who perverts the system,<u+201d> says steve huefner, co-author of <u+201c>from registration to recounts: the election ecosystems of five midwestern states.<u+201d> but having multiple groups from all sides of the political spectrum watching an election isn<u+2019>t necessarily bad, others say. in fact, should it be a close, contested election, more eyes on the polls could help ease distrust and create confidence that the results are the true reflection of the nation<u+2019>s collective will. the problem is when observation crosses the line into intimidation <u+2013> if an insignia, or a gun, or a baseball bat makes someone less likely to stand in line to vote. <u+201c>observation at the polls should not cross the line into intimidation, that<u+2019>s key,<u+201d> says ned foley, a constitutional law professor at ohio state university<u+2019>s moritz school of law and author of <u+201c>ballot battles: the history of disputed elections in the united states.<u+201d> <u+201c>but observation by both sides is a good thing.<u+201d> <u+201c>we have an extremely transparent system, and that transparency is crucial to a well-functioning democracy and <u+2013> just as important <u+2013> the public perception that it is functioning properly,<u+201d> he adds. in many ways, united states elections already have observers built in. while systems in britain and australia, for example, are run by nonpartisan commissions, us elections are run by states and counties. that seems like a recipe for local tampering, but rules ensure that both parties are looking over each other<u+2019>s shoulder, especially at the local courthouse where votes are tallied and transmitted up the chain. many americans, however, feel like they need to see for themselves, too. some 41 percent of americans believe the election could be stolen, according to a new politico/morning consult poll. that's despite the fact that multiple studies have shown that voter fraud in the us is all-but-nonexistent. republican presidential candidate donald trump has grasped that thread of doubt to build a <u+201c>nationwide election protection operation<u+201d> largely of followers urged to attend polls <u+201c>in certain areas<u+201d> to look for <u+201c>you know what,<u+201d> as mr. trump recently said. trump ally roger stone says he has recruited <u+201c>vote protectors<u+201d> to conduct exit polls in precincts around the country. north carolina democrats, in a lawsuit filed this week, called it a <u+201c>phony<u+201d> attempt to intimidate voters. in the lawsuit, plaintiffs cite the appearance of a person at a north carolina polling place carrying a baseball bat emblazoned with the word <u+201c>trump<u+201d> while wearing a badge with the words <u+201c>poll observer.<u+201d> conservatives often point to video showing a new black panther member with a nightstick outside a polling station in philadelphia in 2008. the alt-right website therightstuff.biz announced it would be employing people dressed up as blue-collar workers to surreptitiously mount cameras in polling places. a representative of the site told politico that activists will also go into <u+201c>ghettos in philly with beer and marijuana to give out to the local residents<u+201d> so that they<u+2019>re more likely to stay home and not vote. the oath keepers, a group of retired law enforcement formed in 2009, says they will <u+201c>form up incognito intelligence-gathering and crime spotting teams and go out into public on election day, dressed to blend in with the public.<u+201d> the group vowed to <u+201c>operate within the law,<u+201d> but surreptitiously. <u+201c>dress to blend with the crowd,<u+201d> oath keepers leader stewart rhodes wrote to members. <u+201c>that may mean wearing a bob marley, pot leaf, tie-die (sic) peace symbol, or <u+2018>che<u+2019> guevara t-shirt <u+2026> or it may mean wearing working-man carhartt pants and a plaid shirt.<u+201d> democrats have their own concerns. the mobilization of alt-right poll watchers in the inner city goes hand-in-hand with official voter roll purges, elimination of polling places in black neighborhoods, and anecdotes of eligible voters unable to vote, liberals say. <u+201c>there<u+2019>s very little difference between a white supremacist trying to keep certain segments of society from feeling comfortable about exercising the franchise and someone who sits behind an election clerk desk doing the same thing through legal means,<u+201d> says karl frisch, a former senior fellow at the progressive media matters for america and the current director of allied progress. even foreign governments are getting into the game. three states report denying russia the right to send observers into us polling stations, shrugging it off as a <u+201c>pr stunt.<u+201d> the standard for the system, however, should not be 100 percent accuracy, but rather preventing mistakes or incidents from affecting the outcome, say experts. <u+201c>we can<u+2019>t let perfect be the enemy of the good,<u+201d> says professor huefner, also of the ohio state university<u+2019>s moritz school of law. <u+201c>in fact, the kinds of things that election-day observers are being called upon to [watch for] are pretty rare, like voting by dead people or by unregistered voters.<u+201d> <u+201c>i<u+2019>m not saying there are no instances of in-person voter fraud, but we cannot find instances in which that type of misbehavior has changed the outcome of an election,<u+201d> he adds. the greater concern is the <u+201c>gray area with some conduct,<u+201d> says professor foley. for example, <u+201c>state laws about guns and voter intimidation are a patchwork of wildly varying regulations,<u+201d> the washington post reports. adds foley: "much of this will be subjective at the margins.<u+201d>

when white nationalists show up to 'monitor' the polls

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

6.0

54.0

8.0

7420.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

515.0

2.0

0.0

116.0

2.0

0.0

64.0

20.0

22.0

13.0

22.0

18.0

17.0

8.0

47.0

35.0

57.0

519.0

118.0

66.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

former florida governor and likely gop presidential candidate jeb bush offered a defense of conservative christian principles and attacked the obama administration for failing to preserve religious freedom during his commencement address at liberty university, a christian school in lynchburg, virginia. bush accused the obama administration of using "coercive federal power" to infringe on the religious rights of americans. "what should be easy calls, in favor of religious freedom, have instead become an aggressive stance against it. somebody here is being small-minded and intolerant, and it sure isn<u+2019>t the nuns, ministers, and laymen and women who ask only to live and practice their faith," he said, according to remarks released ahead of the speech. "federal authorities are demanding obedience, in complete disregard of religious conscience -- and in a free society, the answer is 'no.'<u+201d> last year, the supreme court ruled 5-4 that the obama administration could not require closely held corporations to provide insurance coverage of contraception to employees if the employers objected on religious grounds. bush converted to catholicism -- his wife's religion -- two decades ago following a tense period in his marriage. bush has said in the past that he believes the faith of leaders should shape their decision-making. "[s]ome moral standards are universal. they do not bend under the weight of cultural differences or elite opinion. wherever there is a child waiting to be born, we say choose life, and we say it with love," bush said on saturday. "wherever women and girls in other countries are brutally exploited, or treated as possessions without rights and dignity, we christians see that arrogance for what it is. wherever jews are subjected to the oldest bigotry, we reject that sin against our brothers and sisters, and we defend them." liberty university was founded by jerry falwell, a former southern baptist pastor and religious commentator. sen. ted cruz (r-texas) announced his presidential campaign at the school in march.

jeb bush attacks obama administration for failing 'easy calls' on religious freedom

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

83.0

8.0

2057.0

0.0

9.0

0.0

172.0

0.0

34.0

0.0

19.0

10.0

12.0

3.0

11.0

10.0

7.0

2.0

17.0

14.0

27.0

181.0

34.0

19.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

(cnn) the shootings' main similarity is that the officer was white and the victim was black and unarmed. outside of that, the highly publicized police shootings in ferguson and north charleston bear only mild resemblance. so what's changed between the shooting death of michael brown in ferguson, missouri, in august, and that of walter scott in north charleston, south carolina, last weekend? and did the backlash and publicity of the ferguson shooting influence the handling of the north charleston incident? it's tough to say for sure, but here are some of the stark differences in the cases, the lessons learned by both police and the public, and concrete changes that could help mend tensions in the future. ferguson: officer darren wilson said he shot brown after the two struggled over wilson's gun, and witnesses to the shooting had different accounts -- often conflicting -- of where wilson was, where brown was and whether brown was surrendering or charging the officer. north charleston: though it's unclear what happened in the moments before a bystander began recording the incident on his phone, it's 100% clear from the video that scott was not posing a threat to officer michael slager when the policeman opened fire on scott as he ran away. takeaway: where brown's killing was a breeding ground for speculation -- with a stark divide between those who said wilson was justified and those who said brown was senselessly slain -- no such debate has emerged in the scott shooting. it would be tough to extrapolate for certain, but it's possible that the clear-cut imagery of an officer shooting a fleeing man in the back resulted in the prompt charges against the officer, and that quick reaction by authorities in south carolina after the video surfaced headed off the sort of violence that repeatedly unfolded in ferguson as the process of determining wilson's fate dragged on for months. north charleston: it's closer to an even split here, with census data from 2010 showing the city is 47% black and 42% white. the makeup of the city's police department is unclear, though it's been widely reported that 2007 federal figures indicated it was about 80% black. three of the 10 city council members are black. takeaway: the ratio of white and black officers on the north charleston police department appears to more closely mirror the makeup of its population than does the ferguson police department, but both are considerably off. as for the city councils, the latest election in ferguson makes its governing body more representative than north charleston's. but before you place too much emphasis on the percentages, there are other variables to consider, like policing methods, as cnn political commentator marc lamont hill pointed out. changing the racial makeup of a department alone won't do the trick if officers aren't taught the best practices. "black people didn't march and fight and struggle to have black officers kill us and black officers beat us and black officers harass us," he said. "i want police officers who are capable of doing the job properly. we need community-based policing if we're going to believe that police are the proper force to be in our neighborhoods." north charleston: it's unlikely slager would have been fired and charged with murder so quickly if not for video shot by witness feidin santana. even north charleston's police chief said he was disgusted by the footage of scott's shooting. not only does the video show slager firing eight shots at scott as he's running away, it also shows him placing a dark-colored object next to scott's lifeless body. that could be significant, because slager initially said scott had taken his taser and he feared for his life. but if investigators determine the object dropped next to scott's body was actually the taser, slager could be accused of planting evidence. "if there is no video, folks don't believe it because it sounds so asinine that something like this would ever happen in this country," she said. "but with a video, you can't say it's not happening." north charleston: after scott was killed in south carolina over the weekend, protests in north charleston have been peaceful so far. the takeaway: some ferguson residents say what happened in their city is playing a role in the way north charleston is handling its own tragedy. lee smith, who recently made an unsuccessful bid for a ferguson city council seat, said he was glad to see authorities in south carolina charge slager with murder. "i am hopeful that their motives are right and not just based on the fact that they are trying to avoid the same types of issues that came down in ferguson," smith said. ferguson: it took ferguson police six days to publicly identify wilson as the officer who shot brown, and in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, then-police chief thomas jackson decided not to visit brown's family. and rather than charge wilson and let a grand jury decide whether the charges had merit -- as many civil rights advocates wanted -- the prosecutor in the case instead made the unorthodox choice of presenting both sides himself and letting the grand jury decide whether to charge the officer. north charleston: slager was identified by authorities and charged with murder on tuesday, two days after santana shared his video with scott's family. mayor keith summey denounced the shooting and said slager made a "bad decision." both summey and the police chief also visited scott's family. "when you're wrong, you're wrong," he said. "and if you make a bad decision -- don't care if you're behind the shield or just a citizen on the street -- you have to live by that decision." the takeaway: former ferguson mayor brian fletcher said the city has influenced others. "i think these situations are given much more scrutiny now," said fletcher, who won a seat on ferguson's city council this week. "they have seen what has happened here in ferguson. every mayor and city council is very cautious in what they say and what they do." ferguson: after brown's death in august, many asked why wilson didn't have a body camera. the shooting spurred a nationwide debate over whether officers should wear cameras on their lapels. three months later, president barack obama pledged $263 million to procure body cameras and training for up to 50,000 police officers. north charleston: slager also was not wearing a body camera when he killed scott. but after the shooting, the mayor said the city was ordering an additional 150 body cameras "so every officer on the street" in the city will have one. that's in addition to 101 body cameras already ordered, summey said. but national urban league president marc morial said more body cameras will help protect not just the public, but also police. "i think if officers know that their actions are being recorded on a consistent basis, it's going to protect good officers who do the right thing," morial said. "but it's also going to ferret out, if you will, bad actions by bad officers."

