ComplexDataLab/Misinfo_Datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

quinn begins with what is almost a standard critique of politically correct culture: <u+201c>i<u+2019>m tired of humorless activist people decreeing that we only use these words and never those, and that we <u+201c>check our privilege,<u+201d> in case we say the wrong thing and <u+201c>trigger<u+201d> someone,<u+201d> he writes. <u+201c>across the country, the sexist office asshole has been replaced by the flat-affect, dead-eyed, modern-day puritan. both groups <u+2014> the old-school assholes and the neo-puritans <u+2014> share a common goal: to wipe the smile off everyone<u+2019>s faces.<u+201d> but the rest of the book is playing a subtler and more sophisticated game. quinn wants to talk about race. he<u+2019>s outraged that there<u+2019>s no dialogue <u+2014> or that the dialogue veers only to the extreme poles of either angry or pandering. and he wants to tell his personal story of growing up in a multi-ethnic new york as an example of how people can get along when they talk openly with each other. his frustration seems less with p.c. culture than with anything that stands between a problem and honest conversation about it. his real war is against papering over words and pretending we<u+2019>ve fixed a problem. this is a decent and no-bullshit guy. <u+201c>maybe we need to admit the sad truth,<u+201d> he says, over coffee last week in lower manhattan, <u+201c>which is that we are not smart enough to solve any of these things.<u+201d><u+00a0>give this guy a sunday morning talk show and you get the feeling he<u+2019>d unfreeze the conversation in a really provocative way <u+2014> or go down trying. we spoke before quinn<u+2019>s good friend jerry seinfeld talked about <u+201c>creepy<u+201d> p.c. culture in interviews. quinn<u+2019>s take is more nuanced: that there has been political correctness on campus for decades, and that it<u+2019>s the comedians<u+2019> job to make an audience uncomfortable and to think. he<u+2019>s not a defender of the cheap provocation and understands that people can take offense at a joke, but he sees through easy outrage as well <u+2014> and sees it as getting in the way of really talking to each other. (if you watched him on <u+201c>fox and friends<u+201d> yesterday deftly deflecting steve doocy and elisabeth hasselbeck, you only come away with more respect.) we talked about all of this and more <u+2014> including his <u+201c>girls<u+201d> colleague lena dunham, his thoughts on bill maher and religion, and memories of his years on <u+201c>saturday night live.<u+201d> the interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity. and sorry, but the amazing story he told about sam kinison, <u+201c>remote control<u+201d> host ken ober, strippers, las vegas and cocaine came after we turned the recorder off. so are you ready to be the most hated man on twitter? comedy, race, humor, outrage <u+2013> it<u+2019>s a recipe for becoming a trending topic, or like trevor noah, landing on the front page of the new york times. why is this a third rail you want to leap on top of right now? third rail. i like that phrase. i don<u+2019>t really know why exactly. it just feels like everything has always pointed that way to me. i<u+2019>ve always been into discussing race. the conversation has been in neutral since i was a little kid. since the <u+2018>60s, it<u+2019>s been in neutral. this conversation doesn<u+2019>t exist. so at least people should stop lying and pretending there<u+2019>s a racial dialogue. that would make me happy. and i like to joke. i don<u+2019>t like how the climate has gone joke-wise. i understand totally when people are offended by jokes. i get it. i don<u+2019>t like when people make blanket statements. for instance, the whole rape joke controversy. but nobody admits, nobody even discusses, that most rape jokes are made by female comedians. i don<u+2019>t like comedy being determined by people who are not comedians. it was becoming a situation where whoever is the fastest typist decides what<u+2019>s offensive and what<u+2019>s not with comedy. it<u+2019>s just too much. it<u+2019>s too much. don<u+2019>t step in and start telling me what humor is. it<u+2019>s like any job: everyone wants to second-guess. i do the same thing to politics, to everything. comedy has become that sort of thing <u+2013> but with humorless people. why is it that everyone who second-guesses a joke is immediately branded humorless? sometimes what i see from comedians, watching this, is a defensiveness after being told, <u+201c>hey, maybe that<u+2019>s not funny.<u+201d> or that a joke failed. is it possible that comedians have their backs up in such a way that that<u+2019>s stopping a dialogue that might be useful? because sometimes it seems to me that we are having a conversation about race and other topics when people say, <u+201c>hey, i<u+2019>m not sure that<u+2019>s funny and let me tell you why.<u+201d> that leads to honest conversation <u+2013> and maybe it is the joke that started the conversation. there is no conversation about race. there is no conversation. that<u+2019>s the first lie, that there is a conversation. all there is is a point of view that you are supposed to have <u+2014> and if you deviate from that point of view, people go,<u+00a0><u+201c>whoa whoa whoa.<u+201d> that<u+2019>s not what humor is. and punching up, punching down! once again, these terms were not created by humorous people. activists are activists. they are great and a big part of american society. humorists and activists don<u+2019>t very often meld. humorists and activists have two very different mentalities. activists are very sincere, very positive. that<u+2019>s how activists should be. humorists are supposed to look at everything and see the bullshit in all sides. this is my opinion. we are not supposed to see 100 percent right and wrong. everything is middle ground. everything is hypocrisy in all people and all situations. i feel like people get on twitter, and they get gripped by self-righteous indignation <u+2014> which is fine. it<u+2019>s just not becoming in my opinion. punching up and punching down. that seems like a fair point to me, keeping the target in mind. i<u+2019>m not suggesting anyone impose rules on comedy, of course, or that anyone is off-limits for a joke. but it does seem like there<u+2019>s humanity in at least thinking before making a punchline out of a victim. so let<u+2019>s say you make fun of a white plumber or kanye west. which is punching up and which is punching down? societally, historically, context is everything. that<u+2019>s another annoying statement. but if it<u+2019>s trevor noah making a dumb fat joke on twitter. that<u+2019>s punching down. there are the lines of cruelty, right. it<u+2019>s asinine. does that line of cruelty matter? or is it the comedians<u+2019> job to poke through bullshit somehow free of someone turning around and calling bullshit on them? no. that<u+2019>s what we would like to be, of course! ideally. i<u+2019>d love it! at the same time, what is the biggest argument? it<u+2019>s over free speech. is trevor noah making a fat joke yelling fire at a crowded movie theater? then people go, <u+201c>we are not the government oppressing people.<u+201d> no, but if you still get people fired from their job, that<u+2019>s also a certain amount of power. there<u+2019>s a difference between getting someone fired from their job and saying, <u+201c>that<u+2019>s kind of an asshole joke.<u+201d> right, but some people do get fired. trevor noah, some people wanted him to get fired. all i<u+2019>m saying is there is a certain amount of power that comes on. it<u+2019>s not just an average joe citizen. there are things that go on on social media in general. let<u+2019>s not pretend it<u+2019>s just outrage. what the right-wing fundamentalists were throughout the history of our country from the time of the puritans to the 1980s <u+2014> the left is becoming. i<u+2019>m with you on about two-thirds of this: our frozen racial conversation, the lack of context and history from some in the politically correct crowd. and on the important role satirists and humorists play <u+2013> imagine the bush years without stewart and colbert. but f it. and the other piece of it that to me feels like people have the same first amendment rights that trevor noah<u+2019>s got to make that joke, to speak up and say, <u+201c>not really funny.<u+201d> the other side is people saying, <u+201c>can<u+2019>t you do better? you are better than that.<u+201d> there<u+2019>s so many lines to be drawn. the day any artist <u+2014> dare i call comedians artists <u+2014> but the day that anybody starts deciding that (people can draw those lines) how are we different from pandering, from the old idea that you have to please the crowd? i thought the whole point was that you don<u+2019>t please the crowd; you please yourself artistically. let me throw this out there. if you listen to the comedy podcasts, sometimes you can get the sense that comedians are trying to out-outrage each other. but then you also follow comedians on twitter or read interviews, and it also sounds like there<u+2019>s a lot of fear that if they say one wrong thing, their career could be ruined. is there a chilling effect going on right now that is affecting writers<u+2019> rooms? is all of this affecting the way comedians think and work? oh yeah. i think so. i don<u+2019>t have any particular examples of it, but a lot of people are scared of their career or that people will take what they say out of context or in context. it manifests itself across the board, but it<u+2019>s interesting to watch these unspoken elephant-in-the-room situations that people accept. i said it 11 years ago on npr. it<u+2019>s called substitute shock. the audience wants to feel edgy. people don<u+2019>t want to feel like puritans. so people make disabled jokes, or rape jokes, or child molester jokes. but if you bring up race, there is a silence in the room. so it<u+2019>s like where is this coming from? i<u+2019>m trying to be funny. that<u+2019>s my goal. it<u+2019>s definitely a weird time, as far as more and more things are being determined by people who don<u+2019>t necessarily have a great sense of humor. it was bad enough when we had these asshole executives. it<u+2019>s not even that i<u+2019>m disagreeing with a lot of what people are saying (online). i just disagree that they are pretending to be an average person. no. you are coordinating efforts all the time to stop people that are not necessarily harmful to the united states. first of all, if they want to say we are not going to have a discussion <u+2014> and that they believe in oppressing people and admit that <u+2014> i will feel better. <u+201c>i<u+2019>m the kind of person that believes in suppressing thought i believe is offensive.<u+201d> admit you are that kind of person. that<u+2019>s all i mean. let<u+2019>s all put it out there. that<u+2019>s why i think a racial discussion will be great. if we had a racial show every week it<u+2019>ll bring it on board. larry wilmore is doing some of it. some of it. but if you want to bring it on board, let<u+2019>s bring it on board. like i said, racially, in terms of personalities, black and white in particular. this book all about black and white. there<u+2019>s a chapter on every other ethnic group, but no one is going to care about anything except black and white. either way, the fact is<u+2013>and it<u+2019>s been in neutral since the <u+2018>60s<u+2013>no interaction. people just want to change the subject. it<u+2019>s just the way it is. and it<u+2019>s probably never going to change. it hasn<u+2019>t so far. but i just don<u+2019>t like that people act like they are having these conversations. these might be two different things. but so much of what gets written off as politically correct outrage culture is a really interesting conversation. the outrage over bill cosby, for example<u+2026> yes, but those things are things. i<u+2019>m talking about words. the duggars, cosby, those are actions. not words. neither of those is part of anything i do for a living. bill cosby<u+2019>s actions are rape. it<u+2019>s not rape culture. it<u+2019>s actual rape. i<u+2019>m not saying there aren<u+2019>t interesting behavioral things being brought up. i would never say that. but in the grand scheme of things, there<u+2019>s still a thing going on<u+2013>since i started comedy<u+2013>where there is a tendency that used to come from fundamentalist, right-wing attitudes. now it comes from the left. mostly. if the right had cultural power, they would be doing it too, in a different way. (liberals) are being puritans. there<u+2019>s no other way to describe it. all the things you are talking about i agree with <u+2013>except for the fact that the people making these decisions are starting minor digital hysteria. digital hysteria. i want people to be honest and say, <u+201c>i don<u+2019>t like it and we are going to put a stop to it.<u+201d> admit it. i talk to people who monitor websites. and i<u+2019>m like, <u+201c>really? that<u+2019>s interesting. you fucking monitor with your free time?<u+201d> this is what people do. that<u+2019>s all i<u+2019>m saying. when i was doing <u+201c>tough crowd<u+201d> we had racial discussions every day. we got nothing accomplished in the long run, but it was the beginning of something interesting. you talk in the book about <u+201c>tough crowd<u+201d> getting you branded as a conservative and that hurting you career-wise. you can<u+2019>t prove anything, but i would say it did.<u+00a0> anyway, that discussion ended when it ended and it<u+2019>s one of those things. (blacks and whites) got off on a bad foot, to put it mildly, and now it<u+2019>s never going to be fixed. either way, it<u+2019>s fine if people don<u+2019>t want to discuss it, but don<u+2019>t pretend we need a race dialogue. there is none. that<u+2019>s what people say about absolutely everything. it<u+2019>s like politicians saying we are going to have a blue-ribbon panel on something. it<u+2019>s a way of acting like you are serious about something without actually having to do anything. or maybe we need to admit the sad truth, which is that we are not smart enough to solve any of these things. none of us has solutions. nobody has solutions to any of these problems. how can comedians help? the subtitle of the book is a comedian solves race relations. i don<u+2019>t know if we can. obviously when you discuss things with humor, interesting thoughts come out. people say interesting things with comedy<u+2013>not big consequential things<u+2013>but things i didn<u+2019>t think of in a certain way. ultimately, comedians aren<u+2019>t going to solve the world<u+2019>s problems, but it<u+2019>s hard to say. i feel like we intuitively want to do this, but we are just not bright enough. it<u+2019>s depressing, but we are not that swift. so many of the stories in the book are about the way different ethnic and racial groups got along in new york when you were growing up in brooklyn. as you describe it, people were really direct with each other and made jokes and knew how to get along. they maybe didn<u+2019>t like or trust each other, but they said so to each others<u+2019> face. less so now, you suggest. so are things better or worse than they were when you were growing up? there was just as much racial tension in many ways. it wasn<u+2019>t some idyllic thing. but, because park slope was so mixed, we were much more racially mixed. people aren<u+2019>t racially mixed now. in the <u+2018>70s, maybe people had more hope. people now are hardened. i guess it wasn<u+2019>t that different. it really wasn<u+2019>t. we got along a little better because we were in close proximity. like i said, everyone started to move away from each other in high school and that was a thing. it wasn<u+2019>t because of an incident. there should be a once a week racial summit, but people would be afraid to say how they really felt. lena dunham is back in the middle of controversy right now with sarah palin going after her and tying her into the duggar scandal. you<u+2019>ve been on <u+201c>girls.<u+201d> have you ever seen a young writer and actress be turned into a lightning rod like this? do you have any idea how she handles it? i was just thinking about her today. she<u+2019>s one of those people that seems like a <u+201c>light<u+201d> person. she<u+2019>s always got a light to her, an energy. she made the mistake of telling the truth.<u+00a0> i made a whole routine about how when you<u+2019>re little kids it can be like a roman orgy. i noticed that a few people were shocked, but most people laughed. but the right and the left, there is a war going on. it<u+2019>s constant. it<u+2019>s every day, everything. it<u+2019>s terrible, but this is how ignorant we are. all it shows is our ignorance as a society. we<u+2019>ve got these great technological things and people articulate better than they did 30 years ago, but it<u+2019>s the same thing. people love to hate. people love to fight. you like to feel like you are on the right side of history, of things. it<u+2019>s just terrible. so the role for comedians is to be a reality check. exactly. in an ideal world we are a reality check. in the best of circumstances. that<u+2019>s what we are supposed to be in an ideal world. you write in the book that perhaps it<u+2019>s ok to be a little bit racist. the example you use is of an older woman clutching her purse tighter if she sees a young black person. explain that to me. it depends on their experience as a person<u+2013>if she ever got robbed, if she got robbed by a black guy, she is going to clutch her wallet. it doesn<u+2019>t make her racist. i saw so many people growing up that would be circumstantially racist and have black friends. and their black friends would tell them to watch out for the black kids when going down to a certain neighborhood. we knew it wasn<u+2019>t everyone.<u+00a0> now, if you speak some kind of shorthand you are automatically racist. and like i said, if the past 20 years of whitewashing on language<u+2013>excuse the expression<u+2013>if that had actually had an effect of society<u+2019>s racial ills, i guess i<u+2019>d say it does work. but it<u+2019>s bullshit. it<u+2019>s just childish. it has nothing to do with people<u+2019>s interactions. that<u+2019>s just linguistic bullshit. that<u+2019>s the problem. it<u+2019>s getting to be another surface layout, another laminated layer of bullshit. tell me about <u+201c>snl 40<u+201d> and the moment where most of the weekend update anchors reunited. not a lot of people have had that desk. it wasn<u+2019>t about the desk. it wasn<u+2019>t about the show. it was about my memories of how much<u+2013>it<u+2019>s all delayed reaction for me. life is like delayed reaction. i was like, fuck, man. that was such a great time and i guess i sort of knew it. that<u+2019>s how everything is in life. i sort of knew it then, but i was sitting there the whole night so overwhelmed by everybody that i worked with. jesus. it brought back all these memories. it was like a high school reunion in the sense that it was really powerful. the show itself, it was fine. the power came from everyone in that room. it was very emotional for me. i was struck in the book that you sound very at ease with your years there. sometimes people look back and they<u+2019>re bitter. we all had our conflicts there. but your take is interesting: you say that everything gets a shot on wednesday in read-through. and if it can<u+2019>t make a room of smart people and comedians laugh, well, it gets cut <u+2013> but it had a chance. at the time i didn<u+2019>t appreciate lorne michaels. i was like everyone else. that<u+2019>s the posture you take with anyone in charge of everything. nobody else in show business would let you come that close to democracy. i don<u+2019>t care who it is. nobody in the history of show business. i look back wistfully because i wasn<u+2019>t one of those people who went back. i should have, but that<u+2019>s just my nature. when i<u+2019>m done, i<u+2019>m never thinking about coming back and doing a sketch. it<u+2019>s not for me. back to the book: what would you do, if you were in charge, to unstick the race conversation. if there was a real show on every week where you can have these interactions, some of them funny, some of them serious, discussing black and white, that would be an interesting thing to do for a couple of years. to have forums. that would be good. who would you put on that show? only comedians. political people have to be more careful than comedians because they really have to answer for the rest of their lives. with comedians it<u+2019>s different, you are expected to be provocative. provocative is part of the game. you are supposed to have a little conflict with comedians. the worst insult in comedy used to be the crowd pleaser. that<u+2019>s the hack. sometimes the people that are attacking comedians are the very people that should understand that we are supposed to be a little provocative. i don<u+2019>t excuse a lot of horseshit. i<u+2019>m not trying to get away with something. whatever i have to say, i will say upfront. i<u+2019>m not trying to slip one by anybody. it<u+2019>s a muddled line right now. hopefully it will work out, but it<u+2019>s a muddled line with social media. what do you think about what bill maher is up to with religion? with the muslims? islam is a weird religion, but that being said there<u+2019>s billions of islamic people that don<u+2019>t do anything wrong. but i have no problem with him saying it. the conversation is certainly direct. it<u+2019>s direct. it<u+2019>s not racially direct. if that was talked about in europe, that would be an interesting show. there<u+2019>s no muslims here. if you do that show in france or england, that<u+2019>s provocative.. it<u+2019>s not our thing as much. it doesn<u+2019>t feel like it to me at least. maybe it is.

colin quinn on race, comedy and political correctness: <u+201c>people should stop lying and pretending there<u+2019>s a racial dialogue<u+201d>

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

3.0

122.0

8.0

20318.0

0.0

3.0

9.0

0.0

1411.0

1.0

0.0

315.0

1.0

0.0

259.0

44.0

33.0

26.0

35.0

21.0

33.0

15.0

42.0

78.0

67.0

1420.0

316.0

260.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

<u+201c>now, you're right -- the inspector general just came out with a report, it was not a good report for secretary clinton,<u+201d> sanders told host john dickerson, according to a transcript provided by the network. <u+201c>that is something that the american people, democrats and delegates, are going to have to take a hard look at.<u+201d> trailing clinton among pledged delegates collected through state primaries and caucuses, sanders said superdelegates -- party leaders and elected officials not formally bound to any candidate -- should, at the very least, cast their ballots at the democratic national convention in july with the candidate who carries a given state. that would give sanders a boost from states like vermont, washington and alaska, although clinton prevailed in populous states such as new york, florida and texas. sanders continued to press a case for superdelegates to switch their allegiance to him from clinton, regardless of state affiliation, and said the e-mail controversy could become a drain on her in the general election. <u+201c>they will be keeping it in mind. i don<u+2019>t have to tell them that,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>i mean, everybody in america is keeping it in mind and the superdelegates sure are.<u+201d> sanders trails clinton by 1,769 to 1,499 in pledged delegates, according to an associated press count. when superdelegates are included clinton's lead swells to 2,310 to 1,542, leaving the former secretary of state 73 short of clinching the nomination. she's likely to cross that mark when votes are tallied in new jersey, one of six states to vote on june 7. speaking on abc's "this week with george stephanopoulos," senator dianne feinstein, democrat of california, said it was time for party unity. "he ought to be able to read the sign posts as well as anybody else, and if he did that, he would know that it's all but over," she said of sanders. still, sanders insisted on cbs that "there is just a possibility that we may end up at the end of this nominating process with more pledged delegates than hillary clinton." "i think we have a good chance to win here," sanders said of california, the most populous u.s. state. two opinion polls last week offered different outcomes for california. one showed the race basically a toss-up, with clinton ahead by 2 points. the other put the former new york senator up by 18 points. "obviously if we don't do well in california, it will make our path much, much harder," sanders said in a separate interview on nbc's "meet the press." "california is the big enchilada." the state department<u+2019>s inspector general found in a report made public on wednesday that the e-mail set-up violated department rules, that clinton never sought permission for it, and that the proposal would have been rejected if she had. the report handed clinton's republican opponents a fresh line of attack - and sanders, too, if he chose to take it. sanders won praise at a candidates' debate on october when he said, "enough of the e-mails. let's talk about the real issues facing america.'' at the time, his campaign used the comments in a fund-raising e-mail. fast forward seven months and for sanders, the delegates on offer on june 7 represent a last-ditch effort to close the gap with clinton. a strong performance in california may boost sanders's case that superdelegates should switch their allegiance to him on the basis of perceived electability against donald trump, the presumptive republican nominee. that argument so far has been driven by opinion polls showing sanders faring better than clinton in a hypothetical matchup with trump. in another sign sanders has taken off the gloves, his campaign late on friday demanded the ouster of connecticut governor dannel malloy and former massachusetts representative barney frank from a key platform committee at the democratic national convention. democratic officials rejected sanders's request on saturday, the associated press reported. in a statement the sanders campaign said frank and malloy were "aggressive attack surrogates" for clinton. sanders's lawyer said the pair can<u+2019>t work impartially <u+201c>while laboring under such deeply held bias.<u+201d> in a four-page letter hand-delivered to democratic national committee late friday, brad deutsch, sanders's campaign counsel, wrote of animosity by frank toward sanders dating to 1991. criticisms of sanders by frank and malloy have gone beyond dispassionate ideological disagreement and have exposed a deeper professional, political and personal hostility toward the senator and his campaign, deutsch said. frank on saturday pondered the sanders campaign's motive. "i hope it is not to lay the basis for an inaccurate claim that he was unfairly denied the nomination, and i do see some elements of this," he told politico. also this week, sanders, keen for network airtime before the california vote, appeared to get a boost when presumptive republican nominee trump agreed to debate him to raise money for a charity. the billionaire businessman backed out on friday, saying it would be <u+201c>inappropriate<u+201d> to debate the second-place democrat. sanders may not have given up hope, though. "maybe we'll get a call in five minutes and he'll say yes again," he said on cbs.

sanders in california says clinton e-mail problems now serious

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

62.0

8.0

5300.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

331.0

0.0

84.0

0.0

36.0

12.0

11.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

9.0

6.0

21.0

22.0

33.0

338.0

84.0

36.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the white house acknowledged monday that it erred in not sending a higher-level representative to the massive rally in paris against islamic terrorism, after facing bipartisan criticism over the meager u.s. presence at the march -- which was attended by more than 40 world leaders. "we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there," press secretary josh earnest said monday. but he also explained that the planning for the rally began on short notice and president obama's personal attendance, given the security challenges, would have had a "significant impact" on the march.<u+00a0>earnest said they had only 36 hours to prepare, and suggested the outdoor event with large crowds posed security risks. earnest said the u.s. still stands "four-square behind our allies in france." the rally on sunday was a historic show of unity that drew more than a million people -- but none higher representing the u.s. than its ambassador to france. while the administration dispatched attorney general eric holder and a top homeland security official to paris for meetings over the weekend, the only u.s. official of note to attend sunday's rally was ambassador jane hartley. the white house wouldn't say why holder did not attend the march, suggesting only that he or some other top official should have gone. secretary of state john kerry initially dismissed the criticism as "quibbling," and announced a trip to the french capital later this week. a spokesman for the u.s. embassy in paris told fox news that holder did not attend sunday's march because he was "not available at the time."<u+00a0>a justice department spokesman said holder had to return to washington that afternoon, but was "proud" to join world leaders at the summit before the rally. but the white house absorbed heavy criticism on sunday and monday for the thin u.s. presence, as well as for continuing to avoid calling last week's attacks an act of islamic terror. on fox news' "sunday morning futures," sen. lindsey graham, r-s.c., questioned the logic in even sending holder for the paris counterterrorism meetings, suggesting the president is not confronting the matter as islamic terrorism. "last time i checked we're at war. i wouldn't send my attorney general if i were president to deal with islamic radical terrorists. we're at war here," graham said. "[obama] thinks it's a crime out of control." speaking on cbs news, sen. marco rubio, r-fla., suggested he can understand how security may have played a role in the decision for obama not to attend but said, "i think, in hindsight, i would hope they would do it differently" next time. others were tough on the administration's decision. "not an excuse in universe can explain why us failed to send to paris a more visible rep. than holder," tweeted aaron david miller, a former state department official who now works at the woodrow wilson international center for scholars, calling obama, kerry and vice president biden "mias." james stavridis, a retired navy admiral who previously led u.s. european command, also said on twitter: "i wish our us president had gone to paris to stand with our european allies." amid the criticism, kerry, who is traveling on official business in india, rearranged his schedule to make it to paris later in the week. he announced his plans at a press conference in the indian city of ahmedabad, where he had made a long-scheduled appearance at an international investment conference sunday ahead of obama's planned visit to that country later this month. "i would have personally very much wanted to have been [in paris]," kerry said, "but couldn't do so because of the commitment that i had here and it is important to keep these kinds of commitments." when asked about criticism directed at the obama administration for not sending a high-ranking official to take part in the march, kerry said earlier, "i really think that this is sort of quibbling a little bit in the sense that our assistant secretary of state victoria nuland was there and marched, our ambassador [to france jane hartley] was there and marched, many people from the embassy were there and marched." a senior administration official stressed that hartley attended the paris march, and that obama has shown u.s. solidarity with france by placing a call to their president, stopping by the french embassy and directing u.s. officials to work on helping the french in the wake of last week's terror attack. the official also said "it is worth noting that the security requirements for both the president and vp can be distracting from events like this -- this event is not about us." kerry, at the news conference, said that u.s. officials, including himself and obama, had been "deeply engaged" with french authorities almost immediately after the first attack occurred wednesday and had offered intelligence assistance. more than 40 world leaders -- press reports put the number at 44 -- along with more than a million ordinary french citizens, marched arm in arm through the streets of paris sunday to rally for unity and freedom of expression and to honor the 17 victims killed in three separate terror attacks last week. among the world leaders who did march, under heavy security, were french president francois hollande, british prime minister david cameron, german chancellor angela merkel, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and palestinian president mahmoud abbas. shibley telhami, a senior fellow at the brookings institution, tweeted, "what's missing in this picture? american leaders. even palestinian and israeli leaders in front line of paris march." democratic strategist doug schoen, in a column on foxnews.com, said obama has "morally abdicated his place as the leader of the free world." the decision to stay in washington, schoen wrote, "sent a clear message to the world: obama just doesn't care." he also lamented that obama "is the only western leader who has refused to call this attack islamic terrorism, even though president hollande has declared that france is it at war with radical islam." kerry said he is going to france to reaffirm u.s. solidarity with america's oldest ally. he said as soon as he heard about the march, he asked his team what the earliest time was that he could go. "that is why i am going there on the way home and to make it crystal clear how passionately we feel about the events that have taken place there," he said. "i don't think the people of france have any doubt about america's understanding about what happened, about our personal sense of loss and our deep commitment to the people of france in this moment of trial." kerry will arrive in paris on thursday after stops in sofia, bulgaria and geneva, switzerland. kerry will be the highest-ranking u.s. official to visit france since the terrorist attacks on a french newspaper and a kosher supermarket. authorities say one of those involved in the attacks pledged allegiance to the islamic state group in a video. he and two other suspected extremists were killed during police raids. meanwhile, the white house said sunday it will hold an international summit next month in washington on thwarting violent extremism. the summit is scheduled for feb. 18 and will focus on domestic and international efforts to "prevent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting and inspiring individuals and groups in the united states and abroad from committing acts of violence," the white house said. the associated press contributed to this report.

white house admits should have sent 'higher-profile' official to paris rally

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

76.0

8.0

7536.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

538.0

1.0

0.0

140.0

2.0

0.0

66.0

10.0

18.0

4.0

16.0

9.0

7.0

39.0

21.0

49.0

546.0

141.0

68.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

donald trump is considering tapping a democrat to be his treasury secretary, politico has learned.

