12 thoughts on “News/Politics 10-16-20

  1. Time to clamp down on the biased censors.

    ———-

    Like

  2. Completely coincidental, or intentionally locking down and tanking the numbers until Nov. 3rd?

    B. Final answer.

    https://justthenews.com/nation/economy/tale-two-recoveries-red-states-outpacing-blue-states-economic-growth-driven

    “A tale of two COVID economies: Red state recovery, blue state recession

    In red states (those voting Republican for president in all four of the last four elections), the combined unemployment rate stood at 6.6%. Among blue states (those that voted Democrat in all of the last four for presidential elections), the figure was 10.5%.”

    “As Democratic candidates across the nation harp on the economic devastation they attribute to the Trump administration’s mishandled COVID response, a closer look at state by state unemployment data reveals something far different: a tale of two economies on starkly divergent paths out of crushing shutdown economics. In “red” states, economic recovery is in full roar. “Blue” states, meanwhile, lag far behind, still staggering under unemployment levels associated with the deepest recessions. Suspended somewhere between these two poles are politically mixed “purple” states muddling through with fittingly middling unemployment numbers.

    Just the News reviewed U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment data by state for August (the latest data available). The national unemployment rate — which now stands at 7.9% — was 8.4% in August. However, the economic pain represented by that number was not spread evenly across red, blue and purple states — far from it. Fueled by broader, faster economic reopenings following the initial coronavirus crash, conservative-leaning red states are by and large far outpacing liberal-leaning blue states in terms of putting people back to work.

    Just the News found that 9 of the 10 states with the lowest unemployment rates are are led by Republican governors (Montana, led by Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock is the lone exception). In startling contrast, 9 of the 10 states with the highest unemployment rates are led by Democrats (the exception being Massachusetts, led by Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, a critic of President Trump).

    In red states (those voting Republican for president in all four of the last four elections), the combined unemployment rate stood at 6.6%. Among blue states (those that voted Democrat in all four of the last four presidential elections) the figure was 10.5%. Among purple states (all of the others, either split 2 and 2 or 3 wins for one party and one win for the other), the unemployment figure was 7.8%.

    Even within the purple states, there was a familiar, albeit far less pronounced, partisan discrepancy: Purple states led by Republican governors had an unemployment rate of 7.3%, while the rate for purple states with Democratic governors was 8.2%.

    Kevin Hassett, former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, anticipated the ultimate impact of the faster reopening trends among red states in an interview with Just the News in May. “You’re seeing very large variation across blue and red states right now and the extent to which economies are turning back on,” Hassett noted back then, “and I think that that’s probably the story of the data that’s probably most under-told right now.”

    “[It’s] definitely the case,” Hassett emphasized, “that the economies are picking up quicker right now in places that are opening up.”

    “As astounding as the recent economic renaissance in American has been, the reality is that far too many lockdown governors are a drag upon the process, imposing unreasonable restrictions upon their states’ economic activity for purely political motives,” Steve Cortes, an economic advisor to the Trump campaign, told Just the News. “As strong as the V-shaped recovery is in America, it could be even better if the oppressive governors of many blue states would allow citizens to fully begin the process back to normalcy with safe openings of businesses, schools, sports etc.””

    Like

  3. The Literally Deadly Results Of “Bail Reform”

    https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/10/15/literally-deadly-results-bail-reform/

    “Last week, a 43-year-old Long Island man named William Farnum was being pursued in his vehicle by the NYPD. The suspect eventually crashed into a utility pole. When the police arrived on the scene and approached to investigate they discovered that Farnum had slit his own throat in the driver’s seat of his car and was dead. The bad news didn’t end there, however. When officers attempted to notify his next of kin they discovered two dead bodies in his home. They are believed to be the remains of Farnum’s father and sister, reportedly killed by Farnum.