ferguson, n. charleston: 2 police killings, 2 outcomes

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

54.0

8.0

7043.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

475.0

0.0

133.0

0.0

69.0

17.0

11.0

5.0

27.0

5.0

19.0

8.0

22.0

35.0

32.0

480.0

133.0

69.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

republican presidential front-runner donald trump pushed back wednesday night against what appears to be a growing movement among the party establishment <u+2014> including a few of his former rivals <u+2014> to at least slow down his march to the convention with enough delegates in hand to claim the nomination. speaking with sean hannity on a special fox news town hall, trump accused gop lawmakers opposed to his campaign of "taking advantage of our country." the billionaire businessman called his campaign a movement "of competence and common sense and low taxes and [secure] borders and it would be so foolish to give it away." trump was referring to a conference held by the conservative american enterprise institute at sea island off the coast of georgia over the weekend, where one of the topics reportedly was stopping trump from securing the republican nomination. the conference reportedly was attended by senate majority mitch mcconnell, house speaker paul ryan and other key republican congressmen. "i know all these people," trump told hannity. "these are people that are taking advantage of our country.<u+00a0>they don<u+2019>t want to have strong borders. they want stuff flowing across the borders. they don<u+2019>t want to have taxation when countries treat us unfairly because they benefit from that." "politicians will do what<u+2019>s right for the people that gave them the money," trump added later, "not what's right for the country." former gop presidential candidate jeb bush also planned to meet with trump's rivals on thursday ahead of a gop debate in florida, fueling speculation that he's preparing to endorse a candidate challenging trump. florida sen. marco rubio, meanwhile, told fox news that he would not drop out of the republican presidential race before next week's florida primary, saying, "we're gonna fight this thing through tuesday ... and we're going to go on." rubio denied multiple reports that he had discussed the possibility of dropping out before the winner-take-all contest. speaking with fox news<u+2019> megyn kelly, rubio said: "i have never discussed dropping out with anyone on my team, or anyone on the planet earth ... i'm the only one who can beat donald trump in florida.<u+201d> a fox news poll released wednesday showed rubio trailing trump by 23 percentage points among likely republican voters in florida. "i honestly don<u+2019>t believe donald trump will be the nominee," rubio said. "i continue to believe it's going to be me, and it's got to start here in florida." rubio also dismissed the possibility that he would form a so-called "unity" republican ticket with texas sen. ted cruz, trump's closest challenger in the delegate race, calling it " the kind of drama that makes it interesting in tv to speculate about." "at some point we're all going to team up," rubio said in reference to the non-trump candidates. "we're all going to be on the same team, i hope.<u+201d> cruz told kelly that rubio and kasich were "good, honorable people, but neither of them has a path to the nomination." "head-to-head, not only do i beat donald trump," cruz said, "but i defeat him resoundingly." cruz also walked back his earlier opposition to a possible convention fight between himself and trump if neither man reaches the required 1,237 delegates during the primaries. "look, [ronald] reagan and [president gerald] ford battled it out at a contested convention [in 1976]," cruz said. "that's what conventions are for." however, cruz restated his opposition to a so-called brokered convention, calling it "a fever dream of the d.c. establishment" and warning of "an open revolt" among republican voters if it came to pass. cruz later turned his rhetorical fire against trump and rubio over immigration reform and the so-called "gang of eight" bill in 2013. "when marco rubio stood with barack obama and [sen.] chuck schumer and [then-senate majority leader] harry reid ... i stood with millions of americans," cruz told kelly. "not only was donald trump nowhere to be found, he was funding the gang of eight. he gave $50,000 to five of its members." cruz also accused rubio of lowering the tone of the campaign, saying, "i have no views whatsoever on any part of donald trump<u+2019>s anatomy," an apparent reference to rubio jabbing trump's "small hands" at a virginia campaign stop. for his part, rubio told megyn kelly that he regretted the remark, saying "my kids were embarrassed by it, my wife didn<u+2019>t like it, i don<u+2019>t think it reflects [well]; that<u+2019>s not who i am." ohio gov. john kasich, who has staked his campaign's future on victory in next tuesday's ohio primary, told fox news' greta van susteren that he would "probably not" pick up enough delegates in other contests to overtake trump, but noted that voters had only "picked about half the delegates [so far] this year ... anything is possible." a fox news poll released wednesday showed kasich leading trump by five percentage points among likely republican voters in the buckeye state. "we're going to win ohio," kasich told van susteren. "that's not even a question for me. it's about what we do after that and all the places we have to go. but we're not taking it for granted." trump has 458 delegates to cruz's 359 following tuesday's contests, in which trump won the mississippi and michigan primaries as well as the hawaii caucus. cruz also picked up a win in the idaho primary. rubio is a distant third with 151 delegates, while kasich has 54.

trump says gop opposition to him 'taking advantage of our country'

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

4.0

66.0

8.0

5431.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

343.0

1.0

0.0

86.0

1.0

0.0

45.0

11.0

9.0

2.0

10.0

6.0

8.0

21.0

18.0

38.0

348.0

87.0

46.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

it<u+2019>s interesting how that<u+2019>s unfolding. none of the governors are panning out. texas governor rick perry, whose record running one of the biggest state<u+2019>s successfully on a republican platform was no help,<u+00a0>dropped out first; followed by the union slaying wisconsin governor scott walker. both had been highly touted as excellent presidential material based on<u+00a0>their records. none of the current and former governors, from bush to kasich, christie, huckabee, jindal and pataki, have caught fire either. between them, they have decades of executive experience and yet they can<u+2019>t get any momentum. this flies in the face of everything we<u+2019>ve ever heard about the republican reverence for state government, for executive experience and the ability to get results from republican policies. for a long time it was assumed that senators were unsuited for the task of the presidency,<u+00a0>what with their lack experience <u+201c>running things.<u+201d> not that this stopped them from running for president, but it hadn<u+2019>t escaped anyone<u+2019>s notice that until 2008 the last senator to become president had been elected in 1960. barack obama broke that long streak and the republicans have a handful of senators to choose from in 2016. two of the four in the race, rubio and cruz, seem to be doing slightly better than the governors, and are at this point seen as <u+201c>establishment<u+201d> alternatives, even though neither of them are polling at more than 11<u+00a0>percent. the third, rand paul, once touted as the leader of a new libertarian, isolationist republican party, has turned out to be irrelevant. the fourth, senator lindsay graham, is a joke. there you have the vaunted gop bench <u+2014> the well-prepared, highly qualified, totally experienced group of veterans, any one of whom the country was supposed to be able to see as president. and republican primary voters can<u+2019>t stand any of them. they are, instead, enthralled with two men who have never held public office, and seem not to even understand our system of government or care how it works. the hill<u+00a0>asked some republican strategists to explain this phenomenon: <u+201c>it<u+2019>s a different test this time around,<u+201d> said gop strategist david payne. <u+201c>experience, executive experience, these aren<u+2019>t the tests. it<u+2019>s about the right ideas and the right temperament and coming off as tough. you see how important the debates have been. style and presentation matter more than ever, more even than if you were a great leader in the past.<u+201d><u+00a0>[<u+2026>] <u+201c>republicans this year don<u+2019>t want managers, they want transformers,<u+201d> conservative iowa radio host steve deace, a cruz supporter, told the hill. <u+201c>they don<u+2019>t want reform, they want revolution. they don<u+2019>t want a better government, they want a new government. the ground has shifted and the grassroots conservatives have taken the establishment<u+2019>s preeminence away.<u+201d> say what you will about trump and carson, they are both entertaining. but it<u+2019>s the revolutionary aspect of their candidacies that<u+2019>s interesting. it<u+2019>s not exactly a surprise that republican voters hate government. it<u+2019>s been their number one organizing principle for years. in fact, the sainted ronald reagan himself was known for his saying <u+201c>government is not the solution to our problem; government<u+00a0>is<u+00a0>the problem.<u+201d> and we know they hate liberals. they have spent decades denigrating the philosophy,the ideology and even the word itself. but until now they haven<u+2019>t hated the republican party. and boy do they hate it. what seems to have happened is that gop base voters feel betrayed and disillusioned because they voted for a republican congress and that congress has failed to deliver the agenda on which they ran. first of all, they failed to remove president obama from office, either through impeachment or at the ballot box in 2012. they also failed to repeal obamacare,<u+201d>close the borders,<u+201d> ban abortion, stop gay marriage, or<u+00a0>end political correctness, just for starters. someone forgot to tell republican voters<u+00a0>that there are three branches of government regulated by checks and balances, and<u+00a0>other people in their own party, as well as the opposition party, who have different agendas competing with their own. if you listen to right-wing<u+00a0>media and follow what<u+2019>s being said in the conservative bubble, it<u+2019>s understandable. they were told that they won a huge mandate, and now they quite logically blame the people who have been making promises they don<u+2019>t keep. when they listen to these professional politicians running for their party<u+2019>s nomination,<u+00a0>they just hear more of the same <u+2014> and they don<u+2019>t want to hear it anymore. they want someone who will assure them that this creaky government system with all those checks and balances,<u+00a0>and all the resultant gridlock, will not be a hinderance to achievement of their agenda. they are tired of waiting. and right now they have two presidential candidates who are promising a different way of doing things. donald trump is running to be a strongman. it<u+2019>s all about him <u+201c>getting the job done<u+201d> because he<u+2019>s smarter and tougher than everyone else. (this is a familiar archetype and trump<u+2019>s specific relationship to it is fascinatingly explored in this piece by rick perlstein, called<u+00a0><u+201c>donald trump and the f-word.<u+201d>) ben carson is a little bit more complicated. he<u+2019>s running as a quasi-religious leader who will be able to overcome all these obstacles through the same miraculous process that has characterized his life story. (the recent questions about some details of that very famous life story have only resulted in adding martyrdom to his mystique.) in both cases, the people who like them are not merely<u+00a0>attracted to the fact that these men are outsiders, but also by qualities that will ostensibly allow them to transcend the normal process of democratic government. despite their professions of love for the constitution, these voters no longer believe in the system of government that constitution sets forth. it<u+2019>s still possible that these voters are simply <u+201c>sending a message<u+201d> to the powers that be, telling them that they are at the ends of their ropes. that<u+2019>s certainly what<u+00a0>the establishment hopes is happening: republicans like cullen, who says he cannot support trump, carson or cruz, say it<u+2019>s still early, and the party will rally behind they types of candidates it<u+2019>s nominated in the past. <u+201c>some of these guys still look like summer love affairs to me, even if we<u+2019>re well into the fall now,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>i still think voters will want look to take the polished young man home that they can show off to mom and dad.<u+201d> that courtly tone sounds as out of place in the trump era as if he were speaking elizabethan english. these republican voters have been listening to talk radio and watching fox news and reading thousands of tea party emails for years and they want a man of action. when they talk about revolution it<u+2019>s not the white wigged american style. they<u+2019>re thinking of something much more <u+201c>top-down.<u+201d>

gop voters want an apocalypse: the truth about trump & carson<u+2019>s success

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

3.0

71.0

8.0

6884.0

0.0

407.0

1.0

0.0

162.0

0.0

91.0

5.0

17.0

5.0

11.0

12.0

9.0

6.0

31.0

22.0

47.0

407.0

163.0

91.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

west des moines, iowa (cnn) donald trump had every reason to feel optimistic monday. his poll numbers were up; he had secured two prominent endorsements in the space of a week; and even the weather seemed to be cooperating, with a snowstorm coming in from the west expected to hold off until after midnight. and then, he lost, coming in second to ted cruz trump spent january in full-on attack mode against cruz. trump questioned whether cruz qualifies as a "natural-born citizen" eligible to serve as president. he went after the evangelical vote, winning the endorsement of liberty university president jerry falwell, jr., but didn't back up the appeals with a ground game. and then he sat out the final debate, opting for a rally across town at the same time. he acknowledged tuesday that may have backfired. "i think some people were disappointed that i didn't go into the debate," trump said in new hampshire. trump and his advisers don't have too much time to figure out what went wrong. with cruz's win and marco rubio's much stronger-than-expected finish monday night, trump now urgently confronts the danger of the florida senator chipping away at his establishment backing in upcoming contests. the second-place finish should serve as a serious reality check for his campaign, which is in large part based on bucking the traditional rules of campaigning and political engagement. then again, nothing about trump is conventional. "people didn't talk about my second place," trump said tuesday night. "they didn't talk about it as positively as they should have." in the air but not on the ground there was nothing traditional about trump's campaign style in iowa. the trump campaign remained tight-lipped about its efforts to get voters out, sharing little to nothing about its grassroots and volunteer efforts on the ground. the campaign swatted away reports of a lackluster ground game, insisting that its supporters in iowa would turn out in the end because they were so eager to elect a non-traditional candidate like trump. it was only in the final stretch that trump showed minimal interest in retail politics. he began holding more than one event a day. in january, he made his first stop at a pizza ranch -- the famous restaurant chain that is a favorite among presidential candidates. trump even slept at a holiday inn in one of his final weekends in the state. the texas senator crisscrossed the state, ultimately completing the "full grassley" by visiting all 99 counties in the state. his campaign developed a massive grassroots operation, that according to the campaign 12,000 volunteers fanned out cross the state knocking on doors and making phone calls. it also recruited dozens of pastors and county chairs. rubio, in the meantime, came on and surprised everyone at the end. after thursday's debate, there were rumblings of a rubio rise, which were tamped down by the des moines register poll released two days before the caucuses that showed the florida senator in the mid-teens, far ahead of of the others in the establishment lane like chris christie and jeb bush, but still significantly behind trump and cruz. hundreds of rubio volunteers made phone calls to undecided voters in the days leading up to the caucuses, according to campaign aides. during those calls, they found that a good number of trump supporters -- some frustrated with the businessman's decision to skip last week's fox debate -- were switching over to rubio. trump had an improbable run as the national front-runner for most of the summer and fall. then, in december, he started to trail cruz in iowa for the first time. up until that point, the two men had refused to attack one another, seeming to believe that voters would find a messy mud-wrestling match distasteful. but at the first sign of losing ground to cruz here, trump swiftly reversed course. trump also jabbed at cruz's anti-establishment credentials, wondering out loud why the senator had failed to disclose large loans from goldman sachs and citibank for his senate campaign. "the truth is, he's a nasty guy," trump said in an interview on abc's "this week." "nobody likes him. nobody in congress likes him. nobody likes him anywhere once they get to know him." cruz, who has tried to stay close to trump without antagonizing the billionaire, finally hit back, calling his rival a man of "new york values" and blasting his support for eminent domain. even then, cruz and his allies seemed much more conflicted about the strategy and wary that it could backfire. prior to running for president, trump had a reputation for being many things: a ruthless, litigious businessman; a colorful reality television star; the ultimate manhattan socialite. it wasn't exactly the image of a bible reading, church-going family man. but on the stump, the gop frontrunner sought to sand down those rough edges. two consecutive sundays before the iowa caucuses, trump attended morning church services in the state, even breaking from his usual practice of returning to new york city every night to sleep in his own bed. all of this has been a part of trump's months-long and intensifying campaign to win over evangelicals in iowa -- a sizable and influential constituency with real power to sway the outcome of the caucuses. that outreach became all the more critical when cruz -- the favorite among hawkeye state evangelical christians -- bypassed trump in the polls for the first time in december. cleveland pastor darrell scott, a trump backer who spearheaded an effort to coalesce african-american pastors around the candidate, said it was difficult to overstate the importance of these endorsements. palin "brings a lot of evangelical support with her. then jerry falwell jr. was the icing on the cake," he said. a religious leader like falwell in particular, scott said, was key to convincing undecided voters and on-the-fence churchgoers. "in christianity, the sheep tends to follow their shepherd. they will trust the wisdom and trust the decision of their pastor," scott said. "so when my pastor thinks highly of him to endorse him, there must be something there." ahead of last week's gop debate, trump's long-running feud with fox news was back in full force. the billionaire publicly grumbled about debate moderator megyn kelly, saying if she couldn't treat him fairly, he may skip the event altogether -- not the first time he had threatened to boycott a debate. "we learned from a secret back channel that the ayatollah and putin both intend to treat donald trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president," the network's statement read. "a nefarious source tells us that trump has his own secret plan to replace the cabinet with his twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings." instead, less than three miles down the road from the debate, trump held a rivaling event to benefit wounded veterans. the venue was filled to capacity; political reporters were suddenly split between covering the trump event and the debate; and the candidate boasted that he had raised nearly $6 million for veterans in a matter of hours. but while trump pulled off a political feat in only the way that trump can, it was clear that the decision rubbed some iowans the wrong way. after all, voters in the hawkeye state take their responsibly of being first seriously, and the debate that trump skipped was the final -- and critically important -- debate ahead of the caucuses. steve ziller was one of the 29% that disapproved. a farmer from belmond, ziller was undecided between trump and cruz when he attended a trump rally in clear lake on january 9th. soon after that event, ziller said he made the decision to support trump. but that decision quickly got undone when trump skipped the debate. "i just think if he's elected president, he's going to have a lot more tougher issues than dealing with a female reporter from fox," ziller told cnn the day before the caucuses. "if he would have showed up to the debate and had a good debate, i would have been a 100% for trump." on caucus night, ziller ultimately chose to back trump. but it wasn't an easy call. asked whether the decision was difficult, ziller responded: "very."

