...A Master Persuader – and anyone trained in hypnosis or persuasion in general – knows that humans don’t use facts and reason to make important decisions. Most persuaders prefer sticking to the facts when possible, but that is mostly to avoid looking like idiots. They know that sticking to facts will not persuade.
Trump just takes things one step further. He doesn’t pretend the facts matter when they don’t. To put this in more practical terms, Trump does the things that matter and ignores the things that don’t. He just has a better idea than the public and the media about what matters. For example…
The public thinks facts matter for decisions. They don’t.
The public thinks being “presidential” matters for getting elected. It didn’t.
The public thinks Trump should have studied the issues more deeply. And he will, as needed. But he didn’t need detailed policy knowledge to get elected (evidently).
The experts said Trump needed more ground game. He didn’t.
I could go on, but I hope you see the pattern already. Trump ignores the things that don’t matter – even to the point of looking the fool – and pays deep attention to what DOES matter. That’s what made him our next president...
...There are basically three kinds of people who say nice things about Fidel: (1) those too ignorant or too stupid to have the first clue what they’re talking about; (2) cowards for whom everything is morally equivalent; and (3) those who know what Fidel did and are depraved enough to defend it anyway.
People in the first category don’t need my help defeating themselves. Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau might as well have been wearing a dunce cap and a “kick me” sign when he claimed in a statement that even Castro’s detractors recognize Fidel’s “tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for ‘el Comandante.’” As a bonus, he hailed Castro as Cuba’s “longest serving president,” as if that were a laudable achievement for a dictator. In the competition for Maximum Idiot on the subject of Cuba, Irish president Michael Higgins wasn’t far behind Trudeau (Castro believed not only in “freedom for his people but for all the oppressed and excluded peoples on the planet”), and Dr. Jill Stein wasn’t far behind that (Castro was a “symbol of the struggle for Justice in the shadow of empire”). These people are like college kids who wear Ché Guevara T-shirts: They have no idea what they’re saying, and nobody expects them to. Some people think that eulogies like these reveal the despotic left-wing tendencies of those who make them. I take a much more charitable view: They’re just stupid. If they knew only 5 percent of the reality of Castro’s dictatorship, they would be horrified...
..."In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally," Trump tweeted to the barely concealed contempt of many in the media.
Typical was the utterly dismissive headline in The Nation, the flagship publication of the progressive movement: "The President-Elect Is An Internet Troll."
The Washington Post's "The Fix" blog site did a little better: "Donald Trump's new explanation for losing the popular vote? A Twitter-born conspiracy theory."
There are many more, too many to put here. Most follow the same theme: Trump foolishly followed the faulty analysis of Gregg Phillips of True The Vote, an online anti-voter-fraud site and app. Phillips estimates that illegals cast three million votes in the 2016 election. He's wrong. Heck, even the liberal fact-checking site FactCheck.org says so.
It's almost certain that illegals did vote — and in significant numbers. Whether it was three million or not is another question.
While states control the voter registration process, some states are so notoriously slipshod in their controls (California, Virginia and New York — all of which have political movements to legalize voting by noncitizens — come to mind) that it would be shocking if many illegals didn'tvote. Remember, a low-ball estimate says there are at least 11 million to 12 million illegals in the U.S., but that's based on faulty Census data. More likely estimates put the number at 20 million to 30 million.
What's disappointing is that instead of at least seriously considering Trump's charge, many media reports merely parrot leftist talking points and anti-Trump rhetoric by pushing the idea that Republicans and others not of the progressive left who seek to limit voting to citizens only are racist, xenophobic nuts.
"We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.
More specifically, they write, "Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress."
Specifically, the authors say that illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010. That's a lot of votes...
“I want to be in Trump’s cabinet!” the Egyptian general told a visiting American this summer. His enthusiasm, while extreme, was not isolated. Threats of a Muslim immigration ban notwithstanding, President-elect Donald Trump has many fans in the Middle East, especially among governments that have grown increasingly weary of the Obama administration.