gop hits another roadblock on obamacare repeal

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

1.0

46.0

8.0

98.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

7.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

8.0

2.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

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

insiders: sanders and trump will win new hampshire

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

50.0

8.0

117.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

15.0

1.0

0.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

democrats, however, should be concerned for a different reason. the last consecutive two-term presidents from the same party were james madison and james monroe, who were both democratic-republicans. that transition occurred before the formation of our modern two-party system. the 2020 election is one democrats cannot afford to lose. it is a census year, which means the future of the house will be determined for the next decade. it is also highly possible that at least two (or three) seats will open on the supreme court, given the ages of the justices<u+2014>more than are likely to open between 2016 and 2020. if the democrats do not win, the gop will have a solid hold on government for at least another 10<u+00a0>years. and that raises<u+00a0>one very important question: do democratic voters really want to hitch their wagon to four years of a center-right candidate like hillary clinton? the democratic party as a whole is moving to the left<u+2014>albeit slowly. elizabeth warren would never have gotten elected in the <u+2019>90s, let alone become as influential as she has. it can easily be said that the democrats are no longer the party of the clintons (the new democrats), and are instead, the party of elizabeth warren. if hillary clinton wins the nod in 2016, and manages to win the general, it is unlikely she will be able to excite the base of her own party in four years<u+2014>as the dnc may slowly be realizing. she<u+2019>s a hard enough sell now in spite of every effort chairwoman debbie wasserman schultz has expended on her behalf. many on the left will not turn out to vote for clinton<u+2014>in fact, a new poll showed that 20<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>of democrats would defect and vote trump over hillary in a general election. clinton<u+2019>s problems start with image. more americans mistrust her than trust her. this may be due to her various <u+201c>scandals,<u+201d> especially her private email server. but it probably also has something to do with the fact that she is politically expedient. a look at her campaign strategy throughout her career is telling. in this regard, she is nearly indistinguishable from the gop. in 2008, her campaign reportedly<u+00a0>circulated a picture of barack obama dressed as a somali elder<u+00a0>without providing context for the image, in a seeming effort to stir fears that the now-president was a muslim. in this current election cycle, clinton has relied on republican talking points to attack bernie sanders. specifically, she cited rupert murdoch<u+2019>s wall street journal<u+2019>s faulty analysis of the cost of his domestic plan. clinton has gone as far as attacking him for proposing universal health care<u+2014>a move 2008 hillary called out as a republican tactic. clinton has also resorted to republican talking points to justify opposing a $15 minimum wage. though she calls them her greatest enemies, her argument relies on the same false premise as the gop<u+2019>s: it will cost jobs. first, clinton purposefully ignores that a raise to $15 per hour would be gradual. additionally, she pays no heed to the fact that evidence indicating such increases will cost jobs is thin. in fact, studies overwhelmingly suggest that minimum wage hikes have no impact on employment. additionally, many on the left worry that there is no way for democrats to know what hillary clinton will morph into, given her numerous flip-flops. and for all of her talk about fighting for the middle class, she has an uncomfortably cozy relationship with wall street and powerful private industries (oil, private prisons, big banks, cable companies, etc.). but clinton<u+2019>s problems run much deeper than impressions of her character. as a candidate, hillary is closer to george h.w. bush or ronald reagan than to the heart of the democratic party, fdr. progressives know this about her. she exists out-of-time<u+2014>propped up by a democratic establishment similarly stuck on third way politics. hillary is a new democrat in 2016; she<u+2019>s caught between two narratives: the gop/reagan narrative that government is too big, and inherently inefficient, and the democratic narrative, that government can and should work for all to solve the problems we face as a country. clinton<u+2019>s background creates a disconnect between her policies and those of her party. hillary<u+2019>s <u+201c>strongest issue<u+201d> is foreign policy, given her years of experience at the state department. unfortunately, her foreign policy ideas don<u+2019>t fit<u+00a0>with many on the left. put simply, she is an interventionist hawk. in 2008 barack obama compared her to george w. bush, and that comparison still seems appropriate. she did, after all, vote for the iraq war and support the use of torture on detainees. although she has called her war vote <u+201c>a mistake,<u+201d> we must look at it in its proper context. when we consider the initiatives she pushed at the state department (the bombing of libya, arming the syrian rebels, and selling arms to clinton foundation donors), as well as her current plans, like the no-fly-zone in syria, it seems less of a one-off, and more like part of a pattern. clinton<u+2019>s strategy is to deal with isis is nearly indistinguishable from marco rubio<u+2019>s: defeat isis rather than contain them by forming a coalition with our allies to take back territory, sending in ground troops, disrupting their recruitment, and ramping up airstrikes. hillary<u+2019>s plan, like those of the republicans, is predicated on the idea that by taking out isis, u.s. involvement in the region can end. what clinton<u+2019>s and the republican plans fail to take into account is political culture. changing political culture within a generation is impossible, let alone changing it in a part of the world westerners, as a rule, barely understand; where people mistrust and resent us, and where democratic tradition is a novel concept. the middle east and north africa (mena) is not the only part of the globe where intervention is hillary<u+2019>s modus operandi. her involvement in legitimizing the violent coup regime in honduras indicates that as president, interference would also define her latin america policy. besides intervention, clinton<u+2019>s foreign policy prioritizes <u+201c>free markets.<u+201d> she appears to view the world through the lens of how much multinational business, rather than domestic companies or workers, benefits. though she has now flip-flopped on both the north american free trade agreement (nafta) and the trans pacific partnership (tpp), her years of support for each suggest her shift is politically motivated. all things considered, it is safe to call clinton a neoconservative. economically speaking, in spite of touting herself as a <u+201c>progressive who likes to get things done,<u+201d> clinton is essentially a moderate republican<u+2014>which makes economic progressives angry. her capital gains tax proposal does not increase long-term capital gains taxes, and instead targets short-term investments. this might sound solid on paper, but, as i<u+2019>ve said before, it will impact new investors and the middle class, while preserving the status quo where billionaires, who keep the majority of their assets wrapped up in long term investments, pay lower rates than their secretaries. she is also against reinstating glass-steagall, and breaking up the banks<u+2014>instead opting for a game of regulatory catch-up to monitor <u+201c>shadow banking.<u+201d> her plan barely tackles symptoms while leaving the underlying illness untouched. to make matters worse, this issue is time-sensitive as there may be another financial crisis brewing with subprime auto loans. a collapse would spell disaster for the democratic party should it hit after eight years of president obama with another democrat in the oval office. however, hillary seems unconcerned. she<u+2019>s even attacked proponents of a new glass-steagall, on the premise that her policy is stronger<u+2014>the only plan that tackles shadow banking. as zach carter of the huffington post explains in his recent article titled <u+201c>hillary clinton is not telling the truth about wall street,<u+201d> her claims are dishonest. shadow banking is a direct consequence of the too-big-to-fail model. the concentration of financial power in just six institutions is the fundamental problem we face. the size of the banks allowed them to exert unprecedented influence over rating agencies like s&p or moody<u+2019>s, due to the pay-per-rating model. this undermined the integrity of our entire rating system. at the same time, lenders were taking insurance policies out on their loans and products. the size of the banks and by extension, the sheer volume of the insured debt is why, when borrowers began defaulting, insurers like aig went under. all of this could have been avoided with a decentralized banking system like the one bernie sanders is proposing. clinton<u+2019>s stance on social programs and spending is equally disappointing to many liberals and progressives. though she used to, she no longer supports universal healthcare. she explained her flip-flop during one of the few sanctioned dnc presidential debates by saying, <u+201c>[t]he revolution never came.<u+201d> hillary is also against expanding social security. she does not support free college tuition for all. instead she feels it should essentially be a means-tested welfare program. and speaking of welfare, hillary has stood by her husband<u+2019>s signing of the disastrous personal responsibility and work opportunity act of 1996 (aka welfare reform), deeming it <u+201c>necessary<u+201d> in spite of evidence that it caused a spike in extreme poverty particularly in minority communities. this bill was a republican initiative<u+2014>part of the <u+201c>contract with america.<u+201d> clinton isn<u+2019>t exactly nancy reagan on drugs, but her <u+201c>evolution<u+201d> on marijuana/cannabis has not come very far since the <u+2019>90s<u+2014>and that<u+2019>s difficult for many young democrats to accept.<u+00a0>clinton also scares many environmentalists. she used to be in favor of the keystone pipeline until it became a political liability for her, and her state department helped spread fracking to the rest of the world. she<u+00a0>also has trouble convincing some people of her support for lgbtq equality. it wasn<u+2019>t until 2013 that she fully embraced same-sex marriage. prior to that she believed that marriage was a <u+201c>sacred bond between a man and a woman.<u+201d> she also supported the defense of marriage act (doma). she hasn<u+2019>t even been consistent on gun control. sure, clinton<u+00a0>talks a big game now about background checks and modest reforms, supporting president obama in his executive actions. but in 2008, she was <u+201c>annie oakley,<u+201d> accusing obama of being hostile to hunters<u+2019> rights. everything about hillary clinton<u+2019>s record suggests that she will negotiate from the center/right<u+2014>leaving only one direction to go in compromising with republicans: further right. like her husband before her, she<u+2019>ll likely use social programs and financial reform as bargaining chips. after all, she<u+2019>s already given up on universal health care. her commitment to campaign finance reform is also doubtful considering how much she is raising for this campaign from big donors (time warner and morgan stanley are both in her top 10). clinton is not the candidate democrats should back. this leaves the democratic party with two options: 1) nominate bernie sanders. he<u+2019>s the candidate drawing the largest crowds; the candidate beating the gop field by the widest margins in a majority of polls; the candidate americans feel is honest. if anyone has a shot at breaking the trend of back-and-forth in presidential elections, it is sanders for the simple reason that he has been an independent for the majority of his political career. his outsider image gives him the greatest chance at beating the odds against consecutive two-term presidents from the same party. 2) let a republican have four years. with a hillary ticket, this scenario isn<u+2019>t out of the question<u+2014>especially if the candidate is donald trump, who can run on the fact that he donated to clinton. there<u+2019>s a cold logic in this move. in 2020, democrats can run someone like elizabeth warren who excites the base. coming off of four years with the gop, a two-term presidency would be easily attainable with the added benefit that any economic downturns that happen between now and then would be blamed on republicans. even if one hit during the first term of the newly elected democrat, the gop would still take the fall. also worth mentioning, people typically vote down the party line<u+2014>which is good for democrats, considering it is a census year. 2020 could see the democrats take the presidency, the house and the senate<u+2014>and with the likelihood that two or three seats will open on the court, they<u+2019>d control all three branches of government. the downside to this option is that senate democrats would have to obstruct for four years. such a move will exact a political cost, but as the republicans have shown, obstruction isn<u+2019>t a death knell in elections. of course, the main drawback is the fact that people will suffer as budgets are slashed. there<u+2019>s also the high probability that liberals will lose one seat on the supreme court, as well as federal judge appointments<u+2014>all of which be damaging. the only mitigating factor is that, as previously mentioned, there<u+2019>s strong possibility that more seats will open up on the scotus between 2020 and 2024 than between 2016 to 2020. <u+201c>bernie or bust<u+201d> is undoubtedly a controversial position, as many democrats insist that if hillary clinton gets the nod, she should be elected president. this argument relies on the-lesser-of-two-evils mind-set; vote hillary because she<u+2019>s better than the gop. however, with all things weighed and considered, it is clear that clinton should neither be the democratic nominee nor the president, and that her differences with her opponents are not so stark. the 2020 election cycle is far too important to risk it on a candidate who can barely relate to her own party now<u+2014>especially taking into account historical trends. democrats must ask themselves where a hillary presidency leaves the country in four years. would her half-measures be enough that they would feel comfortable handing the keys over to the gop in 2020? that is why <u+201c>bernie or bust<u+201d> is the real <u+201c>lesser-of-two-evils<u+201d> option.

fine, give the gop four years: the liberal case for either bernie sanders, or electing a republican president

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

22.0

109.0

8.0

14047.0

0.0

9.0

0.0

981.0

3.0

0.0

299.0

1.0

0.0

109.0

36.0

32.0

16.0

40.0

15.0

34.0

18.0

50.0

69.0

74.0

990.0

302.0

110.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

barack obama<u+2019>s signature, as a speaker, is his ability to stay on-topic. while most politicians try to cram everything, plus a stash of kittens and a stray puppy to boot, into their speeches, potus is known for writing speeches that stray little and focus heavily on the thesis at hand. last night, in his speech supporting hillary clinton, was the last big foreseeable speech of his career. last night, of all nights, he should have really brought his mighty oratory skills to bear. sadly, however, his speech was a bit<u+2026>meh. not that it was bad, mind you. obama hit a lot of high points, both shading clinton<u+2019>s opponent, donald trump and highlighting how progressive and successful the democratic agenda was, an especially important topic with all the ill-informed bernie sanders dead-enders in the audience who were convinced that clinton is basically a republican. by most political speech standards, obama was a 9 out of 10. but obama is a better speaker than most. unlike most politicians, he<u+2019>s an actual writer <u+2014> the author of a best-selling memoir! <u+2014> and he understands certain basics about speechifying most politicians don<u+2019>t: keep it short. keep it on topic. don<u+2019>t be digressive. and yet, for some reason, obama delivered a bill clinton-esque performance, meandering around his own record, taking random digs at donald trump, and hitting applause lines (yes we can) almost at random. it was especially confusing in light of his wife<u+2019>s out-of-the-park performance on monday night, which stuck to his more classic formula of short, well-structured speeches that tell coherent stories. michelle obama told an easy-to-remember tale, of sacrifice and reward, of watching her little girls cash in the hard work by women and people of color to make america truly a land of opportunity. it<u+2019>s hard to put a thesis statement into barack obama<u+2019>s speech. he roamed around, hat-tipping black lives matter and clinton<u+2019>s hard work, but one never got the sense, from him, of clinton as a friend. michelle obama sold clinton that way, portraying her as an older woman she had grown close to and come to admire. bill clinton had done it, portraying his wife as she frankly, as a human, deserves to be seen: as a kind-hearted woman who loves her child and can set human male hearts a-flutter. but to barack obama, the man who sat with her as they watched their hard work result in the death of the man who inflicted 9/11 on us? no real warmth was detected. it<u+2019>s hard for me to imagine going through that with someone and not feeling bound to them. how our president, a man who is a genius at making the incomprehensible seem downright folksy, failed to convey that, is a great mystery. that said, i don<u+2019>t think obama should pull himself off the trail or feel like a liability to clinton. his comments about how they reconciled post-primary offer an important example to bernie sanders holdouts who don<u+2019>t understand the basic facts of politics. he is also, as much as it pains me to say, better at delivering sick burns in the direction of donald trump better than any other politician on the planet. trump<u+2019>s impotent, small-fingered response already indicates that. but that was a crowd that was fully ready to be united and scream its head off at the chance of electing the first female president, and, for some reason, obama just fell a bit short of the task. as he noted in the speech, being the leader of the free world is hard work <u+2014> which is why we should want clinton in the job <u+2014> so perhaps he didn<u+2019>t have time to tell a better story. still, a shame. most of us wanted to hear the real story of how these two former foes became friends. obama could have told that story in style, and made history while he did it. his failure to do so is on him. but we<u+2019>ll always have his wife. michelle, 2024!<u+00a0>s<u+00ed> se puede!

obama<u+2019>s dnc letdown: the president needed to hit it out of the park, but he surprisingly fell short

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

4.0

99.0

8.0

3811.0

0.0

3.0

5.0

0.0

250.0

3.0

0.0

78.0

2.0

0.0

37.0

12.0

16.0

9.0

12.0

9.0

12.0

9.0

26.0

23.0

46.0

255.0

81.0

39.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

sen. rand paul is about to announce that he's running for president <u+2014> kicking off a long-postponed republican civil war on foreign policy. unlike the rest of the likely gop presidential field, paul is a die-hard true believer in scaling down america's involvement in conflicts around the world. that pits him against the mainstream, hawks in the republican party whose ideas are sure to dominate the campaign. by running for president, paul hopes to inject his ideas into the debate and shift priorities his party's held for decades. paul's presence alone is a threat to people in the party establishment. the party's most hawkish voices, fearing exactly this, are mobilizing in force to stop paul <u+2014> lobbying internally and even potentially running candidates whose sole purpose would be challenging paul on foreign policy. the coming campaign, then, is a major test of where the republican party view of foreign policy is heading. paul is pretty open about what he believes on foreign policy. it's a simple pitch: no more foreign wars and less government involvement in our lives in the name of security. it also happens to be 180 degrees from what most other republicans think. paul supports nuclear negotiations with iran (though he's been conspicuously quiet about the recently announced framework deal). he's tacitly endorsed the obama approach to russia and ukraine, and has vociferously opposed nsa surveillance. he's blasted both the afghanistan surge and the libya intervention. today, he opposes arming the syrian rebels to fight isis or bashar al-assad. "after the tragedies of iraq and libya, americans are right to expect more from their country when we go to war," paul said in an october speech widely seen as an outline of his 2016 foreign policy platform. paul often builds conservative cred for these ideas by couching them as critiques of democrats. in his recent speech to the conservative political action committee, for example, he bashed "hillary's war in libya" for ushering in chaos that helped jihadi groups flourish. this is a standard non-interventionist argument <u+2014> america's allegedly humanitarian wars often produce terrible unintended consequences <u+2014> that also implicitly criticizes republican hawks. but because it's couched as an attack on democrats, it can play with republicans. paul will occasionally do something that makes it seem like he's moving in a more hawkish direction. sometimes that's a sop to political necessity. paul used to call for zeroing out us aid to israel <u+2014> an extremely unpopular position in the gop that he's now reversed. but other times, it's a fakeout. paul learned from his father, former rep. ron paul, that refusing to compromise or tailor your libertarian message at all will simply lead to marginalization inside the gop. instead, he's developed a more subtle strategy: repurpose classic republican positions and tactics to endorse non-interventionist, rather than hawkish, views about foreign policy. take a recent amendment on defense spending. paul, a longtime critic of wasteful defense spending, proposed a larger defense budget <u+2014> shocking even stalwart libertarians. but paul wasn't mounting a serious campaign to hike defense spending. the amendment was designed to embarrass hawkish sen. marco rubio, a likely primary rival. paul's amendment proposed increasing spending by the exact same amount as one rubio had proposed earlier, only paul paid for it with other domestic spending cuts, which rubio didn't. "this amendment is to lay down a marker that if you believe we need more funding for national defense, you should show how you would pay for it," doug stafford, a senior paul adviser, told reason. the whole thing was a stunt designed to show that increasing defense spending requires tradeoffs from any republican who's serious about the debt. paul is basically alone on these issues in the primary. virtually every plausible republican candidate has argued that the obama administration's major problem is that it's been too unwilling to intervene forcefully around the world. paul, of course, thinks the opposite. if paul wins the primary <u+2014> let alone the presidency <u+2014> then the gop and its elected officials will have to line up behind him. that will mean defending his foreign policy against democrats, who will likely blast paul from an interventionist point of view. the democratic criticism of paul's big october speech shows how this dynamic would work. "paul's been clear about his goal," dnc press secretary michael czin told reporters before the speech. "he wants to see america retreat from our responsibilities around the world." republican party organs like the rnc couldn't just take this stuff. they'd need to defend their candidate, essentially forcing republicans around the country to back paul's non-interventionism. as republicans defend paul, democrats might also drift hawkish as they unite against paul's philosophy. that's particularly true if hillary clinton, who is already on the more interventionist side of the democratic spectrum, is the nominee. it's hard to say if a paul nomination would transform the republican party's generally hawkish positions in the long run. but it'd be the biggest challenge to the gop's hawkish orthodoxy in decades. the bulk of the republican party's foreign policy is relatively hawkish. paul's campaign represents an intolerable threat to their dominant position in the party, so he'll face massive resistance from them in the coming months. yesterday, for example, bloomberg's josh rogin reported that a new group called the foundation for a secure and prosperous america planned to spend "seven figures" on an ad campaign painting paul as soft on foreign policy, particularly on iran. rick reed, the man behind the campaign, is the same guy who spearheaded the infamous "swift boat veterans for truth" attacks on john kerry. reed's group is hardly the first major institutional pushback against paul. both sen. lindsey graham, rep. pete king, and former un ambassador john bolton appear to be considering runs. none really have a real shot at the nomination. it's very clear, as msnbc's benjy sarlin reports, that the entire point of their runs would be to attack paul from the interventionist right. whether these anti-paul campaigns succeed is an open, but really important, question. since the early bush administration, the gop's hawkish factions have enjoyed essentially unchallenged control over the party's national agenda. in fact, there probably hasn't been this serious a challenge to republican orthodoxy on foreign policy since the reagan revolution. paul's announcement today, then, isn't just about him. it's about whether the republican party is open to a fundamentally different way of approaching the world.

rand paul is about to kick off a republican civil war on foreign policy

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

13.0

71.0

8.0

6793.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

502.0

0.0

124.0

0.0

48.0

22.0

12.0

6.0

24.0

7.0

14.0

11.0

25.0

34.0

41.0

509.0

124.0

48.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

in 1974, hillary clinton learned the biggest challenge for working women: clean socks. in her memoir<u+00a0>living history, clinton tells the story of the end of the watergate investigation, after richard nixon resigned. clinton, who was a staff member on the investigation, reveals a conversation she and her fellow attorneys had as they decided what to do once their work ended: suddenly i was out of work. our close-knit group of lawyers met for one last dinner<u+00a0>together before we scattered to the four winds. everyone talked excitedly about plans for<u+00a0>the future. i was undecided, and when bert jenner asked me what i wanted to do, i said i<u+00a0>wanted to be a trial lawyer, like him. he told me that would be impossible. "because you won't have a wife." "what on earth does that mean?" bert explained that without a wife at home to take care of all my personal needs, i<u+00a0>would never be able to manage the demands of everyday life, like making sure i had<u+00a0>clean socks for court. i've since wondered whether jenner was pulling my leg or making<u+00a0>a serious point about how tough the law still could be for women. it's a funny story about antiquated notions about women in the workplace. but it also exposes a kind of shortsighted, classist cluelessness about the problems of working women <u+2014> is doing laundry and other housework really the biggest problem of taking a new job as a woman? even now, before she has officially announced her plans to run for president in 2016, clinton already appears to be running as a woman. that's a big change from her 2008 campaign, when she played down her gender: "i am not running as a woman, i am running because i believe i am the best qualified and experienced person," she told iowa voters in 2007. and with the issues of working women <u+2014> paid leave, the wage gap, and child care, for example <u+2014> a hot topic in the national economic conversation right now, clinton will likewise have to navigate the class divide within feminism. those class-related rifts have become more visible in recent years, particularly since the publication of sheryl sandberg's lean in, which was criticized for primarily addressing problems of middle- to upper-class professional women. in case you were wondering, hillary ultimately never had to face the dirty-socks question; in the end, she chose to follow her husband (or, as she puts it, "follow her heart") to arkansas, where bill was running for congress. but the dilemmas will be bigger now as she prepares her run for the presidency.

why hillary clinton was told not to be a trial lawyer: she didn't have a wife at home

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

85.0

8.0

2499.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

167.0

1.0

0.0

51.0

0.0

11.0

5.0

4.0

8.0

3.0

6.0

2.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

173.0

52.0

11.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

camden, n.j. -- the obama administration announced monday it will ban federal transfers of certain types of military-style gear to local police departments, as the president seeks to respond to a spate of incidents that has frayed trust in communities across the country. the banned items are tracked armored vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, ammunition of .50-caliber or higher and some types of camouflage uniforms, according to a report released by a white house working group that made the recommendations. other equipment, including tactical vehicles, explosives and riot equipment, will be transferred only if local police provide additional certification and assurances that the gear will be used responsibly, according to the report. "we<u+2019>ve seen how militarized gear sometimes gives people a feeling like they are an occupying force as opposed to a part of the community there to protect them," obama said during remarks in camden, n.j. "some equipment made for the battlefield is not appropriate for local police departments." the nation's largest police union denounced the president's move, saying he has overstated the problem. <u+201c>the issue of militarization has been really kind of exaggerated almost to the point that i don<u+2019>t recognize it at times,<u+201d> said james pasco, executive director of the national fraternal order of police. <u+201c>the vast majority of the equipment that civilian law enforcement gets from the military is administrative stuff or defensive in nature.<u+201d> the ban on items will take effect immediately, white house officials said, while the restrictions on other gear will be phased in so that local law enforcement agencies can be briefed about the new requirements. "the idea is to make sure we strike the right balance of providing equipment that is appropriate and important, while at the same time put standards in place that give a clear reason for the transfer of that equipment, with clear training and safety provisions in place," cecilia mu<u+00f1>oz, the white house director of domestic policy, told reporters in a conference call on sunday. the announcement came as obama traveled here to highlight his administration's strategy to help reform local police departments, including efforts to increase the numbers of officers on patrol and the use of body cameras. the white house has said the administration will spend about $75 million over the next three years to buy about 50,000 body cameras that will be worn by police. the administration has been seeking to respond to a series of incidents, including the shooting by police of teenager michael brown in ferguson, mo., last summer, that have sparked protests among citizens. as he has over the past months, obama sought to tread a careful line between calling on police officers and members of the community to do more to improve the relationship between them. the president emphasized that pervasive hopelessness in the inner city is driven in large part by a lack of educational and economic opportunities. he also praised the police, saying "the overwhelming number of police officers are good, fair, honest and care deeply about their community, putting their lives on the line every day." he said the police cannot be expected to provide the answers to some of the intractable social issues that have roots in divisive issues of race and class. the appearance of heavily armored vehicles and police clad in military-grade body armor to quell the unrest in ferguson led to widespread concerns that the federal program providing that gear, begun with the best intentions, had run amok. one of the ways police departments have armed themselves in recent years is through the defense department's<u+00a0>excess property program, known as the 1033 program.<u+00a0> that program has transferred more than $4.3 billion in equipment since its inception in 1997. in 2013 alone it gave nearly half a billion dollars worth of military equipment to local law enforcement agencies, according to the program's web site. some police chiefs have stressed that much of the equipment that has been being made available by the federal program is radio and dispatch equipment that provides cash-strapped departments with valuable updates. others, thought, have decried the influx of military equipment into local departments that has come in recent years where budgets for officers on the ground have been cut. <u+201c>i understand what the president is trying to do, and<u+00a0> i think he recognizes that law enforcement is a dangerous job,<u+201d> said richard beary, president of the international association of chiefs of police. <u+201c>i think he<u+2019>s trying to strike a balance <u+2026> trying to find that happy balance between being able to provide the equipment that we need and also trying to provide some accountability.<u+201d> the announcement of a ban on portions of the program monday was something of a surprise. last december, new white house initiatives stopped well short of banning the transfer of hulking military vehicles that were designed to withstand blasts from land mines in iraq and afghanistan and that prompted a public outcry when they appeared on the streets of ferguson. a senior administration official at that time said the white house didn<u+2019>t have the authority to stop the transfers. <u+201c>those are programs that congress directed the agencies to implement,<u+201d> the official said. but the working group report suggested that there was <u+201c>substantial risk of misusing or overusing these items." the announcement was met with praise from lawmakers in missouri, as well as from elected officials who had introduced bills in recent months that would have installed similar restrictions. on the campaign trail, sen. rand paul (r-ky.), who has a bill pending in congress to reform the types of militarized weapons for local police, endorsed the president's actions. "i see no reason why a 20-ton mine resistant ambush protection vehicle should ever roll down any city in our country," paul said during an appearance in philadelphia, not far from camden. "the president can change some of this through executive order, and i commend him for doing so." paul added: "there is no reason that the police force should be the same as the army." sen. claire mccaskill (d-mo.) called the new restrictions <u+201c>another step in the direction of needed change to better protect both police officers and the communities those officers serve." rep. lacy clay (d-mo.) thanked obama for instituting the new restrictions on which military equipment local police forces could obtain. <u+201c>i witnessed first-hand, high-powered sniper rifles with night scopes being pointed at my constituents who were peacefully exercising their constitutional rights,<u+201d> said clay, whose district includes ferguson. <u+201c>that kind of police militarization is harmful, and it deepens the already wide gulf of mistrust that exists between communities of color and some local law enforcement agencies.<u+201d> meanwhile, anti-police brutality and law enforcement reform groups were more measured, praising the move by the obama administration but painting it as a small step in what they believe will be a long process to reform american policing. <u+201c>we know that reforming 1033 or putting limits on military equipment is not going to be enough,<u+201d> said dante barry, executive director of million hoodies movement for justice, one of the groups born in response to the shooting of trayvon martin in florida in 2012. <u+201c>any reform done to policing must be systemic and transformative," said barry, who has played a role in organizing the black lives matter protests that have occurred nationwide since michael brown was killed. "militarized police culture, surveillance technologies and equipment must all be looked at if we are to see an end of police militarization in our communities.<u+201d> obama's visit monday to camden, one of new jersey's poorest cities, came as he seeks to ramp up federal funding for community policing initiatives. camden has long been among new jersey's most crime-ridden cities, but reforms over the past two years have led to falling crime statistics and an increased number of officers in the community. the president toured camden's county police headquarters and tactical operations center, and he spoke with youth and officers before delivering remarks at a community center. "i came here to do what would have been unthinkable just a few years ago: hold you up as a symbol of promise for the nation," obama told a crowd of nearly 300. he noted that crime had fallen but emphasized that the city still has a lot of work to do. camden remains one of the most crime-ridden cities in new jersey. white house aides said the reforms in camden include its designation as a federal "promise zone," which allows the city to receive federal grants to help improve educational opportunities and public health and reduce crime. the city last month joined the administration's "my brother's keeper" program, which obama started to try to concentrate on providing opportunities for young african american men and boys. the obama administration also has sought additional funding to increase body cameras for local departments and this month announced a $20 million pilot program. "we're hopeful we will have a constructive conversation with congress to up the ante for departments to buy cameras," mu<u+00f1>oz said. in the coming weeks, several members of obama's cabinet also will travel across the country to tout the community policing initiatives.

obama administration bans some military-style assault gear from local police departments

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

88.0

8.0

9467.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

737.0

0.0

146.0

1.0

0.0

88.0

20.0

22.0

8.0

36.0

18.0

10.0

9.0

46.0

39.0

67.0

745.0

146.0

89.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the obama administration just wrapped up another big year for regulations and executive actions -- pushing through everything from a new type of retirement account to a deportation reprieve affecting millions of illegal immigrants to long-awaited standards for coal waste. but thousands of proposed regulations remain on the table and could set the stage for a rush of rulemaking in the president's final two years in office. some of the biggest items are expected from the environmental protection agency, which is set to finalize several landmark rules in 2015. perhaps the most controversial concern new regulations on coal-fired power plants. the obama administration is trying to get fossil-fuel fired power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. the epa proposed the rules last year and is set to finalize them by summer 2015. but with republicans taking control of the senate and boosting their numbers in the house, incoming leaders are girding for battle. incoming senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, a republican who represents the coal state of kentucky, told the associated press last month he'll do all he can to stop regulations hurting the industry. though the administration is pushing the regulations as part of a broad plan to improve air quality and curb global warming, mcconnell told the ap: "my first obligation is to protect my people, who are hurting as the result of what this administration is doing." he added: "i'm going to do any and everything i can to stop it." according to the competitive enterprise institute, the obama administration put out 2,375 proposed rules in 2014 that are still under consideration. that's in addition to 3,541 final rules and regulations in 2014, according to cei. the sheer number of rules from the obama administration is not unprecedented. early in the george w. bush administration, the annual number of rules topped 4,000. but critics say this administration is imposing more expensive regulations. among them is a controversial epa proposal to expand regulatory power over streams and wetlands. the agency, set to finalize the rule in april, estimates it could impose costs of between $162 million to $278 million per year, but says "public benefits outweigh the costs" -- since, the epa says, the changes would reduce flooding, support hunting and fishing, and ease pollution. republicans, though, have described the maneuver as a massive land grab. the plan would define which specific waterways the epa can regulate. the clean water act already gives the epa the ability to regulate "u.s. waters," but supreme court rulings have left the specifics unclear when it comes to waters that flow only part of the year. the epa claims this does not expand its authority, and only clarifies it. but detractors claim it is an opening for the epa to claim authority over countless waterways, including streams that only show up during heavy rainfall. critics warn this could create more red tape for property owners and businesses if they happen to have even small streams on their land. rep. lamar smith, r-texas, chairman of the house science, space, and technology committee, has called it an effort to "control a huge amount of private property across the country." in another epa initiative, the agency is looking to october to finalize sweeping ozone regulations. in proposing the limits on smog-forming pollution linked to asthma and respiratory illness in november, epa administrator gina mccarthy argued that the public health benefits far outweigh the costs and that most of the u.s. can meet the tougher standards without doing anything new. "we need to be smart -- as we always have -- in trying to find the best benefits in a way that will continue to grow the economy," mccarthy said. of reducing ozone, she added: "we've done it before, and we're on track to do it again." but business groups panned the proposal as unnecessary and the costliest in history, warning it could jeopardize a resurgence in american manufacturing. president obama initially had pulled the epa's proposed ozone limits amid intense pressure from industry and the gop. but public health groups sued, and a federal court ordered the epa to issue a new draft smog rule by last month -- which the agency did. the rules are estimated to cost industry anywhere between $3.9 billion and $15 billion by 2025. that price tag would exceed that of any previous environmental regulation in the u.s. environmental groups are pushing for stricter limits still. on other fronts, the federal communications commission could move in a matter of months to propose new "net neutrality" rules. obama weighed in on that debate late last year, urging the fcc to regulate the internet like other utilities. the white house is calling for an "explicit ban" on deals between broadband internet providers and online services like netflix, amazon or youtube to move their content faster, a potential new source of revenue for cable companies. while the fcc is an independent agency, obama's statement could put political pressure on fcc commissioners. meanwhile, the national labor relations board has issued new rules for so-called "ambush" union elections -- speeding up elections and requiring employers to give unions contact information for workers. the rules take effect in april. the associated press contributed to this report.

obama administration prepares regulatory rush in 2015

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

17.0

53.0

8.0

5431.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

374.0

0.0

94.0

0.0

46.0

11.0

20.0

4.0

15.0

11.0

6.0

27.0

21.0

32.0

379.0

94.0

46.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

like a modern day ben franklin, sen. tim scott makes his most critical decisions by listing<u+00a0>the pros and cons on a sheet of paper. so in recent weeks, as the south carolina republican tried to decide who to endorse for the gop<u+00a0>presidential nomination, scott pulled out his detailed notes on<u+00a0>the contenders along with his yellow legal pads and blue pens, crafting the rationale for each of the potential nominees as well as their downsides. on tuesday, he endorsed sen. marco rubio (r-fla.) <u+2014> a fellow 40-something when they were first elected in 2010; both minorities in the white confines of republican caucuses. what seemed like a natural decision from the outside came through one of the more detailed, painstaking processes any senator uses for choosing which horse to back in presidential politics. in an interview, scott explained that, indeed, <u+00a0>he really only had one choice once he had<u+00a0>done his due diligence.<u+201c>when i put together a strong position on national defense and foreign policy, coupled with a compassionate attachment for people to alleviate poverty using conservative principles exclusively, marco rubio became the only candidate that i honestly believe can do both,<u+201d> he said. the endorsement served as another boost to rubio<u+2019>s campaign, which shot out of the iowa caucuses with a better-than-expected finish in third, narrowly edged out by donald trump for second and not far behind sen. ted cruz<u+2019>s (r-texas) winning slot. rubio, who has tried to position himself as a next-generation leader, has also focused on winning endorsements from less tenured lawmakers, such as sen. cory gardner (r-colo.) and rep. trey gowdy (r-s.c.), both of whom were also elected in the 2010 republican tidal wave. scott said that he<u+2019>s aware endorsements don<u+2019>t always add up to actual votes from real voters <u+2014> that transference is one of the most difficult acts in politics. he said that he will travel to new hampshire in the coming days to be with rubio in advance of tuesday<u+2019>s primary, where cruz<u+2019>s staunch conservatism isn<u+2019>t expected to play as well and rubio might have a chance for a strong second-place finish or to even leap into first ahead of trump. scott<u+2019>s<u+00a0>real focus, however, will be in south carolina, which is shaping up in its usually pivotal fashion. <u+201c>we<u+2019>ll find out in 18 days,<u+201d> scott said tuesday, counting down to the feb. 20 showdown in his home state. getting to that point, however, took more than six months of detailed deliberation, note taking and face-to-face interaction between a dozen candidates and arguably the most sought-after endorser in the u.s. senate. scott, now 50, is the only african-american republican in the senate, and his personal biography of going from a childhood in poverty in north charleston to making it into the senate is the stuff of republican storybook legend. [read how the ryan-scott poverty summit brought the issue to the 2016 forefront.] moreover, his blessing carries more than just symbolic weight because south carolina is third in line in the presidential nominating process, after iowa and new hampshire. scott is surpassed in popularity only by gov. nikki haley (r) among palmetto state leaders. in the interview, he acknowledged a <u+201c>fairly assertive courting process<u+201d> by the republican contenders to get his backing. scott could<u+2019>ve easily avoided the pressure of choosing because he is up for reelection this year. haley appointed scott to his senate seat in 2013, after jim demint (r-s.c.) decided to quit midterm to the heritage foundation. he won the remainder of demint<u+2019>s term outright in november 2014, but now must stand for election in november to win<u+00a0>a full six-year term. rather than taking a pass on endorsing anyone, scott instead decided to maximize his leverage. he put a premium on issues of fighting poverty and upward mobility that are not part of the normal republican primary vocabulary. beginning in late august, scott hosted 12 different town halls with presidential candidates spread all across the state, including everyone from onetime front-runner donald trump to his south carolina partner, sen. lindsey graham, whose own presidential bid came to an end in december. at each event, scott said, he took detailed notes of how the candidates handled questions from his constituents on the biggest issues of the day, with a particular focus on national security and poverty. <u+201c>yellow pads and blue ink, a lot of it,<u+201d> he said, describing the process. that wasn<u+2019>t enough, and so in early january scott hosted what was billed as a <u+201c>poverty summit<u+201d>, along with house speaker paul d. ryan (r-wis.), in columbia, s.c.. six gop hopefuls showed up, but trump and cruz were off campaigning in iowa. as scott moderated the event, that<u+2019>s when he began to settle on rubio who, like scott, uses his up-from-bootstraps story to talk about his aspiration for america. <u+201c>i think it all culminated at my poverty summit,<u+201d> he said, explaining that he wants a candidate for the <u+201c>next american century<u+201d> rather than someone talking about the past. <u+201c>i think it<u+2019>s incredibly important for us to have a candidate who can win by using conservative principles <u+2014> and that means you have to be able to sell those conservative principles so you need an aspirational candidate.<u+201d> but he still wasn<u+2019>t settled. so, in recent weeks, that meant breaking out the legal pads and blue pens, again, crossing the line down the middle, and drawing up the pluses and minuses for each candidate. finally, tuesday, the decision arrived. rubio<u+2019>s name got circled.