donald trump's lost month in iowa

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

5.0

33.0

8.0

8249.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

537.0

0.0

187.0

0.0

63.0

16.0

24.0

11.0

14.0

16.0

15.0

12.0

45.0

35.0

55.0

539.0

187.0

63.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

france's bid to unite the world against the islamic state was always going to be difficult. turkey's shooting down of a russian fighter jet shows why. could the juvenile suspects in the tennessee wildfires be tried as adults? a deputy commander in a rebel syrian turkmen brigade holds handles believed to be parts of a parachute of the downed russian warplane near the village of yamadi, syria, near the turkish border on tuesday. turkey shot down a russian warplane near the syrian border on tuesday saying it had repeatedly violated its airspace. turkey<u+2019>s shoot-down of a russian fighter jet that it says strayed into its airspace from syria tuesday demonstrates why building a broad international coalition to destroy the self-proclaimed islamic state is so difficult. well over a year after president obama announced creation of a coalition of more than 50 countries designed to <u+201c>degrade and ultimately destroy<u+201d> is, also known as isis, there still is no effective alliance of major powers. now french president fran<u+00e7>ois hollande, who was at the white house tuesday and will be in russia friday, has made building a coalition his goal in the wake of the paris attacks. but the same challenge remains: the major players deeply mistrust one another<u+2019>s intentions and visions for a post-islamic state syria. <u+201c>it was never going to be easy to build a coalition against isis, given the complicated relations and competing alliances around the syrian conflict," says barry strauss, a military historian at cornell university in ithaca, n.y.<u+00a0><u+201c>but clearly an event of this seriousness between russia and turkey will only make that effort more difficult.<u+201d> turkey and russia exemplify the complex and often contradictory motives that mr. hollande will try to manage. the anti-is coalition<u+00a0>supposedly has similar aims to turkey<u+2019>s: the removal from power of syrian president bashar al-assad as a key step toward reducing is's allure for syrian sunnis. but it<u+00a0>took months of sustained diplomatic effort for the<u+00a0>united states to bring turkey on board. even now, the differences between the us and turkey remain pronounced. from the us perspective, perhaps the most effective fighters against is have been syrian and iraqi kurds <u+2013> so much so that the us has sent special operations forces to the region to help them. but turkey has a large kurdish population and worries that empowering kurds anywhere in the region might create trouble at home. in fact,<u+00a0>turkey has been <u+201c>friendlier towards isis than russia<u+201d> because of turkey<u+2019>s satisfaction with the setbacks that is has dealt syria<u+2019>s kurdish rebels. similarly, many countries in the region "find isis useful to have around and are in no rush to get rid of it" because it is virulently anti-shiite, professor strauss notes. in that way, is acts "as a counterbalance to iran and the shiite parties in the region." for its part, russia says it entered the syrian conflict to defeat syria<u+2019>s <u+201c>terrorists,<u+201d> but analysts say its airstrikes in syria have focused on assad<u+2019>s opponents. only about a quarter have been against is, experts say. for those reasons, getting turkey and russia on the same page for destroying is <u+2013> a priority for neither <u+2013> was always going to be difficult. after the russian jet shoot-down, the task will be even harder when<u+00a0>hollande meets with russian president vladimir putin friday. mr. putin called the downing of the russian jet a <u+201c>stab in the back<u+201d> carried out by <u+201c>accomplices of terrorists,<u+201d> and he warned that the perpetrators of the <u+201c>crime<u+201d> will face <u+201c>serious consequences.<u+201d> russia canceled foreign minister sergey lavrov's visit to turkey wednesday, while nato called an emergency meeting of alliance ambassadors tuesday afternoon. tuesday<u+2019>s incident was the first shoot-down of a russian aircraft by a nato country since the 1950s, officials said. russia insists the fighter jet did not stray outside syria, while turkish officials said the jet was warned 10 times to turn back from its trajectory into turkish airspace. mr. obama called on russia, turkey, and nato countries to <u+201c>discourage any escalation,<u+201d> but also asserted that <u+201c>turkey, like every country, has the right to defend its territory and its airspace.<u+201d> russia is likely to look at the aftermath of the incident as validation that all groups arrayed against assad are terrorists.<u+00a0>a video released following the shoot-down shows syrian turkmen rebels claiming to have shot dead two russian pilots as they parachuted to the ground. a separate incident further illustrates the<u+00a0>difficulty of building a united anti-is coalition that includes russia.<u+00a0>a group of syrian rebels armed by the us claims to have damaged a russian military helicopter, forcing it to make an emergency landing in syrian government-held territory. yet strauss says perhaps<u+00a0>the more formidable impediment to an effective coalition is the widespread ambiguity in the region toward the islamic state. the region<u+2019>s sunni powers <u+201c>may worry about isis in the long term, but to some extent they see its usefulness in the short term,<u+201d> he says. that calculation does not fit with western powers that <u+2013> now more than ever <u+2013><u+00a0>want to see is<u+2019>s demise "sooner rather than later."

from downed russian jet, hard lessons about destroying islamic state

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

22.0

68.0

8.0

5185.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

412.0

0.0

76.0

0.0

46.0

13.0

9.0

4.0

27.0

4.0

12.0

6.0

13.0

29.0

25.0

417.0

76.0

46.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the gop presidential race seems to have come down to just two men: donald trump and sen. ted cruz, r-texas. but polling shows the candidate with the best chance of beating democratic front-runner hillary clinton is ohio gov. john kasich. even after his loss in wisconsin to cruz, trump remains the leader for the gop nomination. barring something unexpected, trump should be the delegate leader going to the gop convention. meanwhile, both men want ohio gov. john kasich to drop out because they believe they can win his delegates. trump for his part argues that kasich has lost every race so far except his home state of ohio. "here's the problem with kasich. first of all, i think he happens to take votes away from me<u+2026> i don't think he should be staying," the real estate mogul said. but even though he's a very distant third in delegates, kasich is still polling the best against clinton, the likely democratic nominee. trump's weakness is not only a high unfavorable rating - above 60 percent -<u+00a0> but that polls have shown he has trailed clinton in 11 of 12 target states that will determine the outcome in november. according to realclearpolitics poll averages, trump does the worst against clinton, with the former state secretary leading him by an average of nearly 11. the third-place gop candidate, kasich, does best, leading clinton by six, while cruz trails her by three. meanwhile, kasich has shown no sign he's ready to roll over. "donald trump said i need to get out of the race because i am getting his voters. well, i've got news for him <u+2013> i am going to get a heck of a lot of his voters," the ohio governor told supporters. but how accurate is the polling that shows kasich would do the best against clinton? karlyn bowman, a public opinion analyst at the american enterprise institute, cautions that these polls aren't necessarily accurate because it's still a long way until the november election. "polls have very little predictive value about national contests at this early stage," she said. "they usually aren't very reliable until about 100 days out from a campaign." but none of that is stopping the feisty kasich. he may be way down in the delegate numbers, but he's still spoiling for a fight. "i'm not a marshmallow or a pin cushion. you wanna take a whack at me? let's get it on," he said. sources say kasich's strategy is to remain alive until a contested convention, hoping for 500 delegates or more, and then win over the other convention delegates with a positive message. as crazy as it sounds, some republican insiders have said kasich just might be able to pull it off.

who's got the best chance against clinton? it's not who you think<u+2026>

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

66.0

8.0

2622.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

176.0

1.0

0.0

51.0

1.0

0.0

15.0

5.0

6.0

3.0

8.0

2.0

7.0

4.0

12.0

13.0

17.0

180.0

52.0

16.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

two historic events are in progress today, august 14. the first is the arrival of secretary of state john kerry in cuba. the second is president obama<u+2019>s continued campaign to secure congressional approval for his flawed nuclear deal with iran. these two dangerous developments represent the convergence of nearly every flawed strategic, moral, and economic notion that has driven president obama<u+2019>s foreign policy, and as such are emblematic of so many of the crises he has worsened around the world. to fully understand what we<u+2019>re dealing with in regards to iran and cuba, we have to understand who we<u+2019>re dealing with. in iran, we face radical shia clerics who wish to one day unite the world under their version of islam and who believe this will only happen after a cataclysmic showdown with the west. these leaders have been directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of americans and refuse to stop financing terrorists that seek to kill americans and wipe israel off the map. in cuba, we face proudly anti-american leaders who continue to work with nations like russia and china to spy on our people and government; who harbor fugitives from american justice; and who stand in opposition to nearly every value our nation holds dear by violating the basic human rights of their own people, preventing democratic elections, and depriving their nation<u+2019>s economy of freedom and opportunity. centuries of global affairs tell us the best way to affect an outcome with volatile leaders is through strength and example, while the worst is through weakness and concession. yet weakness and concession are the preferred tools of statecraft for this administration. president obama has not only permitted iran to retain its entire existing nuclear infrastructure, he has also endorsed the construction of a full-scale, industrial-size nuclear program within 15 years. he has conceded a vast enrichment capacity, preserved iran<u+2019>s fortified underground facility, and failed to secure <u+201c>anytime, anywhere<u+201d> inspections. he has virtually guaranteed iran becomes a regional power with the ability to build long-range missiles capable of hitting the u.s. homeland. and on top of all this, he wants to hand iran $100 billion in sanctions relief, which will be used in part to fund hamas and hezbollah, promote instability in bahrain and yemen, and prop up bashar al-assad in syria. the negotiations with cuba have proven equally one-sided. president obama has rewarded the castro regime for its repressive tactics and persistent, patient opposition to american interests. he has unilaterally given up on a half-century worth of policy toward the castro regime that was agreed upon by presidents of both parties. he has ensured the regime will receive international legitimacy and a substantial economic boost to benefit its repression of the cuban people, which has only increased since the president announced his new policy. beginning on day one, i will undertake a three-part plan to roll back president obama<u+2019>s deal with iran. first, i will quickly reimpose sanctions on iran. i will give the mullahs a choice: either you have an economy or you have a nuclear program, but you cannot have both. i will also ask congress to pass crushing new measures that target human rights abuses and the sponsorship of terrorism.<u+00a0> second, i will ensure our forces in the middle east are positioned to signal readiness and restore a credible military option. third, after imposing crippling sanctions on iran, i will link any talks to iran<u+2019>s broader conduct, from human rights abuses to support for terrorism and threats against israel. i will undertake an equally bold plan to roll back president obama<u+2019>s concessions to the castro regime. first, on day one, i will give the castros a choice: either continue repressing your people and lose the diplomatic relations provided by president obama, or carry out meaningful political and human rights reforms and receive increased u.s. trade, investment, and support.<u+00a0> second, i will restore cuba to the state sponsor of terror list until it stops supporting designated foreign terrorist organizations, helping north korea evade international sanctions, or harboring fugitives from american justice. third, i will do everything in my power to provide support to cuba<u+2019>s pro-democracy movement and promote greater access to uncensored information for the cuban people. these are the actions required to restore the safety and security president obama has cost us through his diplomacy with dictators. when it comes to the challenges posed by iran and cuba, our task is straightforward <u+2013> we must prevent iran from gaining a nuclear weapon and we must guarantee that the united states stands on the cuban people, not their oppressors. but we also know that 'straightforward' is not a synonym for 'easy.' our safety and security will require what it has always required: strong, principled leadership. and that is exactly what i intend to offer our nation and the world in the years ahead. republican marco rubio represents florida in the u.s. senate. he is a member of the senate committee on commerce, science and transportation and was a candidate for the republican nomination for president in 2016.