While it is hard to predict just how a Trump presidency will unfold, there are some early signs that the optimism is unfounded. President-elect Trump is likely to break a lot of hearts in the Middle East. The problem is partly in what he says he will do, but also partly in how the world may react.
In December 2015, then-candidate Donald Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” The reaction was swift and fierce not only from governments with large Muslim populations, but also from Muslim communities that had been working with governments to curb violent extremism in their midst. Over time, Trump mellowed. His statements evolved into a call for “extreme vetting,” which is largely already in place. Alarm diminished.
In fact, in Trump’s decisiveness the regional leaders see promise. They feel comfort from Trump’s admiration for the sort of strong leadership he sees in Russian President Vladimir Putin. Many see a little bit of Putin in themselves, in the Russian leader’s indifference to a hostile international press and a harsh—and sometimes murderous—approach to his political opposition. Governments such as Egypt’s, which see little difference between al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and despair that few Western governments share that view, see Trump as a savior. Rather than nagging them to co-opt their critics, they see a Trump administration as one understanding that many of their critics are irredeemable.
Ever since his election as Canada’s prime minister last October, Justin Trudeau has revelled in global tributes, raves and swoons. He’s the Disney prince with the trippy dance moves, the groovy Haida tattoo and the gender-balanced cabinet. He’s the last best hope for globalization, the star attraction at the Pride Parades, the hero of the Paris Climate Summit, the guy everyone wants a selfie with.
Trudeau made himself synonymous with Canada. He made Canada cool again. It was fun while it lasted.
By the early hours of Saturday morning, Havana time, Trudeau was an international laughing stock. Canada’s “brand,” so carefully constructed in Vogue photo essays and Economist magazine cover features, seemed to suddenly implode into a bonspiel of the vanities, with humiliating headlines streaming from the Washington Post to the Guardian, and from Huffington Post to USA Today.
Left-wing Canadian Prime Minister quickly earned himself the mockery of the Internet after praising Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.
In a glowing statement issued after the 90-year-old tyrant passed away Friday night, Trudeau hyped Castro’s “dedication and love for the Cuban people.” (Trudeau was presumably referring to the Cuban people lucky enough not to be persecuted by the oppressive Castro regime.)
You can see Mary Bryson defaming pro-free speech Professor Jordan Peterson during a debate HERE.
She made her students at the University of British Columbia watch a fisting video. For those not familiar with the term, fisting is shoving a fist up someone's rectum. That, in a nutshell, is what "Social Justice" wankers want for our education system.
...PART OF THE REASON Jared Kushner has engendered such public interest, besides the power he suddenly wields and the curiosity generated by his near-invisible media presence, is the paradoxes that he represents.
He brought the Silicon Valley ethos, which values openness and inclusiveness, to a campaign that promised closed borders, trade protection and religious exclusion. He is the scion of prodigious Democratic donors yet steered a Republican presidential campaign. A grandson of Holocaust survivors who serves a man who has advocated a ban on war refugees. A fact-driven lawyer whose chosen candidate called global warming a hoax, linked vaccines to autism and challenged President Obama’s citizenship. A media mogul in a campaign stoked by fake news. A devout Jew advising a president-elect embraced by the alt-right and supported by the KKK.
...If Trump didn’t win because of his persuasion skills, which other Republican candidate can you imagine beating Clinton?
You might be thinking that Clinton’s email problems and the Comey announcements made her an unusually weak candidate, and that means any sane Republican could have beaten her.
But you’d be wrong. The reason that the emails, the Comey decisions, and Wikileaks were so effective is that Trump had been labelling Clinton “Crooked Hillary” for months. That created the confirmation bias trap that made everything Clinton ever did sound suspicious. None of the other candidates would have crafted such a perfect persuasion trap.
