The left continues to harp on unproven allegations that Donald Trump inappropriately touched women and said dirty words 11 years ago many are wondering where the outrage is about Joe Biden. For years the vice president’s inappropriate touching of women, and the invading of their personal space, has been a punchline seen as harmless. But now that the barrage of claims against Trump has reached its zenith social media has begun asking where the mainstream news sources are on “creepy Uncle Joe’s” unwanted encroachments. #WomenWhoVoteTrump wonder why Joe Biden gets a pass on “inapropriate touching.” Yikes!⤵If this was Trump, imagine the MSM headlines . #MAGA pic.twitter.com/gtk64X3tXH — Trump the Hill (@TrumpTheHill) October 15, 2016 @CNN @andersoncooper @Maddow @MSNBC Where’s the Wall 2 Wall segment on Creepy Uncle Joe Molesting Young Girls/Women? #HYPOCRITES #NVDebate pic.twitter.com/vODHxrEF0g — Truth Is Power (@truthispower777) October 15, 2016 #OnHillarysTeleprompter would someone tell Joe Biden that touching women and making them uncomfortable makes you unfit for office — Robert Wilson (@rwlawoffice) October 15, 2016 Katie Pavlich – It’s Time For a National Conversation About Joe Biden’s Inappropriate Touching https://t.co/ZHpbwjI5XU — Diamond Barbarian (@NoMoreElitists) October 14, 2016 No prof of Trump touching women. Watch Joe Biden Rub, Touch And Kiss His Way To Beck-Like Creepiness – YouTube https://t.co/jFWNo4ssgF — R. Wolfe (@WhoWolfe) October 14, 2016 Joe Biden can’t Keep his Hands off Women, a known fact! Always touching them! HYPOCRIT! pic.twitter.com/nNc1QFG7Hk — TRUMP/ PENCE 2017! (@audreyringrose) October 13, 2016 BIDEN IS A CLASS-A PERV. TALK ABOUT GROPING, HE’S ALWAYS TOUCHING WOMEN. IT’S RIGHT IN OUR FACES! https://t.co/aBAr2mzrlb — DeplorableWhatWhat7 (@OpinionOnion7) October 13, 2016 . @frankthorp Sure let’s have that conversation https://t.co/wC1deHu544 — Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) October 9, 2016 Answer: experience
SEATTLE - Three brothers in their 70s and 80s have been arrested in Seattle for allegedly possessing images of child-sex abuse with police still investigating them, according to Seattle Police Department. &gt;&gt; Read about the latest in the investigation here On Aug. 19, Seattle child sex crime detectives say they acted on a tip from a relative who arrived to clean out the garage of the brothers. The relative called 911. At the home, detectives collected a staggering amount of child porn. They also found evidence of the sexual exploitation of young girls as well as children's worn clothing and underwear, children’s shoes, toys and movies. Homeland Security's Internet Child Exploitation team assisted in the search, which involved digging for potential buried evidence under locked sheds and garages. Neighbors in the quiet Green Lake neighborhood along Northeast 59th St.Street say they always wondered about the dilapidated house and the three guarded, mysterious Emery brothers who lived there since 1962. "I've never seen a girlfriend, a wife, a woman of any type visit that house," said Don Smith, who lives next door. Seattle police say the brothers, ranging in age from 78 to 82, began molesting their own sister and eventually molested other young relatives for decades. None of them had ever married, none had their own children or many relationships outside their own siblings. Police arrested 82-year-old Charles Lee Emery in a Queen Anne nursing home. Eighty-year-old Thomas Edwin Emery and 78-year-old Edwin Harold Emery were arrested at their home. Scroll down to read about the manifesto. Detectives say Charles, Thomas and Edwin sexually molested young relatives for years, and collected pictures and even children's shoes. But detectives say it was Charles' "manifestos" about Satanic rituals, kidnapping, raping and killing girls that led them to dig under sheds, searching for evidence of potential murder. Detectives say one of Charles' writings was found buried and partially burned -- along with a child's hat. "Their writings express desires to kill children," said Capt. Mike Edwards, who leads SPD's Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force. The search extended from the home in the Green Lake neighborhood to another home the brothers owned 90 miles away in Shelton. "It's very clear that these three individuals have an obsession with young female children, they've had this obsession for most if not all of their lives, and they acted on it," said Edwards. Charging documents indicate SPD detectives questioned Edwin Emery and his relatives about child porn found on his computer in 2013, but no charges were ever filed. Now detectives are hoping to identify the children in the photos and they hope to find victims who may have been molested decades ago and never came forward. Neighbors have been wondering exactly what