rubio: obama's diplomacy with dictators threatens america's safety, security

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

76.0

8.0

5233.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

392.0

0.0

70.0

2.0

0.0

44.0

7.0

15.0

8.0

14.0

4.0

3.0

36.0

16.0

52.0

399.0

70.0

46.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the big idea:<u+00a0>hillary clinton and donald trump each reluctantly backed down last night on major things that threatened to derail their campaigns. the clinton foundation announced it will no longer accept donations from corporations or foreign entities if hillary is elected president. bill clinton told foundation staff that the final meeting of the clinton global initiative will be held next month, and he announced that he will stop giving paid speeches. <u+201c>the former president, who turns 70 on friday, said he will resign from the board, and the foundation will only accept contributions from u.s. citizens and independent charities,<u+201d> according to the ap<u+2019>s ken thomas, who broke the story. meanwhile, trump expressed remorse for the first time since he got into the race 14 months ago. <u+201c>sometimes in the heat of debate, and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don't choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. i have done that," the republican nominee, reading from a teleprompter, said during a rally in charlotte. <u+201c>and believe it or not, i regret it. i do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain.<u+201d> -- both candidates are extraordinarily reluctant to ever acknowledge wrongdoing, even tacitly, because they believe doing so projects weakness. this is why last night was so remarkable and may represent a true pivot point in the race. think about clinton<u+2019>s evolving explanations for her private email server through the 2016 cycle and her defense of her support for the iraq war during the 2008 race (it took her until 2014 to say a 2002 vote was a mistake). there are literally dozens of examples of trump hurting himself by refusing to admit that he went too far. think about his attacks on gold star parents khizr and ghazala khan, john <u+201c>not a war hero<u+201d> mccain, judge gonzalo curiel and ted cruz<u+2019>s father rafael (whom he claimed was with lee harvey oswald shortly before john f. kennedy<u+2019>s assassination). he also declined to express regret after mocking a reporter with a disability and calling mexican immigrants rapists. -- hillary has now implicitly acknowledged that the clinton foundation is a major liability to her campaign, regardless of her campaign<u+2019>s spin and inevitable denials.<u+00a0><u+201c>the decision comes amid mounting criticism of how the foundation operated during her tenure as secretary of state, potentially allowing donors to seek special access through her government post,<u+201d> abby phillip and rosalind s. helderman report. donald, a former donor to the group, often accuses hillary of engaging in <u+201c>pay-to-play<u+201d> practices. in particular, he says the $25 million the foundation took from saudi arabia undercuts his opponent<u+2019>s rhetoric on women<u+2019>s rights. but he<u+2019>s inconsistent about his messaging. he also often levels unsubstantiated charges that overshadow any accurate lines of attack and make it easier for the war room in brooklyn to push back by muddying the water. a traditional gop opponent, running a disciplined campaign and spending meaningful money on negative tv ads, could probably more effectively use the clinton foundation as a bludgeon to depict hrc as a shady shakedown artist who looks out more for her rich cronies and deep-pocketed foreigners than working-class americans struggling to catch a break. -- message testing and focus groups, including those conducted by democrats, have shown there are some particularly potent (and totally true) lines of attack. among them: -- <u+201c>there is no evidence that hillary clinton or her top aides completed ethics training when they started at the state department, as required by federal law,<u+201d> mcclatchy<u+2019>s anita kumar reported yesterday. <u+201c>state department records show only three of nine top clinton aides took the mandated training for new employees. records also suggest that none of seven top aides required to take subsequent annual training completed it. no records indicate whether clinton herself took any training. many of the aides still work for clinton.<u+2026> clinton<u+2019>s campaign did not respond to questions<u+2026><u+201d> -- clinton has been getting hammered in the court of elite opinion. the post<u+2019>s editorial board lamented <u+201c>the porous ethical wall<u+201d> between the foundation and the state department in a sunday editorial: <u+201c>as secretary, she pledged to keep her official world and her family<u+2019>s foundation separate, and she failed to keep them separate enough. such sloppiness would not be acceptable in the white house.<u+201d> a tuesday editorial in the boston globe that went further, calling for the clinton foundation to shut down altogether, went viral. <u+201c>it<u+2019>d be impossible to keep the foundation open without at least the appearance of a problem,<u+201d> former pennsylvania governor<u+00a0>ed rendell, a close clinton ally, told the new york daily news last week. -- last night showed that kellyanne conway is now calling the shots. in covering this week<u+2019>s shake-up, the 202 has primarily focused on breitbart executive stephen bannon becoming the campaign<u+2019>s chief executive and probably has given insufficient attention to conway taking over as manager. conway is a pollster who specializes in helping conservative men reach out to women. in early july, she told our danielle paquette that she didn<u+2019>t like trump<u+2019>s name-calling and said she really wants him to avoid criticizing people<u+2019>s looks and mental capacity. <u+201c>maybe,<u+201d> she said, <u+201c>it<u+2019>s just the mother in me.<u+201d> (the full piece is worth rereading.) we<u+2019>ve written a lot about bannon<u+2019>s push to let trump be trump, but clearly conway is trying to talk some political sense into the candidate and explaining how much his insult-laden approach has damaged his standing with the women who will decide this election. -- but there are many reasons to doubt the sincerity of trump<u+2019>s 11th-hour conversion. he<u+2019>s clearly desperate to turn around his sinking campaign, and he did not specify last night what he was apologizing for, or to whom. and just like the man who faux apologizes to his wife by saying <u+201c>i<u+2019>m sorry you<u+2019>re mad,<u+201d> trump at one point couched his penchant for divisive rhetoric by saying, <u+201c>sometimes i can be too honest.<u+201d> was he being <u+201c>too honest<u+201d> when he laced into mccain, curiel and the khans? trump has until very recently refused to express any regret for what he said about them. what changed? -- it was the third time in the past four days that trump read a speech off a teleprompter, a practice he once routinely mocked. he clearly did not write the words he uttered. the language and tone sounded nothing like him. -- the humility he expressed last night is part of a broader and renewed effort to rebrand trump as more <u+201c>presidential,<u+201d> jose a. delreal, robert costa and jenna johnson report. that effort will continue today with a trip to louisiana to tour flooded areas. -- conway said on cnn yesterday that trump will finally begin preparing for the first debate this weekend, evidence that the candidate recognizes he must deliver a command performance to keep his hopes alive. -- how long can this last? we still believe that the 70-year-old is, at heart, fundamentally incapable of changing. it is hard to imagine him going on some kind of apology tour and becoming self-disciplined in a sustained way. he<u+2019>s plainly happiest when he<u+2019>s feuding with someone and putting down others. while you were sleeping: -- trump<u+2019>s first tv ad of the general election, which will begin airing today, focuses on immigration. the campaign says it will spend $4.8 million to air the 30-second spot over the next 10 days in four states.<u+00a0><u+201c>in hillary clinton<u+2019>s america,<u+201d> a narrator says, <u+201c>the system stays rigged against americans, syrian refugees flood in, illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes get to stay, collecting social security benefits, skipping the line. our border open. it<u+2019>s more of the same, but worse. donald trump<u+2019>s america is secure. terrorists and dangerous criminals: kept out, the border secured. our families safe. change that makes america safe again.<u+201d> (nbc<u+00a0>breaks<u+00a0>down<u+00a0>the buy:<u+00a0>$1.44 million in florida, $716k in ohio, $984k in pennsylvania, and $838k in north carolina. this<u+00a0>pales in comparison to the $61 million spent so far by clinton<u+2019>s campaign.)<u+00a0>watch it here: -- mike pence filed his personal financial disclosure with the fec last night. <u+201c>as americans can clearly see, the pence family has not enriched themselves from their public service,<u+201d> spokesman marc lotter said, adding that <u+201c>the governor will release his tax returns in the near future.<u+201d> (see the pfd here.) lochte embarrasses all of us: -- brazilian police said ryan lochte fabricated<u+00a0>his story of being robbed at gunpoint alongside other u.s. swimmers, though authorities acknowledged<u+00a0>that the foursome did have a gun pulled on them <u+2014><u+00a0>by a security guard <u+2014><u+00a0>after reportedly damaging<u+00a0>property at a gas station in rio. from dave sheinin, dom phillips and joshua partlow: an official<u+00a0>apology:<u+00a0>overnight,<u+00a0>the u.s. olympic committee issued a statement that acknowledged a version of events that involved an argument spurred by "an act of vandalism"<u+00a0>committed by "one of the athletes."<u+00a0>the statement concluded by saying, "we apologize to our hosts in rio and the people of brazil for this distracting ordeal in the midst of what should rightly be a celebration of excellence." an attorney for jimmy feigen said he will pay more than $10,000 to a brazilian charity to leave the country. under brazilian law, his attorney said, a donation can be made to avoid criminal prosecution. he did not say what charge was potentially facing feigen. (matt bonesteel) lochte remains<u+00a0>in the u.s., having left rio on tuesday, and teammates gunnar bentz and<u+00a0>jack conger were cleared to leave last night. -- what really happened?<u+00a0>the incident appears to have stemmed from a drunken pit stop at a gas station bathroom<u+00a0>around 6 a.m: "surveillance footage ...<u+00a0>appears to show at least one of the swimmers <u+2026> pull off the metal door to the bathroom. in the video ...<u+00a0>gas station employees observe the athletes, then escort them out of the bathroom. in another clip, from a different camera angle, the athletes quickly seat themselves on the ground and raise their hands, as if ordered by a person with a gun." the police chief confirmed a guard had produced a firearm to <u+201c>contain<u+201d> the swimmers so they could not leave without paying damages. <u+201c>the firearm was used in a situation in which they were contained. when they were contained the firearm was put away,<u+201d> he said. -- <u+201c>brazilians have reacted with anger and indignation at an apparently false crime report that only served to boost the perception of rio de janeiro as a lawless, chaotic city that was unprepared to host an olympics.<u+201d> the city police chief said lochte and the others owed rio an apology for having <u+201c>stained<u+201d> the city <u+201c>for a fantasy.<u+201d> <u+201c>as the american swimmers left the police station thursday evening, they were swarmed by a crowd of journalists amid shouts of <u+2018>liars<u+2019> by some, in english.<u+201d> -- the post<u+2019>s sally jenkins eviscerates lochte as <u+201c>the dumbest bell that ever rang<u+201d> in a spot-on<u+00a0>column: <u+201c>two things are going on here: lochte<u+2019>s self-promoting prevarications and the sensitivity of rio authorities, who have been portrayed as incapable of keeping athletes safe amid other olympic breakdowns. there have been a lot of genuine robberies of olympic athletes and officials. the police need to show that fears are overstated and these games are secure <u+2014> though they are not, particularly <u+2014> and the stupid americans offered them something with which to save face. lochte<u+2019>s conceit intersected with a delicate political issue, and it made a perfect storm. his claim to nbc that men posing as police pulled over the taxi and he heroically resisted the robbers with a gun pressed to his forehead was an especially ludicrous detail <u+2014> and the very thing that drew the attention of authorities, who know full well that anyone who defies a bandit in rio gets shot on the spot, and they don<u+2019>t leave you with your cellphone. lochte<u+2019>s done as a public figure, of course. which is probably the most effective form of justice for someone who apparently so craves attention. oblivion is what he deserves.<u+201d> -- how it's playing in the tabloids: -- one of the things that makes the<u+00a0>lochte mess so frustrating is that it overshadows the amazing performances by the upstanding<u+00a0>americans<u+00a0>who keep crushing it on the field. the<u+00a0>u.s. has now reached triple-digit medal status.<u+00a0>we<u+2019>re officially at 100 <u+2013> with 35 gold, 33 silver, and 32 bronze. china and britain continue their battle for second place, with china squeezing out britain with just a two-medal lead (58 to 56.) check out the post<u+2019>s live medal count here. -- the u.s. women<u+2019>s 4x100 relay team got a second shot at advancing to the gold-medal round, after filing a protest over a dropped baton between sprinters allyson felix and english gardner. officials agreed that a brazilian team had interfered with the handoff,<u+00a0>the americans<u+00a0>got to rerun the race later <u+2013> alone on the track <u+2013> <u+201c>an odd scene,<u+201d> des bieler notes, but one that ultimately scored them the best time of the entire day. -- kerron clement won gold for the u.s. in the men<u+2019>s 400m hurdles.<u+00a0>and dalilah muhammad did the same for the women<u+2019>s team <u+2013> becoming the first american female to ever<u+00a0>win gold in the race. (teammate ashley spencer also netted a third-place finish.) -- helen maroulis became<u+00a0>the first american woman to earn a wrestling gold medal, beating out a legendary three-time olympic champion from japan. -- university of virginia runner robby andrews qualified for the men<u+2019>s 1500m finals <u+2013> but was subsequently disqualified <u+2013> after he stepped off the track. -- usain bolt soared to victory in his last individual race of the rio games, winning his third gold medal in the men<u+2019>s 200m by a wide margin. he<u+2019>ll now compete in the men<u+2019>s 4x100m relay friday, potentially earning him a <u+201c>triple-triple<u+201d> sweep and a tie with american carl lewis and paavo nurmi of finland for the most career olympic gold medals in track and field. (mark giannotto) -- ivanka trump<u+2019>s brother-in-law<u+00a0>will not vote<u+00a0>for trump,<u+00a0>according to a new esquire profile:<u+00a0>through a spokesman, the magazine's vicky ward wrote, josh<u+00a0>kushner "said that he loved his brother and did not want to say anything that might embarrass him. nevertheless, the spokesman also said that josh is a lifelong democrat and will not be voting for trump in november." -- trump spokeswoman katrina pierson, on live television, accused clinton of a rare brain disease with which she has never been diagnosed: <u+201c>what's new are the other reports of the observations of [clinton's] behavior and mannerisms, specifically with what you just showed in those previous clips, as well as her dysphasia, the fact that she's fallen, she has had a concussion,<u+201d> pierson charged on msnbc. (dysphasia is defined as the "loss of or deficiency in the power to use or understand language as a result of injury to or disease of the brain.") pierson<u+2019>s accusations come after clinton<u+2019>s campaign has refuted the conspiracy theories, releasing multiple fact-checking articles and a statement from clinton<u+2019>s doctor saying she is in excellent health. "it's something that needs to be addressed," pierson continued. "she's taken a lot of time off the campaign trail." (aaron blake) -- gov. scott walker pushed back on trump ally roger stone<u+2019>s allegations that he and <u+201c>the reince priebus machine<u+201d> rigged <u+201c>as many as five elections<u+201d> in wisconsin, dishing out a rare moment of snark when asked about the longtime trump confidante. <u+201c>apparently that<u+2019>s what the long-term effect is of legalizing marijuana in the district of columbia,<u+201d> he quipped. (wisconsin state journal) -- david a. fahrenthold has the latest on trump<u+2019>s dubious claims of charitable giving <u+2013> this time on his nbc show <u+201c>the apprentice<u+201d>: <u+201c>for trump, <u+2018>the apprentice<u+2019> <u+2014> and later, <u+2018>the celebrity apprentice<u+2019> <u+2014> helped reestablish him as a national figure, after his fall into debt and corporate bankruptcies in the 1990s. on-screen, trump was a wise, tough businessman. and, at times, a kind<u+00ad>hearted philanthropist <u+2014> willing to give away thousands on a whim. on-air, trump seemed to be explicit that this wasn<u+2019>t tv fakery: the money he was giving was his own. <u+2018>out of my wallet,<u+2019> trump said in one case. <u+2018>out of my own account,<u+2019> he said in another. but, when the cameras were off, the payments came from other people<u+2019>s money.<u+201d> the post tracked all the <u+201c>personal<u+201d> gifts that trump promised on the show but could not confirm a single case in which trump actually sent a gift from his own pocket. in 2012, trump became more generous on the air <u+2013> giving six $10,000 donations in a single episode, in one example. his gifts brought one insult comedian to tears. but a mystery remained: what happened in 2012 to make trump so much more generous on the air? <u+201c>in the tax records of the trump foundation <u+2026> there is no record of a donation from trump himself in 2012. but, in 2012, the trump foundation<u+2019>s records show a large gift from nbc, the network that aired the show. that was more than enough to cover all the foundation<u+2019>s gifts to <u+2018>celebrity apprentice<u+2019> contestants<u+2019> charities, both before 2012 and since. for nbc, trump<u+2019>s <u+2018>personal<u+2019> donations made for better tv <u+2026> [giving] uplifting notes to the <u+2018>firings<u+2019> and [burnishing] the reputation of trump, the show<u+2019>s star. did nbc give trump<u+2019>s foundation money, so that trump could appear to be more generous on-camera?<u+201d> -- tom hamburger, dana priest and andrew roth have the backstory on how trump's campaign chairman<u+00a0>revived his career <u+2013> and his business fortunes <u+2013> in ukraine: <u+201c>manafort<u+2019>s 2005 entry into ukrainian politics and finances came when he signed on as an adviser to the steel magnate rinat akhmetov, one of ukraine<u+2019>s richest oligarchs and a key supporter of yanukovych and the party of regions <u+2026> manafort<u+2019>s first job was to burnish the local and international reputation of a company owned by akhmetov based in the russian-speaking industrial donetsk region. over time, manafort<u+2019>s role with the party expanded.<u+201d> <u+201c>as manafort built a political consulting practice in ukraine, he also developed financial connections with wealthy figures in the region, some of whom face ongoing scrutiny from the justice department. <u+2026> in 2008, he tried to develop an $850 million manhattan luxury apartment project with dmitry firtash, a ukrainian energy tycoon with a history of legal trouble. u.s. prosecutors charged firtash in 2013 with money-laundering and bribery <u+2026> in another business venture, oleg deripaska, a russian aluminum magnate, accused manafort in a court in the cayman islands of taking nearly $19 million intended for investments, then not accounting for the money.<u+201d> manafort insisted he had cut his ties with his ukrainian client in 2014. but former colleagues however, say he continued to work for the party, and was seen in the country as recently as october. -- "ukraine releases more details on payments for trump aide,<u+201d> from the new york times: <u+201c>the ukrainian authorities, under pressure to bolster their assertion that once-secret accounting documents show cash payments from a pro-russian political party earmarked for manafort, on thursday released line-item entries, some for millions of dollars. the former party member, vitaly a. kalyuzhny, for a time chairman of the ukraine parliament<u+2019>s international relations committee, had signed nine times for receipt of payments designated for ...