how tim scott chose to endorse marco rubio for president

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

56.0

8.0

5522.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

384.0

0.0

91.0

0.0

30.0

6.0

10.0

4.0

7.0

8.0

6.0

8.0

20.0

9.0

40.0

387.0

91.0

30.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

in the television age, running for president is automatically assumed to be a good thing<u+2014>even as a long shot. you boost your profile. you<u+2019>re on stage for the big debates. cable bookers keep calling. your how-to-save-america book sells better. profile writers track down your elementary school teacher. and even if you wash out early, there are consolation prizes: a cabinet post. a running mate selection. a college presidency. a cable gig. this is true even for those who don<u+2019>t have a prayer of winning the white house. without running, hillary clinton never would have been secretary of state. joe biden, al gore and george h.w. bush would never have been vp. mike huckabee wouldn<u+2019>t have had a fox show and al sharpton wouldn<u+2019>t be on msnbc. in all honesty, what else have they got to do? this is a challenge for the media, who have trouble covering campaigns as packed as a manhattan subway train. especially this year, when the republican field could actually top 20<u+2014>far too many candidates to fit on a debate stage, or to include in a two-minute evening news report. but maybe my working thesis that presidential publicity is, on balance, a good thing misses an important point. as conservative columnist matt lewis writes in the daily beast: <u+201c>i suspect we tend to underestimate the downside of running for president. let<u+2019>s consider the 2012 gop field, which included rick perry, jon huntsman, michele bachmann, rick santorum, herman cain, ron paul, newt gingrich, and of course mitt romney. and to recap: perry said <u+2018>oops,<u+2019> huntsman<u+2019>s campaign never took off and he lost his ambassadorship to china, bachmann isn<u+2019>t even in congress today, santorum hard-won second place finish hasn<u+2019>t set him up well for 2016, cain was ripped apart after a sex scandal, paul (and bachmann!) had serious issues with the fec, and<u+00a0>newt lost his think tank. <u+200e> <u+201c>you tell me<u+2014>are they better off now than they were four years ago?<u+201d> well, it<u+2019>s true that if you self-destruct like herman cain under the weight of sexual harassment allegations, there are negative consequences. on the other hand, everyone has now heard of herman cain and he landed a big radio show. better than being an obscure former pizza executive, no? rick santorum won respect for winning 11 states (and is running again). newt gingrich sort of redeemed himself years after being toppled as house speaker (and got a cnn contract). rick perry isn<u+2019>t so damaged that he<u+2019>s not running again. mitt romney is such an elder statesman that many in the party begged him to run a third time (and thought better of it once he began seriously considering it). even jon huntsman became a national figure and charmed the media elite (and his daughter landed a spot on msnbc). but lewis insists on accentuating the negative, especially <u+201c>people who have to give up a job to run<u+2014>like, say, a fox news gig. and if you have a positive<u+2014>or possibly inflated<u+2014>reputation, you<u+2019>ll likely watch that evaporate as well. even if the opposition researchers and the media don<u+2019>t get you (see herman cain), there<u+2019>s a chance that you<u+2019>ll slip up, amid the sleep deprivation and the glare of cameras and bright lights. there<u+2019>s always the potential you could be exposed as someone who isn<u+2019>t as charismatic or knowledgeable as everyone suspected.<u+00a0>in fact, it<u+2019>s pretty easy to leave the impression that you<u+2019>re kind of dumb.<u+201d> but in america, it<u+2019>s more important to be famous. let<u+2019>s take the trio that jumped into the gop race this week. ben carson was a world-renowned surgeon (and fox news contributor) before gearing up for his presidential bid. he has made some comments (equating obamacare with slavery, saying straight men come out of prison gay) that have not exactly enhanced his reputation. but as a serious african-american contender for the republican nomination, he will greatly benefit from the exposure in any future endeavor. carly fiorina was previously known mainly for getting fired as hewlett-packard<u+2019>s ceo and losing a senate race to barbara boxer. she has won plaudits for her fledgling presidential campaign, especially her pointed attacks on hillary, and now has the first-name recognition that most corporate executives never achieve. mike huckabee was living the good life, hosting a saturday night fox show and doing national radio commentaries after his 2008 run. but the former arkansas governor wants to prove that his success in winning the iowa caucuses last time wasn<u+2019>t a fluke. now he<u+2019>ll have his chance. none of them are going to be lacking for employment if this presidential thing doesn<u+2019>t work out. but there<u+2019>s one more aspect that gets overlooked. most people who run for president have a set of ideas they want to push into the national square. bernie sanders knows he<u+2019>ll never be president, but his ultra-liberal views will get far more attention than if he had passed up the race against hillary. these candidates want to influence the debate, and there<u+2019>s nothing like a presidential forum for accomplishing that. they won<u+2019>t all get much media oxygen once the field is complete. but it<u+2019>s better than gasping for air on the sidelines. click for more from media buzz. howard kurtz is a fox news analyst and the host of "mediabuzz" (sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. et). he is the author of five books and is based in washington. follow him at @howardkurtz. click here for more information on howard kurtz.

why long shots and also-rans run for president: it<u+2019>s the media, stupid

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

9.0

70.0

8.0

5372.0

0.0

1.0

5.0

0.0

343.0

1.0

0.0

92.0

1.0

0.0

28.0

10.0

20.0

6.0

14.0

15.0

11.0

10.0

31.0

26.0

48.0

348.0

93.0

29.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington (cnn) donald trump is attempting to crack hillary clinton's blue wall. and clinton is hoping for a surge in latino turnout fueled by opposition to trump. the two candidates are making a last-minute dash across swing states like florida, pennsylvania and north carolina as the 2016 presidential race enters its final hours. they've also gone north to michigan and new hampshire to states democrats have won in recent cycles but could flip this year. here are the key states and signs to study as the night unfolds: most plausible paths to victory for trump start with holding onto two battlegrounds that mitt romney won four years ago -- north carolina and arizona -- and flipping three states president barack obama carried: florida, ohio and iowa. a loss in any of the states would severely complicate trump's already precarious path to 270 electoral votes. though if trump clawed back pennsylvania or michigan from the democrats, who have won both electoral-rich states six times in a row, north carolina would be more expendable. a win in a state like pennsylvania or michigan would allow trump to offset a loss in north carolina and still have a shot at reaching 270. if that doesn't happen, holding north carolina and arizona, while reclaiming florida, ohio and iowa from the democrats -- plus maine's 2nd district -- would only get him to 260. trump would need to tack on 10 more electoral votes somehow. new hampshire's four and nevada's six would get him there. colorado, with nine electoral votes, michigan with 15 and pennsylvania with 20 are also possibilities. in his last 48 hours before election day, trump has been pretty much everywhere, including colorado, michigan -- even minnesota -- searching for the extra votes he needs. the key question for clinton is whether her "blue wall" of democratic-leaning states on the great lakes -- pennsylvania, michigan and wisconsin -- will hold. trump has targeted all three, but clinton has consistently led polls in all three states. however, most voters in michigan and pennsylvania cast their ballots on election day -- which means her campaign hasn't built the early voting advantage already in place elsewhere. if clinton can do that and pick up just one of north carolina, florida or ohio, she's all but guaranteed to win. if she can't win one of those three states, she'll need to hold virginia, vote-by-mail colorado, new hampshire and nevada -- where democrats have already built a hefty early voting edge. if clinton wins, her coalition will consist of women, college-educated voters and a swell of new latino voters. in early voting in states like nevada, and florida, there's already evidence of burgeoning latino turnout. this is best witnessed by the over 57,000 people who voted in nevada friday, with pictures of long lines and extended hours at a latino grocery store in clark county. many first-time voters, polls show, are turning out to oppose trump. and democrats are bullish that latinos have been under-polled through the entire 2016 election cycle. for reince priebus, the republican national committee chairman, this is a ghost of elections past. after the 2012 race, the rnc warned that the party needed to do more to court latino voters. a nominee who roundly rejected that advice could be the reason the party loses a third consecutive presidential race. just as trump's attacks on mexican immigrants have alienated latino voters, his attacks on women and allegations of sexual assault have helped clinton to a large lead among female voters. clinton's campaign has highlighted trump's most derogatory remarks in tv ads aimed at moderate, suburban women -- a constituency that has helped republican nominees in years past. if she succeeds, it would limit trump's strengths to rural areas. trump's biggest strength is his overwhelming support from disaffected white voters -- particularly men, and especially those without college degrees. his campaign has long argued that those voters -- many of them independent or democrats who buy into trump's protectionist stance on trade -- will carry him on election day. for this to happen, trump will also need core democratic voters to stay at home, as well. already, trump appears poised to win iowa, and has polled ahead of clinton in ohio. he's hoping to win enough blue-collar democrats in pennsylvania or michigan to win at least one of those states. michigan, in particular, emerged as a tempting target in the campaign's closing days -- a state hard-hit by the trade deals trump bemoans. clinton's campaign raced to play defense, dispatching the former secretary of state there, as well as president barack obama, for last-minute rallies. among democrats' biggest concerns has been whether african-american voters -- a reliably left-leaning constituency -- will turn out in numbers anywhere close to their support for obama in 2008 and 2012. if the answer is no, it could hobble clinton in key states -- particularly florida and north carolina. obama is helping carry clinton's load with black voters. in a call to tom joyner's radio show, he argued that participating in this election is just as much about him as it is about clinton. "and i know that there are a lot of people in barbershops and beauty salons, you know, in the neighborhoods who are saying to themselves 'we love barack, we love -- we especially love michelle -- and so, you know, it was exciting and now we're not excited as much,'" he said. "you know what? i need everybody to understand that everything we've done is dependent on me being able to pass the baton to somebody who believes in the same things i believe in." since trump clinched the gop nomination in may, republican senate and house candidates have been forced to answer for everything he has said -- from his attacks on a gold star family and an indiana-born judge's heritage to his rejection of conservative orthodoxy. as soon as the election ends, capitol hill republicans -- especially if they retain control of both the house and senate -- will regain power. the party will have to decide just what to do with trump's rejection of free trade, his calls for a decreased us role overseas and his criticism of gop congressional leaders -- whether he wins or loses. but adopting some of trump's policy planks while rejecting his political style might not help much after an election driven by the candidates' personalities. for a nation divided by a long, bitter contest, this could be the most important question of all: will the loser concede -- and how will he or she do it? trump and clinton are both historically unpopular presidential nominees. half the country thinks clinton is a crook, and the other half thinks trump is a racist and misogynist. and trump, in particular, has cast the election as rigged -- calling into question whether ballots that are mailed in will be counted, playing up inaccurate reports of voter irregularities and claiming that voter fraud is pervasive. the loser will play a crucial role in legitimizing the victor -- or delegitimizing the winner from the outset.

7 things to watch for on election night

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

6.0

39.0

8.0

7115.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

465.0

0.0

109.0

0.0

42.0

14.0

21.0

3.0

13.0

11.0

8.0

25.0

39.0

468.0

109.0

42.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

new york <u+2013> democratic candidate bernie sanders condemned parts of bill clinton<u+2019>s record on saturday and said the former president owed americans an apology over a tense exchange with black lives matter protesters at a campaign event earlier this week. appearing at a forum centering on race at the apollo theater in harlem, mr. sanders [<u+2026>]

bernie sanders says bill clinton owes americans an apology

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

58.0

8.0

339.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

18.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

5.0

23.0

4.0

1.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the nuclear deal that the united states and five other world powers signed with iran is a means to an end, not the end in itself. in that regard, the pact, scheduled for formal adoption on oct. 19, necessarily rates as a high-risk proposition. if the agreement succeeds, it may mark a first step toward restoring some semblance of stability to the greater middle east, thereby allowing the us to lower its profile there. if it fails, the current disorder may in retrospect seem tame. when he inherited the oval office, barack obama inherited that disorder. however naively, many americans <u+2013> and many others across the globe <u+2013> expected this charismatic new president to make short work of such untidiness. my personal collection of obama-era memorabilia includes a special issue of newsweek from december 2008 featuring a cover story on <u+201c>how to fix the world: a guide for the next president.<u+201d> as a foreign-policy novice, mr. obama himself seemed to entertain such exalted expectations, for example, promising a <u+201c>new beginning between the us and muslims around the world.<u+201d> as obama prepares to retire from office, now considerably grayer than he appeared on that newsweek cover, no such new beginning has occurred and the world as a whole remains stubbornly unfixed. that said, obama may yet leave a foreign-policy legacy of real consequence. whether that legacy is positive or negative may take years to determine, however. ultimately, his reputation as a statesman is likely to hinge on how the iran nuclear pact plays out. partisan attacks on the deal <u+2013> comparing iran to nazi germany, likening obama to neville chamberlain, and foreseeing compliant israelis marched off to death camps <u+2013> have been predictable and absurd. even while failing to derail the agreement, those attacks have inadvertently obscured its larger strategic context, thereby hiding from view both its actual risks and its potential benefits. indeed, shorthand references to the joint comprehensive plan of action (jcpoa), as it is formally known, as a nuclear deal serve to mask its larger implications. nominally, the agreement lifts economic sanctions imposed on iran in exchange for that country accepting limits on its nuclear program. implicitly, however, it represents an invitation for iran to come in from the cold. how iranians respond to that invitation is the question on which obama<u+2019>s reputation as a statesman is likely to turn. obama was a teenager when the islamic revolution of 1979 and ensuing hostage crisis turned iran into an international pariah, excluded from playing a meaningful role in regional politics. yet excluding the troublemaker served mostly to incite more trouble. during the 1980s, the us saw iran as a threat to stability. us policy sought to contain the islamic republic, a presumed imperative that found the us aligning itself with saddam hussein in the brutal iran-iraq war that mr. hussein himself had recklessly initiated. in the 1990s, with iraq now joining iran on washington<u+2019>s enemies list, the us adopted a strategy of <u+201c>dual containment.<u+201d> necessitating a substantial us military presence in the region, this approach incited blowback that ultimately found expression in the 9/11 attacks. abandoning containment, the george w. bush administration responded by embracing preventive war. under the banner of its <u+201c>freedom agenda,<u+201d> it set out to remake the region, starting with iraq but with expectations of soon moving on to neighboring countries, including iran. the application of us military power in a big way was going to yield very large benefits. alas, it hasn<u+2019>t worked out that way. the american military project in iraq miscarried and the <u+201c>freedom agenda<u+201d> went nowhere. worse, even with all the thousands of lives lost or shattered, all the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, us military efforts have actually made conditions in the greater middle east markedly worse. an enterprise intended to foster stability, spread democracy, and further the cause of human rights has instead produced something akin to chaos, while fueling violent radicalism. by invading iraq, the bush administration seemingly affirmed osama bin laden<u+2019>s charges of us imperialism and antipathy toward islam. in baghdad, meanwhile, the political order resulting from several years of american <u+201c>nation-building<u+201d> manifests a combination of ineptitude and sectarian bias that has left iraq virtually ungovernable. for radical islamists generally, american intervention in iraq has been the gift that keeps on giving. evidence? look no further than islamic state, the successor to al qaeda that has declared itself the basis of a new caliphate while carving up large swaths of iraq and syria and winning adherents further afield. however loath americans may be to acknowledge their collective paternity, islamic state is the bastard child of ill-advised us military interventionism. no longer the foreign-policy neophyte, obama today seems to grasp (even if not saying so outright) that us military involvement in the greater middle east, dating as far back as the abortive peacekeeping mission in lebanon during the early 1980s, has been counterproductive. whether in iraq or libya, somalia or afghanistan, it has never produced the results promised or expected. obama<u+2019>s acceptance of the risks inherent in the jcpoa constitutes a de facto admission that the attempt to impose order on this region through the application of hard power has failed. period. full stop. simply trying harder <u+2013> more bombs or more boots on the ground <u+2013> won<u+2019>t produce a more favorable outcome. in effect, the verdict is in: the militarization of us policy in the islamic world has reached a dead end. so without fully exposing his hand, obama is opting for something different. with his iran initiative, he is attempting to reverse course. in this sense, the jcpoa represents merely a preliminary step in a complex undertaking fraught with hazards. the ultimate objective of that undertaking is twofold: first, to extricate the us military from what has become a war without end; second, to hand off responsibility for maintaining regional stability to those with the most to lose if the ongoing meltdown continues <u+2013> the nations inhabiting the neighborhood. inherent in this gambit is a heretical proposition to which few politicians <u+2013> certainly none of the declared presidential candidates <u+2013> will openly subscribe: that there are certain tasks that exceed the capabilities of even the world<u+2019>s sole superpower and that should therefore be left to others. managing the greater middle east is one of those things. prominent among those <u+201c>others<u+201d> who share an interest in preventing further regional disintegration are saudi arabia, egypt, turkey, and iraq (if it ever manages to get its act together). while the regimes controlling these several nations disagree about many things, they are all fundamentally committed to the status quo. that is, unlike islamic state, al qaeda, or any of their offshoots, they are committed to preserving rather than destroying the existing system of nation-states within (more or less) their existing borders. obama is betting that iran also qualifies as a status quo nation <u+2013> or, if it is not presently, that it can be coaxed into becoming one. the impetus behind the bet is quite clear. only by restoring iran to its rightful place among regional heavyweights <u+2013> as a player, not simply as a spoiler <u+2013> will it be possible for a stable equilibrium of power to emerge. putting it another way, to persist in excluding iran is to guarantee continuing upheaval, with the us therefore unable to escape from the quagmire in which it now finds itself. those persuaded that only the concerted exercise of us military might will restore order to this part of the world <u+2013> neoconservatives and hawkish right-wingers, for example <u+2013> might welcome such a prospect. sensible americans will not. yet sensible americans would do well to appreciate the uncertainties involved. iran today remains a theocracy in which some top leaders identify the us as the great satan. longstanding iranian support for organizations on the us terrorist list such as hezbollah is well documented. prior to 9/11, iran may have had a hand in terrorist attacks against us servicemen in lebanon and saudi arabia. during the us occupation of iraq, iran certainly provided iraqi militants with weaponry employed to kill american soldiers. its seniormost authorities eagerly look forward to the day when israel will cease to exist. in no respect whatsoever does iran qualify as a <u+201c>friend<u+201d> of the us. on the other hand, us behavior toward iran over the years has not exactly invited friendship. even setting aside the 1953 anglo-american coup that overthrew iran<u+2019>s first democratically elected government <u+2013> an event that the us treats as ancient history <u+2013> there remain other episodes with which iranians might reasonably take umbrage. washington<u+2019>s support for hussein during the iran-iraq war is one. the us navy<u+2019>s unprovoked shooting down of an iranian airbus transiting the persian gulf in 1988, killing 290 civilians, is a second. washington<u+2019>s inclusion of iran in the so-called axis of evil, despite tehran signaling a willingness to help after 9/11, is a third. more recently, us collaboration with israel in unleashing the stuxnet computer virus to disable an iranian nuclear research facility <u+2013> in effect, a state-sponsored cyberattack <u+2013> offers another. so iran has no more reason to trust the us than the us has to trust iran. yet the case to be made for the jcpoa relies on neither friendship nor trust. instead, it posits a convergence of interests. in an immediate sense, that convergence translates into a concrete and specific quid pro quo: iran gets escape from economic strangulation; the us gets a suspension of putative iranian attempts to acquire the bomb. more broadly and more speculatively, the jcpoa may <u+2013> there are no guarantees <u+2013> lay the basis for a collaboration against the antistatist violent radicalism threatening to envelop much of the islamic world. obama<u+2019>s critics dismiss the possibility of such a collaboration as hooey. those who govern iran, they argue, are hate-filled crazies committed to a revolutionary agenda. that<u+2019>s one view. another interprets iranian hate speech, which is real, as akin to hate speech in american politics <u+2013> intended chiefly for domestic consumption. to some observers, the chants of <u+201c>death to america<u+201d> heard in tehran seem increasingly pro forma, of no more real significance than the islamophobia and anti-immigrant rants routinely heard on fox news. more significantly, the charge of irrationality just doesn<u+2019>t stick <u+2013> nothing in their recent behavior suggests that iran<u+2019>s rulers have a death wish or are willing to trade tehran for tel aviv. ruthless and calculating they may be, but not suicidal. as for the islamic revolution itself, it appears in many respects to be a spent force, retaining about as much fervor as the bolshevik revolution by the 1970s or the cuban revolution today. notably in evidence, however, is the undisguised fervor of younger iranians not to overthrow secular modernity but to embrace it. arguably, they, not the ayatollahs, represent the future of politics in iran. removing sanctions and reintegrating iran into the global economy will further empower this rising generation of iranians, who are avidly pro-american. ayatollahs refusing to accommodate their demands for change will do so at their peril. so, at least, the obama administration has persuaded itself <u+2013> an expectation that more than any other factor explains why the administration believes it is possible for the us and iran on a selective basis to inch toward making common cause. in that regard, the current de facto us-iranian collaboration against islamic state may serve as a precursor of sorts. if not friends, the two nations may in time overcome the reflexive compulsion to be at each other<u+2019>s throats. should the government of israel sign on to obama<u+2019>s bet? should the saudi royal family or sunni arabs more generally? their reluctance to do so is understandable. should that bet fail, they could well find themselves in the line of fire, facing an empowered iran with grudges to settle. among the unwelcome scenarios that could plausibly unfold are these: a region-wide nuclear arms race, an escalation of anti- zionism among nations competing to demonstrate their fealty to islam, or preemptive military action by an israel that perceives itself to be facing an existential threat. none of these can be dismissed out of hand. for israel and other us allies in the middle east, therefore, the appeal of a pax americana <u+2013> us troops permanently on station to keep order and police the recalcitrant in the region <u+2013> is self-evident. the problem is that washington<u+2019>s efforts at policing the greater middle east have definitively and irrevocably gone off the rails. the pax americana may have worked elsewhere on other occasions, but in this instance it<u+2019>s surely not working for the us. persisting in this ill-advised effort will undermine rather than enhance us security and will further erode america<u+2019>s standing in the world. sooner or later, circumstances will oblige even die-hard devotees of american exceptionalism to come to terms with the very real limits of us power. sooner or later, us allies in the greater middle east, including israel, will do likewise, which may yet open the door to a process, however halting and incremental, of mutual accommodation between jews and muslims, sunnis and shiites, arabs and persians. or it may not. in that case, the opposing sides in these several disputes may choose once more to take up their cudgels against one another even as the us opts out. at the end of the day, sovereign states will exercise their sovereignty. if obama<u+2019>s bet pays off <u+2013> and it may well take a decade or more to determine the outcome <u+2013> what will it yield? even in the best case, with iran choosing to become a responsible stakeholder while abjuring terrorism and perpetuating its pledge not to develop nuclear weapons, don<u+2019>t expect an epidemic of peace and harmony to break out. the causes of dysfunction roiling the greater middle east are too numerous and varied to be settled by any one diplomatic breakthrough, however welcome. yet it may just be that concentrating the minds of the parties involved will enable them to do a better job of fixing their part of the world than the us has managed. if nothing else, at least the pointless depletion of american power and influence will have been abated. we, too, must exercise our sovereignty.

how the iran deal might change the middle east

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

43.0

46.0

8.0

14632.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

1169.0

2.0

0.0

257.0

0.0

143.0

38.0

46.0

22.0

52.0

22.0

43.0

18.0

55.0

86.0

96.0

1172.0

259.0

143.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

with a strong win in south carolina on saturday night, donald trump has officially upended the 2016 republican primaries. spartanburg, s.c. <u+2014> when donald trump speaks, he has a habit of gripping the lectern with all but the middle finger of his left hand. the middle finger wriggles about, curling up and down with the rhythm of his words. on saturday night, as he addressed the crowd after winning the primary here by a ten-point margin, it seemed to be wriggling at all of us. <u+201c>a couple of the pundits said, <u+2018>well, if a couple of the other candidates dropped out, if you add their scores together, it<u+2019>s going to equal trump,<u+2019><u+201d> he said, doing his best impersonation of a beltway idiot. the crowd booed and trump threw his hands out. <u+201c>right?<u+201d> he said, <u+201c>they<u+2019>re geniuses. they don<u+2019>t understand that, as people drop out, i<u+2019>m gonna get a lot of those votes also! you don<u+2019>t just add them together.<u+201d> in the eight months since he first sailed down the escalator in trump tower to announce his candidacy, trump has watched as every single prediction about his campaign, made by so-called experts, has been proven wrong. not that winning south carolina means he<u+2019>ll win it all<u+2014>newt gingrich beat mitt romney here by thirteen points in 2012. as it stands now, trump has 61 delegates. to win the nomination, he needs 1,237. but trump wasn<u+2019>t supposed to make it this far to begin with. it was supposed to be a blip, and then it was supposed to collapse under the weight of its own arrogance, and then it was supposed to be destroyed by the knights in the establishment, and then the voters were supposed to get serious. well, they were serious here at the marriott on north church street on saturday, just like they had been at the executive court banquet facility in manchester, new hampshire ten days ago after he won there, but not in the way that anybody could<u+2019>ve anticipated back in june. his calls for a wall at the u.s.-mexico border were mocked by the experts then as proof of his inherent silliness. and it is a stupid idea, one that couldn<u+2019>t work even if he managed to get it done. but on saturday, as he spoke about trade with mexico, people in the audience began shouting, <u+201c>build a wall!<u+201d> he turned to one man and said, <u+201c>we<u+2019>re gonna build a wall, don<u+2019>t worry.<u+201d> he turned back to the audience and asked them a question, <u+201c>we<u+2019>re gonna do the wall and, by the way, who<u+2019>s gonna pay for the wall?<u+201d> a chorus responded, <u+201c>mexico!<u+201d> the polls here had shown for months, much like in new hampshire, that trump had a sizable lead over the rest of the field. but to think that he could win anywhere was, in a lot of ways, to admit that everything we think we know about politics and what the people who participate in the process believe is bullshit. <u+201c>history will say that on this night in south carolina, we took the first step forward to the beginning of a new american century," rubio declared from his rally in columbia, sc. he did not explain what was historic about the evangelical in the race losing the evangelical vote in a state where <u+2014>according to an exit poll<u+2014>73 percent of republican voters said they consider themselves born-again or evangelical christians. trump, whose cursing is part of his stump speech, is on his third wife, admitted on tv that he<u+2019>d never asked god for forgiveness, and this week got into a fight with the pope. and then, not only did he win, but he won beaufort, the state<u+2019>s only majority-catholic county. ted cruz, who beat trump in iowa thanks to the evangelical community and invested millions here to turn them out again, came in third place. marco rubio, a catholic, finished a distant second. jeb bush, a converted catholic, dropped out altogether. before trump descended on stage, bathed in pink and purple lights fit for one of his pageants, his fans milled about on the red and gold carpet, picking at plates of cheese and fruit and drinking booze from one of two cash bars. the extent to which their outfits of sweat clothes or sequined mini-dresses or jeans and t-shirts were accessorized with trump swag<u+2014>scarves and pins and buttons and a silicone mask of his likeness, in one case<u+2014>made the event feel like a convention. his fans are predominantly white, usually older, working people or retired working people. oftentimes they<u+2019>re very religious, but that<u+2019>s not what motivates them. they feel as if the country has left them behind, but they differ from the tea partiers of 2010 in that they are not political and they are uninterested in policy unless the policy amounts to a giant fuck-you to a deserving group, like china, or <u+201c>special interests.<u+201d> the phrase make america great again, to them, is a legitimate campaign platform.

trump smirks as beltway gop crumbles

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

4.0

36.0

8.0

4678.0

0.0

3.0

1.0

0.0

296.0

0.0

128.0

0.0

54.0

9.0

14.0

5.0

11.0

5.0

18.0

21.0

29.0

297.0

128.0

54.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

long-shot candidates look to keep hope alive for 2016 not for the headline-devouring, top-tier prospects like hillary clinton and chris christie, but rather for the long shots and lesser-knowns who are floating their names for 2016. on sunday, former montana democratic gov. brian schweitzer reiterated his interest in a white house run. "i'll just say that there's around 100 counties in iowa, and on my bucket list is to try to and make it to all the counties in iowa someday," schweitzer said on msnbc, in a flattering reference to the state that hosts the first presidential caucuses. two vermont liberals have signaled a similar interest. one of them, sen. bernie sanders, an independent and self-described socialist, recently said he's open to a presidential bid if no other progressive candidate steps up. "under normal times, it's fine, you have a moderate democrat running, a moderate republican running," sanders told the burlington free press. "these are not normal times. the united states right now is in the middle of a severe crisis and you have to call it what it is." former vermont democratic gov. howard dean, who ran for president in 2004, told buzzfeed last week that people have tried to persuade him to take another shot in 2016. "we'll see. as i say, you never say never in politics," he said. a few former republican presidential candidates are also openly considering another run <u+2014> or hoping to remain in the presidential spotlight. former pennsylvania sen. rick santorum said last week that he will make a decision about launching a second bid for the presidency next year. he added that the gop needs to nominate an "authentic conservative" in 2016 who can "lay out a positive vision for america based on the principles that made our country great" <u+2014> presumably someone like him. a month earlier, it was former arkansas gov. mike huckabee who insisted he is still in the mix: the 2008 gop presidential candidate told the christian broadcasting network he is "absolutely" thinking about running for the white house again. it's not just those with a presidential campaign under their belt who've sought to float themselves as prospective 2016 candidates. after visiting the iowa state fair in august, former massachusetts sen. scott brown said he was "curious" about pursuing a presidential bid "if there's room for a bipartisan problem solver" in the race. he's also considering running for the u.s. senate again in 2014, but in new hampshire. then there's former gop florida rep. allen west, who like brown lost his bid for re-election last year. the one-term ex-congressman said in october he is looking at running for several different offices down the road, including the presidency. even real estate mogul donald trump and jesse ventura, a former professional wrestler and governor of minnesota, have raised the possibility of running for president next time around. all of these candidates have one thing in common: they aren't frequently mentioned on lists of the top 2016 contenders. dante scala, a political science professor at the university of new hampshire, said many of these potential candidates are after one thing: free publicity. "politicians and public figures are taking advantage of the vacuum in presidential electoral politics right now," scala said. "when there's a name floated, and if they're at all prominent, it will get some coverage." as for those on opposing ends of the political spectrum, like sanders and santorum, declaring an interest in running for president can also be a way to influence the conversation within their respective parties. "they want to make sure their agenda gets some publicity," scala said. "it is marketing to some degree."

long-shot candidates look to keep hope alive for 2016

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

53.0

8.0

3727.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

282.0

0.0

65.0

0.0

36.0

5.0

14.0

2.0

5.0

7.0

5.0

16.0

9.0

26.0

284.0

65.0

36.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the press is full of chatter about what the other candidates could, should,<u+00a0>must<u+00a0>do to derail the trump juggernaut at tonight<u+2019>s cnn debate. naturally, the big audience for the second presidential debate offers the other republicans a prime opportunity to make a lasting impression in this donald-dominated campaign. so i expect there will be no shortage of canned zingers. but every candidate on that stage has to be wary of getting into an insult contest with a gut fighter who doesn<u+2019>t play by the usual rules of political politeness. it<u+2019>s all well and good for candidates to talk about creating a <u+201c>moment,<u+201d> but that can<u+2019>t seem artificial or staged, or the attacker will look phony and a tad desperate. trump<u+2019>s rivals have to deliver a positive message about themselves while drawing a sharp contrast with the real estate mogul, not just denounce him, as bobby jindal did, as a narcissist and egomaniac. and consider this: if half of the other 10 candidates try to whack trump, won<u+2019>t that make him look larger? won<u+2019>t that reinforce the narrative that trump has so shaken the republican establishment that his opponents are feverishly trying to bring him down? trump<u+2019>s task is far easier: he can uncork his usual lines about the <u+201c>very, very stupid people<u+201d> running the government, and jab back at those who challenge him (bad polls, low energy and so on). and<u+2014>remember the fox debate<u+2014>if he gets a detailed question that he doesn<u+2019>t like, he can take a swipe at the media and the <u+201c>gotcha<u+201d> game. in terms of the media<u+2019>s focus, it<u+2019>s going to be trump vs. whoever<u+2014>as long as whoever is named carly, ben or jeb. the truth is that journalists have lost interest in most of the other candidates, who are mired in single digits (as is jeb, but he<u+2019>s still got the money, the bush name, and the fading aura of the person the pundits thought would be the man to beat). that could change, but right now they're eclipsed by trump. carson told me in the interview we aired sunday on "media buzz" that he would not be throwing punches in this campaign, and that he regretted questioning trump<u+2019>s faith and felt he needed to apologize. so even though yesterday<u+2019>s cbs/new york times poll has him at 23 percent, close behind trump<u+2019>s 27 percent, i don<u+2019>t expect carson to take him on. the question for the <u+201c>okay doctor<u+201d> (in trump<u+2019>s words) is how he handles it if the donald starts denigrating him. the media are really hoping for a dustup involving fiorina, whose super pac made a clever ad aimed at women, boasting she has earned every wrinkle on her 61-year-old face, after trump told a rolling stone reporter, <u+201c>look at that face.<u+201d> trump has taken to hitting her as a failed ceo dumped by hewlett-packard, but keep in mind that she took him on in the fox happy-hour debate, even though he wasn<u+2019>t there. <u+201c>never before in american presidential politics has a candidate who has drawn<u+00a0>accusations of sexism<u+00a0>and bullying been forced to personally confront the female recipient of his insults on live television,<u+201d> the new york times declares. <u+201c>and with mrs. fiorina bragging that she is getting under mr. trump<u+2019>s skin, their showdown is emerging as one of the most intriguing subplots of the second debate.<u+201d> and here<u+2019>s the wall street journal: <u+201c>after punching her way onto the big stage,<u+00a0>carly fiorina<u+00a0> is poised to take on her party<u+2019>s heavyweights in wednesday<u+2019>s republican presidential primary debate, where she will come face-to-face with the candidate who found fault with her face.<u+201d> still, carly was very restrained in responding to facegate, telling megyn kelly only that she must be getting under trump<u+2019>s skin. so don<u+2019>t expect any pro wrestling. what<u+2019>s getting a lot of traction online is mark halperin<u+2019>s bloomberg analysis of why trump has a commanding position: <u+201c>with trump, the rules have changed. so far, he has proven to be largely immune from attack, and also a master killer himself, with a unique political arsenal. with a few months to go before voters vote, trump has squashed the poll numbers and personas of a host of his rivals, without resorting to significant traditional opposition research, paid media, or surrogates. he simply uses instagram, twitter, and his virtually unlimited access to the news media to unsheathe his sharp tongue, cutthroat sensibility, and unerring perverse humor. and trump can shift to kill mode without strain or hesitation. <u+201c>from the get-go of his entrance in june, trump has engaged intuitively in kill-or-be-killed tactics.<u+201d> deadly rhetoric aside, one of the reasons i warned from the beginning that trump shouldn<u+2019>t be underestimated is that i saw how his buzzsaw style was sharpened in new york<u+2019>s tabloid culture. but you can<u+2019>t just be a don rickles figure. some voters are also drawn to his successful career in real estate and reality tv, and the wealth that enables trump to thumb his nose at the donor class. one thing to watch: if trump uses the debate to raise his recent arguments about overpaid ceos and taxing hedge-fund millionaires, you<u+2019>ll know he<u+2019>s decided to shrug off the not-really-a-conservative attacks and stay on his populist path. click for more from media buzz howard kurtz is a fox news analyst and the host of "mediabuzz" (sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. et). he is the author of five books and is based in washington. follow him at @howardkurtz. click here for more information on howard kurtz.