happened in this home since investigators swarmed the home over the weekend. The new details Seattle police and court documents revealed leave them stunned. For decades, neighbors didn't think much about the three brothers who've lived there for 55 years. “I just thought they were harmless weird old guys,” said Julie Vandenberg, who lives directly across the street. Neighbors saw the investigators in hazardous materials suits and police bring out box after box of evidence on Friday and Saturday. Watch coverage from our report over the weekend below, scroll down to keep reading. “It was shocking. I didn’t know what to think,” said Smith, who watched investigators work late into the night Friday from his home next door. “It’s way worse than I thought. It is sickening, it's really sickening,” Vandenberg said. “Something happened to little children here - it sounds like little girls, and that's horrific.” Neighbors say many young children live on the block. The neighbors say they wish they would've noticed some sign earlier, about what was going on in the house but they're just glad the three brothers aren't there to victimize kids any longer. Neighbor Don Smith said he was surprised the allegations were kept quiet for so long. "I mean, to be next door to these guys for all these years, if. If they're going out every day and doing something like that, I was like, wow. This is too much" © 2018 Cox Media Group. Answer: colonial
On the left, and among Donald Trump's conservative critics, a new debate has emerged: is the media to blame for the businessman's rise, or are Republican primary voters simply "idiots," as New York Magazine's Jon Chait argued recently, and unable to recognize a con-artist when they see one? This is a false choice. There are plenty of factors that went into Trump becoming the presumptive GOP nominee, and the incessant media coverage of his every utterance and movement probably contributed to his sky-high negatives. But it's unserious, not to mention smug, to assume that Trump has been playing all of his Republican supporters for dupes. You don't need to worship Trump to vote for him. You don't even have to like him, or think he's always honest, because these are not the factors at the heart of Trump's appeal. Consider this from Michael Cooper, a writer, attorney, and liberal Democrat who lives in rural North Carolina. "My Republican friends are for Trump. My state representative is for Trump," he wrote in U.S. News in March. "People who haven't voted in years are for Trump. He'll win the primary here on March 15 and he will carry this county in the general. His supporters realize he's a joke. They do not care. They know he's authoritarian, nationalist, almost un-American, and they love him anyway, because he disrupts a broken political process and beats establishment candidates who've long ignored their interests." This, I think, nicely sums up the core of Trump's support. Yes, there is a cult of personality around the candidate, and some of his backers do seem to think of him as a man who can do no wrong. But the breadth of Trump's support alone indicates that we're dealing with more than just full-fledged #TrumpTrain devotees. We're also dealing with the people Cooper writes about, the ones who aren't so enthralled with the man himself but recognize him as a change agent. And the truth is that a President Trump would, of course, be a change agent. A Hillary win would likely take us to something like the pre-Trump status quo ante, which is one reason why so many D.C. and Wall Street Republicans will wind up supporting her -- they'll still know how to play the game in a second Clinton presidency. A Trump victory, meanwhile, will undoubtedly lead to profound upheaval in our political system. The policies he'll pursue in office are still something of a mystery, but due to his lack of a real, grounding political philosophy, we can assume that he'll embrace positions to both the right- and left-of-center. In effect this would be something like a third party in American politics, and one in control of the White House no less -- a Party of Trump, which will find itself at odds with both stalwart conservatives like Ben Sasse and progressives like Elizabeth Warren. Occasionally he'll find common cause with one side, and sometimes with the other. You could even see him putting together odd bedfellows like Sherrod Brown and Jeff Sessions to pass new restrictions on trade. Any way you look at it, he would scramble everything we know about American politics. You can argue that the changes that Trump would bring to this country would be disastrous, or that he's morally and intellectually unfit for the office. But the one safe bet we have about a Trump presidency is that it would provoke a realignment in our politics and bring about an end to the elite governing consensus of the