    What’s really got the local police and Republican lawmakers up in arms about this situation is the fact that Farnum never should have been out on the streets when all of this was taking place. Scrolling through the man’s recent history of engagements with law enforcement and the totality of his criminal record, he should have been behind bars. But new bail reform laws in New York have tied the hands of judges and it was virtually impossible to keep Farnum locked up for more than a few hours at a time. (Newsday)

    Law enforcement unions Tuesday called for the repeal of state bail reform laws, citing the case of a Bellport man with a lengthy criminal record who killed himself after a brief pursuit, leaving police to then find the bodies of two relatives in his home…

    Farnum died by suicide after crashing his 2003 Honda Civic into a utility pole on Washington Avenue in East Patchogue on Oct. 7. When officers approached the vehicle, they found Farnum had slit his throat, police said. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

    Homicide detectives, attempting to notify the next of kin, entered Farnum’s home and found the body of a man and a woman, authorities said. While police have yet to identify the victims, police union officials Tuesday said they were Farnum’s father and sister.

    Democrats who support the bail reform laws are arguing that bail reform had nothing to do with how Farnum wound up dead on the side of the road. But looking at his history, that’s a pretty tough argument to make. At the time of the crash, Farnum was on parole after being released from prison last year after a four-year stretch for burglary and assault. That was his third time going to prison. Over the course of this summer, Farnum had been arrested four times. While he was on parole. He also had another outstanding warrant for felony grand larceny. And every time the cops caught him and brought him before a judge he was set free again.”

    Like

  4. The Deep State strikes again.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/15/the_gordian_knot_protecting_obamagate_secrets_144452.html

    “Donald Trump and Republicans are furious that U.S. Attorney John Durham has not brought indictments against senior people who spied on the president’s campaign, lied repeatedly to judges in order to do it, and based their intrusions on specious evidence, which they knew to be false — and had been commissioned by the opposition political party. We know the broad outlines of this coordinated operation, but we still don’t know its full extent, all those involved, and what precise roles they played.

    Attorney General William Barr promised major developments in this probe by late spring, then mid-summer, then Labor Day, and now sometime after the election. If, as Republicans say (and the evidence seems to show), there was a systematic effort to weaponize federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political purposes, the public has a compelling right to know. This need-to-know is urgent because the Democrats’ presidential nominee, Joe Biden, served as the second-highest ranking member of the administration that conducted these acts.

    Why have Barr and Durham delayed issuing indictments or producing a comprehensive report? There are two ways to view this riddle.

    The first is that there have been so many practical obstacles to moving quickly, yet properly, to find out what happened. Everything was on hold while bumbling Jeff Sessions was attorney general. The department was, in effect, run by his second-in-command, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel and then let him and his deputy, Andrew Weissmann, operate virtually without restraint.

    Mueller’s biased, aggressive team seems to have had one overriding interest: take down the president. (Weissmann confirmed as much in his recent kiss-and-tell memoir harshly critical of Mueller for not doing precisely that.) When that prolonged effort fizzled and with Barr in place of Sessions, the Department of Justice could finally investigate how Trump was targeted and who did it. Barr assigned that task to Durham, a nonpartisan, highly respected career prosecutor with previous experience as an independent counsel.

    Durham met predictable resistance from the same agencies that had committed the very acts being investigated. The CIA, now headed by Gina Haspel, and the FBI, now headed by Christopher Wray, refused to turn over any documents they weren’t forced to. Their resistance significantly slowed Durham’s work. So did the pandemic, which prevented grand juries from meeting to consider the evidence he uncovered.

    These delays are only half the story.

    The other half is the inherent, unresolvable tensions between the political and criminal dimensions of this investigation. Career prosecutors are obliged to be concerned only with assembling solid evidence to win criminal convictions, however time-consuming that is. If one indictment is part of a broader picture and might reveal information to other targets, prosecutors keep it secret as long as they can.

    These procedures pose no problems in ordinary cases. In this case, however, they pose big problems since the crimes being investigated were directed at political figures, had political consequences, and may have been politically motivated. Citizens have a right to know — right now, before another Election Day — how the results of the previous presidential election were undermined by the very agencies who are supposed to be the bulwarks of American democracy. The targeting by the FBI and CIA of Donald Trump’s campaign, transition, and presidency corrupts the very idea of free-and-fair elections, the peaceful transfer of power, and nonpartisan law enforcement. If that’s what happened, Americans must know who did it.