debate night: the media want a trump fight, with blood and bruises

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

6.0

66.0

8.0

5361.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

341.0

1.0

0.0

121.0

1.0

0.0

35.0

20.0

19.0

9.0

20.0

9.0

10.0

24.0

28.0

47.0

347.0

122.0

36.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

if you<u+2019>re masochistic enough to plow through the next three months of vice presidential speculation, you might want to pause and ask a more fundamental question: why would anybody want that job under hillary clinton or donald trump? if either of them becomes president, we will probably see the most marginalized vice president in a generation. that may seem like an odd notion because under the past three presidents, the once-scorned office has become a significant power center. it used to be almost mandatory to cite, in any article about the vice presidency, the centuries of contempt that vice presidents themselves have heaped on the office<u+2014>starting with the very first, john adams, who called it <u+201c>the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived.<u+201d> (then there was john nance garner: <u+201c>not worth a bucket of warm piss.<u+201d> and harry truman: <u+201c>about a useful as a cow<u+2019>s fifth teat.<u+201d>) by contrast, bill clinton gave al gore genuine access<u+2014>including weekly one-on-one lunches<u+2014>and serious responsibilities in areas from trade to technology. the rap on dick cheney was not that he was impotent, but that he had too much power, especially when it came to questions of war and peace. joe biden has taken on the role he asked for, to be the president<u+2019>s most senior adviser. in sum, the past quarter-century has made obsolete the stereotype embodied by alexander throttlebottom, the hapless veep in the 1931 musical <u+201c>of thee i sing,<u+201d> who had to join a tour group in order to get into the white house. but what makes the job so unappealing this time around is the unusual<u+2014>indeed unique<u+2014>aspects of the two major party contenders for the presidency. neither trump nor clinton is likely to allow his or her vice president anywhere near the center of power. imagine yourself as trump<u+2019>s vice president. what are your chances of serving as a trusted, respected adviser on politics and policy? look at the last president who had something like the mixture of massive self-regard and massive insecurity that defines trump<u+2014>lyndon baines johnson. having lived through the hell of being a scorned and shunned vice-president under john kennedy<u+2014><u+201c>i hated every minute of it,<u+201d> he later said<u+2014>he treated his own second, hubert humphrey, with equal contempt. <u+201c>you are his choice in a political marriage, and he expects your absolute loyalty,<u+201d> humphrey later said, but even that was not enough. in 1965, when humphrey offered johnson carefully modulated advice about the political costs of escalating the war in vietnam, he was banished from the inner circle for a full year. and in 1968, johnson made clear his contempt for his would-be successor (<u+201c>hubert squats when he pees,<u+201d> he said). trump<u+2019>s contempt for rivals, critics and even allies makes lbj<u+2019>s bullying look like something out of mr. rogers. the video of him curtly ordering endorser chris christie to <u+201c>get on the plane and go home<u+201d> ought to be fair warning that a vice president under trump should not expect anything better. moreover, the idea of loyally supporting a trump agenda poses a special challenge: that agenda is likely to be amended or abandoned on a moment<u+2019>s notice. a prospective running mate, asked to declare himself or herself on trump<u+2019>s abortion, tax, health care or foreign policy positions, might be tempted to answer: <u+201c>which ones?<u+201d> as for as being <u+201c>the last voice<u+201d> offering guidance, trump has already told us what voice that will be. <u+201c>i<u+2019>m speaking to myself,<u+201d> he told mika brzezinski of <u+201c>morning joe<u+201d> in march, <u+201c>because i have a very good brain.<u+201d> his vice president, trump suggested last week, would be a messenger boy, serving as his <u+201c>legislative liaison.<u+201d> these factors, added to trump<u+2019>s sharp diversions from the conservative canon, may help explain why so many otherwise likely candidates for the second spot have waved away any interest, the latest being marco rubio. (trump<u+2019>s response, of course, has been more contempt: <u+201c>it is only the people that were never asked to be vp that tell the press that they will not take the position,<u+201d> he tweeted.) the challenge is different for a prospective clinton running mate<u+2014>and one that no past veep has ever faced. yes, past vice presidents have found themselves in a battle for the ear of potus with key white house aides and cabinet members. but they<u+2019>ve never had the challenge of competing with a presidential spouse who also happens to be a former two-term president. indeed, in many ways, bill clinton would be a near-perfect choice to be hillary clinton<u+2019>s running mate. his political skills are unmatched; he knows the dangers that confront any white house as no one else possibly can; he<u+2019>s even got a track record of working with an opposition congress<u+2014>something that neither of his successors can match. yes, there<u+2019>s a pesky issue of whether the 22nd amendment bars a two-term president from running for veep, and one of the clintons would have to move back to arkansas to avoid risking the loss of new york<u+2019>s electors (constitutionally, electors can vote for only one of the two national candidates from their own state). but the point is that bill<u+2019>s credentials<u+2014>even as first spouse<u+2014>make him a formidable power source that would confront any real-life vice president. bill clinton may have lost a step or two, and his track record as a surrogate for hillary clinton is decidedly checkered, but if you found yourself as president faced with a daunting policy or political dilemma you<u+2019>d be foolish not to turn to one of the shrewdest thinkers in modern memory. clinton herself has acknowledged she lacks the skills of her mate, and however much<u+2014>or little<u+2014>she trusts bill clinton in some areas of their lives, her trust in his political and policy judgments has to be formidable. in the past, presidential spouses have had significant influence over the chief executive: eleanor roosevelt pushed a progressive agenda; nancy reagan got top aides fired; and hillary clinton drove bill<u+2019>s health care effort (albeit pretty much into the ditch). but a <u+201c>first spouse<u+201d> with eight years<u+2019> experience in the oval office? bill would probably have a hand in everything. what makes the likelihood of a weak vice president particularly unfortunate is that there are good arguments that a strong veep is exactly what both potential presidents would need. trump, so unschooled in the ways of washington, would be in desperate need of a <u+201c>prime minister<u+201d> to help him with the business of governing. a president hillary clinton would benefit from talking to someone who<u+2019>s outside her tight ring of insiders (including her husband) and could give her regular reality checks. none of this means the there<u+2019>ll be a shortage of veep wannabees. a number of republicans, especially those without (or soon to be without) an official public role, have already signaled their availability: rick perry, chris christie, newt gingrich, sarah palin. and it<u+2019>s not hard to imagine that any number of democrats would readily sign up, however challenging the job might be with bill clinton shuttling between east and west wings. why? because if you have any interest in being your party<u+2019>s nominee for president, getting the veep nomination is a very good steppingstone. richard nixon, hubert humphrey, bob dole, walter mondale and al gore all followed that path. there<u+2019>s also a more compelling<u+2014>if seldom recognized<u+2014>reason, one that lyndon johnson himself explained to writer claire booth luce on their way to jfk<u+2019>s inaugural in 1961. <u+201c>i looked it up,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>one out of every four presidents has died in office. i<u+2019>m a gambling man, darling, and this is the only chance i got.<u+201d> but apart from that morbid possibility, it will be back to attending foreign funerals for either a trump or a clinton no. 2.

why would anyone want to be trump or clinton<u+2019>s vp?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

4.0

50.0

8.0

7715.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

507.0

0.0

146.0

0.0

57.0

17.0

7.0

15.0

13.0

18.0

9.0

35.0

34.0

55.0

508.0

146.0

57.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

hannover, germany<u+00a0><u+2014> president obama<u+00a0>on<u+00a0>sunday defended a controversial trade deal between the united states and the european union<u+00a0>that<u+00a0>he wants to finalize before leaving office in january. speaking at a news conference with german chancellor angela<u+00a0>merkel, obama said<u+00a0>people around the world are<u+00a0>unsettled by globalization<u+00a0>but that trade<u+00a0>has brought tremendous benefits<u+00a0>and more jobs. "when people visibly see a plant lost or jobs lost, the narrative drives a lot of suspicion about these trade deals," he said.<u+00a0>"if you look at the benefits for our economies, it is<u+00a0>indisputable that they are made stronger." obama said it was necessary to complete the trans-atlantic trade and investment partnership (ttip) agreement<u+00a0>because 95% of markets are outside u.s. borders. he said he was confident that<u+00a0>ttip could be completed by the end of the year. a separate trade pact covering 12<u+00a0>pacific rim countries known as the trans-pacific partnership could "start moving forward" once the u.s. presidential election is over, he said. obama praised merkel several times during the news conference<u+00a0>before the two leaders then opened the hannover messe, the world's<u+00a0>largest industrial technology trade fair. "this is as important a relationship as i have had during my presidency. angela has been consistent and steady," obama said.<u+00a0>"she has a really good sense of humor that she doesn't always show in press conferences. that's probably why she has lasted so long as a leader. she watches what she says." he said merkel was "on the right side of history" for her lenient<u+00a0>policies to admit refugees, and she was "courageous" for her handling of europe's migrant crisis<u+00a0>because it was<u+00a0>a position that has harmed her political approval ratings. obama arrived in germany on sunday<u+00a0>from london, where me met with british prime minister david cameron, had<u+00a0>lunch and<u+00a0>dinner with members of the royal family and interjected his opinion into<u+00a0>the united kingdom's contentious debate over whether that country<u+00a0>should leave the eu. britain<u+00a0>will hold a june 23 vote on the issue.<u+00a0>the president angered<u+00a0>anti-eu campaigners by saying<u+00a0>the u.k.'s trade clout outside the 28-member<u+00a0>bloc would be<u+00a0>diminished. ttip's supporters<u+00a0>say the trade pact would<u+00a0>make it easier and cheaper for<u+00a0>companies on both sides of the atlantic to do business<u+00a0>together, as well as<u+00a0>provide a much needed boost to the global economy<u+00a0>amid persistent, sluggish growth. there is fierce opposition to ttip<u+00a0>in germany<u+00a0><u+2014> europe's largest economy and most important political voice <u+2014> where it is believed<u+00a0>the deal<u+00a0>would<u+00a0>erode consumer and environmental<u+00a0>protections. about 35,000 people marched in hannover on saturday against the proposed deal that would cover more than 800 million people. merkel said in the news conference that adopting ttip was an important step that would allow european economies to grow. "we need to speed matters up now," she said. while in london, obama said ttip<u+00a0>would<u+00a0>bring millions of jobs and billions of dollars in benefits to both regions. <u+00a0>about<u+00a0>300 u.s. companies are attending the trade show in hannover. obama acknowledged that negotiating trade deals was "tough<u+201d> because countries want to<u+00a0>fight for their domestic interests.<u+00a0><u+201c>the main thing between the united states and europe is trying to just break down some of the regulatory<u+00a0>differences that make it difficult to do business back and forth,<u+201d> the president<u+00a0>said. a recent survey published by the bertelsmann foundation, a germany-based research group, found only one in five germans favors the proposed trade pact, and one in three would reject it completely. in the u.s., only 18% of respondents<u+00a0>oppose<u+00a0>ttip, the report found. "support for trade agreements is fading in a country<u+00a0>that views itself as the global export champion," said aart de geus, the foundation's chairman and chief executive.<u+00a0>"trade is a key driver of the german economy. if it weakens, germany's economic power as well as its labor market could falter." obama and merkel<u+00a0>said they discussed a number of other issues in their meeting sunday, including the ongoing conflicts in afghanistan, libya and syria. obama said american and german thinking was aligned regarding syria, but they differ<u+00a0>over<u+00a0>the idea of carving out "safe zones" in syria for the thousands of people fleeing violence. <u+201c>as a practical matter, sadly, it is very difficult to see how it would operate short of us essentially being willing to militarily take over a chunk of that country,<u+201d> obama<u+00a0>said.

obama pushes controversial trade deal in germany

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

10.0

48.0

8.0

4487.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

303.0

1.0

0.0

82.0

0.0

34.0

10.0

3.0

11.0

8.0

28.0

21.0

37.0

306.0

83.0

34.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington (cnn) rep. paul ryan 's winning pitch to house conservatives amounted to this: let's start over. for years, tensions had been boiling between the hard right of the republican party and the house leadership, a battle that effectively pushed speaker john boehner out of office and ended the bid of majority leader kevin mccarthy to succeed him. but ryan, facing skepticism from hardliners in the house freedom caucus, spoke bluntly to the conservatives, telling them that he was more ideologically in line with them than with moderates in the so-called tuesday group. he said he was not the type of leader who is out to seek retribution, unlike past leaders. the 45-year-old wisconsin congressman said he would only push important bills such as immigration that have a majority of support from republicans -- abiding by the "hastert rule." he promised bold policy ideas on the house floor like welfare reform, health care legislation and a tax overhaul -- and that the chamber would stand firm on those policy proposals with senate republicans and the white house. he softened his demand to roll back a procedure allowing lawmakers to overthrow a sitting speaker. and perhaps the most disarming pitch: he said he was ready to walk away if they said 'no' to him. what he achieved was a truce between disgruntled conservatives and a gop leadership desperate to get the house back on track. it's a ceasefire in a long-running intra-party war that has cost the republicans senate seats, bottled up legislation in congress and weakened their hand against president barack obama. with his national profile and bona fides with the right, ryan was perhaps the only republican who could make that pitch, showcasing strength that will immediately be put to the test when he's expected to be elected speaker next week. rep. jim jordan of ohio, the chairman of the freedom caucus, said a ryan pitch that won him over was: "go early and be firm" -- the idea that the house would stand on its principles in fights with the other body. "find a policy, take a position as a conference and make the senate do something to stand firm," jordan said, paraphrasing ryan. after the conservative caucus announced it would support him -- but not endorse him -- ryan later won over the two other coalitions in the house: the tuesday group and the republican study committee, another conservative faction. by thursday evening, ryan made it official: he was running for speaker, telling his colleagues in a letter he was "eager" to do the job. "i never thought i'd be speaker," ryan said in a statement. "but i pledged to you that if i could be a unifying figure, then i would serve -- i would go all in. after talking with so many of you, and hearing your words of encouragement, i believe we are ready to move forward as one, united team. and i am ready and eager to be our speaker." it's a dramatic political twist for ryan, the gop's vice presidential nominee in 2012 and someone who thoroughly enjoys his policy-heavy role as the chairman of the tax-writing ways and means committee. in the immediate aftermath of mccarthy's sudden decision earlier this month to drop out of the speaker race, ryan appeared to be doing everything he could not to run. moments after mccarthy dropped out during a meeting in the ornate ways and means committee room earlier this month, ryan grabbed rep. john kline of minnesota and told him to take the top job instead. "he spun around and almost choked me and said, 'kline you gotta do this,'" kline recalled thursday. "i knew then, and i think paul knew then, he really had to be the guy." ryan knew his life would change moments before mccarthy made his bombshell announcement. he was slated to give the nominating speech to mccarthy in the conference, but instead got a heads-up that those remarks wouldn't be necessary. the majority leader instead urged ryan to consider a bid. mccarthy knew ryan was reluctant, but he immediately began to figure out what he could do to help, according to people familiar with the matter. there was discussion about divvying up responsibilities, but also about redefining the role of the speaker. ryan envisioned being a more prominent face for the party -- someone willing to deliver the message in the media, and spreading out some of the fundraising and operational duties to other members of the leadership team. mccarthy served as a counselor to ryan throughout the process. he had a partial playbook already in hand since he had previously met with house gop members, especially the conservatives in the freedom caucus, and had a good read on their concerns about shifting to a more "bottom-up" process. and since ryan didn't want the job, many conservatives in the caucus seemed to believe him that he wouldn't try to make the speakership more powerful. conservatives had long complained too much power resided in the leadership office, and it would be a non-starter for a candidate who wanted to centralize more power. it remains, of course, to be seen how ryan operates over the long-term. "my question is who in their right mind would ever want that job?" said rep. barry loudermilk, r-georgia, a member of the freedom caucus. "we can't survive another eight years like the ones we just had. we won't recover from that. he's willing to put his own self on the line." after the freedom caucus voted wednesday to support ryan, but not officially endorse him -- which was one of his preconditions for taking the job -- there was little option for ryan to walk away. while they left themselves some room to say they still had issues with ryan's conditions, they were also aware in their internal discussions that if they blocked yet another candidate - and one who had majority support - they would be overplaying their hand. asked why he was confident ryan would be elected speaker next week, mccarthy told reporters flatly, "when i ran, 80% of the freedom caucus was against me. now they're not." changing the rules to vacate the chair? ryan's problems, however, are bound to grow with the right as soon as he takes the gavel -- namely on two matters: fiscal issues and his desire to make it harder to overthrow a sitting speaker. on the latter, there's no agreement between him and the freedom caucus. but he clarified his demand by saying he only wants to "change" the rule -- not eliminate it. and he agreed to consider the matter later as part of other rules changes the caucus has sought to enact in order to give the rank-and-file a bigger say. "we are not changing this fundamental right that members have relative to the 'motion to vacate,'" jordan told cnn. "we're not for that. we made that very clear." ryan was not pressed on many policy matters, but will have to weigh in on the contentious issue of raising the national debt ceiling as early as next week -- and extending government funding past dec. 11. but he promised that immigration reform, an idea he has been warm to in the past, would not be a measure he would pursue in a ryan speakership. as he continued to dither about taking the speakership, republicans began looking for alternatives -- and a growing number looked at kline, a back-slapping pol who likes to smoke cigars. "i'd be able to drink and smoke in the speaker's office for another year," cole said, referring to boehner's penchant for puffing cigarettes. after next thursday, he will likely have to ask paul ryan.

how paul ryan unified a fractured gop

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

5.0

37.0

8.0

7444.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

455.0

0.0

175.0

0.0

59.0

8.0

20.0

8.0

13.0

11.0

7.0

5.0

37.0

24.0

41.0

457.0

175.0

59.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

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

bush v. trump: behind the vegas rumble

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

38.0

8.0

117.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

10.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

12.0

2.0

0.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the water outlook in drought-racked california just got a lot worse: snowpack levels across the entire sierra nevada are now the lowest in recorded history <u+2014> just 6 percent of the long-term average. that shatters the previous low record on this date of 25 percent, set in 1977 and again last year. and it has huge implications for tens of millions of people who depend on water flowing downstream from melting snow <u+2014> including the nation's most productive farming region, the california central valley. last year was already a tough year at la jolla farming in delano, calif. or as farm manager jerry schlitz puts it, "last year was damn near a disaster." la jolla is a vineyard, a thousand-or-so acres of neat lines of grapevines in the southern end of the san joaquin valley. it depends on water from two sources: the federal central valley project and wells. until last year, schlitz says, wells were used to supplement the federal water. "now, we have nothing but wells. nothing. there's no water other than what's coming out of the ground," he says. last year, one of those wells at la jolla dried up. the farm lost 160 acres <u+2014> about a million dollars' worth of produce, plus the wasted labor and other resources. this year, the outlook is no better: the central valley project, which decides where and when to release what water is left in california's reservoirs, has already warned that most farmers downstream won't get any water for the second straight year. as kqed reports, "more than 400,000 acres of farmland were fallowed last year because of scarce water. credible sources have estimated that figure could double this year." la jolla is plowing miles of trench in the dry earth to bury water pipes connecting wells to fields and fields to wells. the farm owners want to make sure that they can move water from working wells to the places that need it. "we're getting prepared in case we lose one, we lost two. we lose three? watch out, man, i'm going to unemployment," says juvenal montemayor, the owner and founder of la jolla. he says this is the best they can do. now, drilling a new well isn't a short-term option. "you try to get a well done right now? no way. it's like a two-year waiting time for wells," he says. then there's the cost: a half-million dollars for a single well, he says. "now ask me if i want to make a well. no, i don't want to make a well. i don't have a choice," he says. "i don't have a choice." that's the tough situation la jolla and many other farmers in the central valley face: they won't be getting any federal water. groundwater reserves are getting lower and lower as farmers and towns drill deeper and deeper, sucking out more water than there is coming in. it's gotten so bad in the san joaquin valley that the ground is actually sinking. last summer it sank a half-inch each month. back among the grapevines at la jolla, schlitz points to the mountains on the horizon, their tops barely sprinkled with snow. the snow supplies roughly a third of all of california's water, on average. the sierra nevada snowpack is supposed to be a storage bank. it holds the snow late into the spring that then melts gradually. the runoff feeds reservoirs that supply water for millions of people <u+2014> and the central valley. this year, california's chief snow surveyor says, there may not even be runoff. "that's our lifeblood up there," schlitz says. "whatever comes out of there, you know, that's our lifeblood."

scary times for california farmers as snowpack hits record lows

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

63.0

8.0

3468.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

166.0

0.0

65.0

1.0

0.0

19.0

5.0

10.0

5.0

9.0

2.0

12.0

4.0

7.0

14.0

172.0

65.0

20.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

in the days after king<u+2019>s assassination, americans considered many of the same questions that we are asking today: was this the work of one lunatic, or of a larger racial ideology? how should lawmakers respond? would the violent tragedy lead to gun control legislation? white southerners even debated whether to lower the flag in king<u+2019>s honor. in the end, many ministers and leaders cautioned that king would have died in vain if the country did not act boldly to root out racial injustice. the fact that we are having similar conversations, almost 50 years later, seems a mark of our collective failure. as word of king<u+2019>s assassination traveled around the country on the night of april 4, 1968, two of america<u+2019>s leading journalists sat down at their typewriters: mike royko in chicago and ralph mcgill in atlanta. they reached the same conclusion <u+2013> that an entire society had murdered king, regardless of which individual pulled the trigger. at that point, the assassin remained at large and his identity was unknown. there were no social media profiles to parse, no manifestoes to read. that kind of information was unnecessary. both mcgill and royko knew that a sick and racist nation was to blame. in the spring of 1968, king was far from a sanitized national hero. many white americans detested his activism and begrudged his fame. in 1967, king had delivered a forceful speech opposing the vietnam war. other civil rights leaders turned against him, and he faced a round of criticism in the nation<u+2019>s newspapers and magazines. his relationship with president lyndon johnson, already frayed, fractured completely. king then announced plans for the poor people<u+2019>s campaign, in which droves of the nation<u+2019>s poor would set up tent encampments on the washington mall in a show of nonviolent civil disobedience. king was attacking capitalism and imperialism, and calling for a <u+201c>revolution of values.<u+201d> in early 1968, he traveled to memphis, where 1,300 black sanitation workers were waging a strike. king led a protest march through downtown memphis on march 28. some demonstrators behind him resorted to violence; as chaos took hold, king was whisked away from the scene. the national press intensified its criticism of king. on capitol hill, elected officials denounced him as a lawless radical. he had become the target of deepening hatred. to mike royko, a popular columnist for the chicago daily news, it was this scorn and revulsion that ultimately killed king. royko published a column on april 5 titled <u+201c>millions in his firing squad.<u+201d> royko expressed confidence that the authorities would soon arrest the assassin. but <u+201c>they can<u+2019>t catch everybody,<u+201d> royko wrote, <u+201c>and martin luther king was executed by a firing squad that numbered in the millions.<u+201d> from many corners of the nation, white americans fed<u+00a0> <u+201c>words of hate into the ear of the assassin.<u+201d> the killer was simply following orders. <u+201c>the man with the gun did what he was told. millions of bigots, subtle and obvious, put it in his hand and assured him he was doing the right thing.<u+201d> royko blamed white northerners: the anti-busing leaders, the law-and-order demagogues, all of those chicago residents who stood against king<u+2019>s open-housing programs and pelted him with rocks in marquette park. he also indicted the fbi for its propaganda campaign against king, and proceeded to condemn every white american who nodded at racist jokes. <u+201c>it was almost ludicrous,<u+201d> royko wrote of the hostility directed at king. <u+201c>the man came on the american scene preaching nonviolence <u+2026> he preached it in the north and was hit with rocks. he talked it the day he was murdered.<u+201d> but americans refused to hear his calls for peace and freedom. <u+201c>hypocrites all over this country would kneel every sunday morning and mouth messages to jesus christ. then they would come out and tell each other, after reading the papers, that somebody should string up king, who was living christianity like few americans ever have.<u+201d> in a legendary career, this was one of royko<u+2019>s finest moments <u+2013> and one of his angriest. ralph mcgill targeted the southern bigots. mcgill, the publisher of the atlanta constitution and a leading southern liberal, chose a title for his editorial that was sure to aggravate the haters: <u+201c>a free man killed by white slaves.<u+201d> he wrote, <u+201c>white slaves killed martin luther king in memphis. at the moment the triggerman fired, martin luther king was the free man. the white killer, (or killers), was a slave to fear.<u+201d> in mcgill<u+2019>s formulation, millions of white americans stood captive to racial fear. mcgill located many such <u+201c>slaves<u+201d> in memphis, which was <u+201c>bound by such terrible chains<u+201d> of enmity. hatred at the sanitation workers, and at king himself, had swirled around the delta city. mcgill beseeched white americans to strike at racial prejudice and injustice. <u+201c>the white south <u+2013> the white population in all the country <u+2013> must now give answer.<u+201d> to two of the nation<u+2019>s most perceptive observers, the important issue was not the assassin<u+2019>s mental state. the crucial fact was that a climate existed in the country that sanctioned racial hatred. of course, others rejected this logic. the chicago tribune bristled at mike royko<u+2019>s indictment. <u+201c>the murder of dr. king was a crime and the sin of an individual,<u+201d> the tribune<u+2019>s editors asserted on april 9 <u+2013> the morning of king<u+2019>s funeral. the <u+201c>rest of us<u+201d> were <u+201c>not contributory to this particular crime.<u+201d> the memphis commercial appeal also dismissed the notion of collective guilt. <u+201c>it was the work of an individual, a warped, mixed-up, emotional mind,<u+201d> the commercial appeal editorialized on april 6. in reality, the commercial appeal itself had helped to whip white memphis into a feverish state. the newspaper had criticized the sanitation strike for the better part of two months, and deplored king<u+2019>s decision to assist the strikers. the newspaper<u+2019>s <u+201c>hambone<u+201d> cartoon <u+2013> which had appeared six days a week since the 1910s <u+2013> continued to trade in crass racial stereotypes. in 1968, the commercial appeal focused on one person<u+2019>s <u+201c>warped, mixed-up, emotional mind<u+201d> instead of the racism and racial inequality that so shaped the city and the nation. then as now, it was easier to blame a deranged individual than to craft a response that might address racial inequality or gun violence. hours before king<u+2019>s death, the senate judiciary committee finally voted on a gun-control bill that had been pending before it for three years. the bill was initially proposed by sen. thomas dodd of connecticut, and supported by lyndon johnson. james eastland, the longtime segregationist from mississippi, chaired the senate judiciary committee. the committee defeated a proposal to ban interstate gun sales. the committee then considered a proposal to combine gun control legislation with a safe streets bill. it failed to approve this measure, then adjourned for the evening. an hour later, james earl ray aimed his rifle at the balcony of the lorraine motel and murdered martin luther king jr. on saturday, april 6, the committee met again. this time, it voted 9-to-7 to attach the gun control regulations to the safe streets bill. but to achieve even this tiny advance, the supporters of gun control agreed to exempt rifles and shotguns. that same day, members of the national rifle association descended upon boston<u+2019>s sheraton hotel for the organization<u+2019>s annual meeting. they would rally against the pending legislation. the senate began to debate the omnibus crime control and safe streets act. this law would prohibit felons from buying guns, ban all mail-order gun sales, and impose restrictions on certain out-of-state transactions. the senate passed the bill on may 24. the house did not act until after the assassination of robert f. kennedy. one day after kennedy<u+2019>s death, on june 6, 1968, the house approved the bill. months later, congress passed a more expansive law called the gun control act of 1968. it established a licensing system for gun purchases, mandated serial numbers on weapons, and expanded many of the previous bill<u+2019>s measures. this was the apogee in the history of american gun control legislation. it was eventually undone in 1986, by the firearm owners<u+2019> protection act. palm sunday fell on april 7, 1968, three days after king<u+2019>s assassination. millions of americans gathered in churches to mourn the slain leader. tributes to king rang out in black houses of worship, among white congregations, and at public gatherings that drew interracial crowds. the nation pressed together to grieve for the prophet of nonviolence. many religious leaders offered the same message: that for king<u+2019>s death to have a lasting impact, the nation needed to commit itself to racial justice in deed as well as in word. at new york city<u+2019>s church of the holy family, monsignor timothy flynn declared that king<u+2019>s death <u+201c>will be redemptive if it stirs the white community to an adequate healing social action.<u+201d> rabbi mark tannenbaum of the american jewish committee agreed. <u+201c>it will be a great desecration of his holy name if the congress of the united states and the citizens of this nation do not respond <u+2026> by providing the elementary decencies for which he sacrificed his life: jobs, housing, education, health.<u+201d> the urban league<u+2019>s whitney young, a civil rights leader known for moderation, declared: <u+201c>we must have concrete, tangible action that will remove the inequities in our society.<u+201d> if the nation could see its way toward such substantive action, if it could begin to remove those inequities, then king <u+201c>may have achieved in death something he was never quite able to do in actual life.<u+201d> american leaders never did remove such racial inequalities. instead, the <u+201c>white backlash<u+201d> intensified as the <u+201c>silent majority<u+201d> lifted richard nixon to the presidency. the fair housing act of 1968 was in effect the last civil rights bill. and the safe streets bill, its robust gun control regulations notwithstanding, would give rise to the era of mass incarceration. in the days after king<u+2019>s death, southern leaders debated whether to lower the american flag <u+2013> and southern state flags <u+2013> in king<u+2019>s honor. a dramatic standoff occurred at the georgia statehouse in atlanta, king<u+2019>s native city. ben fortson, georgia<u+2019>s secretary of state, had lowered both the american and state flags to half-staff immediately after king<u+2019>s assassination. georgia<u+2019>s flag was essentially the confederate flag, alongside a small image of the state seal. (georgia had added the stars-and-bars to its flag in 1956.) the governor at the time was lester maddox, a segregationist icon. on april 8, 1968, maddox called fortson to register his objections about the lowering of the flags. king<u+2019>s funeral service would begin the next morning; thousands of mourners had flocked to the city. on april 9, maddox surrounded the statehouse with 160 state troopers in riot gear as well as 20 armed wildlife rangers. maddox then marched over to the flagpole and began to raise both of the flags. he suddenly realized that television cameras from cbs, nbc and abc were tracking his every move. maddox ultimately left the flags where they were and retreated into his office. he later explained, <u+201c>i didn<u+2019>t think we oughta use our flag to honor an enemy of our country.<u+201d> the symbolism was hard to miss: the confederate flag remained at half-staff, in king<u+2019>s honor. in 2001, georgia adopted a new state flag <u+2013> the result of gov. roy barnes<u+2019> efforts. after 14 more years, and the slaughter of nine african-americans, south carolina may finally retire that symbol of racial hatred. still, our nation is dotted with many more shrines to the confederacy. hundreds of towns have monuments to slaveholders; some public schools are named after confederate leaders. perhaps those symbols will be the next to fall. maybe this awful moment can nudge us toward necessary reforms. we comfort ourselves with the notion that the gunman was insane, when it is obvious that he was acting out <u+2013> in extreme form <u+2013> the ugliest truth of our time: that our society places little value on black life. if ralph mcgill and mike royko were still with us, they would not busy themselves with the assassin<u+2019>s internet posts. they would not look at him; they would look at us. they would scrutinize our society, at what we have built and what we have condoned. in this painful hour, we might realize that we don<u+2019>t have to keep living this way. we can harness the sadness, the outrage and the feeling of unity, and use that energy to force our leaders into action <u+2013> urging them to pursue policies that will make it harder for people to kill one another, and to honor the dead by creating a more peaceful and just society for the living.

charleston exposes ugliest truth of our time: our society places little value on black life