last several decades. America's many establishments -- Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative - would all suddenly find themselves on the outs. The Democrats have signaled that they'll run on the idea that a Trump presidency is just too "risky" and "dangerous." But that shows a real misunderstanding of his appeal as a candidate. The subtext of every Trump rally is basically take this risk, take this gamble -- it may all end in tears, but it's worth a shot. America isn't working anymore, his argument goes. It's not working for Americans, Americans know that, and all those smug elites are to blame. How do we fix that? Hard to say: Trump, remember, has a habit of contradicting himself within the same sentence when answering questions about his policy specifics. But step one is blowing up the system, and that's exactly what Trump is promising to do. Is it childish to want the political system to be completely upended even if the consequences might be disastrous? Maybe. But in a country where a plurality of Americans think that "people like them" were better off 50 years ago, at least according to a recent Pew survey, it should also be expected. We can dismiss Trump's voters as low-class, knuckle-dragging racists who deserve, in some sense, to suffer. But that wouldn't be wise from a governing standpoint or, for Trump's opponents, a tactical one. If you think that Trump's voters don't get what's best for them, then it's up to you to sell them on why they're wrong -- to make the case that free trade leads to cheaper, better goods for everyone, that immigration greatly benefits the economy, that a "Muslim ban" is immoral and would only help groups like ISIS. That the system, for all its faults, can still be reformed, and that allowing Trump to raise hell in Washington will only make his supporters' lot worse. But to just dismiss them as "idiots" is, well, stupid. It plays into his hands; it justifies the anti-elite impulse he's exploited. The consensus among all the poll-watchers and data-heads who have consistently underestimated Trump from the onset is that Hillary is all but certain to win in November. And they might be right. But if Trump pulls off the upset, the smugness and lack of empathy that defines too many of his detractors will be in large part to blame. Answer: experience
HUNTINGTON BEACH (FOX 11 / CNS) - New video has emerged showing what happened before the shooting took place that left a man dead in Huntington Beach on Friday. A Huntington Beach police officer fatally shot a suspect outside a 7-Eleven store Friday in a confrontation that was caught on video and posted online. WARNING: VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES AND CONTENT The shooting occurred about 9:30 a.m. outside the store at 6012 Edinger Ave., where the suspect got into a scuffle with the officer just before the shooting, according to a Huntington Beach Police Department spokeswoman. The suspect later died at a hospital, police said. It happened fast, and like most everything these days, was captured on cell phone video by a bystander. A Huntington Beach Police Officer, in a violent struggle with a man outside a 7-11. The man appears to be a transient, and what spurred their initial interaction is still not clear. After a few seconds of fighting...the two pull away, the man appears to have something in his hand. What it is is not clear. The officer, a few feet away, takes aim with his handgun and fires, once...twice...7 times. The suspect at first takes the shots standing up, then crumbles to the ground. It's quite graphic, quite real, and quite dramatic. In fact, we don't even want to show it on TV it's that violent. The suspect would later die at a hospital and per protocol, the Orange County Sheriff is taking over the investigation. What made this all the more scary was that diagonally across the street is Marina High School. Police ordered it ''locked down'' and immediately cell phones lit up with texts and emails between parents, students, and administrators. There was confusion and near panic among some over reports that there was an active shooter on campus, which there was not. Why? Well, it appears that the shooting happened adjacent to a shopping center called 'Marina Village'. On campus there's an area referred to as ''The Village", so reports of a shooting in ''The Village" or at "The Village'' led to understandable confusion. Yet one of the benefits of social media and that fact that every student has a cell phone, is that the accurate story got out there quickly and students and parents worst fears were calmed within minutes. Cell phone video of the shooting was posted on Twitter, showing the officer firing five shots at the suspect, who stumbles, collapses against a wall of the convenience store, then crumples to the ground. Answer: colonial