I also have a hard time imagining any other candidate going after Bill Clinton so hard that it took him out of the game. Was Jeb going to do that?
If you believe Trump’s skill for persuasion wasn’t the key variable in his win, you have to imagine some other candidate beating Clinton with the same set of policies as Trump. Personally, I can’t imagine it.
If you think Trump is the next Hitler, or a clown who got lucky with his populist message, you have to ask yourself why the stock market and the dollar are both up following the election. The smartest money-managers in the world have already abandoned their old movies and jumped over to movies they see as more useful for making money, apparently.
If you think Trump is the next Hitler, you have to ask yourself why every major world power has already said they think they can work with him, no problem.
If you think Trump is a lucky incompetent who inherited money from his father, you have to explain why he has succeeded in real estate, reality TV, and now politics. Can incompetent people win that bigly in three different arenas while everyone is watching?
If you think Trump has anti-semite advisors, you have to wonder why his son-in-law Jared Kushner hasn’t noticed any of that and is working hard for Trump.
...Academia should consider how it contributed to, and reflects Americans’ judgments pertinent to, Donald Trump’s election. The compound of childishness and condescension radiating from campuses is a reminder to normal Americans of the decay of protected classes — in this case, tenured faculty and cosseted students.
A doctoral dissertation at the University of California at Santa Barbara uses “feminist methodologies” to understand how Girl Scout cookie sales “reproduce hegemonic gender roles.” The journal GeoHumanities explores how pumpkins reveal “racial and class coding of rural versus urban places.” Another journal’s article analyzes “the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers.” A Vassar College lecture “theorizes oscillating relations between disciplinary, pre-emptive and increasingly prehensive forms of power that shape human and non-human materialities in Palestine.”
Even professors’ books from serious publishers are clotted with pretentious jargon. To pick just one from innumerable examples, a recent history of the Spanish Civil War, published by the Oxford University Press, says that Franco’s Spain was as “hierarchizing” as Hitler’s Germany, that Catholicism “problematized” relations between Spain and the Third Reich, and that liberalism and democracy are concepts that must be “interrogated.” Only the highly educated write so badly...
...a word of neighborly advice to our more genteel media friends, the ones who sit at the high table in their pristine white dinner jackets and ball gowns. You’ve been barfing all over yourselves for a week and a half, and it’s revolting to watch.
For your own sake, and that of the republic for which you allegedly work, wipe off your chins and regain your composure. I didn’t vote for him either, but Trump won. Pull yourselves together and deal with it, if you ever want to be taken seriously again.
...moderator Mayo Moran, a lawyer and former law school dean who is now the provost of Trinity College, came to the microphone to acknowledge the difficulty of the subject matter and to announce that the university had arranged “for support” for anyone who might need it just outside the hall.
The format consisted of a two-against-one setup, Peterson against two other professors — lawyer Brenda Cossman, who is the director of sexual diversity studies at the university, and the University of British Columbia’s Dr. Mary Bryson, a professor in language and literacy and in the Institute for Gender, Race, Sexuality and Social Justice.
She began by immediately denouncing Peterson, comparing him to the late Philippe Rushton (or, as Bryson spelled it, “Philip”), another psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario who made controversial links between the brain sizes of the three major races and concluded that Orientals (Asians, as they would now be called) were smarter than Whites and Whites smarter than Blacks.
In her opening written statement, Bryson quoted from David Suzuki’s opening remarks at the 1989 debate between the two men: “I do not want to be here. I do not want to dignify this man and his ideas in public debate.”
But there is one good aspect to hearing people express sincere racism aloud. It reveals the person as an idiot. Because racism is a form of extreme stupidity, or at the least, mental illness. I say the latter as someone who worked in a psychiatric hospital for a number of years. One of the striking things about some people with mental illnesses like schizophrenia is that a disproportionately high number of them are prone to racist and anti-Semitic outbursts.