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

91.0

8.0

12664.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

926.0

0.0

283.0

1.0

0.0

114.0

49.0

32.0

28.0

46.0

22.0

41.0

17.0

58.0

83.0

76.0

934.0

283.0

115.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

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

the obsession of the house freedom caucus

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

41.0

8.0

81.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

5.0

3.0

1.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

heidi schlumpf is a columnist for the national catholic reporter and teaches communication at aurora university. the opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. (cnn) the popular pope francis is taking some hits himself after some lighthearted comments that included a pretend punch to a colleague. the comments came while trying to make the point that free speech should have some limits, including on the right to insult another's faith. speaking thursday to reporters on the plane ride to the philippines, the pope gestured with a fake punch to demonstrate what he would do if someone were to say "a swear word against my mother." still, the vatican felt the need to clarify, in response to a later cnn question about the punch, that his words were "spoken colloquially" and consistent with the pope's "free style of speech." i don't for one minute think the pope is advocating for any type of violence, whether religiously motivated murder or sparring among friends who dis each other's mamas. what concerns me is his apparent belief that religion should have special protection when it comes to free speech. the pope, responding to a general question about the interplay between religious liberty and free expression, was clearly referencing the massacre of journalists at charlie hebdo magazine by islamist militants in paris last week. although he did not say the slain cartoonists brought the attack upon themselves because of their satirical criticism of islam, it's not a huge logical leap to that conclusion and raises the likelihood of such a misinterpretation. let's just say it's not what most public relations professionals would advise. and while the pope has been known to talk more informally with reporters on the papal plane (his "who am i to judge?" comment about gay catholics came on the return flight from brazil in 2013), he's still on the record and obviously aware that his words will be reported and analyzed. the pope is not the only prominent catholic raising the issue. while no one can match the offensive tone of donahue, who actually said charlie hebdo's stephane charbonnier "didn't understand the role he played in his own death," the gist of the pope's message was the same: criticism of religion is problematic. as an aside, i'll be curious to see if those who slammed donahue have the same harsh words for the pope. perhaps both of them should take a lesson from the response of another christian, jim wallis, president of sojourners, a progressive, evangelical community and publication. he had a different suggestion for how people of faith should respond to the paris attacks: i think most american catholics agree that while blasphemy -- offensive speech against god or religion -- is not particularly nice, it does not follow that it can or should be regulated or outlawed. in the united states, the supreme court outlawed blasphemy laws in 1952. i'm hoping the pope was only offering counsel to his followers, rather than advocating for any sort of legal position. no one has the right not to be offended. even the pope.

the pope is wrong on religious speech (opinion)

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

47.0

8.0

3106.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

218.0

1.0

0.0

73.0

0.0

22.0

13.0

9.0

5.0

8.0

5.0

9.0

5.0

18.0

17.0

32.0

224.0

74.0

22.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the democratic national committee is offering all sorts of perks at next year<u+2019>s presidential nominating convention in philadelphia in return for whopping contributions.

what big democratic donors will get in philadelphia

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

51.0

8.0

168.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

17.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

23.0

1.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

seeking to put the most difficult stretch of his campaign behind him, republican presidential nominee donald trump used a major economic speech monday to reach out to two voting blocs that remain critical to his faltering chances of winning in november: traditional fiscal conservatives and disaffected blue-collar workers. but trump faced a new round of resistance from within his party that threatened to stall his effort to move beyond the uproar he caused last week. in an opinion column published by the washington post late monday, sen. susan collins (maine) became the latest sitting republican senator to declare that she will not support trump. in addition, dozens of national security officials who served in gop administrations signed a letter saying that he is <u+201c>not qualified<u+201d> to be president. reading from a teleprompter at the detroit economic club and pausing calmly when protesters interrupted him, trump assailed democratic rival hillary clinton and cast himself as the only change candidate on economic issues. he did so in part with tax-cutting, regulation-curbing plans that are squarely mainstream in his party and in part with his now-familiar attacks on the forces of globalization that have unnerved many workers. he took swipes at free-trade deals championed by gop leaders and attacked immigrants and refugees. the republican nominee shared few new policy details and continued to offer no specifics for how he would pay for tax cuts or spending increases large enough to balloon the federal budget deficit. he promised more clarity in coming weeks. trump proposed a new set of individual income tax rates higher than he previously suggested, but he also promised to bring rates lower than they were even during the george w. bush administration. he was vague in other areas, including a promise for major federal infrastructure spending and another, the only new policy proposal in the speech, that would allow working families to deduct child care-costs from their federal income taxes. throughout his address, trump took sharp aim at clinton. he held up detroit, which has been devastated by manufacturing job losses, as <u+201c>the living, breathing example<u+201d> of her <u+201c>failed economic agenda.<u+201d> <u+201c>i want to jump-start america. it can be done. and it won<u+2019>t even be that hard,<u+201d> he said. at a rally in st. petersburg, fla., clinton assailed trump<u+2019>s plan as an outdated replica of previous republican pitches, saying it would <u+201c>give super-big tax breaks to large corporations and the really wealthy<u+201d> and <u+201c>basically just repackage trickle-down economics.<u+201d> she added: <u+201c>you know that old saying, <u+2018>fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.<u+2019><u+00a0><u+201d> <u+201c>just imagine donald trump in the oval office, facing a real crisis,<u+201d> she said. <u+201c>what happens when somebody gets under his skin? i don<u+2019>t know if the united states can afford that kind of risk.<u+201d> on income taxes, the business mogul said he would work with house republicans to implement the three brackets they have proposed: 12<u+00a0>percent, 25<u+00a0>percent and 33<u+00a0>percent. the move puts trump in line with speaker paul d. ryan (wis.), with whom trump has had a tense alliance. previously, trump proposed tax brackets of 0<u+00a0>percent, 10<u+00a0>percent, 20<u+00a0>percent and 25<u+00a0>percent. he continued to call for a 15<u+00a0>percent corporate income tax rate for all businesses, which is lower than ryan<u+2019>s proposed 20<u+00a0>percent corporate rate. trump also promised to end some <u+201c>special interest<u+201d> tax breaks but named only one, the <u+201c>carried interest<u+201d> provision that many investment fund managers use to reduce their tax liability. experts cautioned, though, that trump<u+2019>s plan would still deliver a windfall to such investors, because it would reduce income and corporate rates. lacking more details from the campaign, it is difficult to say how much trump<u+2019>s revisions to his tax rates would alter the cost of his economic plan, which analysts had previously estimated could reduce federal revenue by $10<u+00a0>trillion over the next decade. equally difficult to measure are the benefits the plan would deliver to taxpayers across income levels. <u+201c>it seems very likely that this version of the plan will lose less revenue than the last version<u+201d> because it will contain relatively smaller tax cuts for individuals, scott greenberg, an analyst at the nonpartisan tax foundation, said in an interview. a key question, he added, is the level at which various marginal tax rates begin to take effect: <u+201c>a tax plan where the 33<u+00a0>percent [rate] kicks in at $250,000 and one where it kicks in at $750,000 are two very different tax plans.<u+201d> trump<u+2019>s economic focus followed a week in which he stoked tensions with party leaders by initially declining to endorse ryan and sen. john mccain (ariz.) in their primaries this month. trump also drew widespread ire for criticizing the muslim parents of a u.s. army captain who was killed in iraq, and he fell dramatically behind clinton in public polls. the measured, pre-written remarks in detroit on monday were intended to steady a listing campaign, and conservatives received the calls for tax and regulation cuts positively. but most reaction to the speech, even among conservatives, was mixed. in the end, monday served as a reminder that many republicans remain highly skeptical of trump. lanhee chen, who was the policy director for gop presidential nominee mitt romney in 2012, called the speech a <u+201c>mixed bag.<u+201d> he praised the details on taxes as a nod to more orthodox republican views, but he said trump<u+2019>s main challenge now is to prove to voters that he is as serious about policy-making as he is about picking fights with critics. <u+201c>one speech is not going to change a narrative,<u+201d> chen said. also monday, a group of 50 former national security officials who served under republican presidents signed a letter warning that trump <u+201c>would be the most reckless president in american history.<u+201d> the letter was signed by michael chertoff and tom ridge, former secretaries of homeland security; michael v. hayden, a former director of the cia and the national security agency; and john d. negroponte, a former director of national intelligence and deputy secretary of state, among others. [former gop national security officials: trump would be <u+2018>most reckless<u+2019> american president in history] separately, wadi gaitan, the chief spokesman for the florida republican party, announced that, as a result of differences with trump, he is leaving his job to join a conservative organization. <u+201c>i<u+2019>m thankful for my almost two years with the florida gop, however, moving on gives me a great, new opportunity to continue promoting free market solutions while avoiding efforts that support donald trump,<u+201d> gaitan, who is hispanic, said in a statement. in detroit, protesters sidetracked trump<u+2019>s speech repeatedly. unlike in large rallies where trump often calls for demonstrators to be removed, riling up the crowd, he waited patiently as they were escorted out monday. at one point he remarked calmly, <u+201c>this is all very well-planned out.<u+201d> his speech outlined a plan designed to accelerate economic growth, largely in classic conservative fashion: by reducing taxes and regulations on businesses and by opening vast new swaths of federal land and water to drilling. he said that as president, he would sign an executive order creating a temporary regulatory moratorium on new agency regulations. <u+201c>i am going to cut regulations massively,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>massively.<u+201d> freezing all pending federal regulations would include many wall street regulations created by the dodd-frank legislation passed in the wake of the financial crisis. trump<u+2019>s energy agenda would open new sections of american coastal waters to offshore oil drilling and sweep away the obama administration<u+2019>s efforts to fight climate change. both moves have frequently found widespread support among republican lawmakers and in conservative policy circles. in other areas, he skirted or defied republican orthodoxy. trump made no attempt to propose spending cuts or other measures to offset his proposed tax-rate cuts or begin to reduce the national debt, as he has promised to do in the past. his child-care expense plan could increase the debt even further, unless it were offset by spending cuts or a rapid increase in economic growth. so could an infrastructure spending plan that he has said could cost more than $500<u+00a0>billion. [ivanka trump champions working moms <u+2014> except the ones who design her clothes] the plan also promises to increase growth by reducing the united states<u+2019> trade deficit with china and other trading partners, in part by levying tariffs on imported goods from those countries. some economists, including trump adviser peter navarro, say that reducing the trade deficit would boost growth. others, including mark zandi of moody<u+2019>s analytics, warn that a tariff war could push the united states and much of the world into recession. trump has adopted hard-line opposition to sweeping trade agreements, arguing that they have hurt american workers. he reiterated his commitment to renegotiating the north american free trade agreement and withdrawing from the trans-pacific partnership. he singled out president bill clinton for signing nafta and accused the accord of moving u.s. jobs abroad. he said a vote for hillary clinton is a vote for tpp. <u+201c>the one common feature of every hillary clinton idea is that it punishes you for working and doing business in the united states,<u+201d> trump said. as secretary of state, clinton praised tpp. but in the democratic primary, she abandoned her support for the agreement. most congressional republicans support the multi-nation pact. anne gearan in st. petersburg, fla., and carole morello and ed o<u+2019>keefe in washington contributed to this report.

trump tries to reset with economic speech <u+2014> but faces new resistance in gop

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

9.0

75.0

8.0

9741.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

668.0

0.0

161.0

1.0

0.0

66.0

16.0

22.0

9.0

19.0

14.0

17.0

9.0

39.0

41.0

69.0

673.0

161.0

67.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

more than 100 days after he invoked his fifth amendment right to avoid testifying before the house committee investigating the benghazi terrorist attack, a key hillary clinton aide is at the center of the separate and ongoing investigation by the fbi into clinton<u+2019>s use of a private unsecured server while she was secretary of state. that former staffer, bryan pagliano, set up the controversial private email server in clinton<u+2019>s home in chappaqua, n.y. pagliano is believed to be the only witness publicly identified during the politically charged hearings on benghazi to invoke the fifth amendment. he has not been charged with any crime, but the investigation continues into how clinton used a private homebrew server which contained highly classified information<u+00a0>while she was secretary of state. as fox news was first to report on dec. 15, a review by the intelligence community reaffirmed that at least two emails were <u+201c>top secret<u+201d> when they hit clinton<u+2019>s private server. the state department had challenged the classification. at the core of the separate fbi investigation is whether highly classified information was "grossly mishandled" by clinton and her aides. pagliano worked for the clinton campaign team and was their trusted it specialist before he joined the state department in may 2009. as first reported by the washington post, the clintons paid pagliano $5,000 for "computer services" prior to his joining the state department, according to a financial disclosure form he filed in april 2009. yet, even after arriving at state in may 2009, pagliano continued to be paid by the clintons to maintain the non-secure homebrew server, which was located in a bathroom closet inside the clinton's chappaqua home. as part of invoking his fifth amendment right, pagliano is also invoking the so-called act-of-production privilege. since 1984, according to a review by fox news, the privilege has been used in 103 federal or state cases. a person can invoke his fifth amendment rights against the production of documents only where the act of producing the documents is incriminating in itself.<u+00a0>according to a legal review by fox news, this privilege applies when producing the documents <u+2013> as opposed to their contents -- to the government is entitled to fifth amendment protection. this assertion is tantamount to the defendant's testimony that the documents exist, are authentic and are in his possession. the privilege has been invoked before by a clinton associate. webb hubbell, hillary clinton's former law partner when she worked at the rose law firm in arkansas, argued for an<u+00a0>"act-of-production privilege" during the federal investigation into the collapse of madison guaranty, a failed savings and loan.<u+00a0>hubbell followed bill and hillary clinton into the white house to become an associate attorney general, the third-ranking member of the justice department. he was convicted in 1995 and served 18 months in federal prison for his role in the failure of that savings and loan which later became known as the "whitewater scandal." pagliano initially invoked the fifth amendment in refusing to answer 19 pages of questions from the house select committee on benghazi, which is investigating the attack that killed four americans in september 2012.<u+00a0>killed in the attack were ambassador chris stevens, state department information officer sean smith, and former navy seals tyrone woods and glen doherty. three months ago, rep. trey gowdy, r-s.c., chairman of the committee, acknowledged that pagliano may be called again.<u+00a0>fox news has confirmed no new subpoena has yet been issued by the committee for pagliano. and there has been no subpoena issued by the senate judiciary committee. as for the ongoing and separate fbi investigation into clinton's emails, no one is authorized to speak on the record but fox news is told by two intelligence sources that the "bureau (fbi) has a solid team on the case" and does not want to appear to be interfering with "the country's political process." in addition to looking at the potential mishandling of classified material, investigators are focused on possible violations of u.s. code 18, section 1001 pertaining to <u+201c>materially false<u+201d> statements given either in writing, orally or through a third party. each violation is subject to five years in prison. it is unclear if pagliano also had to sign a non-disclosure agreement, or nda, while working for the state department which requires protection of highly classified information. clinton signed her nda on jan. 22, 2009, which states in part, "i have been advised that any breach of this agreement may result in my termination of my access to sci (sensitive compartmented information) and removal from a position of special confidence.<u+201d> in the prosecution of former cia director david petraeus for his role in wrongly providing highly classified information to his biographer and mistress paula broadwell, violations of non-disclosure agreements were cited. fox news was told that <u+201c>frustration<u+201d> is mounting in the pace of the investigation into clinton's emails. mark macdougall, the attorney for pagliano, had no comment to fox news. pamela k. browne is senior executive producer at the fox news channel (fnc) and is director of long-form series and specials. her journalism has been recognized with several awards. browne first joined fox in 1997 to launch the news magazine <u+201c>fox files<u+201d> and later, <u+201c>war stories.<u+201d> catherine herridge is an award-winning chief intelligence correspondent for fox news channel (fnc) based in washington, d.c. she covers intelligence, the justice department and the department of homeland security. herridge joined fnc in 1996 as a london-based correspondent.

clinton aide key focus in fbi server investigation

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

15.0

50.0

8.0

5725.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

478.0

0.0

104.0

0.0

31.0

13.0

14.0

7.0

17.0

8.0

9.0

4.0

36.0

25.0

35.0

486.0

104.0

31.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

donald trump veered off script on monday night to claim that <u+201c>inner cities run by the democrats<u+201d> were more dangerous than countries such as iraq and afghanistan. the republican nominee was meant to be delivering a speech calling for hillary clinton be investigated by a special prosecutor. however, once again he veered off message in an attempt to appeal to minority voters in apocalyptic terms. <u+201c>you can go to war zones in countries that we are fighting and it is safer than living in some of our inner cities that are run by the democrats,<u+201d> trump said. the republican nominee also promised if elected, <u+201c>we<u+2019>ll get rid of the crime. you<u+2019>ll be able to walk down the street without getting shot. now, you walk down the street, you get shot.<u+201d> trump has made increased appeals for support from african americans in recent days. despite that, a recent nbc/wall street journal poll showed trump receiving the support of only 1% of african american voters, a historically low total. the poll did have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5%. the republican nominee has repeatedly argued that african american voters should support him in the past week, saying: <u+201c>what have you got to lose?<u+201d> in contrast, the new york real estate developer has railed against what he called <u+201c>the bigotry of hillary clinton, who sees people of color only as votes and not as human beings worthy of a better future.<u+201d> the intended focus of trump<u+2019>s message on monday was his call for a special prosecutor to investigate clinton<u+2019>s leadership of the state department. trump claimed that the fbi and department of justice could not be trusted to investigate <u+201c>hillary clinton<u+2019>s crimes<u+201d>. the fbi in july decided not to pursue criminal charges against clinton for her use of an unsecured private email server while secretary of state. however, in doing so, fbi director james comey rebuked clinton for the <u+201c>extremely careless<u+201d> way in which she handled her emails. in the speech, trump also said he was <u+201c>fighting for peaceful regime change in our country<u+201d> and warned gravely of potential election fraud. <u+201c>you got to go out and watch. you know what i<u+2019>m talking about,<u+201d> he said. trump has long made unsubstantiated claims about <u+201c>a rigged election<u+201d> and warned of in-person voter fraud recently at a campaign stop in pennsylvania. however, an exhaustive investigation of in-person voter fraud in the united states found only 31 cases since 2000 out of more than 1bn ballots cast. trump spoke in the blue collar city of akron, ohio. the buckeye state has 18 electoral votes, and no republican has ever won the white house without winning ohio. according to data complied by real clear politics, clinton has not trailed in a single statewide poll of ohio since april. however, despite these sagging poll numbers and cryptic warnings about election fraud, trump was still confident of victory: <u+201c>i just get the feeling that we<u+2019>re going to win in a landslide.<u+201d>

trump: inner cities run by democrats are more dangerous than war zones

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

70.0

8.0

2921.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

198.0

0.0

35.0

1.0

0.0

12.0

8.0

13.0

4.0

12.0

9.0

8.0

9.0

14.0

16.0

20.0

202.0

35.0

13.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington -- a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction on monday that will temporarily prevent the obama administration from moving forward with its executive actions on immigration while a lawsuit against the president works its way through the courts. the order, by judge andrew hanen of the u.s. district court in brownsville, texas, was an early stumble for the administration in what will likely be a long legal battle over whether president barack obama overstepped his constitutional authority with the wide-reaching executive actions on immigration he announced last november. the impact of the order will be felt almost immediately: one of obama's actions is set to take effect on feb. 18. on that day, the administration was set to begin accepting applications for an expanded version of the deferred action for childhood arrivals, or daca, program. daca allows undocumented immigrants who came to the u.s. as children to stay in the country and work legally. now, newly eligible immigrants seeking to apply will be unable to do so while the lawsuit is pending. the administration will also be unable to move forward, for now, with a daca-like program created under obama's executive actions. that program confers similar relief to undocumented immigrants who are parents of legal permanent residents or of u.s. citizens. hanen, who was appointed to the court by former president george w. bush, said in the ruling that the 26 states who brought the suit had standing to do so, and indicated he was sympathetic to their arguments. "this lawsuit is not about immigration," the complaint reads. "it is about the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the u.s. constitution." the white house has said that obama acted within his authority and that the policies will allow immigration enforcement agents to focus on deporting higher-priority offenders such as convicted criminals, recent border-crossers and those who pose national security threats. attorneys general from 12 states and the district of columbia signed onto an amicus brief in support of obama's actions, asking the judge not to issue an injunction. "the truth is that the directives will substantially benefit states, will further the public interest, and are well within the president<u+2019>s broad authority to enforce immigration law," the amicus brief reads. obama's executive actions are at the center of a congressional impasse over funding the department of homeland security. the dispute could cause an agency shutdown once funding runs out on feb. 27. most republicans say they will only support a dhs funding bill if it includes measures to stop obama's immigration policies, but those measures are being blocked by senate democrats. even if such a bill were to reach the president's desk, obama has said he would veto it. the district court ruling was considered a potential game-changer for the funding fight, since some republicans might be convinced to support a dhs funding bill with no immigration measures if obama's actions were not moving forward anyway. update: 8:20 a.m. -- white house press secretary josh earnest put out a statement early tuesday defending the executive actions, which he said "are consistent with the laws passed by congress and decisions of the supreme court, as well as five decades of precedent by presidents of both parties who have used their authority to set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws." "the department of justice, legal scholars, immigration experts, and the district court in washington, d.c. have determined that the president<u+2019>s actions are well within his legal authority," earnest continued. "top law enforcement officials, along with state and local leaders across the country, have emphasized that these policies will also benefit the economy and help keep communities safe. the district court<u+2019>s decision wrongly prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect and the department of justice has indicated that it will appeal that decision."

judge temporarily halts obama's immigration actions

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

7.0

51.0

8.0

4037.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

318.0

0.0

67.0

0.0

40.0

10.0

8.0

2.0

8.0

4.0

1.0

21.0

14.0

30.0

323.0

67.0

40.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington one week after we moved nevada and florida from "battleground" to "lean democratic," both states appear to be snapping back to their traditional toss-up status. our new cnn electoral outlook places both states back in the "battleground" category and increases the up-for-grabs turf to six states and two congressional districts worth a total of 87 electoral votes. note: the split congressional district ratings are symbolized with diagonal lines. clinton had not yet finished her two-day swing through the sunshine state before her campaign let it be known that she would be back in florida this weekend. florida is also one of the handful of states where the clinton campaign remains heavily on the air with campaign advertising and where it announced today that two closing argument ads will begin to be seen across the state. florida's 29 electoral votes are the biggest prize on the map among competitive states and both campaigns plan to fight it out there all the way through november 8. in nevada, polls continue to show it is a margin-of-error race between clinton and trump and both candidates are expected back in the silver state before election day. as trump continues to shore up his republican support and improve his standing among hispanics (though still losing this group by a wide margin), he is ensuring nevada remains competitive all the way through election day. with the new changes to the cnn electoral outlook, our current snapshot has clinton at 272 electoral votes from states either solidly or leaning in her direction. trump has a total of 179 electoral votes from the states either solidly or leaning in his direction. that leaves 87 electoral votes currently up for grabs in the remaining battleground states. the full rundown is below: california (55), connecticut (7), delaware (3), dc (3), hawaii (4), illinois (20), maine (3), maryland (10), massachusetts (11), new jersey (14), new york (29), oregon (7), rhode island (4), vermont (3), washington (12), minnesota (10), new mexico (5) (200 total)

road to 270: 's new election map

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

3.0

32.0

8.0

2051.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

122.0

0.0

37.0

0.0

14.0

3.0

4.0

1.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

1.0

5.0

8.0

9.0

123.0

37.0

14.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

sanders spoke to the predominately african-american crowd, addressing issues such as the incarceration rates of whites versus african-americans due to marijuana use. he also talked about nationwide police reforms. after delivering a stump speech for about 15 minutes, sanders answered questions on racial inequality, economic disparities and small business growth, and environmental issues affecting minneapolis. the audience cheered and clapped for sanders at times during his stump speech, and were as vocal during the question and answer session, yelling out "how?" at several points as the senator spoke. a particularly tense moment arose when a questioner found sanders' answer on government accountability in low-income communities like flint, michigan, unsatisfactory, accusing him of being afraid of saying "black" and asked him to go into more detail about reparations for african-americans in the country. "i know you're scared to say black, i know you're scared to say reparation" a woman said. "but it seems like every time we try to talk about black people and us getting something for the systematic reparations and the exploitation of our people we have to include every other person of color ... can you please talk about specifically black people and reparations?" sanders pushed back in his response, defending his viewpoint that the issue is national and spans across poor communities. "what i just indicated in my view is that when you have ... you and i may have disagreements because it's not just black, it is latino, there are areas of america, in poor rural areas, where it's white." during his response he was interrupted by an audience member who yelled, "say black!" to which the senator said, "i've said black 50 times. that's the 51st time." sanders offered this solution to the original question: invest most in those communities most in need. "when you have 35% of black children living in poverty, when you have half the kids in the country, in public schools on free and reduced lunches, when youth unemployment in african-american communities is 51%, those are exactly the kinds of communities that you invest in." audience member jason sole stood up and declared that he was "feeling the bern" but added that because he was formerly incarcerated, he couldn't cast a ballot in the minnesota primary. sanders said he disagreed with the notion that convicted felons shouldn't be allowed to vote. "what criminal justice is supposed to be about is you do the crime, you are found guilty, you pay the price. i'm not aware that paying the price includes taking away your rights to vote in a democratic society. you paid the price right? you're a citizen of the united states, correct? you have the right to vote." sanders told the audience not to be na<u+00ef>ve, underscoring what he sees as an underlying political motive. "you have large numbers of african-american men and women not being able to vote. somebody benefits from that." the forum finished inconclusively when activist clyde bellecourt commandeered the microphone to talk about issues relating to native americans being what he called "completely forgotten" by the federal government. his statement drew on for several heated and emotional minutes as moderators asked him to get to his question and bellecourt declared, "if you have to carry me out of here, carry me out of here!" sanders rose from his chair, thanked the crowd and scurried offstage.

bernie sanders faces frustrated crowd at race forum in minneapolis

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

66.0

8.0

3442.0

0.0

2.0

5.0

0.0

261.0

0.0

64.0

0.0

20.0

12.0

10.0

5.0

11.0

7.0

10.0

3.0

13.0

20.0

28.0

266.0

64.0

20.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

gop rivals sen. ted cruz and ohio gov. john kasich are joining forces to take down front-runner donald trump. the news comes a day before voters in five northeastern states head to the polls to cast ballots in another round of crucial presidential primaries. trump is expected to add to his overwhelming delegate lead. "i have got to get rid of these two guys. i am sorry folks," the tycoon told his supporters. cruz and kasich almost simultaneously announced sunday they're coordinating their campaigns to deny the front-runner the 1,237 delegates needed to win the party's nomination before the convention. "i think, when we're at the convention, the delegates are going to want to know who can beat hillary," kasich said. the kasich campaign is backing off in indiana, giving cruz a clearer path to victory in next month's primary. in return, the cruz campaign will ease up to give kasich a "clearer the path" in oregon and new mexico. "having donald trump at the top of the ticket in november would be a sure disaster for republicans," cruz's campaign manager, jeff roe, said in a statement. "not only would trump get blown out by clinton or sanders," he warned. "but having him as our nominee would set the party back a generation." the kaisch campaign also released a statement explaining, "our goal is to have an open convention in cleveland, where we are confident a candidate capable of uniting the party and winning in november will emerge as the nominee." "wow, just announced that lyin' ted and kasich are going to collude in order to keep me from getting the republican nomination. desperation!" he tweeted. meanwhile, in the democratic race, there is talk hillary clinton is already quietly starting the search for a vice presidential running mate. "i am just working hard to win on tuesday," said clinton, who is ahead in all five states voting tuesday. the former state secretary is virtually assured of winning the democratic nomination before her party's convention. even so, rival bernie sanders is still promising to stay in the race. "well, we're going to have to do <u+2014> obviously, win big in the number of the primaries and caucuses that yet remain," the vermont senator told nbc news saturday. "a poll came out yesterday that has us within striking distance in california, a larger state. i think we can do very well in california," he said.

desperate measures: cruz, kasich team up to take down trump

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

59.0

8.0

2379.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

170.0

0.0

45.0

0.0

4.0

2.0

5.0

4.0

2.0

3.0

2.0

6.0

12.0

5.0

22.0

172.0

45.0

4.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

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

rubio<u+2019>s problem: an excess of caution

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

37.0

8.0

117.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

5.0

1.0

12.0

1.0

0.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the party looks to kamala harris, catherine cortez masto, tammy duckworth and maggie hassan to help lead it out of the abyss.

republicans outfox democrats on climate votes

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

45.0

8.0

125.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

7.0

4.0

1.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the official list of debate moderators is out and it includes anchors from all the major networks. the full list, from the commission on presidential debates, is below: elaine quijano<u+00a0>is the first anchor of a digital network. she covers news for cbs'<u+00a0>24-hour digital streaming network) to moderate a debate. not everyone was happy with the line-up. randy falco, the<u+00a0>president and ceo of univision, wrote a letter to the executive director of the commission on presidential debates, janet h. brown, slamming the decision not to include a hispanic journalist on the presidential stage. the letter was tweeted by politico media reporter hadas gold. "i am writing to express disappointment, and frankly disbelief, that the commission presidential debates has not chosen a hispanic journalist to moderate the presidential debates. the inclusion of cbs<u+2019> elaine quijano as a moderator for the vice presidential debate is certainly a welcome addition but seems insufficient when taking into account past presidential cycles, future demographic trends and the important role latinos play in the economic and social fabric of this great nation. simply put: it<u+2019>s an abdication of your responsibility to represent and reflect one of the largest and most influential communities in the u.s." while both candidates have said they would do the debates, donald trump has expressed concern over who will moderate and the timing of the debates.

presidential debate moderators announced

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

3.0

40.0

8.0

1431.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

114.0

0.0

29.0

0.0

11.0

0.0

3.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

12.0

3.0

17.0

116.0

29.0

11.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

if clinton and trump win their conventions, it<u+2019>ll be the first time both parties nominated their weakest candidate. trump is the one republican almost any democrat can beat; hillary the one democrat trump can beat. the response of the party establishments is instructive. republicans engage in a mad scramble to stop trump while democrats do all they can to help hillary seal the deal. fear of trump unites republican elites as nothing but hatred for obama ever did; senate leadership with house rank and file; libertarians with militarists and supply siders; the kochs with karl rove. a few of the phonier evangelicals defected to trump but most, like the pope, know a fake christian when they see one. all the factions now join the rnc, fox news and every corporate lobbyist in town in a late, frantic effort to turn the tide. on tuesday, trump routed them all. democratic elites are just as united in opposing bernie sanders: members of congress, gay and abortion rights lobbies, african-american leaders, most of labor and many of the same corporate lobbyists battling trump. sanders is a reformer and an honest, decent man. trump is a louche, lying fascist with the impulse control of a hyperactive four-year-old. yet trump, not sanders, is laying waste his party. are democrats simply more skilled in the art of suppression? if so, who knew? but things aren<u+2019>t as they seem. sanders is doing better and trump worse than the media thinks. each race will now shift; whether enough to stop clinton or trump depends on strategy, execution, luck and other things impossible to poll. elites may hold on for one last round but these insurgencies threaten their long term survival. since their survival threatens ours, that<u+2019>s great news. clinton owes some of her early success to the frontloading of southern states. super tuesday<u+00a0>is a scheme hatched in the <u+2019>80s by a bunch of white, male, mostly southern democrats who thought a regional primary would help <u+201c>centrists<u+201d> like themselves get a leg up on liberals. but they forgot, not for the first or last time, about african-americans, lots of whom live in the south and vote democratic. in <u+2019>88, jessie jackson and al gore split the region, thus allowing northern social liberal mike dukakis to slip through the net. this year super tuesday finally worked as planned; hindering a progressive, aiding an insider. there was a twist: african-americans who now dominate the party in the south made it work. i doubt they prefer clinton<u+2019>s neoliberalism to sanders<u+2019> democratic socialism. the win owed more to loyalty to obama and other trusted leaders, and to hillary<u+2019>s skills and connections. by<u+00a0>saturday, eight of the 11 states of the old confederacy had voted. in them she won 68<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>of the vote. ten<u+00a0>of 39 states outside the south<u+00a0>had voted. in those states sanders took 57<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>of the vote. on march 15,<u+00a0>the confederacy will be all done voting. the race begins then. clinton owes even more of her success to a party establishment she says doesn<u+2019>t exist.<u+00a0> democrats send 717 superdelegates to their convention; that<u+2019>s a third of the number needed to nominate. she has most of them. (republican superdelegates are bound by popular votes because their base rose up and demanded it.) dnc chair debbie wasserman schultz slashed debates from 26 to six just to deny sanders the airtime. sanders surely won the popular vote in iowa and maybe nevada, but their state parties won<u+2019>t release results. sanders undercut the des moines register<u+2019>s demand to see the raw vote, saying it didn<u+2019>t matter given the close delegate count. trump, who brags incessantly on polls, has a deeper insight into the power of the bandwagon effect. the election<u+2019>s best news thus far is the evidence it offers that a campaign funded by small donors that stays true to its principles can beat big money. but we don<u+2019>t know how much dark and super pac money clinton commands, or its impact on the race. here<u+2019>s hoping the next time she says wall street is spending money to defeat her, bernie points out that it probably spends as much to elect her and that the whole reason he<u+2019>s running is to make it harder for wall street to cover its bets. clinton began the race for the nomination 40 points up. yet all these advantages <u+2014> money, superdelegates, calendar, shutting down debates and withholding election results <u+2014> couldn<u+2019>t save her. she needed yet more help and got it from liberal lobbies that are all that remains of the great grass-roots movements that once drove all our social progress. most are led not by grass-roots leaders but by technicians who seek money, access and career advancement and rely on the same consultants advising clinton, obama and a long list of corporate clients. it is no shock to see every gop faction unite against trump. he is plainly not a neoconservative, a libertarian, a free trader or even a christian. unencumbered by conscience or conviction, he is free to don any disguise he deems useful. some in his party oppose him out of principle; others because they think he can<u+2019>t win. but if he had the demeanor of an anglican bishop and led every general election poll, many would still fight him, because his victory would mean their ultimate defeat. progressive groups who united against bernie have a lot more explaining to do. there was a time when many progressives observed an unwritten law against wading into primaries against friends, even for a candidate who was better on their issues, let alone for one who was palpably worse. on choice clinton may claim more personal involvement than sanders but on every other progressive issue, including civil rights and gay rights, bernie beats her by a mile. on core labor issues like global trade and a living wage, he is steadfast while she is anything but. still, unions representing 70percent<u+00a0> of all members backed her, often without members<u+2019> consent. nevada<u+2019>s culinary union told its members it would stay out, but leaders worked casinos hard, enabling clinton to eke out the appearance of victory. given massachusetts<u+2019> liberal reputation, big student population and proximity to vermont, sanders needed a win. but labor poured it on. without its help, clinton<u+2019>s 1.3<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>margin of victory would have been impossible. some who helped engineer clinton endorsements did so for institutional access or personal gain. i like to think more did it because she looked like a winner. it would be good for all progressives if these leaders would reflect on where they get their political advice and how all their access really helps their causes. we once left tactical thinking to politicians. then issue advocates began hiring pollsters. now voters are getting into the act. the effect is to turn the marketplace of ideas into a casino. it<u+2019>s hard enough figuring out if a candidate represents your values without having to speculate about his appeal to others. you don<u+2019>t go to a store to buy what you think someone else wants, yet primary voters do. one reason for all the tactical thinking is the paralysis of government; if you think nothing will get done, you focus less on policy. polarization<u+2019>s another; if you hate their party more than you love yours, what matters is picking a winner. the biggest culprit is the media. following politics on tv you learn nothing beyond the horse race. pundits specialize in predicting the recent past. no poll can tell you what folks will say when they finally absorb the fact that one candidate is under criminal investigation or that 5,000 people are suing another for fraud, or that climate change will wipe out the east and west coasts of the united states within their children<u+2019>s lifetimes. networks bring on experts angling for political jobs to say we<u+2019>re the only country on earth that can<u+2019>t have universal health care but don<u+2019>t bother to explain hillary<u+2019>s or bernie<u+2019>s actual plans. donald trump<u+2019>s resume is a hoax, but to find out about trump university or the trump shuttle you have to wait eight months for marco rubio to mention it in a debate. imagine what upton sinclair or ida tarbell would say to see such a sorry spectacle as this. clinton<u+2019>s whole case is tactical. sanders volunteers say every swing voter asks now about electability or if congress would pass bernie<u+2019>s program. in the last cnn poll his favorability rating is higher than hers among democrats. (she<u+2019>s at 78% favorable to 19% unfavorable; he<u+2019>s at 85% to 10%)<u+00a0> democrats prefer his policies to hers by wide margins, forcing her to pretend to adopt his. she benefits from kindly msnbc anchors and apparatchiks posing as analysts on cnn <u+2014> but what helps her most is every network<u+2019>s obsession with tactics. the moment the race turns into a referendum on policy choices, she<u+2019>s finished. for two years the media has swallowed and peddled the clinton inevitability line. for two weeks it has said trump<u+2019>s nomination is inevitable; this after eight months of saying it was impossible. it is so clueless on both counts because it is so much a part of the system that is under attack and because it relies so heavily on its useless tools and discredited methods. it<u+2019>s hard to predict the future, it being chock full of stuff that hasn<u+2019>t happened yet. even if they get it right, they add nothing of value. to see the race as it really is one must see the democratic and republicans parties as they really are. the story going round is that they<u+2019>re far apart. it<u+2019>s true of cultural issues: guns; same-sex marriage; abortion; immigration. but on matters of the distribution of political and economic power and opportunity they are as close as can be. by these i mean: global trade, fiscal austerity, deregulation, information technology; use of military force and most of all what they fight hardest to defend: pay to play politics. it is against this bipartisan consensus of pay to play politics and neoliberal economics that the country, including large chunks of each party<u+2019>s base, now rises up. this is nearly as true of trump<u+2019>s fascist putsch as it is of bernie<u+2019>s progressive revolution. voters want political reform and economic justice. they know that without reform they<u+2019>ll never get justice. bernie sanders is the only candidate who shares that opinion. the election is part of a broader revolt against a failed status quo. clinton is an architect of that status quo; trump, a big beneficiary. so she hides her transcripts and he hides his tax returns. bernie is an open book. it<u+2019>s why he has the highest favorability rating of any candidate in the race and clinton has the lowest of any presidential candidate in the history of polling, except for trump. trump and clinton struggle to co-opt bernie<u+2019>s message; trump even adopts his positions. (a fascist can do what he likes so long as he is racist, xenophobic and authoritarian.) trump hates pay-to-play politics; or as he frames it, the venality of his opponents. he hates the iraq war, the libya strike, the syria no fly zone, nafta and the tpp. he hates obama<u+2019>s deals with insurers and drug companies and any cut in social security or medicare. in a debate with hillary he<u+2019>d own these priceless treasures. some would say he stole them, but he can<u+2019>t steal what she gives away. it<u+2019>s a debate we never have to see. trump is a total fraud and a ticking time bomb.<u+00a0> clinton helped build the system voters want to tear down. her candidacy rests on the rickety edifice of a dying political establishment that, like trump, could blow at any time. this is bernie<u+2019>s revolution, not clinton<u+2019>s or trump<u+2019>s. if it<u+2019>s anyone<u+2019>s moment, it<u+2019>s his not theirs. it ain<u+2019>t over till it<u+2019>s over.