The rise of right wing nationalism comes with a massive side dose of bad faith arguments. So argues Sasha Polakow-Suransky, the author of “ Go Back to Where You Came From: The Backlash Against Immigration and the Fate of Western Democracy," which examines the explosion of far-right anti-immigration politics in both Europe and the United States. People like Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen are reactionaries, Polakow-Suransky told me on "Salon Talks," but they like to hide behind liberal values like equality and secularism when launching attacks on Muslim immigrants. “What these parties are doing, especially in France and Holland, is they’re telling gays, they’re telling feminists, and they’re telling Jews even, ‘We are the only ones who will protect you,” he said. “The threat all of you face is from Islam and Muslims and we’re the only party that can stand up to that.’” These politicians want voters to believe they’re not neo-Nazis and skinheads, he continued, but in reality, they’re “weaponizing secularism to target a specific group.” Polakow-Suransky, who is an Open Society Foundations fellow and has held previous positions as an op-ed editor at the New York Times and as a senior editor at Foreign Affairs, says he sees similarity in how “our president reacts to a horrible terrorist attack,” such as the murders in New York City on Halloween, and other crimes. “You see a real gulf between the reactions to any crime perpetrated by an Islamic extremist and crimes committed by white nationalists or other groups,” Polakow-Suransky said. “I think that shows they’re targeting a specific group rather than talking about universal values that we all share.” Watch our full "Salon Talks" conversation on Facebook. Tune into Salon's live shows, "Salon Talks" and "Salon Stage," daily at noon ET / 9 a.m. PT and 4 p.m. ET / 1 p.m. PT, streaming live on Salon and on Facebook. Answer: experience
Mr. Trump says Mrs. Clinton wants “amnesty for everybody, come on in, come on over.” Mrs. Clinton said that she had helped eight million children obtain health coverage, Sept. 11 responders receive medical care and children get safer medicines. Mr. Trump said Mrs. Clinton ignored 600 requests for increased security from J. Christopher Stevens, the ambassador to Libya, and communicated only with Sidney Blumenthal. Mr. Trump accused Mrs. Clinton of being there for President Obama’s “line in the sand” in Syria. She said she wasn’t. Mr. Trump, referring to the effect of Nafta and other free-trade agreements, said, “We lost our jobs.” Mr. Trump said that the United States signed a “peace treaty” to bring an end to the civil war in Syria. Mr. Trump admitted that he used a $916 million loss declared on his 1995 tax returns to avoid paying federal income taxes. But he refused to say how many years he paid no income tax and simultaneously claimed to have paid a “tremendous” amount of taxes. Mr. Trump said we have hundreds of thousands of people pouring into the United States from places like Syria, and we have no idea who they are. Mr. Trump said that growth is “down to 1 percent” and that taxes in the United States are the “highest in the world.” “Since the Great Recession the gains have all gone to the top.” Mr. Trump said “maybe there is no hacking,” in response to Mrs. Clinton’s claim that Russians are engaged in an unprecedented effort to influence the election — on Mr. Trump’s behalf. Mr. Trump said that Mrs. Clinton “wants to go to a single-payer plan” like the health care system in Canada. Mr. Trump said “many people saw” bombs all over the apartment of a couple who committed the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif. Mrs. Clinton deleted 33,000 emails from her private server even after she got a subpoena from Congress. Mr. Trump said that a Clinton associate pushed the “birther” notion against Obama in 2008. Mrs. Clinton said there was no evidence her email has been hacked by a foreign power. Former President Bill Clinton was impeached, lost his law license and paid an $850,000 fine to Paula Jones. Mr. Trump accused Mrs. Clinton of laughing about getting a man acquitted of raping a 12-year-old girl. When Mr. Trump was asked whether he has kissed women or groped women without consent, as he claimed on a recently released video, Mr. Trump said no, he had not. Mr. Trump said that Obamacare is leading to insurance rate increases that are “astronomical.” Mr. Trump said that last year, the United States had a trade deficit of $800 billion. Answer: colonial