In Toronto and elsewhere in Ontario three or four prominent public incidents of racism made the news. Those incidents took the form of graffiti and name-calling. One of them, which happened on a Toronto streetcar, was more of what could be described as "racially-charged," and was a reaction to to an alleged physical assault by the object of the racism.
This is hardly a tsunami of the post-election, Trump-inspired, global resurgence of "white nationalism" the mainstream media and some exploitative activists and politicians are making it out to be. To appreciate it in relative scale, in 2015, there were 64 traffic fatalities in Toronto, and the city on on track to surpass that in 2016. None of which were attributed to racism. So far this year in Toronto, there have been 363 incidences of shootings, in which there have been 518 victims.
Those are serious problems with unacceptably high numbers.
Yet instead of trying to calm the situation and put it in perspective, Toronto's pathetic virtue-signalling, attention-seeking "social justice" activists are fear-mongering and becoming apoplectic about a small handful of minor events. Events which could more easily be explained by the lack of mental health resources in Toronto than the outbreak of a post-election race war.
Racism is deplorable and should be condemned. There was a time when it was far too prevalent in Toronto. More can and should be done to eradicate it as much as possible. But much has changed in the last few decades. For those in a panic, stop being consumed by outrage and fear and get a grip. You can take great comfort in knowing that you're far more likely to be killed by a car or shot in the street than you are to be the victim of a racist insult by a stranger in public.
Well, Justin Trudeau fans, now do you begin to understand why Stephen Harper was exponentially better at being a national leader than Prince Bonehead?
Only an idiot wouldn't realize that Donald Trump's NAFTA bluster was about Mexico and not Canada. And as it turns out, the idiot leading our country indeed did not realize that:
Prominent Republican Rick Santorum says he was stunned when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pre-emptively offered to sit down with U.S. officials to discuss the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Santorum, who ran against U.S. president-elect Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, said Canada has already failed to butt out the new administration's smouldering distaste for the agreement that created the world's biggest free-trade zone.
In an interview with Evan Solomon, host of CTV's Question Period, Santorum said a negotiator who speaks first during a stare-off usually loses the negotiation.
"I was stunned," said Santorum, who eventually supported Trump's presidential bid and is considered to be close to him. "I think it was not a good move for you guys, great move for the United States."
...It is generally held today in the West, if not elsewhere, that diversity is a good thing. Diversity in origin, ethnicity, gender, race, and sexual preference is now regarded as not only desirable, but mandatory. Universities strive to increase their physical diversity. The currently accepted theory in Western academia is that physical diversity reflects diversity of experience and thus an enriching diversity of viewpoint.
McGill's committee on diversity proposed that we no longer define excellence as intellectual achievement, but as diversity. Their view is that a university populated by folks of different colours or having different sexual preferences is by virtue of this diversity "excellent."
However, among this excellent diversity, what is not encouraged or accepted is diversity of opinion. Only politically correct views are welcome. On the very first day in last year's seminar, students challenged my assignment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel on the grounds that "she is a controversial figure." These students felt that university was not a place to explore controversial issues, but only to repeat what everyone agrees with. Several students dropped out of the seminar saying that they disagreed with Ali's politics. They were apparently unable to tolerate ideas with which they disagreed...
Let's get this out of the way: there's no doubt that Donald Trump's policies may pose a direct threat to certain classes of American people. But in the wake of his Tuesday night election as president of the United States, there has been a wave of people worrying for the physical safety of Mexicans, Muslims, and anyone else who isn't white, male, and gender-conforming. The fear seems to legitimately be that there are would-be perpetrators of sexual assault and race-based violence that have been well-behaved so far but will now, emboldened by a President-elect Trump, suddenly go wild with the raping and the hate crimes.
The first one to really go viral involved a Muslim female student at the University of Louisiana who claimed to have had her hijab ripped off and her wallet stolen the day after Trump's election by two white men wearing Trump hats. But on Thursday, local police announced that the young woman had admitted she fabricated the story. "This incident is no longer under investigation," the Lafayette Police Department said in a press release.