hillary<u+2019>s inevitability lie: why the media and party elites are rushing to nominate the weakest candidate

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

10.0

105.0

8.0

11557.0

0.0

13.0

0.0

770.0

2.0

0.0

233.0

3.0

0.0

133.0

34.0

39.0

19.0

36.0

23.0

30.0

19.0

48.0

68.0

80.0

783.0

235.0

136.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

six weeks before he was set to open florida<u+2019>s first charter school, jeb bush had yet to recruit a principal. then he met katrina wilson-davis, a 32-year-old <u+00ad>social studies teacher with no management experience but a positive spirit that gave him hope. <u+201c>we need someone who carries a knife in her teeth and can swing through the vines,<u+201d> wilson-davis recalls bush telling her on that summer day in 1996. recovering from an ego-bruising election loss, bush was looking for chances to soften his image as a callous republican who proclaimed he would do <u+201c>probably nothing<u+201d> as governor to help african americans. as a private citizen likely to run for governor again in 1998, bush created the liberty city charter school as a way to educate black children from miami<u+2019>s poorest neighborhoods. the school would give him a way to mend ties with the black community while testing a controversial, conservative education theory that was drawing the ire of teachers unions. <u+201c>my friends told me i was being used,<u+201d> wilson-davis remembered. she figured it was worth a try. <u+201c>i said: <u+2018>so? everyone<u+2019>s being used.<u+2019><u+2009><u+201d> as he runs for president nearly two decades later, bush points to his time working on the school as evidence of his early commitment to a reform agenda. he has said the experience <u+201c>still shapes the way i see the deep-seated challenges facing urban communities today.<u+201d> he points to the school<u+2019>s opening as <u+201c>one of the happiest, proudest moments of my life.<u+201d> but for wilson-davis and others who walked the halls of liberty city, that happy moment has been obscured by the complicated years that have followed. over time, bush<u+2019>s tightknit relationship with the school and his handpicked principal fizzled. after he won election as florida governor, in part by touting the school, bush stepped down from the board <u+2014> a move his aides say avoided any perceptions of favoritism. he was unable to help the school overcome steep debt or help it resolve a dispute with the building<u+2019>s landlord. by 2008, the year after bush left office, local officials voted to close the school. as bush campaigns in florida today to revive his struggling presidential campaign, many in this beleaguered community wrestle with his legacy in their lives. there are feelings of adoration and feelings of abandonment. many here wonder: why couldn<u+2019>t a man so well connected and powerful help raise money or strike a deal with a local landlord? how could he step away from a cause that was so dear to him? a project that intended to close the chasm between bush and the black community ended up broadening the distance between them. bush<u+2019>s presidential campaign <u+2014> in which he has promised to broaden the republican party<u+2019>s appeal to minorities while, on one occasion, appearing to suggest that democrats win black votes by offering <u+201c>free stuff<u+201d> <u+2014> serves as a reminder of the two sides of the man they knew. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s like i<u+2019>m reliving the sadness all over again,<u+201d> wilson-davis said. <u+201c>everyone wants me to bash jeb,<u+201d> she added. <u+201c>i can<u+2019>t just bash jeb. he did so much for me. he introduced me to so many good people, white people, who cared about our community.<u+201d> bush, in a recent interview, said he could not have saved the school. he had helped negotiate with the landlord early on, but he said little could be done about the landlord<u+2019>s desire to kick the school out. <u+201c>the problem is that they didn<u+2019>t own the school. they tried to own the school,<u+201d> bush said. <u+201c>but you can<u+2019>t operate a school if you don<u+2019>t have the real estate.<u+201d> the idea for a charter school in liberty city stemmed from a new kinship between bush and t. willard fair, a local black activist. in fair, head of the urban league of greater miami, bush found his first full ally within miami<u+2019>s black community. fair had been swayed by the <u+201c>probably nothing<u+201d> remark because he long believed black people needed to rely more on themselves, not the government, for their uplift. it took only 90 minutes for them to agree to start the charter school, which would be privately run but publicly funded. bush attempted to get another prominent local black activist to serve as principal, school board member frederica s. wilson. she rebuffed his efforts but recommended wilson-davis, who always dreamed of being a principal. <u+201c>i knew i could educate those children,<u+201d> wilson-davis said. <u+201c>i know these children. i was one of them.<u+201d> in an hour, they agreed to work together. bush knew he was asking wilson-davis to take on a difficult task that would put her at the center of a intense political debate over the future of public schools. but he had confidence in her. <u+201c>she had a heart for these kids,<u+201d> he said. the young, black schoolteacher <u+2014> granddaughter of sharecroppers and daughter of a cafeteria worker and a truck driver <u+2014> gained a mentor and powerful friend who introduced her to the upper echelon of american politics and wealth. the privileged white politician got a charismatic leader for his school who taught him to use bits of slang like <u+201c>off the chain.<u+201d> he also got a useful anecdote for his next campaign, and he doubled his share of the black vote. soon, wilson-davis was going to fancy parties with the son of a president. hillary rodham clinton, first lady at the time, invited her to the white house for a forum on education. <u+201c>you<u+2019>re now swimming with big fish,<u+201d> wilson-davis recalled someone telling her at a fundraiser for the school, after which she wondered, <u+201c>what have i gotten into?<u+201d> bush, too, was acclimating to a different kind of pond. on saturdays, he drove from tony coral gables to a neighborhood of scraggy lots, barbed-wire fences and malls scarred by riots from nearly two decades before. at first, fair recalled, bush looked uncomfortable when he met young mothers in subsidized housing who were interested in his school. <u+201c>it was an extraordinary experience,<u+201d> bush said. sixty students enrolled in the school when it opened in august 1996. when bush would visit, he would pat students on the head and call them by name. they would try to scare him with pictures of alligators they drew, and he dressed up as santa claus at christmastime. his mother, barbara bush, came to read <u+201c>goodnight moon.<u+201d> tv cameras and reporters captured bush<u+2019>s big experiment. educators and donors wanted tours. the school was mocked by the teachers unions when it performed poorly on tests, praised in the papers when it performed well. the attention helped the school with its fundraising, even as wilson-davis tired of being a tour guide. she was more focused on intensive reading and math instruction and weekly positive-reinforcement assemblies. when she heard students arguing about whether zebras were donkeys with painted stripes, she arranged a trip to the zoo. many children were being raised by their grandparents, so wilson-davis started a quilting night to connect the community. <u+201c>don<u+2019>t let me call your mama,<u+201d> became one of wilson-davis<u+2019>s best-known threats to the students. about a dozen former students contacted by the washington post recalled how she offered jolly rancher candies when students visited her office and kept a small mattress there in case anyone needed a nap. <u+201c>it was really this custom education that was developed for the kids at the school that made us able to succeed,<u+201d> said maurice jackson, now 22. jackson, who interned this summer at the white house, said his views on school turned around after wilson-davis placed him in more-advanced classes. bush was in the background as much as the foreground. he was a strict taskmaster who could not stomach seeing so much as a wad of paper on the ground. <u+201c><u+2009><u+2019>trina,<u+201d> he would say to wilson-davis, she recalled, <u+201c>poor doesn<u+2019>t mean dirty.<u+201d> the school received the same per-pupil funding as traditional schools, but additional expenses such as rent meant that teachers at first were paid less. bush<u+2019>s fundraising prowess helped, but he warned that it would not last forever. <u+201c>he<u+2019>s a fiscally frugal guy, so the goal was you have to learn how to operate with what the state gives you each year,<u+201d> wilson-davis recalled. whenever she asked for money, she said, bush would lean in. he would cross his legs, look into her eyes and ask her why. <u+201c>he taught me to trust myself,<u+201d> wilson-davis said. <u+201c>he would say you can make mistakes, but just not a lot of them, because success was the only option.<u+201d> as he walked through the school hall on the day after his successful 1998 election, the cheerleading squad yelled: <u+201c>give me a b! give me a u! give me an s! give me an h!<u+201d> <u+201c>i used to love seeing him, and he was there so much,<u+2019><u+2019> said michelle turner, now 25, who was captured by news photographers hugging bush on that day in 1998. but then, turner and others recall, something changed. <u+201c>in later years, i don<u+2019>t remember him being there at all,<u+201d> turner said. bush had left the board by 2000, two years after being elected governor, but wilson-davis continued to reach out to him, often using e-mail. he would respond with brief words of encouragement. <u+201c>i hope that you will find time to come by the school and see the children,<u+201d> wilson-davis wrote in july 2001. <u+201c>i will try to make it,<u+201d> bush responded. there was no indication whether he paid a visit. in january 2002, wilson-davis bragged to him that the school was operating entirely from its state allotment after <u+201c>many years of prudent and fiscal conservatism.<u+201d> by 2006, though, trouble was mounting. the school incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. the growing importance of high-stakes standardized tests, pushed by bush, led to the school spending more on new textbooks. and a devastating hurricane season in 2005 left the school with a leaky roof that, she said, the landlord was slow to fix. <u+201c>you know that i don<u+2019>t run to you for everything because i know that you have a whole state and the country to contend with,<u+201d> wilson-davis wrote to bush on oct. 13, 2006. <u+201c>i am in a position where i need some intervention and direction from you!<u+201d> bush wrote back, telling wilson-davis that <u+201c>i will work on both issues.<u+201d> he told her that as a public school, <u+201c>you should receive the same benefits .<u+2009>.<u+2009>. that all public schools receive.<u+201d> bush attempted to connect her with fema, according to e-mails that have been released publicly. but wilson-davis said she worried the process was moving too slowly. fearing for her students<u+2019> safety, she used the school<u+2019>s money to fix the roof. the landlord, patrick beauregard, sued. the repairs violated the lease, and he wanted the school out. beauregard did not respond to several phone calls from the post. fair and wilson-davis wondered: is it time to get bush more involved? fair opposed the idea. his reasoning: beauregard was black, as were fair and wilson-davis. some racial lines, he felt, could not be crossed. <u+201c>there was nothing in the marrow of my bones that could allow me to ask some white man to bail me out for what a black man did,<u+201d> fair said. wilson-davis reached out to bush anyway. she recalled bush telling her that his hands were tied. the $500,000 debt was too much for him to recoup. the legal fees continued to mount, and debt grew to $1<u+00a0>million. parents held walks and protests to generate attention, but their efforts were futile. they wondered what happened to their powerful founder. after bush left office in 2007, he made a lucrative reentry into the private sector. asked at the time about the school<u+2019>s difficulties, bush told the miami herald, <u+201c>i am not aware what this is about.<u+201d> in 2008, the county school board shut the school down. wilson-davis was so distraught, she said, that she could not bring herself to find work for two years. one day, she got a phone call from a concerned wilson, the former school board member who introduced her to bush. wilson, who was bush<u+2019>s most ardent opponent when she was in the state legislature and today is a congresswoman, had a new recommendation: <u+201c>grab your purse and start working again.<u+201d> as she discusses her experience with the school, wilson-davis likes to focus on the successes. she estimated at least 85<u+00a0>percent of her students graduated from high school and 40<u+00a0>percent went on to college. <u+201c>i don<u+2019>t think [bush] was a racist or tried to pimp out these children; that wasn<u+2019>t his heart,<u+201d> wilson-davis said. <u+201c>but i think it<u+2019>s a fair question for a community to want to hold him accountable. even so, wilson-davis retains warm feelings for bush. the last time wilson-davis texted bush was in 2011. she hoped to catch up with him during his trip to a majority-black high school in florida that was excelling on standardized tests. that day, bush was sitting in the front row of the auditorium with president obama. security stopped her outside. the room was so crowded with so many well-wishers that his past prot<u+00e9>g<u+00e9>e couldn<u+2019>t get in. ed o<u+2019>keefe, steven rich and alice crites in washington contributed to this report.

jeb bush gave this black community a charter school. then he moved on.

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

3.0

70.0

8.0

12855.0

0.0

5.0

3.0

0.0

839.0

3.0

0.0

313.0

1.0

0.0

98.0

21.0

35.0

8.0

20.0

32.0

20.0

15.0

59.0

46.0

89.0

842.0

316.0

99.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

i am an educator. i am a black woman who may someday mother a black child. i have taught other black mothers<u+2019> children. much of my educational success in elementary school is directly attributable to high performance on standardized tests that caused my white teachers to notice me and intervene on my behalf to get me <u+201c>tracked<u+201d> into higher-achieving classrooms. i believe all children deserve access to a good, high-quality, public<u+00a0>education. therefore, i don<u+2019>t have to condone cheating in any form (and i don<u+2019>t) to assert that what has happened in atlanta to these teachers is a travesty. the pictures that emerged last week of handcuffed black schoolteachers being led out of southern courtrooms in one of the country<u+2019>s largest urban black school systems were absolutely heartbreaking. scapegoating black teachers for failing in a system that is designed for black children, in particular, not to succeed is the real corruption here. since the early 1990s, we have watched the deprofessionalization of teaching, achieved through the proliferation of <u+201c>teacher fellow<u+201d> programs and the massive conservative-led effort to defund public education in major urban areas throughout the country. there is no longer a consensus that a good public education <u+2014> a hallmark of american democracy <u+2014> should be considered a public good. black children have for generations been the primary victims of this continuing social mendacity about the national value of education. more than 51 percent of children who attend public schools live in poverty. in georgia, the percentage of black children living in poverty hovers right around 39 percent. for latino children, the number is consistently over 40 percent. nationally, the number for black children is 39 percent, according to most recent data, and 33 percent for latino youth. eighty percent of children in atlanta public schools are black. eleven percent are white and 3 percent are latino. however, only 50 percent of children in atlanta<u+2019>s gifted and talented programs are black, whereas 40 percent are white. more disturbingly, 98 percent of all students expelled from atlanta public schools during the 2009-2010 academic school year were black. these numbers taken together paint an abysmal picture of students who are disproportionately poor, over-disciplined, and systematically <u+201c>tracked<u+201d> out of high-performing classrooms. and yet we expect teachers to work magic in conditions that are set up for failure. lest you think this is merely an atlanta problem, over at the crunk feminist collective, susana morris tells a similar story of attending a predominantly black high school in florida with advanced classes that were overwhelmingly white. her story mirrors my own. in louisiana in the 1980s and 1990s, students took two standardized tests. one (the leap test) measured basic proficiency and the other (the california achievement test) measured more advanced proficiencies. in the third<u+00a0>grade, i scored 100 percent on the leap test, the only student in my overwhelmingly white class to do so. the teacher mrs. callender called me up to the front of the room and bragged about me to all the other students. that same year, on the cat test, i scored in the 89 percent percentile. meanwhile, i noticed one day during class that several of my white classmates, among them my best friend amanda, were all mysteriously led out of class and then returned later, with no explanation. when i asked amanda where she<u+2019>d been, she said school officials had made her take a test, but she wasn<u+2019>t clear what for. she never mentioned it again. the next year, fourth grade, i walked into a classroom and met beatrice gaulden, one of only three black academic teachers i would ever have. with her neon green and yellow hammer-pants, her penchant for drinking eight tall glasses of water a day, and her strict instructions each morning <u+00a0><u+2014> we were not to approach her desk, but rather to wait until she moved to a stool in the front of the room for open discussion time <u+2014> she was a wonder. mrs. gaulden is a character in most of my childhood stories of transformation because she was so pivotal to my own sense of self-worth as an outspoken, bossy, loquacious, bespectacled, ponytailed black girl in a predominantly white classroom. because of mrs. gaulden<u+2019>s instruction, my test scores leaped from the 89th percentile to the 99th percentile within one year of instruction. she never taught to the test. she simply taught. that year, the louisiana gifted and talented program came calling for me, as they had called for my friends the year before. i took the battery of tests they offered, no doubt because mrs. gaulden had asked them to look at my case. they came back to her (she would tell me years later) and told her that i had not passed the tests. she implored them to rescore my assessment. they came back to her and reported an error in their scoring. (as if.) and so i became a <u+201c>gifted and talented<u+201d> student, with even smaller classes, more specialized instruction, early opportunities to take the act and sat, and to travel. i soared with the additional resources provided by the g/t program. but my educational access was due to one magical black teacher who saw a spark in me and nurtured it. mrs. gaulden nurtured, taught and challenged all her students regardless of race, but she saw in me a black girl who needed extra guidance, and a little push, and she willingly gave it. over the past generation, we have watched the gop, helped along by an impotent democratic party, systematically dismantle funding for public education, underpay teachers, and allow local school systems to institute punitive disciplinary measures that have turned our schools into a prison pipeline. at exactly the same moment, these reformers and their political counterparts george w. bush (no child left behind) and barack obama (race to the top) have instituted high-stakes testing, tied to financial incentives for teachers, as the solution to the structural risks overwhelmingly facing children of color. meanwhile, test-cheating scandals have proliferated in locales across the country. in other urban locales like baltimore, houston and philadelphia principals and teachers were fired and/or stripped of their licenses to teach. this is a punishment that fits the crime. then there<u+2019>s michelle rhee, the famed former chancellor of d.c. public schools who was accused of creating the very same culture of fear about test scores that superintendent beverly hall has been accused of creating in atlanta. hall was charged with racketeering. so why was rhee not subject to prosecution when test-score irregularities emerged in the district? (bruce dixon was already asking as much two years ago over at black agenda report.) not only has rhee not been prosecuted, but she maintains a fairly high level of bipartisan support from conservatives and political centrists for her views on education reform. hall<u+2019>s trial was indefinitely postponed last year due to stage iv breast cancer. she died last month at 68 years old. locking up black women under the guise of caring about black children is an unbelievable move in an educational environment that systematically denies both care and opportunity to black children. locking up black women for racketeering when the system couldn<u+2019>t be bothered to lock up even one of the bankers who gave disproportionate amounts of terrible home loans to black women leading to a national economic crash and a disproportionate amount of home foreclosures among black women in 2008 is patently unjust. given that public schools are largely funded through property taxes and that black children are overwhelming reared by black single mothers, the failure to vigorously prosecute the financial institutions and lenders that gutted black neighborhoods means that the system co-signed corporate acts of institutional violence against black mothers and children, and against neighborhood schools in black communities. but now we are expected to believe that prosecuting these teachers as racketeers is an act of justice. nothing is just about making black women sacrificial lambs of an educational system hellbent on throwing black children away. the images of their handcuffed black bodies being led in shame from the courtroom gives black parents angry about the miseducation of their children a convenient target for their angst and outrage over a failing system. meanwhile, the real racket <u+2013> privatization and defunding of public schools, diversion of taxpayer resources away from education, and increasing political clout and payouts for school reformers proselytizing the false gospel of high stakes testing <u+2013> gets obscured. and white children still get educated well, either in private schools or in suburban schools funded through a solid property tax base. everything i am today, i owe to my mother and to a black teacher who saw a spark in me and nurtured it. for so many exceptionally achieving black people, a providential encounter with a black teacher is the singular thing that made the difference. no other group of people systematically and structurally love and care about black children more than black mothers and black (usually female) teachers. they have been the ones holding aloft the banner emblazoned with the revolutionary idea that black lives matter, before it was ever a slogan upon which to build a movement. an attack on black teachers is an attack on black children, black families, and black communities. we should stand in solidarity with these teachers and these students and say, <u+201c>not on our watch.<u+201d>

america is criminalizing black teachers: atlanta<u+2019>s cheating scandal and the racist underbelly of education reform

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

7.0

113.0

8.0

9599.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

587.0

3.0

0.0

178.0

0.0

60.0

21.0

24.0

12.0

23.0

17.0

22.0

11.0

38.0

42.0

61.0

597.0

181.0

60.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

a year after explosive accusations that patients had died waiting for appointments at the va medical center in phoenix, arizona, the administration<u+2019>s path to making health care more accessible for america<u+2019>s veterans remains on shaky ground. critics say a program rolled out to give certain veterans the option of government-funded private care is experiencing serious bumps: according to reports, only 27,000 vets have taken advantage of the choice card program since it was launched in november. technically, to be eligible to see a non-va doctor, a veteran must be at least 40 miles away from the nearest va hospital, or have waited at least 30 days for an appointment. but veterans groups say confusion about eligibility remains the big problem <u+2013> not everyone qualifies, but some vets who thought they would reported they were turned away. some say the process isn<u+2019>t clear, and bureaucratic red tape has led to conflicting messages to veterans about whether or not they can access the system. others have just gotten responses that weren't very helpful. air force veteran pat baughman, for example, told fox news he lives about 50 miles away from the nearest va hospital in bay springs, miss. -- approximately a one-hour drive. but when baughman called the choice card phone number last november, he was told to drive more than three hours away to a hospital in natchez, miss. <u+201c>it didn<u+2019>t make sense at all. i told them that<u+2019>s longer than what i<u+2019>m driving now. so they said they<u+2019>d get back with me,<u+201d> baughman said, adding he received a call the next day and was told to drive to another location instead -- two hours away. baughman told<u+00a0>foxnews.com<u+00a0>he finally gave up on the program and is using medicare to pay his medical bills at a local doctor. he's not alone in his frustration. according to a survey conducted by the veterans of foreign wars (vfw) in february, 80 percent of the 1,068 respondents who believed they were eligible to see a private doctor in lieu of va care found out they were not. it's unclear whether this is due mostly to misperceptions about the program by veterans, or missteps by va officials. <u+201c>here we are in march and there is a lot of confusion,<u+201d> said garry augustine, executive director of the disabled american veterans (dav), which is advocating with other major veterans organizations for some clarity in the legislation. <u+201c>i think when you rush into a new program you are going to have growing pains.<u+201d> president obama made his first visit on friday to the scandal-scarred phoenix center and referenced choice card -- praising the program, while acknowledging there was more to do in restoring trust in va programs overall. congress passed that choice card legislation last july, after an inspector general report on mismanagement and manipulation of wait-time data fueled calls for va reform. the scandal also resulted in the resignation of va secretary eric shinseki in may. cards went out to eligible vets first, and then to all 9 million vets who currently receive va care as of aug. 1 -- in case they, too, meet the eligibility standards. it is up to the card holder to call the va to see if they qualify and if so, they are then sent to a third-party administrator for a list of participating doctors. one area of confusion is that according to the rules, a veteran must be 40 miles away from the nearest va -- <u+201c>as the crow flies.<u+201d> but this can lead to unequal treatment, since residents in areas with winding roads, or simply crowded roads, could face a longer drive than others. augustine said about 500,000 should be eligible under the distance requirements, but the "as the crow flies" standard is throwing everything off. he and others are behind legislation that would clarify the rule to accommodate a 40-mile driving distance. "the va is construing the eligibility criteria as it relates to the 40-mile rule so narrowly that it is excluding too many who are far away from the care that they need,<u+201d> wrote a group of senators to va secretary robert mcdonald on feb. 25, urging him to not only consider tweaking the distance requirement, but to look at reports that veterans who need specialty care should be able to access that, even if there is a va clinic that does not provide specialists within the 40-mile spectrum. this was a problem for minnesota veteran paul walker, who has cancer. he told local kare-11 that he was turned down for private care for cancer treatment because there was a va clinic within 20 miles of his home -- but the closest va hospital which offers the treatment he needs reportedly is more than 50 miles away. "i tried using it and i got flatly turned down," said walker, who told the network that at the clinic, "all they do is dental work there and eye work and some basic kinds of different minor things... but i have cancer stage 4." so, he said, "i don't get a choice. i get to die. so, to me that's not a choice." rep. tim huelskamp, r-kan., has 63 counties and no va hospital in his district. he also is joining members in moving legislation that could help people like walker. he told mcdonald in a recent hearing that he has been fielding complaints from veterans on this issue, too. <u+201c>i got an email by a veteran who drives 340 miles one way for cardiology,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>if the va choice program can<u+2019>t provide something closer for him then we have to re-look how we are implementing<u+201d> the program. the choice card program was allocated $10 billion and is supposed to be temporary until the system gets up to speed with taking care of veterans in house, which would mean getting through the backlogs plaguing the nation<u+2019>s va hospitals. aside from the choice card, there are other separate options for veterans to access private care, but veterans have to be referred by the va directly, said augustine. sen. jerry moran, r-kan., who was one of the senators on the recent letter to mcdonald, is sponsoring a bill to clarify the 40-mile rule. he says he doesn<u+2019>t feel the va<u+2019>s heart is into providing private care. here is a link to the bill introduction if you want to put it in there: <u+201c>the concern i have is that the va has a mentality against outside care, even in the circumstances of (when veterans) can<u+2019>t get care within 30 days or within 40 miles,<u+201d> moran said in a statement. for his part, mcdonald has said he, too, is not satisfied with the low number of veterans accessing the new program and has agreed the complaints are valid. <u+201c>we<u+2019>re talking about how we can do a better way of marketing it,<u+201d> he said in the february hearing at the house veterans affairs committee. further addressing the distance issue in relation to specialty care, he said, <u+201c>distance from the place where you can<u+2019>t get the service seems like a relatively weak measure." as for the <u+201c>crow flies<u+201d> issue, <u+201c>we can look at the 40 miles, change the interpretation ... so we can make the program more robust. i am for whatever it takes to satisfy veterans.<u+201d> a representative with the va did not return a request for comment on friday. augustine says that consistency and communication and anything they can do to end the confusion <u+2013> whether it is on the va<u+2019>s end or the veteran<u+2019>s <u+2013> would be helpful.

va program to provide private care stumbling out of the gate

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

28.0

60.0

8.0

7178.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

475.0

1.0

0.0

156.0

0.0

53.0

8.0

12.0

5.0

19.0

6.0

9.0

3.0

31.0

24.0

36.0

478.0

157.0

53.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

led by conservative justice and reagan appointee, anthony kennedy, the supreme court ruled friday, in a 5-4 decision, in favor of same-sex marriage. despite the often binary depiction in the media, this decision is in fact a landmark victory for conservative principles. in fact, friday<u+2019>s decision is a momentous win for the founding principle of the republican party: individual liberty. consistent conservatives should frame their views in accordance with the fundamental belief that individuals, not governments, have the right to determine the course of their own lives. fellow conservatives, particularly within the republican party, typically do a good job arguing against totalitarian, one-size-fits-all approaches to policy. what works for a family in new york city, might not work in jenison, michigan, or tulsa, oklahoma. it is for this reason that republicans and conservatives have embraced issues such as school choice, which gives parents the right to choose the method of schooling that best fits their child<u+2019>s needs. parents, not governments, should decide what is best for their family. republicans and american conservatives have also been remarkably consistent on taxation. consistent conservatives believe people should keep more of the money they work so hard to earn<u+2014>not because the vulnerable don<u+2019>t deserve assistance, but because individuals can and will make better, and more effective financial and charitable choices with their money than government bureaucrats. the list of important conservative positions, all relating back to the fundamental principle of individual choice, goes on and on: property rights; freedom of association; and freedom of speech, etc. but when the topic of gay marriage arises, some conservatives have not been consistent.<u+00a0> the debate on marriage within the republican party has been hijacked by those who wish to dictate their beliefs onto others. rather than professing consistent, conservative beliefs, some within the party have taken to advocating for a remarkably liberal, totalitarian approach. this hypocrisy has not been lost on the electorate.<u+00a0> millennials, possibly the most naturally conservative-leaning constituency, laugh at the inconsistencies they hear coming from <u+201c>conservative<u+201d> voices on issues like gay marriage. republican presidential candidate and wisconsin governor scott walker is one of those inconsistent conservatives.<u+00a0> walker immediately lashed out at the supreme court<u+2019>s decision, proposing an astonishingly big-government response. walker called for a constitutional amendment, ensuring that politicians will forever be able to dictate whom one should or should not be able to marry. in other words, walker wants to cement the will of politicians into our daily lives. walker has taken a stunningly liberal position.<u+00a0> as conservative justice kennedy wrote in his opinion, <u+201c>marriage is a keystone of the nation<u+2019>s social order. states have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order.<u+201d> indeed, marriage today is as much as it has ever been an important, legal contract<u+2014>one which carries with it profound financial and emotional ramifications. walker, and others like him, seem to ignore the real-life implications of contemporary marriage, instead focusing solely on a religious definition of marriage with which they happen to agree. walker, like many religious conservatives, confuse civil marriage with the religious blessing of the church or synagogue.<u+00a0> in today<u+2019>s society, the word marriage means both a government document and a church<u+2019>s blessing.<u+00a0> to pretend like there is only one definition is to deny reality. confusing the issue even further, politicians have written the word <u+201c>marriage<u+201d> into the tax code, where religious conservatives erroneously assume tax benefits refer to their definition of marriage. as justice kennedy wrote in his decision, <u+201c>same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the states have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable.<u+201d> if this <u+201c>constellation of benefits<u+201d> was intended only for those wed under the auspices of the church, what right would opposite-sex couples married on the courthouse steps have to it? the answer is clearly that politicians didn<u+2019>t mean that one must have a blessed union to jointly file their taxes. republicans who profess their admiration for individual liberty<u+2014>for the power and freedom of choice and laissez faire<u+2014>must stay consistent. the only true conservative position, the individual right of marriage for all, has been affirmed by the supreme court. it<u+2019>s time for consistent conservatives to come out in favor of the court's ruling. richard grenell is a<u+00a0> fox news contributor. he served as the spokesman for four u.s. ambassadors to the u.n. including john negroponte, john danforth, john bolton and zalmay khalilzad. follow him on<u+00a0>twitter@richardgrenell.

