Feel the Bern...
Friday, February 5, 2016
Thursday, February 4, 2016
PPP’s newest national poll finds the race on the Republican side tightening considerably in the wake of Donald Trump’s surprise loss in Iowa on Monday night. Trump’s lead has fallen to just 4 points- he’s at 25% to 21% each for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, 11% for Ben Carson, 5% each for Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and the now departed Rand Paul, 3% each for Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina, and 1% for Jim Gilmore. Rick Santorum had literally zero supporters on our final poll including him.
Trump’s 25% standing reflects a 9 point drop from our last national poll, which was taken the week before Christmas. It reflects an overall decline in Trump’s popularity with GOP voters. Trump’s favorability has dropped a net 17 points, from a previous +24 standing at 58/34 to now just +7 at 48/41.Trump is particularly starting to struggle on the right- he’s dropped to 3rd place with ‘very conservative’ voters at 19% with Cruz at 34% and Rubio at 22% outpacing him with that group. He does still lead with moderates and ‘somewhat conservative’ voters to give him the overall advantage.
Rubio is the candidate with the real momentum in the race. He’s up 8 points from his 13% standing in our poll right before Christmas. Beyond that he’s seen a large spike in his favorability rating- it’s improved a net 28 points from +15 at 49/34 to +43 at 64/21. That ties him with Ben Carson as being the most broadly popular candidate on the Republican side.
Things also bode well for Rubio as the field gets smaller in the coming weeks. In a four candidate field he gets 32% to 31% for Trump, 23% for Cruz, and 8% for Bush. In a three candidate field he gets 34% to 33% for Trump and 25% for Cruz. And in head to heads he leads both Trump (52/40) and Cruz (46/40). As other candidates drop out of the race Rubio is the most likely destination of their supporters.
Cruz is actually pretty steady in his national standing even after his surprise victory in Iowa. His 21% standing is up just slightly from 18% in December and his favorability rating is basically unchanged- it was 59/27 then and it’s 58/28 now. One thing Cruz has going for him is that when you combine first and second choices he comes out ahead with 41% to 36% for Rubio, and 32% for Trump. That’s another metric indicating the difficulty Trump may have in growing his support. Additionally Trump trails Cruz 47/41 head to head, which bodes poorly for him if they end up being the finalists...
...The axed CBC host is on trial for five counts, of sexual assault and overcoming resistance, brought by three complainants, his alleged offences running the gamut from hair-yanking to punching to choking, all occurring within a sexual context: Kissing while standing, kissing while in a parked car, kissing while sitting on a park bench. Without the kissing, there would be no "sex" in these alleged sexual assaults.
It is indeed an ordeal to testify in a sex assault trial. But a significant part of that torment still arises from the exposure — in front of a judge, a jury, reporters, the public gallery — of an individual's intimate horror. When you look upon her with pity, even revulsion for what she's endured, you are diminishing the person. You are defining her by the violation.
The law is not to blame for deeply rooted perceptions. That is a cultural phenomenon. At times, during this first week of the Ghomeshi trial, it's felt like being transported to witch-burnings in Salem or the safeguarding of women that justifies gender segregation — hiding, covering, enforced modesty — in misogynistic and zealously religious societies. Chattel or victim? Only the spin is different.
There is a growing movement to make it easier for women to testify in sex assault cases by, essentially, crafting one justice system for males and another for females. It's called reform but it would really be just another form of sequestering, with specialized courts hearing sex assault trials. That's rating victims — my pain is more pronounced than yours, my emotional equilibrium more fragile than yours. I am frail and you, father court, must protect me especially.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
OFFSTOWN, New Hampshire — Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz gave his harshest assessment yet of Donald Trump's candidacy on Wednesday, saying the Iowa caucus runner-up is throwing a "Trumpertantrum" after his loss...
From Part 1 of a three-part series at GenuineWitty:
...Woolley’s article kicks off making an overconfident claim that Elliott’s is the first case of criminal harassment over twitter. Turns out it isn’t, news came out a few days after the article that Conservative MP Michelle Rempel received death threats over twitter from a Toronto man last year. He was convicted of the same crime Elliott as charged with- except that Elliott never made any threats.