In another incident, this one in San Diego, a young Muslim woman's purse and car were stolen by one white male and one Hispanic male. While the men allegedly made negative comments about Muslims, it seems car stealing was more their motivation than harassment or intimidation—which is obviously shitty, but not necessarily a Trump-inspired act of bigotry...
Some of these voters did vote, but not in the presidential component of the ballot. According to filmmaker Michael Moore, in Michigan, about 70,000 voters, more than enough to have turned the state blue, voted down-ticket candidates but left their presidential choice blank because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either candidate.
Michael Moore disputed the notion that all the people who voted for President-elect Donald Trump are racist Friday, reiterating the fact that millions of them voted for President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Also: Most of the political left still doesn't really understand what conditions led to Trump winning the presidency. Last night Bill Maher and his panel of Hillary supporters spent an hour spewing accusations at everyone but themselves, not realizing that leftist intolerance and insults did more to elect Trump than Trump himself. Jonathan Pie gets most of it here, I disagree that Bernie Sanders, who once you scratch the surface, you will find is a complete ignoramus, would have beat Trump, but certainly someone like Joe Biden could have.
And of course the pols were wrong. Essentially the poll question was: 'so who are you going to vote for, Hillary or the guy we've been saying is Hitler for the last six months?" What kind of accurate results did they think they were going to get?
Everyone on the political left should really watch, and better still, try to understand what's being said in this video:
It's unusual but positive that the extreme, regressive leftist NOW Magazine published this article, as it essentially refutes the ideology that magazine promotes:
...Oddly, you will find Muslim traditionalists and conservatives being propped up by even the most liberal media outlets. Whether the debate is about niqabs or sex-education, it is those who are less progressive and want less equality that are chosen as representatives of Muslims in the west.
During last year's federal election and the controversy surrounding Stephen Harper's veil ban, Tabatha Southey of the Globe and Mail tweeted, “By fighting a veil ban, Ms. Ishaq schools us on how to be Canadian” with very little regard for what the face veil represents to many other Muslim women – like those who are forced into veils and are fighting to be free of them. Around the same time, The Huffington Post Canada declared, “someone made a ‘Niqabs of Canada' Tumblr and it’s Great, comparing them to hockey masks, helmets, scarves and hoods shielding from the cold – all of which have other purposes than to shame women into modesty.
The Guardian touts headlines like “My hijab has nothing to do with oppression, it’s a feminist statement” with seemingly no appreciation for what kinds of strict modesty guidelines lay behind the wearing of hijabs. Yes, some women in the west have the privilege of choice, but many, many of the women wearing face veils or headscarves in the Muslim world do not have such a choice, especially when it is mandated by the state. Even in the west, there lies the threat of being shunned by your family if you reject religious dress code. Articles glorifying this are doing women in vulnerable positions no favours at all. Yes, we must oppose anti-Muslim bigotry, but we must keep in mind that this doesn’t mean glorification of modesty codes that target women.
“It’s surreal in NYC,” tweeted Katy Tur of NBC Wednesday evening. “People are walking around like zombies with thousand yard stares.” She was referring to street demonstrators, who she said numbered in the thousands, who marched up Manhattan to express their displeasure with President-elect Trump at his eponymous Fifth Avenue tower.
The anti-Trump zombie apocalypse was not contained to New York. “ ‘Not my president,’ protesters chanted in rallies coast to coast,” CNN reports. “Tens of thousands filled the streets in at least 25 US cities overnight—with demonstrations outside Trump’s properties across the country.” (“Not my president” was widely considered a racist slogan when Barack Obama was an able-bodied duck.)
America has become a place where the people running universities were banning people from wearing Halloween costumes because of so-called cultural appropriation and encouraging adults to act like spoiled infants, coddled in "safe spaces." A racist movement called "Black Lives Matter" declared that all white people are racist, and elements of it were actually advocating racial violence. Yet the left is cozying up to that movement.