<u+00a0>manafort, according to serhiy a. leshchenko, a member of parliament who has studied the documents. the ledger covered payments from 2007 to 2012, when mr. manafort worked for the party and its leader, viktor f. yanukovych, ukraine<u+2019>s former president who was deposed.<u+201d> -- trump advisers waged covert influence campaign,<u+201d> by the ap's jeff horwitz and chad day: <u+201c>a firm run by trump's campaign chairman directly orchestrated a covert washington lobbying operation on behalf of ukraine's ruling political party, attempting to sway american public opinion in favor of the country's pro-russian government.<u+00a0>manafort and his deputy, rick gates, never disclosed their work as foreign agents as required under federal law. the lobbying included attempts to gain positive press coverage of ukrainian officials in [the nyt, wsj, and the ap]. another goal: undercutting american public sympathy for the imprisoned rival of ukraine's then-president. <u+201c>the emails appear to contradict the assertion that the nonprofit's lobbying campaign operated independently from manafort's firm. in papers filed in the u.s. senate, mercury and the podesta group listed the european nonprofit as an independent, nonpolitical client. the firms said the center stated in writing that it was not aligned with any foreign political entity. the emails show that gates personally directed two washington lobbying firms <u+2026> to set up meetings between a top ukrainian official and senators and congressmen on influential committees involving ukrainian interests. gates noted in the emails that <u+2026> ukraine's foreign minister, did not want to use his own embassy in the united states to help coordinate the visits. and gates directed efforts to undercut sympathy for yulia tymoshenko, an imprisoned rival of then-president viktor yanukovych.<u+201d> more fallout from<u+00a0>the breitbart-ization of the gop: -- former breitbart news spokesman kurt bardella slammed stephen<u+00a0>bannon for regularly disparaging minorities, women and immigrants <u+2013> saying editorial meetings for the publication often sounded <u+201c>like a white supremacist rally.<u+201d> <u+201c>this is someone who has a very low moral compass,<u+201d> he said on abc<u+2019>s <u+201c>powerhouse politics<u+201d> podcast, <u+201c>and the idea that this is the type of person that donald trump, as the republican nominee, as president, would have closest to him is very disturbing.<u+201d> -- bannon<u+2019>s ascension to the post of trump campaign ceo represents a dangerous seizure of the conservative movement by the alt-right, another<u+00a0>ex-breitbart employee,<u+00a0>ben shapiro,<u+00a0>writes in an op-ed for the post. <u+201c>it comes as a surprise <u+2014> or at least it should <u+2014> that the rnc appears ready to go along with the bannon-breitbart-trump takeover over the party, even as the trump campaign<u+2019>s latest move means rnc chairman reince priebus now sits, effectively, side by side with alt-right trump fans. <u+2026> broad swaths of the alt-right, by contrast, believe in a creed-free, race-based nationalism, insisting, among other things, that birth on american soil confers superiority. the alt-right sees limited-government constitutionalism as pass<u+00e9>; it holds that only nationalist populism on the basis of shared tribal identity can save the country. it<u+2019>s a movement shot through with racism and anti-semitism. [now], it is this is the cast of characters, and their enablers, to whom trump has turned. bannon is <u+2026> the guy who ushered along the twisted turn at breitbart. if republicans aren<u+2019>t careful, he<u+2019>ll inflict similar damage on their party now that he<u+2019>s the top man running their standard-bearer<u+2019>s campaign.<u+201d> -- reacting to trump bringing on bannon, stuart stevens (mitt romney<u+2019>s chief strategist in 2012) told bloomberg: <u+201c>this is the bunker scene in <u+2018>downfall,<u+2019> only the trump crowd won<u+2019>t tell hitler the truth. it<u+2019>s utter madness. trump is a nut, and he likes to surround himself with nuts.<u+201d> -- bannon<u+00a0>is already making an<u+00a0>imprint:<u+00a0>the trump campaign hired an ex-sarah palin aide, pam pryor, to oversee its <u+201c>faith and christian outreach," per the<u+00a0>wall street journal. -- a secretive donor has more sway than ever over trump<u+2019>s orbit. the new york times<u+2019> nicholas confessore reports on how his deep-pocketed family helped put the shake-up into motion and now has close allies in positions of authority: <u+201c>[bannon<u+2019>s] ascension on wednesday <u+2014> urged on mr. trump by (rebecca) mercer, among others <u+2014> shows how a cadre of strategists, <u+2018>super pacs<u+2019> and political organizations quietly nurtured by her family have emerged to play a pivotal role in mr. trump<u+2019>s presidential campaign. over more than half a decade, ms. mercer<u+2019>s father, the new york investor robert mercer, has carved an idiosyncratic path through conservative politics, spending tens of millions of dollars to outflank his own party<u+2019>s consultant class and unnerve its established powers. his fortune has financed think tanks and insurgent candidates, super pacs and media watchdogs, lobbying groups and grass-roots organizations. many of them are now connected, one way or another, to mr. trump<u+2019>s presidential bid. mr. trump<u+2019>s new campaign manager, kellyanne conway, is a veteran republican pollster who previously oversaw a super pac financed by the mercers.<u+201d> and bannon oversees breitbart, a company to which mercer reportedly invested $10 million several years ago, and <u+201c>likely still has a stake.<u+201d> when in doubt, blame the media: -- in charlotte last night, trump said the media created some of the controversies that have dogged him. <u+201c>the establishment media doesn<u+2019>t cover what really matters in this country, or what<u+2019>s really going on in people<u+2019>s lives,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>they will take words of mine out of context and spend a week obsessing over every single syllable, and then pretend to discover some hidden meaning in what i said.<u+201d> -- in new hampshire yesterday, mike pence said the press <u+2013> not trump <u+2013> is to blame for the ticket<u+2019>s slide in the polls. <u+201c>just about every day, the national media latches onto some issue about my running mate. it really does,<u+201d> the indiana governor said in manchester. <u+201c>i mean, the media is so busy parsing every word that donald trump said in the last 30 minutes, they don<u+2019>t have time to cover what the clintons have been up to for the last 30 years.<u+201d> (time) but at what cost? -- an important factor in the rise of trump: only 32 percent of republicans trusted the media a <u+201c>great deal<u+201d> or a <u+201c>fair amount<u+201d> in gallup polling from last year, which is one reason so many of the tough stories on trump have been tuned out by his supporters. -- <u+201c>we<u+2019>ve created this monster<u+201d>: business insider<u+2019>s oliver darcy posted the transcript of a thought-provoking interview he did with conservative wisconsin radio host charlie sykes (a prominent critic of the gop nominee) about how significant distrust of the media has been in both the rise and resilience of trump. it<u+2019>s worth reading in full: <u+201c>we<u+2019>ve basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers,<u+201d> sykes said. there<u+2019>s nobody. let<u+2019>s say that donald trump basically makes whatever you want to say, whatever claim he wants to make. and everybody knows it<u+2019>s a falsehood. the big question of my audience, it is impossible for me to say that, <u+2018>by the way, you know it<u+2019>s false.<u+2019> and they<u+2019>ll say, <u+2018>why? i saw it on allen b. west.<u+2019> or they<u+2019>ll say, <u+2018>i saw it on a facebook page.<u+2019> and i<u+2019>ll say, <u+2018>the new york times did a fact check.<u+2019> and they<u+2019>ll say, <u+2018>oh, that<u+2019>s the new york times. that<u+2019>s bull-[expletive.]<u+2019> there<u+2019>s nobody <u+2013> you can<u+2019>t go to anybody and say <u+2018>look, here are the facts.<u+2019> and i have to say that<u+2019>s one of the disorienting realities of this political year. you can be in this alternative media reality and there<u+2019>s no way to break through it. and i swim [upstream] because if i don<u+2019>t say these things from some of these websites, then suddenly i have sold out. then they<u+2019>ll ask what<u+2019>s wrong with me for not repeating these stories that i know not to be true.<u+201d> <u+201c>when this is all over, we have to go back. there<u+2019>s got to be a reckoning on all this. we<u+2019>ve created this monster,<u+201d> sykes added. <u+201c>and look, i<u+2019>m a conservative talk show host. all conservative hosts have basically established their brand as being contrasted to the mainstream media. so we have spent 20 years demonizing the liberal mainstream media. and by the way, a lot of it has been justifiable. there is a real bias. but, at a certain point you wake up and you realize you have destroyed the credibility of any credible outlet out there. and i am feeling, to a certain extent, that we are reaping a whirlwind at that. and i have to look in the mirror and ask myself, <u+2018>to what extent did i contribute?<u+2019> i<u+2019>ll be honest, the bias of the mainstream media has been a staple for every conservative talk show host, every conservative pundit for as long as i can remember. going way back into the 1960s with william f. buckley jr.<u+201d> -- clinton told fbi investigators<u+00a0>that colin powell advised her to use a private email account: <u+201c>the account is included in the notes the federal bureau of investigation handed over to congress on tuesday<u+201d> relaying details behind the fbi<u+2019>s<u+00a0> decision not to charge clinton, the new york times<u+2019>s<u+00a0>amy chozick reports. <u+201c>separately, in a 2009 email exchange that also emerged during the f.b.i. questioning, mrs. clinton, who had already decided to use private email, asked mr. powell about his email practices when he was the nation<u+2019>s top diplomat under george w. bush, according to a person with direct knowledge of mr. powell<u+2019>s appearance in the documents.<u+201d> -- clinton held a closed-door meeting with top law enforcement officers from around the country in new york, seeking to discuss policing and racial tensions that have been exposed by recent killings. john wagner and abby phillip: "it's obvious that recent events <u+2014> from dallas and baton rouge to milwaukee and across the country <u+2014> underscore how difficult and important the work is ahead of us to repair the bonds of trust and respect between our police officers and our communities," clinton said, before dismissing reporters. 'we have to be clear-eyed about the challenges we face. we can't ignore them, and certainly we must not inflame them.'" clinton has sought to toe a somewhat narrow line, expressing support for officers while sympathizing with the concerns of black lives matter activists and others outraged by discriminatory conduct. trump, meanwhile, has cast himself as the <u+201c>law and order<u+201d> candidate, blasting clinton in rallies as someone who is <u+201c>against the police.<u+201d> <u+201c>i<u+2019>m on your side a thousand percent,<u+201d> trump said during the meeting with a fraternal order of police chapter this week. -- awkward: trump and clinton have set up white house transition offices in the same building, lisa rein reports:<u+00a0><u+201c>it<u+2019>s the first time in history that two presidential campaigns have worked to set up their governments in miniature literally side-by-side, riding the same elevators to adjacent floors of the tony, marble-floored building as they plan to govern.<u+201d> the two will get two floors of federally-funded office space in the modern digs, along with millions in gsa-provided computers and technical support. -- trump and clinton are slated to appear on the same stage next month at a <u+201c>commander-in-chief forum<u+201d> hosted a veterans group and broadcast on<u+00a0>nbc. the two will field questions from nbc hosts, john wagner reports, as well as an audience comprised mainly of current and former service members. --<u+00a0>wired magazine, taking a side in a presidential race for the first time, endorsed hrc: <u+201c>for all the barbs aimed at clinton<u+2014>the whole calculating, tactical, tracy flick enchilada<u+2014>she is the only candidate who can assess the data, consult with the people who need to be heard, and make decisions that she can logically defend,<u+201d> editor in chief scott dadich writes. <u+201c>sure, she<u+2019>s calculating. she<u+2019>s tactical. there are worse things you can ask of a person with nuclear codes.<u+201d> -- speaking of endorsements:<u+00a0>trump still has the vote of <u+201c>benghazi mom,<u+201d> even though the guy who wrote her speech to the rnc wrote an op-ed saying that he may vote for clinton. (people magazine) -- the green party candidates showed why they're not getting much traction during an awkward cnn appearance. presidential nominee jill stein appeared alongside running-mate ajamu baraka for a live town hall event last nigh,<u+00a0>dave weigel reports. "stein used most of the airtime to repeat her campaign's themes, from the cancellation of student debt to the cancellation of much military spending. she told one [bernie sanders] voter that the senator had been <u+2018>relegated to a very low-profile role<u+2019> at the democratic convention <u+2014> which was untrue <u+2014> and told another that bankers' debt was <u+2018>canceled<u+2019> by the troubled asset relief program.<u+201d> the two also answered to several campaign gaffes <u+2013> moderator chris cuomo pushed baraka on why he had referred to obama as an <u+201c>uncle tom.<u+201d> and stein was also pressed on whether she was anti-vaccine, a charge she ultimately dismissed as <u+201c>ridiculous.<u+201d> -- bernie<u+00a0>is slated to launch his new progressive organization, <u+201c>our revolution,<u+201d> next week: sanders, who began fundraising for the group earlier this month, has said he hopes to <u+201c>transform american society<u+201d> by mobilizing young people, working people<u+00a0>and progressives. (burlington free press) the battle for the senate: -- sen. richard burr (r-n.c.), the senate intelligence committee chairman who once seemed primed for an easy reelection campaign, is now in trouble. national review's alexis levinson reports that the republican incumbent has barely begun campaigning in the state and must share the ballot with two deeply unpopular republicans. besides trump, pat mccrory, who signed the state<u+2019>s <u+201c>bathroom bill<u+201d> into law, is very likely to lose reelection. -- carpetbagging alert: indiana election officials concluded that evan bayh is an "inactive" voter in their state after he failed to establish his residency in indianapolis, cnn<u+2019>s manu raju reports. the news comes as an additional hurdle for bayh, who has stayed at a marriott when he<u+2019>s gone back to the state rather than his condo. electric bills earlier this week made clear that he spends no time at his residence. --<u+00a0>he's back:<u+00a0>george w. bush is planning to visit indiana next month to stump for bayh<u+2019>s republican opponent, todd young, hoping to shore up support for the republican congressman and close a large fundraising advantage held by bayh. (wdrb) -- rep. michael mccaul declined to rule out the idea of challenging ted cruz for his texas senate seat in 2018, fueling speculation that he is being courted by major donors to launch a bid. <u+201c>asked to rate cruz's senate tenure, mccaul said his fellow texan has <u+2018>spent a lot of time running for president.<u+2019> and though mccaul said he's focused on his re-election to the house this fall, he wouldn't limit his future prospects. <u+2018>never say never,<u+2019><u+201d> he told reporters. (the dallas morning news) -- <u+201c>they survived hurricane katrina and rebuilt in baton rouge. now they<u+2019>ve lost everything again,<u+201d> by emma brown, ashley cusick and mark berman: <u+201c>when hurricane katrina leveled new orleans, thousands of people left behind their ruined homes and took refuge here. they found new jobs and rebuilt their homes. slowly, things started to feel normal again. but then a nameless storm brought unprecedented flooding to baton rouge and a wide swath of southern louisiana over the last week. countless katrina survivors have been left, for a second time, with nothing. two displacements, two traumas. a loss that has left many feeling tired, battered and hopeless. and even as many face unclear futures and questions about where they will live, experts say they are also concerned about the mental health consequences for katrina survivors now weathering this new loss. 'i want to get away from water, get away from low-lying areas,'<u+00a0>said jerry savage, who lost both his home and his lawn-care business in katrina, then rebuilt both in baton rouge only to lose them again. 'i want to get out of here.'" republicans seized on the news from the state department: a new york city spokesman made this joke at trump's expense: without context or additional explanation, trump declared he will soon be known as "mr. brexit." ostensibly he was referring to the idea of an upset that shocks elites. "mr. brexit<u+00a0>immediately began trending globally,"<u+00a0>jennifer hassan and max bearak report. "thousands of users questioned exactly what trump meant by<u+00a0>his triumphal prognostication." many brits feel like their own leaders deserve the title: the problematic logic of arguing big crowds point to a future win: a joke from the polling director at the huffington post: former george w. bush white house press secretary<u+00a0>dana perino responded to fans who want her to give them good news about the gop's chances this election: watch dana spar with the other hosts on "the five" about it: brothers from opposite sides of the aisle -- one is the executive director of the north carolina republican party and the other is a former dnc communications director who has worked for a constellation of liberal outside groups<u+00a0>-- clashed publicly over a republican<u+00a0>effort to limit early voting in the tar heel state: tim kaine and tom vilsack visited the butter cow at the iowa state fair: some 2008 campaign swag, courtesy of cindy mccain: jon stewart appeared in the final episode of<u+00a0>larry wilmore's<u+00a0>show, which<u+00a0>was canceled by comedy central. (read a show summary here.) on the campaign trail: trump is in dimondale, mich. at the white house: obama is in martha's vineyard, mass. on capitol hill: the senate and house are out. news you can use if you live in d.c.: -- the capital weather gang forecasts a sunny, <u+201c>tolerably<u+201d> humid friday. <u+201c>mostly sunny, at least through midday. we<u+2019>ll see a light north-northeasterly breeze around 5 mph. what<u+2019>s not to like? well, right, it<u+2019>s still at least five degrees above average for this time of year, with high temperatures forecast to be around 90 and maybe a few mid-90s possible. enjoy the quietness, even if it is a bit warm. on these hot days, there could always be an isolated shower or storm, but most or all folks staying dry is the best bet.<u+201d><u+00a0>we<u+2019>ll take it! -- the federal transit administration announced it will spend $900,000 to hire and train federal contractors to form an eventually<u+00a0>permanent metro safety oversight agency. officials say the new contractors will perform immediate inspections and investigations on the metro, eventually transferring their knowledge base to the new safety oversight commission when it is established. (faiz siddiqui) -- a latino advocate in virginia was found guilty of fraud after she posed as an attorney to cheat clients out of thousands of dollars, falsely promising to help them obtain legal status. (antonio olivo) -- as the national museum of african american history gears up for opening day next month, its director opened up about the <u+201c>painful but crucial<u+201d> process museum leaders went through as they grappled with how much of the dark corners of u.s. history to expose. the museum<u+2019>s structure, they say, is purposefully designed to reflect that struggle. (krissah thompson has more.) cbs compiled<u+00a0>what it says are stephen colbert's five most "hilarious hillary takedowns" and his five "most scorching burns" of trump. the largest aircraft in the world just took flight: bloomberg broke down trump's strange combination of idioms, expressions, and filler phrases: the dnc released this video on trump's refusal to release his tax returns: comedy central mashed up videos of cats who dislike trump: a parody trailer for "mad trump: fury road" went up in june but has been<u+00a0>making the rounds again online: finally, watch the making of the naked trump statues that were placed in new york, san francisco and other cities:

the daily 202: clinton and trump cave to pressure

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

95.0

49.0

8.0

39098.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

2654.0

1.0

0.0

764.0

0.0

289.0

78.0

41.0

81.0

58.0

68.0

37.0

148.0

159.0

191.0

2656.0

765.0

289.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

kahlida lloyd can explain her reasons for voting for hillary clinton, even if she is not especially excited about them. but she has a hard time making the case to obstinate friends why they should support the democratic presidential nominee. lloyd, 31, a lawyer, sought advice from other black millennials during a recent lunchtime gathering in downtown washington. what should she say to encourage young black voters, who rallied in 2008 and 2012 to help barack obama make history as the first african american president, to show a little of that enthusiasm for clinton? <u+201c>i just don<u+2019>t want the first woman president to be elected because the other person sucks, but that<u+2019>s where i think we are,<u+201d> lloyd said in an interview after the event last week hosted by #wevote, a new effort aimed at mobilizing young black voters. <u+201c>people either say, <u+2018>donald trump is not where it<u+2019>s at, so i<u+2019>m going to vote for hillary.<u+2019> or you have people say, <u+2018>donald trump is not where it<u+2019>s at; i<u+2019>m not going to vote at all.<u+2019> and that<u+2019>s not cool.<u+201d> younger african americans, like many millennials, are not excited about this year<u+2019>s presidential election. the clinton campaign, which has sought to reassemble the obama coalition, has struggled to connect with a key piece of it: voters under 30. turnout among african americans under age 30 spiked from 49<u+00a0>percent in 2004 to 57<u+00a0>percent in 2008, but it dipped to 53<u+00a0>percent in 2012, according to census bureau data. while 43<u+00a0>percent of obama supporters under age 40 were <u+201c>very enthusiastic<u+201d> about him in 2012, just 24<u+00a0>percent of clinton supporters under age 40 feel the same way about her now, according to september averages of washington post-abc news polls from four years ago and this year. black activists and organizers, frustrated with the clinton campaign<u+2019>s inability to engage young voters, have taken it upon themselves to challenge their peers to consider the consequences if republicans take the white house and keep control of both houses of congress. they also have encouraged young voters to focus on state and local elections, because those officials make decisions about how police departments and schools are run, issues that more directly affect their lives. [for <u+2018>black and engaged<u+2019> millennial activists, politics is local] voting rights were an important victory of the civil rights era, and because trump<u+2019>s campaign has laid bare racist attitudes, the seeming indifference of black millennials to the election has sparked broad discussion within the african american community. but young people who say that the political system has failed them argue that they don<u+2019>t owe it to anyone <u+2014> not even the often-cited warriors of the civil rights movement <u+2014> to participate in the presidential election. many are critical of some black political leaders for framing the election as a choice between an archenemy and an old friend rather than talking about the issues, such as what they view as broken economic and criminal justice systems. <u+201c>we know what the issues are. what we can<u+2019>t seem to get is candidates to talk about them in a nuanced way,<u+201d> said lauren brown, 34, a public relations professional who said she has not been moved by clinton<u+2019>s talking points on addressing police violence against black people or economic equity for women of color. <u+201c>this election cycle is more about who you hate more than who you like.<u+201d> brown decided to vote for clinton after taking part in a discussion during an event, hosted last month in philadelphia by a civic project called black and engaged, about the stakes in the campaign. trump<u+2019>s debate performances also helped sway her. carmen berkley, director of civil, human and women<u+2019>s rights for the afl-cio, said many black millennials have to stop <u+201c>waiting to have that same level of excitement<u+201d> they felt for obama<u+2019>s campaign. <u+201c>if i had my choice of who would be the president, it probably would be michelle obama, but she<u+2019>s not running for president. hillary clinton is.<u+201d> but the first lady and the president could be effective surrogates to persuade young black people to put aside their doubts about voting for clinton. although michelle obama<u+2019>s well-regarded speech taking on trump<u+2019>s vulgar comments about women was made before a largely white audience in new hampshire, it was widely shared and discussed on social media, and black women in particular praised the first lady for speaking out about sexual harassment. [black women are most worried about the outcome of the 2016 election, poll finds] denise horn, a spokeswoman for the campaign, said the obamas are among several surrogates, including sens. bernie sanders (vt.) and elizabeth warren (mass.), who are popular among millennial voters and will continue to make the case for clinton. berkley, 31, said some black millennials are being overly critical of clinton, for instance, by continuing to criticize her for supporting her husband<u+2019>s 1994 crime bill and using the term <u+201c>super predator<u+201d> to describe some young offenders. they don<u+2019>t give her credit for having apologized, or for pledging to work to achieve criminal justice reform. <u+201c>here, you have a candidate who says, <u+2018>i messed up, and i<u+2019>m willing to change.<u+2019><u+2009><u+201d> berkley said. <u+201c>i think that is powerful. we have <u+2014> as activists, organizers and everyday people <u+2014> the power to bring pressure on political leaders to get what we want.<u+201d> symone d. sanders, 26, a top aide to sen. bernie sanders during his democratic primary campaign, co-founded #wevote along with three other millennial activists to urge their peers to register and vote. lloyd was among about 145 people who attended the washington event. similar gatherings are planned around the country. other efforts to engage millennial activists include blackpac, which got funding from the pro-clinton super pac priorities usa to do outreach in florida, and the color of change pac, which got money from the progressive for our future super pac to court voters in battleground states via text message. <u+201c>i think it<u+2019>s extremely important that the message we take from this room, when we<u+2019>re going out into our individual networks, is that this is not the election to sit on the sidelines,<u+201d> sanders said during last week<u+2019>s discussion. <u+201c>there are so many things, as president obama has said, that are on the ballot: our progress as a country is on the ballot, criminal justice reform and the future of criminal justice reform in this country is on the ballot, our economy and who will be able to get a job is on the ballot. so if those are the things you care about, that is why we have to go to the polls.<u+201d> but lloyd told sanders and members of the panel that she had been having trouble convincing others that they should vote for clinton. <u+201c>after the first african american president of the united states of america, we cannot afford not to vote,<u+201d> said panelist mary-pat hector, national youth director for the national action network and a student at spelman college in atlanta. <u+201c>we cannot risk [supreme court] justices that are going to push us back. all of the things that we<u+2019>ve worked so hard for, not only as african americans, but as women, can be gone <u+2014> tomorrow. we cannot allow someone who does not care about us win. so if that means voting for hillary clinton, then so be it.<u+201d> deray mckesson, a prominent leader in the black lives matter movement also on the panel, said the campaign has not offered a compelling, affirmative reason to vote for clinton, nor a credible surrogate who can speak to young black voters in the way that atlanta rapper killer mike represented sanders. <u+201c>i don<u+2019>t know who is out there like that for hillary. trump drives us all nuts, but we know trump wants to build a wall,<u+201d> mckesson said. <u+201c>i<u+2019>m an insider in the criminal justice space, and sometimes i<u+2019>m, like, <u+2018>what is it hillary<u+2019>s going to do?<u+2019> that is a problem.<u+201d> clinton campaign aides say she has not only talked about issues affecting communities of color but has offered detailed proposals to address such concerns as criminal justice, income inequality and infrastructure in neglected neighborhoods. addisu demissie, director of national voter outreach, said the campaign has been doing extensive outreach to black voters <u+2014> including millennials <u+2014> in their communities, and in recent weeks african american celebrities and athletes have been more active on the trail. over the weekend, hip-hop artist pusha t joined fellow virginian and clinton running mate tim kaine for a campaign event in liberty city, a predominantly black, low-income community in miami. maya harris, senior policy adviser, said clinton<u+2019>s economic agenda <u+201c>touches on various issues that are related to wealth and income inequality, specifically addressing the african american community.<u+201d> <u+201c>does that mean there are not more policies that we could or should pursue if she is fortunate enough to be elected president? of course not,<u+201d> she said. <u+201c>but is her policy agenda one that recognizes the specific circumstances and challenges and lack of opportunities in the african american community, not only recognizes it, but puts forth solutions to begin to address those issues and create opportunities? absolutely.<u+201d> lloyd, who said she gave money and volunteered for obama<u+2019>s campaigns, had not been active for clinton. the #wevote discussion inspired her to sign up for a text-a-thon. she sent messages to more than 500 mostly black voters in pennsylvania. <u+201c>i definitely think that event ignited something in me, made me want to take advantage of opportunities to share with others,<u+201d> she said.