It’s curious that Rempel’s incident wasn’t covered by the media, yet Elliott’s case was widely covered- somepassing judgment long before the trial began. This is probably because Rempel took the ethical path of staying quiet after the arrest- while Elliott’s formerly alleged victim Stephanie Guthrie was eagerly accepting interviews with her allies in the media. Woolley disclosed she knows the complainants in Elliott’s case- but left some very important information our of her disclosure.
The writer describes herself as a feminist who was attracted to follow the case because she’s been subjected to death threats- Guthrie tweeted a false claim that Elliott sent her one. She also claims to have been subjected to “near-constant vitriolic responses” to her opinions. I can sympathise having faced years of the same, but as will be clear by the end of this article, she’s not helping the situation by cheerleading for people for people who start online swarming attacks.
Woolley feels that this case has been “repeatedly misrepresented” and has responded by misrepresenting the case as being one sided. She combed through the final ruling and pulled out the judges criticism for Elliott’s politically incorrect tweets: “sexist,” vulgar,” and “obscene”. But she completely ignores how the complainants sent vicious tweets smearing Elliott as a pedophile. She also omits to mention the judge’s use of the word “violence” in regards to Stephanie Guthrie’s behavior when she launched the swarming attack, we’ll dive deeper into that shortly.
While many saw Elliott’s arrest as an assault on free speech Woolley doesn’t believe that, says it’s “an argument often steeped in anti-feminist rhetoric.” In Woolley’s circles calling something anti-feminist is the equivalent of saying it’s racist or homophobic- an easy way to brush off and discredit criticism. In the real world, feminist social justice warriors spend an awful lot of time trying to shut people down. It’s such a common occurrence with Toronto’s feminist SJWs that they’ve given our city a bad reputation...
|Col. Richard Kemp (via twitter)|
Terrorist groups do not follow the laws of armed conflict but have been using them to their advantage in war with countries such as the United States, according to a report from the High Level Military Group.
Members of the group, which was formed last year and is composed of retired military officials and civilian experts, released the report on Tuesday during an event at the Washington, D.C., office of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“This report illustrates a new threat our forces are faced with—a political warfare strategy of our adversaries, terrorists, and insurgents, who fight with utter disregard for the laws of war or human rights,” explained, retired British Col. Richard Kemp, one of the report’s authors.
“They not only ignore the laws of war, but they exploit our armed forces’ adherence to the law,” said Kemp, who commanded Britain’s troops in Afghanistan. “They not only exploit events when our forces kill innocent civilians, but they do all that they can to compel our forces to kill innocent civilians. Then they use the media and human rights organizations to create political pressure against our governments.”...
Leading Republican lawmakers are spearheading a new legislative push that would stop the Obama administration from blocking state-level efforts to impose new sanctions on Iran, according to a copy of new legislation obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The push, which is led by more than 20 House Republicans, comes in response to Obama administration efforts to prevent state governments from wading into the Iran debate.
Since the nuclear agreement was implemented, many state officials have expressed interest in leveling new economic sanctions against Iran in a bid to stop local governments and business from re-engaging in business with the Islamic Republic.
At least half of all U.S. states have laws or policies on the books that sanction Iran. Governors from 15 states co-signed a letter in September expressing their intent to use state-level sanctions to target Iran.
The Obama administration has expressed outrage about the effort, warning that it could interfere with and even violate the nuclear agreement. A portion of the agreement includes language that threatens to block U.S. states from moving forward with new sanctions.
In a bid to protect these state rights, Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.) and a delegation of other House lawmakers, have filed legislation to protect governments from legal attacks brought as a result of their Iran sanctions efforts, according to information provided to the Free Beacon...
Thank God that's over. You don't have to be an Amtrak conductor to want to punch the next guy who says, "There are three tickets out of Iowa." In the end, Ted Cruz won eight delegates and Donald Trump seven. Which doesn't sound so bad for Trump. Except that Marco Rubio also won seven delegates. Had the caucus been held 24 hours later, Rubementum might have pushed Trump to third place.
There's no point pretending it wasn't a setback for the billionaire party-crasher. Who knows why it happened? Perhaps he should have taken his own advice and shot a guy on Fifth Avenue: That's gotta be worth a couple of points in Polk County. For over six months, each supposedly fatal misstep - from McCain to Muslims - only made him stronger. Now the first actual votes of this interminable process have made him weaker. For a candidate running on the platform that he's a winner and the other guys are losers, the aura of invincibility depended on the perception of invincibility. So it's not helpful to let five thousand hayseeds shuck Trump Tower like a corncob. Doing without consultants, doing without ads, doing without Fox News, doing without National Review, doing without debates ...great, great, love it. But doing without voters is a trickier proposition...