New York City introduced laws that call for up to quarter million dollar fines for those who don't recognize some preposterous forms of gender identification which include over 30 forms of gender identity. Very few people could name any other than male and female.
Left wing municipal governments across the United States instituted "sanctuary city" policies by which they refused to enforce immigration laws and provided extensive services to non-citizens which citizens were expected to pay for through their taxes.
The left wing news media stopped calling referring to illegal immigrants, instead calling them "undocumented workers" as if it there were like someone who lost their drivers' license.
People who spoke out in favor of Israel are subject to harassment and bullying by Jew-hating fanatics on campuses and elsewhere, and leftists defend the anti-Semites, describing them as "social justice" activists.
Left wing media, along with leftist politicians refused to identify terrorism inspired by Islam as Islamic terrorism, instead using the term "violent extremism" as if it was violence perpetrated by people who did it solely for the thrill of being violent. There were some who even insanely blamed the Islamic terror attack that resulted in fifty gay people being massacred in a Florida nightclub on "toxic masculinity."
People criticizing Islam for its misogyny, promotion of violence, and homophobia dismissed and derided as "Islamophobes," even if those critics were liberal Muslim reformers. Yet any other religion can be openly mocked or insulted as part of the cultural norm.
If someone tried to speak out against these hypocrisies and injustices, the left accused them of racism, misogyny. Often, out of a sense of outlandishly inflated entitlement, the left would shut down their right to free speech by disruptions that often include violence.
And the rest of us finally have had enough of it.
That's why Donald Trump won the US Presidency last night.
There were indeed other factors including the economy, the desire for a change from the previous administration, and the unlikability of his scandal-ridden, Democratic challenger.
But the pent-up urge to push back against the sanctimonious, oppressive, bigoted totalitarianism of the left was a huge part of the political success of the new President-elect.
Trump may be a deeply flawed candidate, but he was alone among presidential candidates of this generation who was bold enough to at last speak out about the tyranny of the left's political correctness.
So if you're a leftist who is wailing about how Trump has supposedly "normalized" racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and whatever ills you can dream up, you're wrong. He hasn't. What's happened is that for millions and millions of Americans, Trump has provided an antidote to years of you trivializing those terms, along with the term "social justice," to the point that they're meaningless.
If you're a leftist, the election wasn't just a repudiation of Hillary Clinton, it was a repudiation of your extremism and intolerance. If you're a leftist looking for someone to blame for President Donald J. Trump, take a walk to the nearest mirror and look there. Because you did it.
A month ago, I posted three videos to my YouTube channel, as a means of speaking out against our culture’s politically correct insanity. I specifically objected to Bill C-16, a bill that has now passed second reading in the House of Commons, which adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the list of attributes protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, and to similar legislation already in place in Ontario and other provinces.
To say that the videos attracted a lot of attention is to say almost nothing. They produced two demonstrations at the University of Toronto, where I teach psychology, including a free-speech rally where the misbehaviour of social justice warrior counter-demonstrators was caught on cellphone videos that have now been watched by millions of people. They have been the subject of articles written by Canada’s most famous journalists. They have been covered extensively by CBC, CTV and TVO, as well as internationally. My story has been making headlines for more than a month, and the furor is not dying down. After writing me two cautionary letters, and then requesting my silence, the University of Toronto has agreed to host a public debate about the issues I raised.
One of the more controversial things I said in the videos was that I would not use what have come to be known as “preferred pronouns” to refer to people who believe that their gender does not fit neatly into the traditional categories of male and female. The gist of the counter-argument was: “Why won’t the mean professor change the way he speaks, if doing so would spare some vulnerable peoples’ feelings?” (A National Post columnist described me as a “jerk.”) There are a few reasons why I took this stand.