the conservative case for gay marriage

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

38.0

8.0

4991.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

421.0

1.0

0.0

80.0

0.0

54.0

7.0

21.0

2.0

5.0

17.0

4.0

6.0

38.0

17.0

48.0

423.0

81.0

54.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the warming of the oceans due to climate change is now unstoppable after record temperatures last year, bringing additional sea-level rise, and raising the risks of severe storms, us government climate scientists said on thursday. the annual state of the climate in 2014 report, based on research from 413 scientists from 58 countries, found record warming on the surface and upper levels of the oceans, especially in the north pacific, in line with earlier findings of 2014 as the hottest year on record. global sea-level also reached a record high, with the expansion of those warming waters, keeping pace with the 3.2 <u+00b1> 0.4 mm per year trend in sea level growth over the past two decades, the report said. scientists said the consequences of those warmer ocean temperatures would be felt for centuries to come <u+2013> even if there were immediate efforts to cut the carbon emissions fuelling changes in the oceans. <u+201c>i think of it more like a fly wheel or a freight train. it takes a big push to get it going but it is moving now and will contiue to move long after we continue to pushing it,<u+201d> greg johnson, an oceanographer at noaa<u+2019>s pacific marine environmental laboratory, told a conference call with reporters. <u+201c>even if we were to freeze greenhouse gases at current levels, the sea would actually continue to warm for centuries and millennia, and as they continue to warm and expand the sea levels will continue to rise,<u+201d> johnson said. on the west coast of the us, freakishly warm temperatures in the pacific <u+2013> 4 or 5f above normal <u+2013> were already producing warmer winters, as well as worsening drought conditions by melting the snowpack, he said. the extra heat in the oceans was also contributing to more intense storms, tom karl, director of noaa<u+2019>s national centers for environmental information, said. the report underlined 2014 as a banner year for the climate, setting record or near record levels for temperature extremes, and loss of glaciers and sea ice, and reinforcing decades-old pattern to changes to the climate system. four independent data sets confirmed 2014 as the hottest year on record, with much of that heat driven by the warming of the oceans. globally 90% of the excess heat caused by the rise in greenhouse gas emissions is absorbed by the oceans. more than 20 countries in europe set new heat records, with africa, asia and australia also experiencing near-record heat. the east coast of north america was the only region to experience cooler than average conditions. alaska experienced temperatures 18f warmer than average. spring break-up came to the arctic 20-30 days earlier than the 20th century average. <u+201c>the prognosis is to expect a continuation of what we have seen,<u+201d> karl said.

warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say us scientists

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

2.0

73.0

8.0

2744.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

166.0

0.0

49.0

0.0

15.0

2.0

5.0

2.0

6.0

2.0

3.0

10.0

6.0

17.0

172.0

49.0

15.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

iran's supreme leader vowed wednesday he will not allow international inspection of iran's military sites or access to iranian scientists under any nuclear agreement with world powers. ayatollah ali khamenei told military commanders wednesday that iran will resist "coercion and excessive demands" from america and other world powers. negotiators from iran and a six nation group <u+2014> the u.s., russia, china, britain, france and germany <u+2014> have launched a new round of talks in vienna focused on reaching a final deal that curbs iran's nuclear program in return for lifting economic sanctions. the two sides reached a framework agreement in march and hope to strike a final deal by june 30. a fact sheet on the framework accord issued by the u.s. state department said iran would be required to grant the u.n. nuclear agency access to any "suspicious sites." but khamenei indicated that the americans are increasing their demands that international inspection of iran's military sites and interviews with iranian scientists be included in the final deal. "the impudent and brazen enemy expects that we allow them talk to our scientists and researchers about a fundamental local achievement but no such permission will be allowed," khamenei told military commanders in tehran wednesday, in remarks broadcast on state tv. "no inspection of any military site or interview with nuclear scientists will be allowed." khamenei said interviewing iranian nuclear scientists would be an affront to iran's dignity. "i will not allow foreigners to interview <u+2014> which is tantamount to interrogation <u+2014> the prominent beloved scientists and sons of this nation," he said. ali akbar velayati, a senior adviser to khamenei, was quoted by iranian media this week as accusing the americans of changing their position and toughening their stance as the deadline approaches. "they insist on crossing (our) red lines. this turns into an obstacle," velayati was quoted as saying

iran's leader rejects foreign access to military sites, scientists

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

66.0

8.0

1959.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

180.0

0.0

28.0

2.0

0.0

20.0

9.0

5.0

3.0

10.0

4.0

3.0

15.0

11.0

16.0

187.0

28.0

22.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington (cnn) he cut billions in taxes, intervened in controversial abortion cases, railed against affirmative action and gun control and dreamed of a state capital in which government buildings would forever be drained of unneeded workers. yet the biggest barrier between former florida gov. jeb bush and the white house may be a perception that -- despite his record -- he's not conservative enough for today's republicans. "many things he's said have rubbed conservatives raw," said morton blackwell, a republican national committee member from virginia, who said a lot of base voters were particularly suspicious of bush's departures from party orthodoxy on education and immigration. bush's presidential hopes are complicated by multiple factors. as the son and brother of former presidents, he's undeniably part of an establishment that is loathed in many corners of the gop base. the party has also shifted rightward in the years since he left office under the influence of the tea party, and activists have embraced populist conservatives like sarah palin and ted cruz. but bush, 61, is also facing an uphill battle because his time running florida seems fuzzy to many people -- particularly gop primary voters. that's in part because he has yet to highlight the most conservative aspects of his 1999 to 2007 governorship. and the issues that he's most vocal about -- the common core education standards and immigration reform -- are the positions that most infuriate conservatives. glenn mccall, a south carolina rnc member, says activists in his state aren't interested in bush's record. whether he talks about it or not, bush's legacy in florida will come under sharper scrutiny as he makes moves to launch a presidential campaign. that's especially true if mitt romney mounts a third white house bid and campaigns to bush's right. bush will mark a rite of passage for republican presidential candidates next wednesday by addressing the detroit economic club. ahead of that speech, he's beginning to make the kind of arguments for small government that closely echo his rhetoric from his days in florida. "our government gets in the way each and every day," he said in a speech in san francisco last week. "it is time to challenge every aspect of how government works, how it taxes, how it regulates, how it spends." those who know bush believe his record in florida could be a tool to blunt attacks from conservatives and lay to rest -- once and for all -- the idea that he isn't one of them. "he was in no way a moderate," said florida political strategist mike hanna, who advised bush during his gubernatorial runs. "after governor bush gets out there and starts to introduce himself to the voters of iowa, new hampshire, south carolina and other states, i think they will realize ... he is a card-carrying, unabashed, capitalist conservative." john dowless, who headed the christian coalition in the sunshine state while bush was governor, said "there is no question that jeb bush was and is a conservative. there never was a question in florida." but talking about that conservatism hasn't always come easy to bush. during his first gubernatorial campaign in 1994, his attempts to demonstrate his politics were brash and sometimes clumsy. not only did he advocate for abolishing the department of education, for voter approval of all new taxes, and "privatization in every area where privatization is possible," he also suggested welfare reforms that would have cut recipients' access to benefits after two years. his 1994 pronouncements on gay rights haunt his image to this day. during that failed first campaign, he argued in the miami herald that there was no need for "special categories" to protect members of the gay and lesbian community. should "sodomy be elevated to the same constitutional status as race and religion?" he asked in one controversial line. "my answer is no." bush's narrow loss that year to popular democratic gov. lawton chiles prompted deep self-reflection before his next try in 1998. he later admitted he had run with "unvarnished conservative views" and needed to become a better storyteller. by the time he left office after two terms he was more comfortable laying out his conservative vision -- and he had approval ratings of over 60%. bush's politics also evolved after his conversion to catholicism, his wife's religion, in the mid-1990s, which strengthened his resolve on issues like abortion. in 2009, after leaving office, he explained that he admired "the fact that the catholic church believes in and acts on absolute truth as its foundational principles and doesn't move with modern times as my former religion did." he also spoke disapprovingly of politicians who put their religion "in a safety deposit box" while in office. in san francisco, he said his faith gave him "serenity" and was hugely important during tough times as governor. perhaps the most controversial aspect of bush's record in florida is his use of muscular executive power on social issues that are important to conservatives. backed by a pliant republican legislature, he vigorously sought restrictions on abortion while governor -- from a ban on late-term procedures to a constitutional amendment that would circumvent the courts, which had struck down a law requiring girls notify their parents before getting an abortion. bush's abortion activism shocked some state officials who believed he was reaching beyond the powers of his office. in 2003, bush unsuccessfully tried to get the courts to appoint a guardian for the fetus of a 22-year-old disabled woman with cerebral palsy and autism, who became pregnant after being raped by an operator of a state-supervised group home. in 2005, he intervened in the case of 13-year-old girl, known as l.g., who was a ward of the state and was 13<u+00bd> weeks pregnant when she tried to get an abortion. bush fought hard to prevent the procedure, but was overruled by a judge. shortly after those episodes bush told republicans at the 2005 georgia gop convention that "there is such a thing as right and wrong." "republicans cannot continue to win unless we talk with compassion and passion about absolute truth," he said. that principle clearly guided bush's extraordinary intervention in the case of terri schiavo, a mentally impaired woman deemed in a "chronic vegetative state." schiavo's parents, bob and mary schindler -- with aid from then-governor bush -- repeatedly tried to prevent schiavo's husband from removing her feeding tube to end her life. after five years of litigation in 2003, bush tried to get a different court-appointed guardian for schiavo and filed a friend of the court brief to block removal of the feeding tube. he lost that round, but then persuaded the legislature to pass a law giving him the power to prevent a feeding tube or hydration device from being removed from a patient who had not laid out their end-of-life directives. in the midst of the debate, bush proclaimed that he was "probably the most pro-life governor in modern times," according to associated press reports. after the feeding tube was reinserted, michael schiavo's attorney railed against the "gross and illegal intrusion into the private liberty of citizens" and the florida supreme court ruled that hastily drafted state law was unconstitutional. the florida governor kept pushing the case through all possible avenues, including action by congress and then-president george w. bush. ultimately, he lost. in polls, many florida voters said they felt bush had gone too far, but his actions were based on "personal and religious tenets from which he could not retreat," said mac stipanovich, a republican political strategist who advised bush during the 1994 campaign. those battles suggest that he is unlikely to back away from his positions on controversial issues like immigration and common core, even during a heated presidential campaign. bush "will change his mind about stuff, but it is grudgingly, fact-based and he really thinks about it," stipanovich said. "he seldom looks for the path of least resistance." while bush's catholicism looms large in his social policy, his economic approach is molded by his lifetime immersion in top-level republican politics. jeb bush closely observed president ronald reagan, a conservative icon who he later termed "spectacular," when his father was vice president. in office in florida, bush took as his model reagan's mantra that government was not the solution to america's problems, but the problem itself. during his second inaugural address in 2003, he gazed out at government offices and said "there would be no greater tribute to our maturity as a society than if we make these buildings around us empty of workers, silent monuments to a time when government played a larger role than it deserved or could adequately fill." over the course of eight years, bush signed into law $19 billion in tax cuts. he sought to privatize key government providers, including foster care, state parks and even legal aid to death row prisoners. his business-friendly state's bonds were top-rated. he reshaped florida by wiping out 13,000 government jobs and vetoing $2 billion in new spending, an economic approach influenced by the conservative gospels of milton friedman. he enforced conservative solutions on taxes, gun control, dismantling affirmative action in universities, taking on teachers unions over testing and performance. but despite all this, bush faces an important question as he embarks on a presidential run: will he get a hearing among grassroots activists who view his support for immigration reform as akin to amnesty for illegal immigrants and his backing of common core as an unacceptable embrace of state power? "is there enough space in our media environment in the republican primaries for people to listen to his entire record?" asked matthew corrigan, author of a new book on bush's tenure in florida, "conservative hurricane." or "will his opponents be able to yell amnesty and federal government control of education and not pay attention to anything else?" blackwell said he believed that it would simply not be possible for bush to convince the base he truly has the conscience of a conservative. "we've been down this road repeatedly before with members of his family who ran like they were going to be movement conservatives," he said. "but his father broke the no new taxes pledge and his brother expanded federal programs in various directions, which conservatives didn't like." tea party supporters, who could be important in some early voting states like iowa and south carolina, are also worried that the former florida governor not only does not reflect their views -- but is not listening to them. they warn a ticket topped by bush could face lukewarm republican turnout in a general election. laurie newsom, president of the gainesville, florida, tea party, noted that many in the grass roots were disappointed by the performance of republicans who had professed their conservative fiscal bona fides -- like president george w. bush -- and had unhappily accepted previous gop nominees, john mccain and mitt romney. "we have held our noses and voted in '08 and '12," newsom said. "jeb bush -- he hasn't got a prayer. poor jeb has clouds hanging over his head right now." but bush is warning that the republican party simply will not win in 2016 if it does not offer a positive vision for the future, despite boiling conservative resentment at washington. "we are not going to win votes as republicans unless you lay out a hopeful, optimistic message," he said in san francisco. "a positive agenda wins out against anger and reaction every day of the week."

is jeb bush conservative enough?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

6.0

32.0

8.0

11762.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

877.0

0.0

212.0

0.0

65.0

20.0

27.0

15.0

27.0

17.0

23.0

8.0

51.0

55.0

79.0

880.0

212.0

65.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

jeb bush and mitt romney have much in common. both were pragmatic as governors, mild-mannered as candidates and more comfortable balancing budgets at their desks than clinking glasses at a political dinner. the two republican leaders<u+2019> personal rapport is cordial. but they are hardly chummy <u+2014> and at moments their relationship has been strained, with each man<u+2019>s intertwined political network carrying some grievances with the other<u+2019>s. as bush, 61, and romney, 67, explore presidential campaigns in 2016, they are like boxers warming up for what could become a brutal bout, sizing each other up and mulling whether or when to step into the ring. their early maneuvering reveals a level of competitiveness and snippiness that stems from a long history following similar career paths in business and politics prescribed by their dynastic families. <u+201c>we<u+2019>re seeing the first shots of the war between clan romney and clan bush,<u+201d> said alex castellanos, a republican strategist who has worked for both men. <u+201c>both bring to the battle incredibly powerful fan clubs as well as wounds they have to heal. how ugly could it get? you<u+2019>re only competing to lead the free world.<u+201d> bush has been trying to consolidate support among establishment donors, leaders and operatives since announcing in december that he would begin laying the groundwork for a likely campaign. <u+201c>the bush connection is a centrifugal force, and it<u+2019>s drawing back a whole generation of public servants and politicos,<u+201d> said former utah governor jon huntsman, one of romney<u+2019>s 2012 opponents. but on friday, romney sought to slam the brakes on bush, telling about 30 powerful donors that he, too, was seriously considering a 2016 bid. <u+201c>i want to be president,<u+201d> he said, adding that his wife, ann, was supportive. romney has begun methodically calling donors, staff members and endorsers from his two prior campaigns to measure how deep his reservoir of support would be if he runs for a third time, his advisers said. he also has scheduled a series of public speeches, including a jan.<u+00a0>28 address at mississippi state university. the entry of both bush and romney is far from certain, and romney<u+2019>s dalliance is preliminary. but the prospect of two center-right heavyweights entering a 2016 field likely to be fluid, crowded and diverse forces other contenders and the party<u+2019>s stable of donors to adjust their thinking. <u+201c>awkward,<u+201d> was the reaction from several past romney supporters when they learned he was weighing a 2016 campaign. if both he and bush run, they would occupy similar space as favorites of the party brass and business community. <u+201c>the abundance of great candidates developing on the republican side is making life very tough for me because i<u+2019>m going to have to choose amongst friends,<u+201d> said former new hampshire governor john h. sununu, who was white house chief of staff under bush<u+2019>s father but a top campaign surrogate for romney. but, sununu added, <u+201c>it<u+2019>s applesauce right now. let<u+2019>s not try to pick up applesauce and move it to the other side of the plate.<u+201d> the two candidates would invite comparisons to each other, which could be tense for bush, who was sharply critical of romney<u+2019>s 2012 campaign <u+2014> in particular, his lack of outreach to minorities <u+2014> and has pledged to run a more inclusive and transparent campaign. <u+201c>a romney-bush race could end up being nastier than jeb against someone like ted cruz or rand paul,<u+201d> bill kristol, editor of the weekly standard, said of the texas and kentucky senators. <u+201c>a cruz-bush race is pretty straightforward and ideological. a romney-bush race would be more personal <u+2014> about whose turn it is and who is owed it.<u+201d> associates of both men insist there is no animosity between them and that each will make his decision about a 2016 run irrespective of the other. <u+201c>governor bush respects governor romney,<u+201d> said bush spokeswoman kristy campbell, who worked on romney<u+2019>s 2012 campaign. <u+201c>his process moving forward won<u+2019>t be impacted by governor romney<u+2019>s decision to explore a run <u+2014> and i would assume it is the same on the reverse side.<u+201d> beth myers, a longtime adviser to romney, said he and bush have been friends since 2002, when romney was elected to his first term as massachusetts governor and bush to his second as florida governor. <u+201c>mitt has great respect for jeb<u+2019>s ability and integrity, and they<u+2019>ve worked together many times over the years to promote conservative principles,<u+201d> myers said. <u+201c>at the end of the day, whatever decision mitt makes about running for president, i<u+2019>m 100<u+00a0>percent certain he will still value and maintain his friendship with jeb.<u+201d> mitt and ann romney also have nurtured a friendship with bush<u+2019>s parents, former president george h.w. bush and his wife, barbara. in 2007, when romney gave a personal speech on his mormon faith, which had become a touchy issue with evangelical christian voters, he did so at the george bush presidential library in college station, tex., where he was warmly introduced by the 41st president. working on romney<u+2019>s 2008 primary campaign were several jeb bush lieutenants: sally bradshaw, bush<u+2019>s longtime political adviser; ann herberger, a miami-based fundraiser; and al cardenas, a fixture in florida republican politics. all three stayed out of romney<u+2019>s 2012 campaign, although cardenas, then the chairman of the american conservative union, endorsed him as the primaries were ending. the bush-romney family dynamic has been one of intrigue and ambition, dating at least to the 1950s, when romney<u+2019>s father, george romney, then president of american motors, was striving to make political connections as he eyed a run for office. in 1957, romney wrote a letter to prescott bush, jeb<u+2019>s grandfather then serving in the senate from connecticut, urging him to test-drive a rambler or a metropolitan. both were popular amc models, and romney told bush the latter got 40 miles to the gallon, according to car-industry historian patrick r. foster<u+2019>s book <u+201c>the metropolitan story.<u+201d> but, foster writes, it remains unknown whether the efforts resulted in a sale <u+2014> or even if romney<u+2019>s solicitation drew any notice in bush<u+2019>s office. in recent weeks, mitt romney and jeb bush have been quietly trying to ascertain the other<u+2019>s motives and playbook. bush has asked romney<u+2019>s former donors about what romney is up to, while romney met shortly before christmas with bush strategist mike murphy and inquired about bush<u+2019>s preparations, according to political consultants who know romney and bush. romney has said little publicly about bush, but in exchanges with intimates, he has focused on bush<u+2019>s past advisory work for lehman brothers and barclays, two major financial institutions. he argued that it makes bush vulnerable to the same kind of democratic attacks that he faced in 2012 over his career as bain capital co-founder and chief executive. he also has voiced doubts about bush<u+2019>s political skills and ability to beat likely democratic candidate hillary rodham clinton. ana navarro, a gop operative and bush confidant, said: <u+201c>i<u+2019>m not going to get worked up over comments romney has allegedly made to donors behind closed doors <u+2014> yet. we all know he sometimes misspeaks.<u+201d> bush has vowed to more vigorously defend his business record than romney did. comparing their careers is like <u+201c>comparing an apple to a peanut,<u+201d> bush said in a december interview with a miami television station. those comments irritated romney<u+2019>s family and loyalists, who took them as a slight against his career managing a complicated enterprise on a scale far larger than bush<u+2019>s business dealings, according to romney associates. bush also is considering releasing a decade or more of his tax returns after romney faced heat for only reluctantly releasing two years of his returns. and bush has advocated a more welcoming message on immigration reform than romney<u+2019>s hard-right position, which he criticized in 2012. <u+201c>he got sucked into other people<u+2019>s agendas, and i think it hurt him a little bit,<u+201d> bush said in the tv interview. he added, <u+201c>winning with purpose, winning with meaning, winning with your integrity is what i<u+2019>m trying to talk about.<u+201d> before announcing his 2012 campaign, romney, sensing that immigration policy would be a contentious issue in the primaries, sought bush<u+2019>s advice. <u+201c>i went to see jeb, i flew down to see him, and said: <u+2018>i<u+2019>d like to take immigration off the issue list for the primaries. and wouldn<u+2019>t it be great if republicans could come up with an immigration plan that all of the contenders could say, yeah, i agree. and then we could sweep that aside,<u+2019><u+2009><u+201d> romney told the washington post<u+2019>s dan balz in an interview for his book <u+201c>collision 2012.<u+201d> <u+201c>we were unable to get there,<u+201d> romney continued. <u+201c>i mean, there just wasn<u+2019>t enough consensus among republicans generally.<u+201d> as bush and romney explore a run, whispering into their ears are two political professionals with big egos, eccentric personalities and a long-simmering rivalry: romney<u+2019>s stuart stevens and bush<u+2019>s murphy. they are fierce competitors with roots in each other<u+2019>s turf. stevens worked on george w. bush<u+2019>s presidential campaigns, while murphy worked on romney<u+2019>s 2002 gubernatorial campaign. members of bush<u+2019>s team have not forgotten stevens<u+2019>s role in bush<u+2019>s 1994 gubernatorial race, which became bush<u+2019>s lowest point politically. stevens advised one of bush<u+2019>s primary opponents, jim smith, who waged a bruising tv ad assault against bush over his business experience and character. <u+201c>this begins the destruction of jeb bush,<u+201d> stevens told the new york times as the ads began. bush won the primary, but he didn<u+2019>t win the governorship until four years later. during the 2012 campaign, murphy mocked stevens on twitter as romney struggled in the primaries against relatively weak opponents. more recently, romney backers have been murmuring fresh questions about murphy<u+2019>s work for the political action committee of former new york mayor michael r. bloomberg (i), who is anathema to the conservative base. some romney allies are bitter that bush was slow to endorse romney in 2012. in the run-up to the florida primary, with romney fighting to beat back a surge from newt gingrich, bush sat on the sidelines when romney<u+2019>s team thought he could have made a difference. romney called, e-mailed and met privately with bush to try to win him over, but he could not be convinced. <u+201c>i voted absentee,<u+201d> bush said on cnn. <u+201c>and thank god it<u+2019>s a secret ballot.<u+201d> romney won florida nevertheless, and by the time bush announced his endorsement, on march<u+00a0>21, the day after romney<u+2019>s decisive victory in the illinois primary, the nomination was all but officially his. bush called romney on his cellphone, with no tip-off from an emissary, and their talk was brief, according to aides. back at headquarters, advisers were pleased by the news, but grumbling still, wondering why it had taken so long.

for jeb bush and mitt romney, a history of ambition fuels a possible 2016 collision

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

5.0

83.0

8.0

10837.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

781.0

1.0

0.0

178.0

2.0

0.0

99.0

20.0

31.0

11.0

17.0

16.0

11.0

8.0

49.0

34.0

62.0

789.0

179.0

101.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

republicans taking control of congress this coming week will try to overcome their reputation as a divided party hobbled by infighting by working to reshape policy in ways that americans will feel in corporate boardrooms, on factory floors and at the gas pump. incoming committee chairmen are preparing fresh oversight of federal agencies while rank-and-file members will be encouraged to use a new budget plan and government spending bills to chip away at president obama<u+2019>s environmental regulations, health-care reform and outreach to cuba and iran. after years of sparring with the white house, republicans are eager to demonstrate productivity and some level of bipartisan <u+00ad>cooperation with obama and the democrats. public disgust with washington gridlock remains high, and with the 2016 presidential campaign beginning in earnest, broader voter interest <u+2014> especially among independents and democrats <u+2014> could put recent gop gains at risk in less than two years. <u+201c>on the things where we agree, the goal will be to make a law, not just put something on [obama<u+2019>s] desk,<u+201d> incoming senate majority leader mitch mcconnell (r-ky.) said in an interview, adding later: <u+201c>i want to make it clear: desire for a signature is not going to dictate everything that we do.<u+201d> securing final passage of bills will require mcconnell and house speaker john a. boehner (r-ohio) to compromise with democrats while holding together their own ranks, which have clashed repeatedly over issues such as spending and immigration. many gop leaders hope that their differences can be set aside in favor of legislative wins. the house and senate formally reconvene tuesday. new members will be sworn in and top leaders and committee chairmen formally installed on a day steeped in tradition and ceremony. boehner and mcconnell will be backed by larger gop majorities: 246 republicans in the house <u+2014> the party<u+2019>s largest majority since just after world war ii <u+2014> and 54 gop senators, an impressive gain but short of the 60 votes required to overcome most procedural hurdles that democrats will have at their disposal. in the senate, the rebranding effort will begin with energy policy. mcconnell plans to start his tenure as senate majority leader with a <u+201c>full-throated<u+201d> debate on national energy policy, ranging from a new oil pipeline to additional oil exploration. he has also promised consideration of liberal alternatives. mcconnell wants to use the controversial proposal to authorize construction of the keystone xl pipeline as the gen<u+00ad>esis for a free-wheeling senate debate about the united states<u+2019> energy future, in which both sides will have the opportunity to offer and debate more expansive energy issues than the narrow pipeline proposal. <u+201c>we can treat this like a serious and significant energy debate,<u+201d> mcconnell said in an interview before christmas in his capitol office. obama has resisted gop efforts to authorize the pipeline, but dozens of moderate congressional democrats support the bill and a broader energy debate. other democrats are skeptical of mcconnell<u+2019>s plans. <u+201c>the $64,000 question as to whether the congress can get anything done is which way the republican leadership goes,<u+201d> sen. charles e. schumer (d-n.y.) said in an interview saturday. <u+201c>if they let the tea party pull them to the right into the path of negativity and obstruction, we<u+2019>ll get nothing done.<u+201d> sen. john hoeven (r-n.d.), a lead author of the keystone bill, said that republicans plan to consider proposals allowing the export of liquefied natural gas; to give state governments greater power to oversee hydraulic fracturing; and to restrict the federal government<u+2019>s role in the construction of cross-border gas pipelines. <u+201c>i don<u+2019>t think we have an energy bill that doesn<u+2019>t have a democratic co-sponsor on it,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>because at the end of the day you<u+2019>ve got to get at least 60 votes<u+201d> to clear procedural hurdles. the open process is part of mcconnell<u+2019>s effort to live up to his pledge to restore the senate<u+2019>s grand tradition of free and full debate, while also advancing conservative causes. a skilled practitioner in the use of the senate<u+2019>s arcane procedural rules to move or block legislation, mcconnell has pledged to use those rules to score conservative wins. he has been coaching gop senators that their most likely path to wins will come on the annual spending bills for the federal government <u+2014> which republicans have routinely opposed on the grounds that they spend too much taxpayer money. other party leaders echo those sentiments. <u+201c>i think a majority [of republicans] recognize that we have to govern responsibly,<u+201d> said sen. john mccain (r-ariz.), who will become chairman of the armed services committee. <u+201c>we have to show that we can be a productive party, and that, i think, will have a direct effect on whether we<u+2019>re able to elect a republican as president in 2016.<u+201d> but now, with control of the house and senate, republicans have more leeway to attach policy riders to spending bills that will restrict federal agencies in their oversight of environmental, labor and other regulations. these still may draw presidential vetoes, but mcconnell believes that republicans will have leverage to get some restrictions included, just as the mammoth spending measure approved last month included language sought by wall street firms making risky trades. in the house, most of the early weeks will seem like a do-over of the past two years <u+2014> except that many of the bills passed will get swifter senate consideration. up first is a veterans employment bill that passed last year with bipartisan support, according to senior leadership aides. there is also a bill to loosen work requirements set by the affordable care act and a similar bill to authorize the keystone pipeline. the second week of january will be devoted to a new spending plan for the department of homeland security. the spending bill funds dhs only until the end of february, a move designed to give republicans more time to craft a legislative response to obama<u+2019>s decision to change immigration policy through executive actions. but no specific proposals have emerged, the aides said. then there are the investigations into alleged wrongdoing at agencies including the internal revenue service, the justice department and the environmental protection agency. <u+201c>there are issues that haven<u+2019>t been resolved,<u+201d> said rep. jason chaffetz (r-utah), the new chairman of the house oversight and government reform committee. he is launching subcommittees to closely track obama<u+2019>s energy and environmental policies and created <u+201c>administrative rules,<u+201d> a panel that will <u+201c>try to figure out what the administration is doing next with its rule-making authority. we<u+2019>re going to jump on those as fast as we possibly can,<u+201d> he said. before the work begins, boehner is expected to face another leadership challenge. after he survived a close call two years ago, conservative blogs and radio shows are actively supporting another effort to unseat him. presuming that the 434 currently seated house members show up to vote tuesday and that all democrats vote against him, at least 28 of the 246 republicans also would need to vote against boehner to deny him the gavel. (the 435th house seat is held by rep. michael g. grimm (r-n.y.), who plans to resign monday after recently pleading guilty to tax evasion charges.) rep. walter b. jones (r-n.c.), who opposed boehner two years ago, said in a recent radio interview that he<u+2019>ll do it again, adding that at least 16 to 18 republican members might vote against the speaker. among them is rep. jim bridenstine (r-okla.), who said friday that he will vote against the speaker because the spending bill passed last month didn<u+2019>t fully strip dhs of its funding. rep. tom cole (r-okla.), a boehner ally, said in an interview that <u+201c>i expect a few scattered <u+2018>no<u+2019> votes. but because boehner has been strengthened by the gains in the election, the speaker election should mostly be an uneventful coronation.<u+201d> the opening weeks of the new congress are also expected to include the confirmation of ashton carter, obama<u+2019>s pick to lead the pentagon, and loretta lynch to be the next attorney general. concerns with iran are also expected to be an early focus. the obama administration persuaded senate democrats last year to hold off debating a bipartisan proposal authorizing stronger sanctions against the iranian regime. but sen. bob corker (r-tenn.), the incoming chairman of the foreign relations committee, said, <u+201c>my guess is fairly early on in some form or fashion the senate<u+2019>s going to want to weigh in on iran.<u+201d> corker also plans to launch <u+201c>a rigorous hearing process<u+201d> on obama<u+2019>s decision to restore diplomatic relations with cuba. republicans have threatened to block funding for a new embassy in havana and confirmation of a new ambassador to cuba. but obama could veto spending bills that include such restrictions, sparking a showdown over whether the gop is willing to shutter parts of the government over a new cuba policy. in 2016, republicans will be defending at least 24 senate seats and about a dozen first-term house members from swing districts around the country. party leaders have a political imperative to govern and avoid short-term fights with obama. <u+201c>we will see if there is an opportunity for a fourth quarter for president obama that actually moves the country in the direction we<u+2019>d like to go,<u+201d> said sen. roger wicker (r-miss.), who also will be responsible for helping reelect gop senators in 2016. <u+201c>reagan did it a generation ago working with democrats. clinton did it almost two decades ago with welfare reform and deficit reduction,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>so it can be done <u+2014> if the president is disposed to move in that direction.<u+201d>

what will republicans do when they take full control of congress?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

12.0

65.0

8.0

9747.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

636.0

2.0

0.0

140.0

1.0

0.0

60.0

16.0

24.0

10.0

19.0

14.0

13.0

11.0

53.0

34.0

75.0

638.0

142.0

61.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

donald trump finally made some bold and provocative claims that were largely true, and the republican party finally closed ranks to attack him. saying mexican immigrants are rapists didn't do it. calling for a return of torture didn't do it. calling for a ban on muslim immigration didn't do it. raising questions about barack obama's status as an american citizen didn't do it. pretending that thousands of muslims in new jersey cheered 9/11 didn't do it. so what did? trump said that invading iraq was a disaster, that the country was misled into invading iraq by the bush administration, and that the claim that bush kept the country safe from terrorism is ridiculous because 9/11 happened on his watch. it was a bizarre and telling moment, in which the battered forces of the republican establishment finally picked themselves up off the floor specifically in order to defend some of its least defensible conduct of the 21st century. "they lied," trump said. "they said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. and they knew there were none. there were no weapons of mass destruction." "while donald trump was building a reality tv show," jeb bush retorted, "my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. and i'm proud of what he did." then trump cut in with his uppercut: "the world trade center came down during your brother's reign. remember that?" a chorus of boos echoed forth from the crowd packed with establishment republicans by the state party. even better for bush, marco rubio <u+2014> in most respects his most deadly rival in the primary <u+2014> stepped in to back him up. "i just want to say, at least on behalf of me and my family, i thank god all the time it was george w. bush in the white house on 9/11, and not al gore," he said. according to rubio, the president to blame for 9/11 was not the president who was in office on 9/11; it was the guy who left office nine months earlier. "the world trade center came down because bill clinton didn<u+2019>t kill osama bin laden when he had the chance to kill him." the audience loved this, and were mightily displeased when trump observed: "george bush had the chance also, and he didn't listen to the advice of his cia." i won't even hazard a guess as to whether this double-sided exchange helped or hurt trump. watching it on television, you'd think republicans there hated everything he had to say. but the reality is that the in-studio audience was hand-picked by the state party and seemingly stuffed with bush supporters. but if it did go badly for trump, what's fascinating is that it went badly in exactly the kind of way you would have expected trump's campaign to go south months ago. he went way outside the boundaries of the kinds of things republican party politicians normally say, and in response republican party politicians (and their backers in the state party) piled on to diss him. a political party, after all, is a coalition of like-minded people. when you step outside their zone of comfort and say things they wouldn't say, they team up to crush you. it was primary politics as it was supposed to be. and it made for a striking contrast with previous debates that had consisted largely of the establishment-friendly candidates bashing each other on the theory that whoever came out of the "establishment lane" would then face down trump one on one at some later date. chris christie's murder-suicide attack on rubio's repetition of talking points was the highest-profile example of this establishment fratricide, but in truth it's dominated the entire campaign, leaving republicans with not much more than wishful thinking as their anti-trump plan. the strange thing is that after months of watching trump say things that are racist, absurd, patently false, or all three at once, the republican party establishment decided to stomp on him for saying things that are basically true. most obviously, george w. bush clearly was in office on 9/11. repeated invocations of the notion that he "kept us safe" have managed to make this a controversial claim, but i promise you that it is true. he was inaugurated in january, and was serving as president on the morning of 9/11 when the terrorist attack momentarily interrupted his reading of my pet goat. bush received repeated warnings about al-qaeda plots against the united states, and his administration was given a plan to tackle al-qaeda and the taliban that it rejected as a holdover from the clinton administration and a distraction from bigger problems. trump's claim that the bush administration positively knew there were no wmds in iraq is more dubious, but it's unquestionably true that the sort of wmd programs the white house said existed weren't found and that the administration's public presentations of intelligence findings were highly skewed and selective. by trump standards <u+2014> this is a man, after all, who claims he can make mexico pay for the construction of thousands of miles of border wall <u+2014> these arguments are tame. indeed, almost banal. for months now, republicans have wondered how trump could be winning by claiming up was down. but this was exactly how they won in their mid-aughts heyday <u+2014> slamming decorated war hero john kerry for cowardice, claiming to have kept the country safe while presiding over the worst terrorist attack in american history, and responding by invading an unrelated country in order to dismantle a nuclear weapons program that didn't exist. when trump contradicted the republican party's most cherished form of up-is-downism, the party establishment finally got its groove back and handed him arguably his worst evening of the entire campaign. but they also proved to everyone else that pointing out that bush was in office on 9/11 is a red line for the gop establishment in a way that concocting a story about jersey city muslims celebrating the attacks wasn't.