As previously reported, embattled Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein is the subject of a devastating expose detailing decades of sexual harassment. Donald Trump Jr. trolled Hillary Clinton on Saturday in a viral tweet. “Weird, Hillary has been really quiet about Harvey Weinstein. You would think she would be all Over this. #WhatHappened?” Weird, Hillary has been really quiet about Harvey Weinstein. You would think she would be all Over this. #WhatHappened? — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) October 7, 2017 But Don Jr. wasn’t finished yet. Donald Trump Jr. challenged sometime comedian Jimmy Kimmel to share his thoughts on liberal icon and sexual predator Harvey Weinstein. Sponsored Sponsored Answer: colonial
Are you sick of Republicans? Or just right-wingers in general? Do you want to send a message to Washington that you aren't going to buy into their racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic and classist nonsense for one second longer? Then do the very thing that Donald Trump unintentionally encouraged in a recent tweet: Encourage Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2020! Crooked Hillary Clinton is the worst (and biggest) loser of all time. She just can’t stop, which is so good for the Republican Party. Hillary, get on with your life and give it another try in three years! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 18, 2017 I'm sure this is the part where the Clinton-haters — be they Trumpers, Bernie Bros or anything in between — will say something to the effect of, "Of course he wants her to run again. That's the only way he'll get re-elected!" Slow your roll there. Clinton's poll numbers aren't too good right now (OK, they're downright atrocious), but there are still four great reasons to consider choosing her as the Democratic nominee in 2020. Even better, all but one of them has to do with an emotion that has no place in this season (which is why I absolutely had to write this article for Thanksgiving weekend): Spite. Delicious, nutritious spite. 1. Hillary Clinton is the Winston Churchill to Vladimir Putin's Adolf Hitler. I agree with the basic principle of Godwin's Law: The first person to invoke Hitler in a political debate should normally lose. The exception, of course, has to be when someone has genuine Hitler-like qualities. A foreign despot who has invaded neighboring countries and has a right-wing nationalist agenda is about as Nazi-like as you can get. This is where Clinton offers a quality that no politician in America can beat. While Republicans are trying to tar her with a bogus scandal connecting her to Russia (and anyone who believes Clinton did something wrong in the Uranium One deal lacks credibility on all matters political), the reality is that no candidate can be better described as Russia's nemesis than Clinton. Putin has always hated Clinton because of his innate sexism, which has manifested in his policies, and she certainly didn't endear herself to him by publicly criticizing Russian corruption in 2011. As the ample connections between the Trump campaign and Russia or its water-carriers like WikiLeaks clearly demonstrate, the one person we know we can trust more than anyone is the candidate who Putin very obviously did not want to see as America's president. 2. Hillary Clinton being elected president (at last) would monumentally piss off misogynistic trolls, and what's not to like about that? I can't think of a single political figure in recent American history who has been hated as deeply, or for as long, as Hillary Clinton. From the moment she emerged on the national stage in 1992 as a distinctly feminist prospective first lady, she has been the target of right-wing wrath woefully out of proportion to anything she has ever said or done. The reason for this is sexism. It's not the chic thing to say right now, but no other explanation really makes sense. Yes, Hillary Clinton is more centrist than either party likes these days, but why is she singled out for opprobrium here when her husband — who actually served as president — remains popular despite holding the exact same views? The same point can be made about the claim that she is corrupt or too establishment. To the extent that these accusations are valid, they are no more true of Clinton than of the vast majority of politicians from both parties (especially Trump). At the very least, the next Democratic presidential candidate needs to be a woman — perhaps not Clinton specifically, but certainly a woman, to offset the symbolic gut-punch of the first female candidate getting cheated by an overt misogynist. And speaking of cheating ... 