First, I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words “zhe” and “zher.” These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.
Take heart, Canada! Don’t let the dour faces on American television, journalist Twitter, and our own CBC get you down. They might all be miserably contemplating the next four years under the ethically challenged but transformational Donald Trump, instead of the ethically challenged establishment-entrenched Hillary Clinton they clearly hoped would win. Tuesday might have delivered a huge loss to the political class, intellectual class and left-leaning media. But, economically speaking anyway, Donald Trump’s victory is looking like a big win for Canada. To be sure, we can’t be entirely certain — the NAFTA question looms large. But here’s one thing we can be sure of: A Clinton win virtually guaranteed that one big loser in the 2016 election would have been us.
It’s still impossible to tell which of Trump’s often-wild promises he will actually keep, given how unpredictable he has demonstrated himself to be. But the risk with Clinton was always the opposite. It was her political determination. Had she been allowed to govern as she was resolved to, Canada would have paid the price for as long as eight more difficult years — probably more than they will under even a loose-cannon amateur like Trump. A president Hillary Clinton would have implemented policies that would have been sure to drag down the economic growth of an economy upon which Canada overwhelmingly relies for its own.
She has been unapologetic about her plan to increase taxes, promising to raise the estate tax and capital gains taxes (where she planned to hike the top rate from 23.8 to 43.4 per cent) and she had proposed to tax high-frequency stock-market trades. She had said she was open even to new payroll taxes, which would have injured American competitiveness yet further. And her campaign said she would “take a look at” a carbon tax, if Congress had proposed one. Congress, still firmly in the hands of the Republicans, will now entertain no such thing...
This is interesting - Exit Polls are notoriously unreliable, and in this election more than any other.
However Politico, a news outlet that is pretty unfriendly to Trump, did an exit poll asking voters about what guiding values were important to them rather than the candidate they picked.
The results so far seem to be pretty favorable towards Trump:
More voters this year are looking for a strong leader than in previous presidential elections, according to an early morning exit poll, whose results could shift significantly over the course of Election Day.
The first results from the Morning Consult/POLITICO Exit Poll of early and Election-Day voters also show few voters are feeling joy and pride at the climax of the campaign.
Asked what characteristic is most important for the next president, 36 percent of voters say they want a “strong leader,” 29 percent want “a vision for the future,” 16 percent want someone who “cares about people like me” and another 16 percent said they want someone who “shares my values.”
OK, it's just a couple of little hamlets that have super early voting times. But the 32-25 result in Trump's favor, an almost 25% lead over Hillary Clinton, could be indicative of a national trend to drain the swamp and usher in change in Washington.
Hyperbole has hit a peak in the 2016 American election. If you were to interpret it in the way it's described by partisans, it sounds like Satan is running for the Democrats and Hitler for the Republicans.
Despite Wikileaks revelations of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta being invited to a Satanic "Spirit Cooking" ritual, and a Catholic parish declaring that a vote for Hillary is like pulling the lever on a trap door to Hell, it should not be necessary to explain why the former Secretary of State is not literally or even figuratively the devil incarnate.
Clinton, while not Satan, is neither the only "sane" choice her proponents make her out to be. She is demonstrably venal and mired in a variety of corruption scandals which would follow her into the White House if she were elected President. There is also no evidence that she's particularly competent at anything as a public official other than in her ability to be a public official. As First Lady, her efforts to commence a national public health insurance program were a failure. For all Obamacare's flaws, Barack Obama was able to make it happen where Hillary could not.
Despite her experience as a Senator from New York and as Secretary of State, she made no notable achievements in those roles, and some of her work, like the groundwork for the disastrous Iran deal, are negatives. As Trump said of Hillary, "she has experience, but it's bad experience."