And I thought it had something to do with pink grapefruit...
Pink lemonade doesn't really make any sense, if you think about it. Lemons are yellow, yet this lemon-based beverage is pink. Some people assume that there are red-colored berries responsible for this oddity; this is sometimes true, but usually not -- and that's certainly not how it was originally invented.
We're not here to ruin this perfectly good summertime beverage for you. Pink lemonade is sometimes colored with cranberry juice, raspberry juice or crushed strawberries, but it's more often colored with red food dye. This may come as a surprise to some, but it's a vast improvement from the way it was dyed when first appearing on the beverage scene in the mid 1800s.
According to Josh Chetwynd, author of the book, "How the Hot Dog Found Its Bun," there are two main claims to the title of pink-lemonade inventor -- and neither of them sound very thirst-quenching. The first attributes this beverage to a salesman, by the name of Pete Conklin, who sold concessions at the circus. When working a shift in 1857, he ran out of water to make his lemonade (with no access to a nearby well or spring).
Rather than lose out on business, "Pete sprinted into the dressing tent and came across Fannie Jamieson, one of the show’s bareback riders. She had just cleaned her pink tights in a vat of water, leaving the liquid looking a deep pink hue." He used the water without a second thought, and sold it as "fine strawberry lemonade."...
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Or she may name Bernie sanders, which would basically amount to the same thing. Except, I think Bernie may be a bit older than Karl...
Personally, I think a lot of people were punking the pollsters, telling them they'd vote for Trump as a way of expressing disdain for the system. But when it came down to marking their ballot, most voters couldn't bring themselves to cast a vote for that fucking buffoon:
Donald Trump was at the top of each of the last 10 polls in Iowa, but his lead failed to hold up on caucus night Monday. In the end, his seven-point lead in polling averages amounted to a three-point loss to Ted Cruz.
That 10-point swing was enough to make Mr. Trump’s defeat the biggest polling error in an early primary since Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama in New Hampshire in 2008. But even that measure understates the extent that the polls misjudged Mr. Trump’s strength.
Mr. Trump was at 31 percent in the final polls, but finished with just 24 percent. In our data set of early primary polls from New Hampshire and Iowa since 2004, no candidate underperformed the final surveys by as much as Mr. Trump. Mrs. Clinton, for instance, mainly beat Mr. Obama by outperforming her polling, not because Mr. Obama fell short.
Monday, February 1, 2016
...Does the current Liberal cabinet (and the country) view the world differently than Justin Trudeau? I can't help believing that Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan does and that he is on an inevitable collision course with the prime minister on many defence issues, but most significantly on Canada's role in the fight with ISIL.
Sajjan was a lieutenant-colonel in the Canadian army with deployment time in Afghanistan. He knows first-hand what Islamic extremists are capable of and that armed and fanatical terrorists are not undermined nor defeated by increasing humanitarian aid.
Trudeau believes in lending a helping hand throughout the world. But without concomitant military force, that hand will be cut off. He is actually talking about something called a more "robust" training mission, about as efficacious in fighting ISIL as a more robust cup of coffee.
Canada has already been excluded from a NATO planning meeting this month. The organizers didn't even bother with diplomatic parlance to cloak the reason for not inviting us. U.S. Defence Secretary Ashley Carter said the six invited nations were playing "a significant role" in the fight against ISIL. He further noted the lack of space for "free riders" in the coalition.
The account above squares precisely with Defence Minister Sajjan's reaction to Canada being excluded from the January NATO planning meeting on dealing with ISIS. However, Trudeau lied about it in this CBC interview (unless his handlers lied to Trudeau about it and our ignoramus Prime Minister parroted the lie):
A Thornhill man has legally changed his name to be on the bottom of the ballot for the Whitby-Oshawa byelection.
On Feb. 11, Above Znoneofthe will be one of 10 candidates hoping to fill the vacant seat left by former Progressive Conservative MPP Christine Elliott.
The 46-year-old, who lives in Thornhill with his wife and two children, paid $137 to change his name from Sheldon Bergson in September...