3. By winning the popular vote convincingly in 2016, Hillary Clinton has earned the right to be considered the presumptive nominee in 2020. As I wrote in September, Clinton is the first defeated presidential candidate to win the popular vote without being automatically considered a frontrunner in the next election. Two of the previous four popular vote-winning also-rans were actually elected in the subsequent cycle (Andrew Jackson in 1828 and Grover Cleveland in 1892), while two others were widely regarded as frontrunners before dropping out for personal reasons (Samuel Tilden and Al Gore). Let us not forget that, for all of the smack talk about how poorly Clinton ran her campaign, she bested Trump by nearly 3 million votes. This was no razor-thin margin of victory, but a decisive expression of the American public's preference. In terms of percentage points, her margin of victory was roughly comparable to that by which Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in 1976 or George W. Bush beat John Kerry in 2004. She also held Trump to a lower percentage of the popular vote than that garnered by Mitt Romney in 2012. 4. We can expect her to be a good president. Frankly, the worst thing that can be said about a potential 2020 Clinton candidacy, especially in America's current cultural and political climate, is that her husband still hasn't answered for the numerous sexual abuse accusations against him. While it may seem unfair for Hillary to be held accountable for Bill's alleged predations, it can plausibly be argued that she played a role in helping him cover them up. If that is ever proved beyond a reasonable doubt, she should be given the heave-ho. Then again, Bill Clinton is also widely associated with the economic, social and foreign policy conditions of the beloved 1990s, and is greatly missed for that reason. And since few dispute that Hillary was her husband's co-president during that halcyon decade, that association can still remain a giant advantage. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Clinton demonstrated through the 2016 Democratic National Committee platform that she would work with progressives on pursuing a policy agenda very close to their own goals. On issues ranging from raising the minimum wage and fighting global warming to scaling back the war on drugs, she would stand exactly where the majority of grassroots activists in the party want her to be. Plus — while this has been noted countless times before, it deserves repetition — she has ample experience as a U.S. senator and secretary of state in actually getting things done. That ability to get things done, by the way, is why Clinton had high approval ratings as secretary of state (usually in the 60s), even proving more popular than President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in 2011 and 2012. Her stock may be low now, but it's been low in the past (such as when she "ran" to be first lady in 1992), and it has always recovered. Arguably the big political question facing a potential Hillary 2020 campaign will be whether that bounce occurs at a fortuitous moment for her. It very well could, and wouldn't that be a giant helping of the dish best served cold? Answer: experience
* [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-wisconsin-voters-pro-trump-america-20170207-story.html Rural Wisconsin voters await economic revival in a part of now pro-Trump America]. This article is from the ''Chicago Tribune''. Published on February 7, 2017 and written by '''Claire Galofaro''' of the ''Associated Press'', it is based on interviews with former Obama voters who then voted for Trump in [[Crawford County, Wisconsin]].([[Crawford County, Wisconsin|Crawford County]] is one of twenty-three [[Pivot Counties in Wisconsin]].) * [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-wisconsin-voters-pro-trump-america-20170207-story.html Rural Wisconsin voters await economic revival in a part of now pro-Trump America]. This article is from the ''Chicago Tribune''. Published on February 7, 2017 and written by '''Claire Galofaro''' of the ''Associated Press'', it is based on interviews with former Obama voters who then voted for Trump in [[Crawford County, Wisconsin]].([[Crawford County, Wisconsin|Crawford County]] is one of twenty-three [[Pivot Counties in Wisconsin]].) +::*Ms. Garafola also wrote ''[https://apnews.com/7f2b534b80674596875980b9b6e701c9 How a community changed by refugees came to embrace Trump]'' for the Associated Press on April 19, 2017 about [[Androscoggin County, Maine]] and ''[https://apnews.com/21cc9528cabd4578996c3f118d8d656f Trump won places drowning in despair. Can he save them?]'' on August 19, 2017 about voters in [[Grays Harbor County, Washington]]. * [http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/donald-trump-support-popularity-vigo-county-214774 I'm Still All Trumped Up]. Politico Magazine; February 13, 2017; author '''Adam Wren'''. This article is about [[Vigo County, Indiana|Vigo County]], which is one of five [[Pivot Counties in Indiana]]. * [http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/donald-trump-support-popularity-vigo-county-214774 I'm Still All Trumped Up]. Politico Magazine; February 13, 2017; author '''Adam Wren'''. This article is about [[Vigo County, Indiana|Vigo County]], which is one of five [[Pivot Counties in Indiana]]. Answer:
colonial