for young black activists, an urgent task: persuading peers to vote

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

7.0

67.0

8.0

9539.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

682.0

0.0

140.0

0.0

72.0

20.0

28.0

9.0

18.0

24.0

16.0

13.0

48.0

28.0

80.0

685.0

140.0

72.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

sen. marco rubio (r-fla.) is officially in for the 2016 presidential race, telling the associated press that he feels he is "uniquely qualified" to run and serve. and rubio is nothing if not unique in today's gop. he's young (43 years old) in an increasingly old party,<u+00a0>he's hispanic in a party that is hemorrhaging latino<u+00a0>votes, he's a very good communicator in a party that struggled to find one in 2012, and he has ties to both the tea party and the party establishment in a party that is very much split between the two. and as we've argued before, he<u+00a0>has more upside than just about anybody in the 2016 race<u+00a0>-- republican or democrat. he's also putting a lot more on the line than just about anybody else. for a few reasons: sen. rand paul (r-ky.) is also running for president and, like rubio, is up for reelection in 2016. but because paul comes from a red state and the filing deadline for his seat isn't till late january 2016, he could potentially revert to staying in the senate if his presidential campaign doesn't catch fire. rubio doesn't have that luxury. he comes from florida, a big swing state in which you need to be focused on that race from day one. democrats already have a solid contender in rep. patrick murphy,<u+00a0>and other republicans are already<u+00a0>looking at running for rubio's seat. the filing deadline in florida isn't till may 2016, so rubio could conceivably attempt what paul is doing --<u+00a0>he hasn't quite ruled it out, though he<u+00a0>came close --<u+00a0>but national republicans can't really afford to let democrats get that much of a head start in a very important state while rubio figures out whether he can win the gop presidential nomination. all the other<u+00a0>gop hopefuls either aren't up in 2016 -- wisconsin gov. scott walker and sens. ted cruz (r-tex.) and lindsey graham (r-s.c.), for instance -- or are out of office altogether. rubio, as the youngest gop hopeful in the field, is the only one giving up a bird in hand for the possibility of two in the bush. well it doesn't matter if he doesn't win the nomination, you might say, because he's got a really good shot at becoming the vice presidential pick. this makes complete sense; with republicans likely to nominate another white man and likely to face the potential first female president, getting some diversity on their ticket will be key. and nobody fits the bill better than rubio.<u+00a0>some are even joking about rubio running for vp: but the idea that rubio could run for president with being vp as a backup plan took a significant hit the day jeb bush started running for president. that's because the fellow floridian<u+00a0>is perhaps the likeliest (if not likely, period) nominee, and the constitution basically precludes him from picking rubio as his running mate. it<u+00a0>says that no state can cast its electoral votes for a ticket that includes to people from their own state. and given florida's 29 electoral votes are, well, kind of important, it's really hard to see bush picking rubio -- unless one of them conveniently established residency outside the sunshine state. in short, at this point bush seems like the most likely nominee, and rubio the most likely vice presidential pick, but bush won't pick rubio. 3) he has a lot more time rubio's youth also means he has more time to wage a political comeback, yes. but there are no guarantees in a state like florida, and winning office is much more difficult than holding an office you already inhabit. what's more, the republican bench in florida is teeming with ambitious young pols, by virtue of the gop dominance of the state. the gop controls all statewide offices and about two-thirds of the state legislature. no, republicans haven't exactly fielded the greatest candidates in recent years (connie mack, much?), but there are lots of new faces these days. that means that, if this whole 2016 thing doesn't pan out, rubio can't count on returning to statewide office in florida any time soon.<u+00a0>rubio would certainly be a frontrunner, but he would probably have to fight for it. time works both ways. yes, rubio would have years<u+00a0>to mount a comeback. but it also means he has time to wait for another presidential campaign -- one in which he wouldn't have to give up his seat in the senate to run. and yet, he has chosen to strike while the iron is semi-warm and risk his political future on running for president. what's clear is that he doesn't enter into it lightly. update: longtime florida political reporter adam smith<u+00a0>tells our own fix boss about the reasoning for rubio's move:

marco rubio<u+2019>s big gamble

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

8.0

24.0

8.0

4539.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

333.0

0.0

87.0

0.0

30.0

6.0

13.0

2.0

6.0

10.0

3.0

8.0

18.0

12.0

29.0

335.0

87.0

30.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

in a last dash, final "hail mary" attempt to end a donald trump run for the white house once and for all, the national review has decided to eviscerate the republican front runner on the basis that he is not a conservative. it will not work. publications like national review, run by elite "conservatives" have given us george w. bush and his wars, "no child left behind," medicare part d, huge deficits caused by republican consultants spending to woo select voters, mitt "romneycare" romney, john mccain...the list goes on and on. william f. buckley, who founded national review, used the magazine to publish a stellar series of essays by conservative intellectuals who helped foster the reagan revolution. since then, "movement conservatism" has not been a powerful enough force to make things better for the working classes in the country. this vacuum, created by the "conservative" elites who have backed rinos (republicans in name only) and candidates who are antithetical to conservatism, is what created the opportunity for donald trump to rise. in fact, publications like national review have such a blind spot, they never even saw devout, pro-america nationalists like trump taking off. they aren't credible in their criticism of trump because they never saw it coming. beyond that, and most importantly, they told us we -- the conservatives who are sick and tired of elistist, establishment blunders -- were wrong. and they still don't get it. trump's appeal stretches far beyond disgruntled, outside the country club conservatives. his potential for crossover support, especially with blue collar and working class voters, is huge. most establishment republicans have never met a blue collar worker (unless they were fixing their jacuzzi). i can see trump winning coal miners, unionized construction workers, auto workers, steel workers, teamsters, etc. trump may even score a larger share of black votes with his immigration stand. his appeal to working class voters is a very under reported story, but it's evident because even president barack obama himself mentioned trump by name during an interview with npr in which he said that trump is tapping into the "anger of the blue collar white male." this showcases just how scared the left is when it comes to trump's potential to tear into demographics that democrats have largely considered theirs. the bed wetters at the rnc are dreaming of a gop that grows because it attracts latinos, pro-abortion millennial women and other hopelessly democratic voters. trump's coalition of adding working class voters (who actually work) makes more sense. i have respect for national review as an institution, but the cover and series of articles designed to hurt trump only hurts the elitest, beltway crowd they represent because it exposes why he is the seemingly solid and unstoppable frontrunner: it's because of them. they have failed us, not trump. donald trump is merely capitalizing on a moment in a pursuit to make america great again, in spite of the failures of the conservative movement. just like they were too dense to see trump's rise, they don't understand why it occurred. national review, it's time for your man in the mirror moment. people are more concerned about the country they love, than they are your brand of "conservatism." by trying to take out the most popular candidate in this race who has the best general election shot of any of them to win the white house and reverse the progressive policies of barack obama, beltway, frat boy type elitists are proving my point: they don't get it. and from the looks of it, they never will.

national review disses donald trump: why the magazine's plan won't work

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

3.0

71.0

8.0

3633.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

245.0

1.0

0.0

66.0

0.0

51.0

9.0

16.0

8.0

7.0

10.0

11.0

7.0

16.0

17.0

24.0

249.0

67.0

51.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

asked what trump will do while in florida, spokesman jason miller said the transition team has not released a schedule and said trump also intends to...

congress likely to blow budget deadline

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

39.0

8.0

152.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

4.0

0.0

12.0

2.0

1.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

as predicted by anyone who knows how the fbi works and, more importantly, by anyone who knows the actual law in question, hillary clinton won<u+2019>t be indicted by the fbi or the justice department over the use of a private email server. firstly, conspiracy theorists and hillary haters alike have been peddling the misinformation that the fbi is capable of indicting people, which it<u+2019>s not. secondly, even if the fbi could single-handedly indict someone, which it can<u+2019>t, there<u+2019>s clearly no evidence proving hillary deliberately broke the law. we also know that the announcement by the fbi<u+2019>s james comey on tuesday won<u+2019>t dissuade the aforementioned hillary haters from continuing to beat-to-death the benghazi issue and everything orbiting it, including the email server, even though every investigation has turned up nothing <u+2014><u+00a0>and this includes investigations by the hyper-litigious republicans who have no reason to exonerate hillary, and every reason to summarily jail her. and, among the usual suspects whose indictment fantasies border on obsessive, there<u+2019>s donald trump: trump joins a growing faction of politicians and observers who are actively abusing the <u+201c>rigged<u+201d> card whenever events don<u+2019>t go their way. broadly speaking, trump<u+2019>s been transparently courting disaffected bernie sanders loyalists by echoing their claims of a rigged primary process, despite the fact that bernie himself stated that the process was fair and square. bernie even went so far as to explicitly tell cbs news that the system is <u+201c>not rigged.<u+201d> nevertheless, garment rending over rigged votes or rigged investigations in america is indicative of the growing influence of conspiracy theory marketeering here, fueled primarily by social media gossip and the exploitative rantings of radio flimflam artist alex jones, who<u+2019>s made a fortune by taking advantage of those who are predisposed to believing wild schemes about sinister plots to undermine democracy. losing an election? well, then, it<u+2019>s not that you ran a shoddy campaign, the system is obviously rigged against you. no scandal where you wrongly insisted there was one? rigged. or if your career and personal wealth are predicated upon marketing in allegations that the system is rigged, then, naturally, everything is rigged. except, that is, the deeds of jones and trump, who always deal in truths, right? in the social media age, the old maxim is again proved: a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on. the notion of a rigged system from top-to-bottom has become so entrenched that not even 13 published reports, the involvement of 10 congressional committees, the testimony of 252 witnesses, the convening of 33 congressional hearings and $7 million in funding for the benghazi select committee can dislodge it from the deranged brain-pans of those who simply want the benghazi conspiracies to be true. jones and trump are observant enough to understand that social media users, in particular, are suckers and easy marks <u+2014><u+00a0>unthinkingly retweeting quick hits about unsourced or entirely fake claims. if your facebook news feed isn<u+2019>t festooned with fake articles inadvertently shared by friends who never bother to think critically, and that<u+2019>s if they read the article in the first place before posting, which they often don<u+2019>t, you<u+2019>re one of the lucky ones. here<u+2019>s the real crisis, though. when everything is rigged, then nothing is. by turning every news event into either a false flag or a red flag, or both, legitimately rigged aspects of the system become drowned in a bathtub of gibberish and half-baked pulp fiction. between bernie loyalists continuing to screech about rigged primaries, and trump people engaging in daily meltdowns about the rigged email investigation, along with the rest of us who are tasked with swatting down both sets of scandals, there are very few participants who are paying attention to real crises such as, for example, gerrymandering and voter id laws. indeed, we<u+2019>re four months away from another presidential election, and exactly nothing is being done to expand opportunities to vote, while offering voters a fair slate of candidates that aren<u+2019>t shuffled into office again and again because congressional districts were deliberately redrawn to suit their victories. the latter, gerrymandering, is exploited by both parties, while voter id laws have been passed by republicans for the express purpose of disenfranchising democratic voters and therefore electing more republicans. casting a ballot in the united states, of all places, should be easier than ordering a burger at a drive-thru window, yet we can already safely assume that precincts across the nation won<u+2019>t have enough ballots or enough voting booths, and lines will be prohibitively long. we also know that nothing is being done to roll back voter id laws, each one making it unconstitutionally difficult for students, lower-income workers and elderly voters to cast ballots. and we know that a growing list of republicans have confirmed our suspicions about the id laws<u+00a0><u+2014><u+00a0>that they<u+2019>re designed solely to put a thumb on the scales for the gop <u+2014><u+00a0>a fact that<u+2019>s supported by the reality that there<u+2019>s a 0.00000031 chance of voter fraud, based on a bush administration study from 2002-2007. conveniently, too much attention is being paid to a completely disproved conspiracy theory about hillary and benghazi, as well as evidence-free allegations of hillary somehow rigging the primary election in her favor, even though there are volumes of statistics, as well as quotes from various republicans, confirming the true purpose of voter id laws. as for gerrymandering, the practice and its consequences are self-evident. put another way, there<u+2019>s a reason why the house of representatives is loaded with unqualified demagogues who somehow remain in office long past their shelf-life. if as much attention was paid to actual conspiracies as is paid to racist garbage like obama<u+2019>s birth certificate or the vince foster suicide, voting would be easier and we<u+2019>d have a real chance to elect a better and more competent litter of politicians for the 115th congress.

playing the <u+201c>rigged<u+201d> card: trump, jones and other conspiracy mongers must look within the gop for the legit scandals