    The Gordian Knot here is the unavoidable, unresolvable tension between the proper procedures used to investigate complex, white-collar crimes and the inherently political nature of the crimes being investigated in this case. The logic of law enforcement pulls on one end of the rope. The logic of informed, democratic choice pulls on the other end. One demands secrecy; the other, openness. Both are completely legitimate. Because they pull in opposite directions in this case, the knot keeps getting tighter. Secretive criminal investigations proceed with a logic that is fundamentally different from that of free and open democratic elections. Each has its own timetable, and the gap between them cannot be closed by Election Day 2020.

    Durham has moved on a legal timetable, not a political one. That’s entirely appropriate. But it comes at a high cost to voters and to the Trump White House. It leaves the attorney general with no way to inform citizens what his department has discovered before they cast ballots. Although Barr could speak about the broad contours of his findings, doing so would seem partisan and, in any case, would be hard to do without naming names. Those names should only be revealed through criminal charges or court cases. Indict or shut up. Violating that cardinal rule was the same mistake FBI Director James Comey made when he discussed Hillary Clinton’s emails and server. Barr and Durham won’t repeat it.”

    Like

  5. A tale of two townhalls. One got the kid glove treatment, one had to debate the moderator. Again. Guess which is which?

    As if you couldn’t….. 🙄

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/16/at_trump_townhall_guthrie_steps_in_as_debate_opponent_144470.html

    “At Trump Townhall, Guthrie Steps In as Debate Opponent”

    “Behind the scenes, there was anger, even before the first question, but this time it wasn’t from President Trump.

    NBC employees seethed that they had agreed to host a Trump townhall in the same hour that ABC was hosting a similar Biden event. It was counterprograming, they complained, a clear attempt by the incumbent to force a split-screen moment and pull the eyeballs of the electorate away from the Democratic challenger.

    They were not alone, and others went public with that sentiment. Actors and producers and on-air talent put their frustration to paper in an open letter to NBC asking the network to “air the president’s town hall either before or after Joe Biden’s so that American voters can have the opportunity to watch both.”

    NBC executives didn’t budge. But while Trump got half the national spotlight, Savannah Guthrie made sure he paid for it with sharp questions that kept coming, one after the other.

    Did he have any remaining COVID symptoms? Did he ever develop a case of pneumonia? Did he take a coronavirus test before the debate with Biden as required by the Commission on Presidential Debates?

    Trump said he is symptom-free at the moment, said he didn’t “do too much asking” about his chest X-rays while a patient at Walter Reed medical center, and said he wasn’t sure if he had or hadn’t tested before the debate: “The doctor has very accurate information — if you are president, you have a lot of doctors you’re surrounded by — I was in great shape for the debate, and sometime after the debate, I tested positive.”

    Why hadn’t he condemned white supremacy on the debate stage?

    Trump said he did condemn white supremacy on stage and always has “denounced white supremacy” and then complained that the press “always starts off with the question.” Interrupting as Guthrie tried a follow-up, the exasperated president asked, “Are you listening? I denounce white supremacy!”

    Why won’t he condemn Q-Anon for spreading a conspiracy theory about satanic cult of pedophiles controlling the Democratic Party?

    Trump said three times that he didn’t know about the group before adding that the only knowledge he had was that they were “very much against pedophilia” and that “they fight it very hard.” The president expressed frustration that Guthrie didn’t ask him about antifa and that the press had not asked Biden about antifa.”

    ————

    And now the kid gloves from yet another Democrat operative pretending to be a journalist.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/16/at_townhall_biden_channels_mr_rogers__144469.html

    “President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden were supposed to debate each other Thursday night. When that event fell apart over Trump’s refusal to engage his opponent virtually after being diagnosed with COVID-19, both candidates accepted offers from major broadcast networks to participate in townhalls airing at the same time.

    The switch turned out to be a net positive for Biden when it comes to displaying his skill at talking calmly with voters – even those expressing differences with him. But it wasn’t a slam dunk by any means. His performance was also marred by some wildly uneven moments and windy responses from him, along with an outright refusal to answer whether he supports packing the Supreme Court — though promising he would do so before Nov. 3.