That gives rise to a comparison to the political scene in Canada from 2006 to 2015, when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister. He instituted policies that people on the far left of the political spectrum didn't like, they preposterously insisted Harper was a "dictator" and there were even some who,just as is the case with Trump, seriously likened him to Adolf Hitler. Harper actually made strides in giving Canadians more liberties, like removing state compulsion to complete the long-form census and eliminating the Orwellian Section 13 Hate Speech component of the Human Right Act from the Criminal Code.
During Harper's tenure as Prime Minister, Canada had been consistently ranked by independent bodies as one of the freest and most tolerant countries in the world, sometimes topping the list. But leftist political partisans, many of whom are clearly emotionally unbalanced, could not overcome their cognitive dissonance and continued to insist Harper was a dictator and threat to democracy.
Well, now it's 2016, Harper lost the federal election last year and did not suspend civil liberties to retain power, and the Liberal Party's Justin Trudeau has been in office for over a year. In that time, Trudeau's government has introduced a thought crimes bill, Bill C-16, which can make it a crime if a person doesn't use pronouns the government says it should for self-described "non-binary" people, despite their being no scientific evidence that such a biological condition exists. It's essentially the same thing as the government threatening to put you in jail for refusing to say "two plus two equals five," because insisting it equals four might hurt some people's feelings.
In the US, comparisons between Donald Trump and Hitler have become abundant. The comparison is absurd, to put it mildly. Trump is not proposing genocides or segregation. He is proposing the enforcement of existing immigration laws that the current government chooses to ignore. He is supporting immigration restrictions from countries he thinks have cultural values at odds with the United States. Muslim reformers, like Professor Salim Mansur at Western University, have made those exact same proposals. Does that make Professor Mansur Hitler too?
Some of Trump's rhetoric could be interpreted as encouraging xenophobia. However, it's far less inflammatory than anti-Muslim rhetoric used by Czech President Milos Zeman, yet democracy and civil liberties continue to abide in that country years after his election.
Anyone seriously suggesting that Trump is like Hitler is either completely ignorant of the history of Nazi Germany or needs their head examined. Or both.
The reason that many people intend to vote for Donald Trump is because they have a strong desire for change. Trump isn't going to undo democracy or the constitution. But he likely will clear out some of the entrenched political detritus from Washington. That's why the political establishment on both sides of the aisles view him as such a tremendous threat. His policies may work, or they may not. But they will bring about something different.
Clinton is likely to be a slightly more conservative, and possibly a slightly more effective president than her immediate predecessor. But in essence, she will be a continuation of the last eight years. Hillary is the establishment and she represents the establishment.
At the core of things, on Tuesday, Americans will vote either for change in the form of Trump, or the status quo in the form of Clinton. A person can think one or the other are Hitler or Satan. But that says nothing about how bad the candidates are and everything about the disturbed mental state of the person making those claims.
In a demonstration of abysmal failure at being an institution that values truth, free speech and intellectual inquiry, The University of Toronto has decided to put free speech limitations on its "free speech" debate:
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seems to be having trouble understanding what the Maryam Monsef controversy is about. This week, he blamed it on unnamed people who are “spreading misinformation” and “trying to torque up an issue.” Since that’s nonsense, let’s help our PM understand what it’s about. It’s about equality before the law. It’s about Trudeau demonstrating to Canadians that a Liberal cabinet minister is not treated differently from ordinary citizens. Monsef, democratic institutions minister, recently confirmed, after inquiries by the Globe and Mail, that she was born in Iran, not Afghanistan. She said she had believed she was born in Afghanistan because her mother had told her this all her life, until recently, including when her family successfully applied to Canada for refugee status, when she was 11 years old. Monsef has said she will change her passport to show her birthplace correctly as Iran. The issue, as immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman recently explained to the Canadian Press, is that “if Monsef’s birthplace was misrepresented on her citizenship application as well, that would be grounds for revocation of citizenship, regardless of whether it was an innocent mistake or the fault of her mother. “And if the misrepresentation was on her permanent residence and refugee applications, she could even be deported.”...