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

12.0

116.0

8.0

6126.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

442.0

4.0

0.0

98.0

2.0

0.0

41.0

14.0

8.0

16.0

9.0

11.0

10.0

32.0

31.0

42.0

449.0

102.0

43.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

jerusalem (cnn) when israel destroyed iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981, then-israeli prime minister menachem begin drew an important line in the sand: no enemy could be permitted to develop weapons of mass destruction. israel, he declared, would defend itself "with all the means at our disposal." these words still reverberate in israel today, and they help explain why prime minister benjamin netanyahu is flying to washington next week to give a controversial speech before congress on iran. netanyahu wants to thwart a nuclear deal world powers are hammering out with tehran, a deal that his government believes will leave iran with the means to potentially develop a nuclear weapon -- and leave him with the same choice begin faced more than three decades ago. "this is the primary israeli fear," said ronen bergman, military and intelligence analyst for the daily newspaper yedioth ahronoth. "they are afraid at the end of the day, if negotiations fail, israel would be left alone to make the call -- whether to contain an iranian nuclear capability or to make the call on the strike." in making the trip to capitol hill, netanyahu is willing to risk the ire of the white house, which is chagrined that he is expected to rail against the administration's deal-making and encourage congress to push for an iran sanctions package that president barack obama has threatened to veto. and netanyahu is doing so even amidst recriminations -- over how republican house speaker john boehner and the israeli embassy handled the invitation -- that have tainted the atmosphere between the prime minister and the white house. administration officials charge that the invitation violated protocol and has partisan overtones. while the israeli leader's speech might only intensify those bad feelings, netanyahu has said it's worth the cost of stating his case before the american public. advisers indicate that with a deal looming, he feels that he has less and less time to prevent what he sees as a catastrophic outcome. netanyahu critics and many analysts see a political motive. his speech to congress comes two weeks before the israeli election, in which he is facing a tight race. his security credentials and rhetorical skills are two of his strongest assets, and being welcomed by u.s. senators and representatives could play well on television screens in tel aviv. the white house has used the proximity of the elections as its reason for denying netanyahu an oval office meeting during the trip. but many confidants insist that netanyahu has a strong ideological conviction on the need to block iran and treats his roles as protector of israel and the jewish people with the utmost seriousness. for him, this is a chance to act before israel is faced with choosing between an iranian bomb and bombing iran. inherent in that choice is the fear israel cannot count on the united states to stop tehran. obama has famously said that he's "got israel's back" when it comes to iran. yet israeli officials say they have watched over the past several years as the obama administration has backtracked from its firm stance on iran's nuclear program to a position that could potentially allow iran to maintain a significant uranium enrichment program. "what started with zero (centrifuges), then went to a symbolic enrichment capacity of a few hundred. now it is well known we are speaking about several thousands," israeli minister of intelligence yuval steinitz said in an interview with cnn. "we think that the overall goal of the negotiation should be to get rid of the iranian nuclear threat and not just hold it or restrain it or freeze it." israel maintains that even an iranian threshold nuclear state, leaving iran with enough enriched uranium to give it "break-out capacity" to build a nuclear weapon, would position tehran as a superpower in the region and enable it to threaten israel with impunity. that would challenge the so-called qualitative military edge that israel has built up over decades to fend off its enemies. israeli military leaders worry they may have to think twice about responding to say, a hezbollah attack on israeli troops, out of fear of iranian reprisal. "this is a severe strategic threat to the variety of options that the national security of israel stands upon," bergman said. "they want to have the bomb in order not to use it. they want to position themselves as a regional superpower and this would give them a nuclear umbrella over their heads." it's a daily threat to their existence that many israelis believe the united states -- half a world away -- can't possibly understand. and some israelis aren't as sanguine as bergman that iran wouldn't want to use the bomb. "i have no doubt about the seriousness and the good intentions of the obama administration," said steinitz, the intelligence minister. "maybe we are more concerned because we feel the threat because they are speaking about the elimination of the jewish state." moreover, israel fears a nuclear iran would spark an arms race in the middle east, potentially surrounding them with a group of nuclear-armed enemies in a region in turmoil. while the united states has long pledged to safeguard israel's security, israeli leaders now fear the easing in relations between the united states and iran following the election of president hasan rouhani has clouded the obama administration's judgment. and the u.s.-iran thaw has come at the same time that tensions between obama and netanyahu have escalated. "the sense in israel, and it goes way beyond netanyahu, is that the president underestimates iran's duplicity, underestimates iran's ruthlessness, the religious imperative behind its ideology," said david horovitz, editor of the times of israel news website. in addressing congress next week, aides say that prime minister netanyahu feels compelled to warn the u.s. and the world that, in his view, beneath its friendly new image, iran is still intent on wiping israel off the map. "i think that he feels fated that he is leading the jewish people when it potentially faces a genocidal threat," horovitz said. "that is the netanyahu mindset -- that people are in peril, and he needs to stand firm and say what he wants to say and if necessary take the step that needs to be taken."

why netanyahu is confronting the white house

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

44.0

8.0

6307.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

492.0

1.0

0.0

124.0

1.0

0.0

77.0

22.0

20.0

5.0

29.0

8.0

14.0

10.0

20.0

38.0

39.0

496.0

125.0

78.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

a top gop leader is calling the meeting between donald trump and speaker of the house paul ryan critical. the billionaire is heading to capitol hill thursday to try and unify the party after a bruising primary election. <u+00a0> <u+00a0> <u+00a0> <u+00a0> <u+00a0><u+00a0> house republicans are urging the speaker get behind their party's presumptive nominee. but ryan, who has been reluctant to support trump, says he wants to make sure it's done right. <u+00a0> "look, i said this the other day: to pretend we are unified as a party after coming through a very bruising primary, which just ended like a week ago, to pretend to unify without actually unifying, then we go into the fall with half strength," the wisconsin lawmaker warned. <u+00a0> the meeting comes in the backdrop of ongoing questions over trump's refusal to release his tax returns. "you don't learn much from tax returns, but i would love to give the tax returns," the real estate mogul said. <u+00a0> now trump says he won't release them until after an irs audit is done, which may not be until after the election. <u+00a0>democratic rival hillary clinton has pounced on that. <u+00a0> "my husband and i have released 33 years of tax returns. so you gotta ask yourself why doesn't he want to release them?" she said. <u+00a0> on the subject of taxes, politico<u+00a0>reports trump has brought in well-known conservative economists larry kudlow and stephen moore to help him rewrite his initial tax plan. it's a plan one group said could tack on an additional $10 trillion to $12 trillion onto america's already exploding national debt, and help the economy grow more. <u+00a0> "the thing i'm going to do is to make sure the middle class gets good tax breaks because they have been absolutely shunned," trump said. "the other thing is that i'm going to fight very hard for business." <u+00a0> trump is also considering tapping former new york mayor rudy giuliani to a head a commission on radical islam.<u+00a0> <u+00a0> the billionaire told fox news he may set up the commission to study his immigration policies, including calls for a temporary ban on muslims coming to america. <u+00a0> but more than a week after officially becoming his party's presumptive nominee, many in the gop are still split over trump's conservative credentials. meanwhile, although many have questioned whether he can actually beat clinton in november, a new reuters<u+00a0>poll has him in a dead heat with the former state secretary, with clinton at 41 percent, trump at 40 percent and 19 percent undecided.

gop leaders: donald trump, paul ryan meeting 'critical'

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

3.0

55.0

8.0

2467.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

166.0

0.0

50.0

1.0

0.0

18.0

1.0

9.0

0.0

4.0

3.0

4.0

10.0

12.0

170.0

50.0

19.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

killing obama administration rules, dismantling obamacare and pushing through tax reform are on the early to-do list.

obamacare group slashes staff

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

29.0

8.0

117.0

0.0

10.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

10.0

2.0

0.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

there was a mass shooting in hesston, kansas. harvey county sheriff t. walton said that four people, including the gunman, are dead and 14 are wounded, 10 critically, after a series of shootings at an excel industries plant, its parking lot, and nearby streets, according to the<u+00a0>associated press. the suspect was an employee at excel industries, which makes lawnmower parts, identified as 38-year-old cedric ford. a police officer shot and killed ford, who reportedly had an assault weapon and pistol. the gunman apparently began shooting after county deputies served him a "protection from abuse" order, which are typically issued after violence in a relationship.<u+00a0>the order was served around 3:30 pm local time, and the shooting began around 5 pm. the kansas city star<u+00a0>reported that a woman<u+00a0>who identified herself as ford's live-in girlfriend accused him of verbal and physical abuse, prompting the protection order. ford also had several convictions in florida for<u+00a0>burglary, grand theft, fleeing from an officer, aggravated fleeing, and carrying a concealed weapon, according to the<u+00a0>ap. the shooting came less than a week after another mass shooting at kalamazoo, michigan. the shootings are a devastating tragedy, but unfortunately one that americans are increasingly familiar with. as more of these events end up in the news, the country is being forced to consider why the us, more than any other developed nation, suffers from such extraordinary levels of gun violence. and it seems easy access to firearms provide one answer. no other developed country in the world has anywhere near the same rate of gun violence as america. the us has nearly six times the gun homicide rate of canada, more than seven times sweden's, and nearly 16 times germany's, according to un data compiled by the guardian. (these gun deaths are a big reason america has a much higher overall homicide rate, which includes non-gun deaths, than other developed nations.) what's more, there appears to be a correlation between america's high levels of gun violence and gun ownership, as this chart from tewksbury lab shows: research reviews by the harvard school of public health's injury control research center have concluded that more gun ownership leads to more gun violence. other factors, such as socioeconomic issues, contribute to violence, but guns are the one issue that makes america unique relative to other developed countries in comparable socioeconomic circumstances. studies have found this at both the state and country level. take, for instance, this chart, from a 2007 study by harvard researchers, showing the correlation between statewide firearm homicide victimization rates and household gun ownership after controlling for robbery rates: a more recent study from 2013, led by a boston university school of public health researcher, reached similar conclusions: after controlling for multiple variables, the study found that a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlated with a roughly 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicide rate at the state level. this holds up around the world. as vox's zack beauchamp explained, a breakthrough analysis in 1999 by uc berkeley's franklin zimring and gordon hawkins found that the us does not, contrary to the old conventional wisdom, have more crime in general than other western industrial nations. instead, the us appears to have more lethal violence <u+2014> and that's driven in large part by the prevalence of guns. "a series of specific comparisons of the death rates from property crime and assault in new york city and london show how enormous differences in death risk can be explained even while general patterns are similar," zimring and hawkins wrote. "a preference for crimes of personal force and the willingness and ability to use guns in robbery make similar levels of property crime 54 times as deadly in new york city as in london." how can the country address this? the research shows tightening existing gun control measures in the us would help: studies in both connecticut and missouri suggested that gun licensing laws in those states helped reduce homicides and suicides. but as harvard's david hemenway told vox's dylan matthews, it would likely take decades for the mild gun control measures proposed in the us to have a significant impact. "it's all speculation," hemenway said. "i suspect it would take a while (decades) for the us to get down to gun violence levels of other developed countries because a) we have so many guns which are durable, and b) we have a gun culture <u+2014> we tend to use guns more often in more situations than citizens of other developed countries." to have a more immediate impact, then, the us would have to find a way to quickly remove the number of guns in circulation. other countries have actually done that: in australia, after a 1996 mass shooting, lawmakers passed new restrictions on guns and imposed a mandatory buyback program that essentially confiscated people's guns, seizing at least 650,000 firearms. according to one review of the evidence by harvard researchers, australia's firearm homicide rate dropped by about 42 percent in the seven years after the law passed, and its firearm suicide rate fell by 57 percent. although it's hard to gauge how much of this was driven by the buyback program, researchers argue it likely played some role: "first, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates." still, similar policies would be difficult to pass in america, a nation in which gun culture and ownership are tremendously ingrained <u+2014> notably, in the second amendment. and gun owners are backed by a powerful lobby: the national rifle association. combined, these forces have stopped any serious gun legislation from passing at the federal level <u+2014> although some states have passed new restrictions in the past few years. but given the research, america's policies and attitudes toward guns have clear, deadly costs <u+2014> including, perhaps, more events like the hesston shooting.

hesston, kansas, mass shooting: what we know

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

11.0

44.0

8.0

6187.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

395.0

1.0

0.0

98.0

0.0

22.0

24.0

9.0

30.0

4.0

17.0

5.0

26.0

35.0

29.0

396.0

99.0

22.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

markets might want more clarity on exactly when interest rates will go up, but they're not likely to get it from fed chair janet yellen. in a closely watched speech on friday, yellen provided a more detailed view of her economic outlook but at the same time raised new questions about what the fed will do next. the wall street journal's pedro da costa summed up her stance on interest rates perfectly: yellen isn't being difficult here. she has good reasons for being so vague. after more than six years of trying to boost the economy with interest rates near zero, the central bank is still battling stubbornly flat inflation and a slow labor market recovery. nothing like this has happened in at least 80 years, and experts disagree about the best course for the fed to take. given those uncharted waters, the fed can't really telegraph right now when it will raise rates; what it can do (and what yellen did) is emphasize just how much uncertainty the fed faces <u+2014> and try to help markets understand the fed's approach to dealing with this dilemma. at some points in her speech, yellen seemed to say interest rates could rise soon. she indicated that inflation won't necessarily have to take off before she's comfortable raising interest rates <u+2014> it just can't fall any further. she also indicated that she and her fed colleagues might still bump up interest rates this year. yet yellen was also careful to also point out that the economy isn't all that strong <u+2014> in fact, it's weaker than it looks right now: in assessing the actual strength of the labor market and the broader economy, we must bear in mind that these very welcome improvements have been achieved in the context of extraordinary monetary accommodation. while the overall level of real activity now appears to be much closer to its potential than it was a year or two ago, the economy in an "underlying" sense remains quite weak by historical standards, for the simple reason that the increases in hiring and output that have been achieved thus far have required exceptionally low levels of short- and longer-term interest rates, reflecting a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy. interest rates have been, and remain, very low, and if underlying conditions had truly returned to normal, the economy should be booming. ... the speech provided details to how yellen sees the current economic landscape. and while it seemed to give conflicting messages, that's sort of the point. under ordinary circumstances, central banks can work from a standard playbook that helps them decide when to adjust policy. for example, economists have developed a model called the taylor rule that gives guidelines for how to set interest rates based on gdp growth and inflation rates. but as yellen herself said on friday, these are not ordinary circumstances <u+2014> there's so much slack in the labor market that the taylor rule just wouldn't work right now. the reality is that the fed simply doesn't know when it can raise rates ... and it may not know until it's time. speaking to senators<u+00a0>in february, yellen said the fed is going to take interest rate hikes on a "meeting-by-meeting basis." if economic conditions continue to improve, as the committee anticipates, the committee will at some point begin considering an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate on a meeting-by-meeting basis. before then, the committee will change its forward guidance. however, it is important to emphasize that a modification of the forward guidance should not be read as indicating that the committee will necessarily increase the target range in a couple of meetings. instead the modification should be understood as reflecting the committee's judgment that conditions have improved to the point where it will soon be the case that a change in the target range could be warranted at any meeting. rather than giving specific guidance (which she can't really do), yellen is trying to help markets understand why the fed can't be more specific about its future actions. there's simply not a playbook for what the fed should do right now, so what yellen seems to be saying is that the central bank will know an improved economy when it sees it.

janet yellen won't say when interest rates will rise because she doesn't know

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

77.0

8.0

4210.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

269.0

2.0

0.0

80.0

0.0

34.0

2.0

6.0

1.0

7.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

17.0

8.0

27.0

273.0

82.0

34.0

na