    Throughout the dueling forums, Twitter lit up with Biden supporters’ sharply contrasting the calm and collegial tone of the ABC townhall hosted by George Stephanopoulos with the combative faceoff between Trump and NBC host Savannah Guthrie before she turned to voters in the audience for questions.

    As the Biden forum wrapped up, “Mr. Rogers” was trending on Twitter after Mercedes Schlapp, a senior adviser for President Trump’s reelection campaign, compared the Democratic nominee’s performance to the long-running children’s show aimed at preschoolers.

    “Well @JoeBiden @ABCPolitics townhall feels like I’m watching an episode of Mister Rodgers Neighborhood,” she tweeted, misspelling Fred Rogers last name.

    Conservative critics were irate over Guthrie’s grilling of Trump for nearly 20 minutes during a format supposedly dedicated to questions from voters. They also took issue with Stephanopoulos’ light touch with Biden.

    Biden’s supporters eagerly embraced the Mr. Rogers analogy, arguing it was a “self-own” for Team Trump because Rogers was known for his soothing, patient and kind demeanor.

    “Pretty telling that this crew thinks Mr. Rogers is the bad guy,” tweeted Democratic strategist Zac Petkanas.

    Meanwhile, during the same hour, Fox News host Tucker Carlson was revealing purportedly new Hunter Biden emails resurrecting a narrative that Biden, while vice president, demanded the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor because he was investigating energy firm Burisma, for which Hunter worked as a highly paid board member. Twitter and Facebook for the prior 48 hours had prevented their users from tweeting or posting a New York Post story about the emails and calling into question previous assertions from Biden that he knew nothing about his son’s lucrative business deals in Ukraine and China. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, over the same two days has slammed the presidential nominee as the head of the “Biden Crime Family” over the lucrative contracts. Giuliani provided the emails to the New York Post, which he said were obtained from a laptop Hunter Biden dropped off at a repair shop last year and never picked up.

    Throughout the 90 minute-townhall, interrupted for commercials, Biden fielded audience inquiries but received none from Stephanopoulos, nor the audience, about the propriety of Hunter Biden’s overseas deals and any links to his father.”

    ———–

    So I guess no mention of the video of his son smoking crack and having sex with a prostitute either. That seems like it would be a huge story were it one of Trump’s sons.

    Like

  6. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

    ———

    Like

  7. ———

    Like

  8. Keeping it simple, the overview from World Magazine’s The Shift:

    ~ Biden details plans, promises

    The former vice president called the Green New Deal unachievable, gave a winding explanation of his policies on race, and criticized President Donald Trump for approaching his job with a “divide and conquer” attitude. But at a televised town hall meeting in Philadelphia on Thursday, he did not directly answer a question about the Supreme Court, which has become a defining issue of the campaign. He said his position on adding more justices to the court would depend on how Republicans handle the confirmation vote for Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump nominated to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Were there any other notable moments? A woman who introduced herself as the mother of a transgender 8-year-old asked whether Biden would repeal regulations she said discriminate against her child. Many of those regulations protect the religious liberty of healthcare providers and other Christian businesspeople. Biden said he would reverse them. ~

    Like

  9. Actually Biden did answer the question. He said it depends on whether or not ACB is confirmed. If she isn’t he’d have no need. If she is, then he would to placate the left.

    But their water carriers would just prefer it if we stopped asking.

    ——–

    Like

  10. More dirty details on the Biden syndicate.

    https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/emails-reveal-how-hunter-biden-tried-to-cash-in-big-with-chinese-firm/

    “Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family with Chinese firm”

    “Hunter Biden pursued lucrative deals involving China’s largest private energy company — including one that he said would be “interesting for me and my family,” emails obtained by The Post show.

    One email sent to Biden on May 13, 2017, with the subject line “Expectations,” included details of “remuneration packages” for six people involved in an unspecified business venture.

    Biden was identified as “Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC,” an apparent reference to the former Shanghai-based conglomerate CEFC China Energy Co.

    His pay was pegged at “850” and the email also noted that “Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate.”

    In addition, the email outlined a “provisional agreement” under which 80 percent of the “equity,” or shares in the new company, would be split equally among four people whose initials correspond to the sender and three recipients, with “H” apparently referring to Biden.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.