trump finally went too far for republicans

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

42.0

8.0

5890.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

435.0

0.0

123.0

0.0

52.0

20.0

23.0

14.0

22.0

19.0

15.0

14.0

31.0

34.0

41.0

437.0

123.0

52.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

mothers lauren ioli (l.) and julie nardi read to their children in the public library in frederick, md., which holds story time for children on tuesdays. like other cities, frederick still has many middle-income jobs, but they are harder to find. in cincinnati, steve raven has just moved his family into a faster economic lane. he recently started a truck-driving job that pays a lot better than his previous work making shock absorbers. it comes with solid health insurance, the hope of more vacation travel, and the prospect of his pay rising further from here. in san francisco, jessica beard is also doing work she<u+2019>s excited about, but the similarities stop there. her job title is adjunct professor, but the not-so-lofty reality is that her teaching schedule in english literature is uncertain from one semester to the next <u+2013> and so is her income and her health insurance. she says she<u+2019>s making less than she did in another job she had 15 years ago. in maryland, hope harley is a young student at frederick community college. she<u+2019>s hopeful about earning a good living, and about the economy getting better for most people in general. but she adds a cautionary qualifier: <u+201c>i feel like if you don<u+2019>t go to college, you won<u+2019>t have a good life.<u+201d> she<u+2019>s carefully choosing among some career options in health care, while working as a receptionist to avoid taking on student debt. three people, three stories. but together they provide a pretty good hint of the blend of progress and tribulation that defines today<u+2019>s middle class in the united states <u+2013> including those who aspire to it and those who aren<u+2019>t sure they<u+2019>re in it. the old image of the <u+201c>middle class<u+201d> as an aspirational state of being <u+2013> upward mobility coupled with a measure of financial stability <u+2013> hasn<u+2019>t disappeared. but it<u+2019>s under stress as much as at any time in the postwar era. fewer americans these days call themselves middle class, and many who do use that label see it as a badge of struggle as much as a badge of opportunity. the middle class is being redefined partly by demographics. in 1970, fully 40 percent of us households were married couples with at least one child under 18 years old. by 2012 that share had declined to 20 percent of us households <u+2013> a shift that includes more single-parent breadwinners. it<u+2019>s also being redefined by a changing job market <u+2013> notably by the rising importance of education on r<u+00e9>sum<u+00e9>s, as well as the disappearance of punch-the-timecard jobs in offices and factories that once produced comfortable lifestyles but were vulnerable to automation. all this doesn<u+2019>t mean that living standards for average middle-income families are languishing in a state of permanent deterioration. a good deal of evidence suggests that<u+2019>s not the case. and while some deride the insecurity of the gig economy <u+2013> the growing legions of people doing freelance, contract, temporary, or other independent work <u+2013> the changing job market has a bright side for many americans: greater flexibility, creativity, and self-determination for one<u+2019>s career. in fact, optimism about the future persists among moderate-income americans to a degree that may seem surprising. it has just been tempered. the new watchword is realism <u+2013> the awareness that the economically ascendant america of the baby boomers has now been superseded by an era of sluggish wage growth and financial setbacks. people who saw the dot-com boom go bust, and then the housing boom collapse, are more focused on carefully managing their debt and careers than on becoming the next warren buffett. workers have little faith that their employer will look out for them. so they are finding ways to either look out for themselves, look out for each other, or both. from maryland to california, americans are longing to see a patent-leather shine return to the american dream. that<u+2019>s why the challenges of average americans loom as a central issue in the budding 2016 presidential race. both republican and democratic candidates talk with varying degrees of passion about the need to rebuild the middle class. they just have different blueprints for how to do it. yet beneath all the political rhetoric and nagging insecurities, myths endure about just how doomed today<u+2019>s middle class really is, while other forces at work weighing on americans<u+2019> living standards may be getting too little attention. it<u+2019>s a paradox of the 21st century:<u+00a0>alongside all the anxiety felt by millions of working families, the <u+201c>stuff<u+201d> that symbolizes middle-class life is as ubiquitous as ever. americans live in larger houses, drive better cars, are better educated, and have more choices from clothing to recreation than ever before. everyone, it seems, has a smartphone in his or her pocket and a billboard-size tv on the wall. yet stagnation in real incomes has many people feeling that a middle-class life is harder to sustain, or at least more precarious. and many firmly believe living standards are falling. just ask maurice evans. he<u+2019>s sitting on a shady stoop in downtown frederick, a small maryland city with a sizable middle class and a cluster of historic church steeples. mr. evans marvels at both the material progress he<u+2019>s seen and the challenges he still faces. at first, what stands out to him is the price hikes in basic expenses. <u+201c>money<u+2019>s not worth what it used to be,<u+201d> he says. he<u+2019>s closing in on traditional retirement age, and he recalls once buying an entire t-bone steak for a dollar. he recounts having a good $35,000-a-year job at the marriott hotel chain in the early 1980s, when he lived in the district of columbia. <u+201c>that<u+2019>s what people are making now,<u+201d> even though the cost of living is much higher today, he says. still, on reflection, he says americans are generally getting better off over time. in fact, from homes to food to schooling, that<u+00a0>is the case, according to an analysis by economist stephen rose at george washington university. many other economists concur that living standards have risen substantially in the past 35 years, wage stagnation notwithstanding. indeed, for all the consumer laments about rising prices, official measures of inflation probably are skewed to actually understate the gains in income and living standards. a may survey of several dozen prominent economists, for instance, found that 6 in 10 agreed with this statement: <u+201c>the 9% cumulative increase in real us median household income since 1980 substantially understates how much better off people in the median american household are now economically, compared with 35 years ago.<u+201d> only 1 in 10 disagreed (some quibbling over the word <u+201c>substantially<u+201d>), with the rest uncertain. true, there are endless complications with this kind of comparison across the decades. consider just one example: to the degree that median household incomes have risen over the past half century, a big reason is because of the longer hours worked (more than rising wages) as women have joined the workforce. in other words, two people are now working in many households instead of one. other caveats: real median income still hasn<u+2019>t caught up to pre-recession (2006) levels, and in some prominent areas of middle-class spending, costs have truly jumped in the past quarter century. <u+201c>almost everyone who thinks of themselves as middle class wants their kids to go to college, and the cost of college has shot up a lot faster<u+201d> than inflation in general, says lane kenworthy, a sociologist who studies the changing fortunes of different income groups in america. still, he<u+2019>s persuaded that living standards have kept rising for most people. one simple benchmark of well-being: back in 1960, americans overall spent two-thirds of their income just on food, clothing, and housing. by 2013 that had dipped below 50 percent. another: average us life expectancy rose seven years (to age 78) between 1970 and 2007. so the question arises: why do people<u+00a0>feel as if it<u+2019>s tougher to maintain a middle-class life if living standards are up? one reason is that fewer americans are, in fact, part of the comfortable middle: the great mass of people with middle incomes has declined as a share of the overall population. call it the barbell effect. the number of americans who have moved into upper-income brackets has expanded, and so have the ranks of those in the lower-income brackets. in other words, the weight on each end is getting heavier while the middle is getting thinner. part of this stems from the restructuring of the american economy. for decades, the demise of factory jobs has sent rolling shocks through communities large and small, spawning the term rust belt in the 1980s midwest and leaving some towns with a persistent glut of boarded-up shop windows. key drivers of change have been technology and a globalizing labor market. the upheaval has swept through the service sector, too, swallowing up loads of white-collar jobs that could also be automated out of existence or outsourced overseas. demand for high-skill workers has continued to expand, as has demand for low-skill laborers who can<u+2019>t be replaced by machines <u+2013> from janitors and landscapers to child-care workers. these changes are on display here in frederick (pop. 68,000), where the median income is a bit above the national level and homeownership is a bit below average. nestled in the first folds of the appalachian mountains, the city has a red-brick downtown with a creekside promenade. the job mix here ranges from button-down lawyers heading in and out of the modest county courthouse to the food-service workers who serve their lunches at places like cafe nola, where the entrees include shrimp hominy and chesapeake eggs benedict. you have to look a bit harder to find the middle-income jobs, but they<u+2019>re still here. the challenge is that they <u+2013> like the higher-end jobs <u+2013> generally require more education than they used to. <u+201c>we have to have a piece of paper<u+201d> to get a job, says kelly billigmeier, a young student who is earning a degree in digital media design at frederick community college. her dad was able to have a family-supporting career, working on computer software and security, without ever getting a degree beyond high school. students like ms. billigmeier are thinking hard about their financial futures, as well as how they can be of service to the world. technological change has made their choices more transparent: a career website offered by the college shows students all the local jobs available in each degree program, and their pay. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s the job opportunity that draws people into our classes,<u+201d> says jerry boyd, an administrator at the college. one sign of education<u+2019>s rising importance: in 2008, only about a quarter of americans with some college experience but no bachelor<u+2019>s degree placed themselves in the <u+201c>lower<u+201d> or <u+201c>lower-middle<u+201d> classes in pew research center surveys. now that proportion is twice as high: 47 percent. still, even if you have a lot of education, there is no guarantee of a high-paying job or lavish lifestyle today. consider the situation of ms. beard, the adjunct professor in san francisco. she has a phd in english literature, but her combined jobs (teaching at two colleges) don<u+2019>t pay as well as a coffee-retail managerial position she had a decade and a half ago. <u+201c>i love what i do. i just hate the working conditions,<u+201d> she says. beard<u+2019>s concerns are ones that legions of workers now face: high living costs (even with a rent-controlled apartment), student loans to pay off, and the unpredictability of knowing when <u+2013> or if <u+2013> their next contract will come. that last point, uncertainty, is key for the large and probably growing share of workers in the gig economy. whether you attribute it to new technology and managerial strategies or to the sagging bargaining power of workers, a growing chunk of the us workforce is essentially <u+201c>on call<u+201d> <u+2013> contractors, freelancers, and part-time workers who sometimes get little advance notice of whether they will work a shift or not. and the challenges don<u+2019>t stop with people who lack full-time salaried positions. lifestyles may be improving, but the prevalence of single-parent households and <u+201c>sandwich<u+201d> earners, who are helping to support their children and a parent or two at once, adds to the financial struggles of families. <u+201c>the lack of two incomes in a family is an enormous factor<u+201d> for many households, says michelle zukowski-serlin, a mental health counselor who was a single mother after her partner died. now married, she says burdens have eased in part as she and her husband, troy, can juggle responsibilities like ferrying julia, their teenage daughter, to volleyball games. but to ms. zukowski-serlin, many costs still seem higher than they used to be. <u+201c>there was no school fee when i was in school to be on a team,<u+201d> she says. when julia was heavily into gymnastics, the annual out-of-school fees alone (training camps, travel, etc.) came to $6,000, adds zukowski-serlin, who lives in kalamazoo, mich. nor are those the only rising costs confronting families today. on several fronts, the squeeze is more acute: - health care. even though a record share of americans has health insurance <u+2013> with recent gains spurred by the 2010 affordable care act, known as <u+201c>obamacare<u+201d> <u+2013> the number of those who are insured through their employer continues to decline. that, coupled with rising copayments in the employer plans, keeps pushing out-of-pocket costs for the average family higher. - emergency funds. many households have little money in the bank to handle a layoff or financial crisis. as of 2013, most us households could replace less than one month of their income through liquid savings, according to a pew analysis of consumer surveys by the federal reserve. - wealth. from home foreclosures to cashed-out retirement plans, the great recession ravaged the net worth of millions of americans. in 2013, middle-rung households of working-age people had lower wealth (assets minus liabilities) than they had two decades earlier, according to the fed surveys. - retirement. the share of private-sector workers getting access to a defined-benefit pension was small before world war ii, but soared to about 45 percent by 1970. since 1980, however, it<u+2019>s been in steady decline. all this helps explain why so many middle-class americans feel anxious. <u+201c>the biggest benefit we<u+2019>re looking for is just some sense of job security ... of being able to plan your life,<u+201d> says beard of herself and her colleagues. beard has health insurance, as long as she teaches at least two classes per semester at san francisco state university. last summer, when she had no classes, she turned to unemployment insurance to survive. even as she weighs a possible career change, beard says she<u+2019>s finding some optimism about the future <u+2013> through what she sees as rising momentum for labor unions. <u+201c>i<u+2019>ve started to get a little bit excited about something that i never thought would happen,<u+201d> as those with phds who are unionized join low-skilled workers to push for better employment contracts and legislation on things such as raising the minimum wage. in kalamazoo, troy zukowski-serlin, michelle<u+2019>s husband and fellow counselor at the clinic they run together, also voices a battle-tested optimism. <u+201c>right after world war ii, with the baby boom, the economy just took off,<u+201d> he says. <u+201c>we did not have a lot of competitors around the world at that time.<u+201d> in his view, the path forward is partly to realize that that era <u+201c>was a blip, an unusual experience.<u+201d> he expects living standards to keep rising and that new policies can revive the health of the middle class. expectations don<u+2019>t need to be low, he adds, just reset for times that aren<u+2019>t so booming. what does the future hold<u+00a0>for america<u+2019>s middle class? the blend of hope and realism voiced by workers from frederick to kalamazoo is the tenor of the times <u+2013> at least for now. a brighter mood may arrive if the economy keeps improving for a few more years without a recession, says mr. kenworthy of the university of california, san diego. even today, though, most americans persist in believing their own kids will be better off than their parents. in a 2012 allstate/national journal survey, 6 in 10 americans said they are generally living the american dream, defined as <u+201c>the opportunity to go as far as your talents and hard work will take you, and to live better than your parents.<u+201d> america<u+2019>s next economic chapter may well involve some tug and pull between collective and individual efforts to forge a better future. on the one hand, some economists call for efforts to revive labor unions or for other policies that, in an era of widening income inequality, might lift the fortunes of workers (a higher minimum wage, paid sick leave). policy efforts could also focus on growing the economy through innovation and education, tipping a higher share of jobs from low-skill to middle- or high-skill ones that boost average incomes. on the other hand, globalization of markets and technological advances have shaken up the old model of time-clock jobs in ways that will be hard to reverse. and many workers see benefits as well as challenges in the new era. <u+201c>i think we<u+2019>re going back again to an earlier time where people my age and younger are feeling more responsible for their well-being and income, and i don<u+2019>t think that<u+2019>s a bad thing,<u+201d> says renee lemoncelli, a mom near columbus, ohio, whose daughter is now pursuing a career in publishing. ms. lemoncelli does work she loves, designing and making jewelry that she sells online at the artisan marketplace etsy. the income can fluctuate based on seasonal demand. but she has developed several solid product lines, pays for her own health insurance, and feels that she and others are getting back <u+201c>to what our country was founded on, which was freedom and liberty.<u+201d> in fact, some historians have found that, as the industrial revolution took hold, a commonly voiced concern was that factory jobs were eroding the flexibility and autonomy that people valued. now, many gig workers covet those same attributes, even as others voice contrasting laments about the decline of traditional pensions or job security. <u+201c>my parents definitely were more secure,<u+201d> lemoncelli says. they worked for local utility companies in an era when <u+201c>they were loyal to the company and the company was loyal to them.<u+201d> now, as those bonds have frayed, lemoncelli sees a positive shift: her 20-something daughter is part of a generation of young workers attuned to charting their own job-hopping career paths <u+2013> gaining skills and fresh experiences as they go. for now, though, the young generation is navigating a job market that<u+2019>s more polarized than it used to be, with more positions at the high or low ends of the pay spectrum. the middle is still large, but it has been squeezed both in numbers of jobs and by a dearth of wage growth, according to economists at the federal reserve bank of new york. some experts say america has a ripe opportunity to rebuild the middle class <u+2013> and to thrust the economy forward in the process. what<u+2019>s needed, says joseph fuller of harvard business school, is for states and localities to forge closer ties between employers and institutions like technical schools that can train workers for growing careers. companies will get the skilled employees they need. workers will advance into better jobs. in cincinnati, mr. raven found upward job mobility through a training partnership between napier truck driver training inc. and hamilton county job & family services. he sees a middle-income lifestyle coming into view. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s coming into fruition,<u+201d> he says. <u+201c>i don<u+2019>t expect it to happen overnight.<u+201d>

so how<u+2019>s the american middle class, really?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

9.0

43.0

8.0

19660.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

1306.0

1.0

0.0

348.0

0.0

156.0

23.0

53.0

11.0

39.0

41.0

33.0

26.0

68.0

65.0

133.0

1309.0

349.0

156.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the shooting in san bernardino, california, on wednesday was the 353rd mass shooting of 2015, according to the crowdsourced mass shooting tracker that vox uses for our maps documenting mass shootings. or it was the 29th, if you use data from usa today. or it was the fourth, if you use a database maintained by mother jones. how are three news outlets coming up with such different answers? it all comes down to definitions: there are other differences too <u+2014> for example, mother jones says it generally only includes single gunman incidents, though it includes san bernardino and the columbine massacre in its database. but those are the main ones. what's happening here a dispute not about the facts, but over what the appropriate definition is. the mass shooting tracker definition is fairly new, but the dispute between mother jones and usa today is older and more ideologically fraught. that's because the mother jones definition suggests that mass shootings are rising in number, and the usa today definition doesn't. if you look at all killings in which four or more people died, there doesn't appear to be a strong upward trend, according to estimates by northeastern university criminology professor james alan fox, who uses a similar definition to usa today: but other researchers, like amy p. cohen, deborah azrael, and matthew miller of the harvard school of public health, argue that mother jones's more restrictive definition is appropriate. cohen et al. analyzed mother jones's data and concluded that mass shootings were becoming more frequent. they measure the average period of time between mass shooting incidents, rather than the number of incidents themselves; mass shootings of the kind they're studying are rare enough to make the latter untenable. they find that the period of time separating mass shootings (by their definition) has been shrinking: so who's right? well, fox is right about the phenomenon he's studying, cohen et al. are right about the phenomenon they're studying, and the mass shooting tracker is right for the phenomenon it's studying. declaring one or the other definition the "right" one is too pat; each is right for the thing it tracks. fox's data tells us that shootings of four or more people didn't decline in the 1990s the way shootings as a whole did; that's concerning. cohen et al.'s data tells us that high-profile public mass shootings like aurora or newtown have not only failed to decline the way normal shootings have but have increased in recent years; that's also concerning. and the mass shooting tracker tells us that mass shootings, deadly or not, are a daily occurrence in the us; that is, obviously, concerning. but people still care about determining the "right" definition in cases like this for the purpose of ideological proxy warfare. declaring fox or cohen et al. right, in particular, has a certain political valence in the wider gun control debate. you see something similar in discussions around school shootings, wherein gun control skeptics are as eager to declare that gang-related shootings in school are not real school shootings as they are to embrace fox's definition in which gang-related mass shootings are real mass shootings <u+2014> and vice versa for gun control supporters. the best case for gun control has little to do with mass shootings, and isn't necessarily focused on homicides at all what's frustrating about this is that whether mass shootings are increasing or decreasing in frequency has very little to do with the generalized case for gun control. mother jones's mark follman <u+2014> who has done extraordinary work on gun violence in america, including compiling the data set used by cohen et al. <u+2014> is not wrong when he writes that the mother jones<u+2013>defined mass shootings are "a unique phenomenon that must be understood on its own." and it's worth studying both the phenomena identified by fox and those identified by mother jones to find specialized ways to prevent them. but mass shootings are very rare. by fox's definition, there are between 50 and 125 victims a year (compared with<u+00a0>11,068 total gun homicides in 2011); by the mother jones definition, there are substantially fewer than that. mass shootings can and should be prevented, and their comparative rarity makes them no less monstrous or tragic. but the best case for gun control has little to do with mass shootings, and isn't necessarily focused on homicides at all. of the 33,636 firearm deaths in 2013, 63 percent, or 21,175, were suicides. the evidence that the presence of additional guns contributes to more firearm homicides is persuasive, but research from the means matter project at the harvard school of public health (much of it done by azrael and miller themselves, along with cathy barber) shows that the evidence that guns contribute to higher levels of suicide is considerably stronger. suicide, contrary to popular belief, isn't typically planned and thought through extensively in advance. it's impulsive; one survey found that 90 percent of respondents deliberated for less than a day before attempting suicide. and 90 percent of people who survive suicide attempts end up dying by other means. they didn't make a considered choice and then seek to follow through by whatever means; they made an impulsive decision and got lucky. ken baldwin, who survived a jump off the golden gate bridge, once told the new yorker's tad friend that as he was falling, he "instantly realized that everything in my life that i<u+2019>d thought was unfixable was totally fixable <u+2014> except for having just jumped." america's gun homicide problem is real, frightening, and must be addressed. but its gun suicide problem is considerably worse. guns make it likelier that these impulsive decisions end in death rather than in survival and recovery. studies suggest that suicide attempts using guns are fatal in the vast majority of cases, while attempts using cuts or poisoning are only fatal 6 or 7 percent of the time. so it's perhaps unsurprising that areas with more guns tend to have higher suicide rates, or that a number of gun control measures have been successful in preventing suicides. in one particularly dramatic case, the israeli defense forces stopped letting soldiers bring their guns home over the weekend, and suicides fell 40 percent, primarily due to a drop in firearm suicides committed on weekends. the dominant focus of gun control efforts, then, should be on keeping guns (and particularly handguns) out of the hands of suicidal people. america's gun homicide problem is real, frightening, and must be addressed. but its gun suicide problem is considerably worse. my concern is that disputes over whether this or that incident counts as a mass shooting reaffirms the myth that jared loughner and adam lanza are the face of america's gun violence problem. they're not. the tens of thousands who die every year because of depression and a nearby gun are. they are rarely, if ever, mentioned in the gun debate, and they deserve better.

have there been 353 mass shootings this year <u+2014> or just 4?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

5.0

57.0

8.0

7016.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

484.0

2.0

0.0

131.0

0.0

63.0

17.0

16.0

7.0

22.0

12.0

20.0

8.0

20.0

33.0

35.0

487.0

133.0

63.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

it started in 1998, with a $50 check out of the blue. the money was a donation from one of the highest-placed men in florida politics <u+2014> jeb bush, the son of a former president who was about to be elected governor <u+2014> to one of the lowest. marco rubio, 26, was running for the city commission in tiny west miami. <u+201c>i remember him showing it off,<u+201d> a rubio friend recalled. <u+201c><u+200a><u+2018>i got a check from jeb bush!<u+2019><u+200a><u+201d> in the years to come, the two men formed an alliance that, at times, even looked like a politician<u+2019>s odd version of friendship. rubio, younger and gifted, provided bush with help in the state legislature. bush provided rubio with donors, endorsements and <u+2014> at one especially curious moment <u+2014> a golden sword. by this week, however, the relationship itself had become a kind of weapon. <u+201c>someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you,<u+201d> rubio told bush during wednesday night<u+2019>s gop presidential debate, after bush had criticized rubio. the power of the comeback was in its familiarity <u+2014> in rubio<u+2019>s pitying sense that he knew bush well enough to know bush had betrayed himself. that moment had been coming for months, as a presidential election put the old allies on a path to collide. they schmoozed the same donors. courted the same pro-establishment voters. each threw insults <u+2014> veiled, then not veiled <u+2014> at the other. a confrontation was coming. and people who watched these allies turn into enemies had little doubt who would win. <u+201c>it was a godsend for marco,<u+201d> a chance to show off his political talents and get out of bush<u+2019>s shadow, all in the same sentence, said jorge luis lopez, a lawyer in miami who is backing rubio. <u+201c>for years, everybody [in rubio<u+2019>s camp] always had to validate, <u+2018>is marco ready to do it?<u+2019> and now, everybody sees marco is ready to do it. and it came from the lips of his own mentor.<u+201d> for now, both rubio and bush are losing in this race. but both say they<u+2019>re playing a longer game. after a while, both men believe, the outsiders donald trump and ben carson will fade, and voters will come looking for somebody safer. both bush and rubio, of course, think the safe choice will be him. that competition has put the campaign<u+2019>s spotlight on a two-decades-long relationship that never fit conventional categories. <u+201c>friends<u+201d> was always too warm a word, even back then. <u+201c>enemies<u+201d> is too strong, even now. <u+201c>frenementor,<u+201d> said dan gelber, a democrat who served in the florida house when both rubio and bush were in state government. bush and rubio were born, 18 years apart, into vastly different american experiences. rubio<u+2019>s parents were cuban immigrants who had worked as a bartender and a maid. bush was a bush. the first office he ran for was governor of florida. as rubio rose in politics <u+2014> interning for a congresswoman, working for a politically connected lawyer <u+2014> bush took notice. that was what the $50 was about. then, in 2000, the two men realized they could help each other in new and more concrete ways. rubio was a new state legislator, at a time when term limits had cleared out the old guard. bush was the governor, looking for a new ally. <u+201c>jeb looked around, and suddenly marco was one of the people he knew best in the house,<u+201d> said a former colleague who worked closely with both men. rubio advocated bush<u+2019>s ideas, and bush steered rubio toward conservative politics, especially the gospel of small government. by 2005, the two men were close enough that when rubio gave an emotional speech after winning the race to be florida<u+2019>s house speaker, bush made a show of his mentorship. bush honored rubio with a gift: a sword, which he said belonged to a great <u+201c>conservative warrior<u+201d> named chang. <u+201c>chang is somebody who believes in conservative principles, believes in entrepreneurial capitalism, believes in moral values that underpin a free society,<u+201d> bush told a crowd so large that a plane had to be chartered to ferry well-wishers from miami to tallahassee. <u+201c>chang, this mystical warrior, has never let me down.<u+201d> this gesture was even stranger than it sounds. it appears that <u+201c>chang<u+201d> was not a real person but something from a bush family in-joke about chinese nationalist leader chiang kai-shek (<u+201c>unleash chiang!<u+201d>). now, jeb <u+2014> whose <u+00ad>father was once the u.s. envoy to beijing <u+2014> had garbled the story into something about a mystical warrior with a sword. the sword <u+201c>really meant something to jeb,<u+201d> a longtime friend and colleague of both men said. <u+201c>he thought it was marco who would continue his legacy.<u+201d> at the time, the sword seemed to mean something to rubio, too. he hung it in a place of honor in his office <u+2014> or at least, he used to. <u+201c>i have it somewhere at home,<u+201d> rubio told reporters in new hampshire this year. <u+201c>i have young kids. i don<u+2019>t want them to run around with a sword.<u+201d> bush left the governor<u+2019>s office in 2007. after that, friends say, he kept up his alliance with the still-rising rubio. he supported rubio, working donors behind the scenes, when rubio took on the florida gop establishment in the 2010 senate race. after rubio won, the two would meet for coffee after workouts in the gym at the luxurious biltmore hotel in coral gables, fla., where bush has an office. then the men <u+2014> who now shared friends, donors and allies <u+2014> began to realize they would be rivals. <u+201c>he<u+2019>s entitled to do this <u+2014> there<u+2019>s not something per se wrong,<u+201d> al cardenas, a power broker in florida politics who backs bush, said of rubio. <u+201c>but we believe that most people would have decided not to proceed.<u+201d> bush made clear last year that he planned to run. in april, rubio announced his candidacy, and pointedly told his audience that america couldn<u+2019>t go <u+201c>back to the leaders and ideas of the past.<u+201d> this was the first of many signals: rubio wasn<u+2019>t just running alongside his old ally but against him, lumping him in with democrat hillary rodham clinton as symbols of the stale political order. <u+201c>the minute i saw [rubio<u+2019>s] announcement, i had every reason to assume, regrettably, that this was never going to be the same,<u+201d> said jorge arrizurieta, who first met bush in the 1980s, served in different roles during his governorship and is now a top donor. <u+201c>i<u+2019>ve heard many common friends call it a betrayal by marco, but not jeb,<u+201d> said ana navarro, a republican strategist who is a friend of both men but supports bush in this race. <u+201c>jeb<u+2019>s not a guy to cry over spilled milk. jeb<u+2019>s got a goal ahead of him, and wasting time psychoanalyzing marco<u+2019>s motives won<u+2019>t help him get there.<u+201d> since then, bush and rubio have rarely spoken one another<u+2019>s names <u+2014> but they have talked about each other all the time. rubio, for instance, talked for 25 minutes in june at the prescott bush awards dinner <u+2014> named for jeb bush<u+2019>s grandfather <u+2014> without mentioning the bush name. he never mentioned bush to a room full of seniors during a central florida campaign stop in september. but in both places, he implied a contrast, telling the prescott bush awards crowd in connecticut that it was time to <u+201c>transition from the past we are so proud of to the exciting future that awaits our country.<u+201d> bush has also deployed a knock-him-without-naming-him strategy against rubio. for months, he<u+2019>s called for members of congress who miss many votes <u+2014> as rubio has <u+2014> to have their pay docked. in late september, bush tried to burnish his leadership credentials by telling a tv interviewer that he <u+201c>relied on people like marco rubio and many others to follow my leadership<u+201d> in florida. later, the two campaigns squabbled about which one of them had a disappointing quarter of fundraising. (they both did). by monday, bush<u+2019>s campaign <u+2014> increasingly desperate amid a cash shortage and staff cuts <u+2014> labeled rubio a <u+201c>gop obama<u+201d> in a meeting with top donors. that may not sound like an insult, since obama did manage to get elected president twice. but bush meant it in the context of republicans who view the president as inexperienced and untrustworthy. in a broad sense, bush was losing the argument. rubio was overtaking him in the polls. and the very thing that had made rubio such an attractive ally before <u+2014> he shared bush<u+2019>s basic political beliefs but did a better job of selling them <u+2014> made him a devastating rival now. <u+201c>i support jeb because he<u+2019>s older, he<u+2019>s got a lot of experience, he was governor for two terms and did an extraordinarily good job, but if jeb doesn<u+2019>t make it i certainly hope marco does,<u+201d> said barney bishop, a prominent florida lobbyist who is backing bush but has also given to rubio<u+2019>s super pac. <u+201c>a lot of us are torn between both jeb and marco because we think marco has a great future ahead of him. we don<u+2019>t want to see either one of them have to do battle with each other in order to get ahead.<u+201d> their competition finally came to a head at wednesday night<u+2019>s debate, producing the defining moment in their relationship so far. even on the attack, bush seemed hindered by the relationship and by his blue-blood sense of decorum. <u+201c>could i <u+2014> could i bring something up here?<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>marco, when you signed up for this [the senate], this was a six-year term, and you should be showing up to work,<u+201d> bush said. rubio seemed to know that the intimacy of their relationship gave him more power, not less. he looked bush right in the eye, knee-capped him, and then turned away from him to face the audience. <u+201c>my campaign is going to be about the future of america, it<u+2019>s not going to be about attacking anyone else on this stage,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>i will continue to have tremendous admiration and respect for governor bush.<u+201d> he was talking about his old ally as though bush was already gone.

the 17-year story behind marco rubio<u+2019>s cut-down of jeb bush

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

5.0

59.0

8.0

9567.0

0.0

2.0

3.0

0.0

691.0

1.0

0.0

191.0

0.0

69.0

17.0

27.0

10.0

15.0

22.0

16.0

15.0

44.0

32.0

54.0

694.0

192.0

69.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington (cnn) donald trump backed off a false claim friday morning, admitting he had not seen a video of a $400 million payment being unloaded from a us plane in iran. the republican nominee had claimed at rallies twice this week that such a video existed, saying in maine on thursday that it was provided by iranians "to embarrass our president because we have a president who's incompetent." what trump had actually seen in news reports was video of three american prisoners who iran had released arriving in geneva, switzerland. trump admitted his error in an early-morning tweet friday, without actually saying he was wrong. "the plane i saw on television was the hostage plane in geneva, switzerland, not the plane carrying $400 million in cash going to iran!" he tweeted. the plane i saw on television was the hostage plane in geneva, switzerland, not the plane carrying $400 million in cash going to iran! it was a rare reversal for trump, who has stood by inaccurate or unproven claims previously -- insisting he'd seen videos of muslim americans in new jersey cheering the september 11, 2001, attacks. his political rise began during the 2012 campaign, when he insisted that obama release his birth certificate, questioning the president's american citizenship. democratic vice presidential nominee tim kaine hit trump on friday for the video claim, saying he seems "confused" on cbs' "this morning," in an interview taped before trump backtracked. "i have no idea what he's talking about. it (the video) doesn't exist. he might be thinking about iran contra from like 35 years ago or something like this," kaine said. he pointed to trump's recent criticism of kaine, who trump said in a late-july news conference "did a terrible job in new jersey" -- despite kaine being a governor and senator from virginia, not new jersey. kaine said trump must have confused him with tom kean, who was new jersey's governor until 1990. "he was confusing it with a situation from two or three decades ago. maybe that's what he's doing with this bogus video claim," kaine said. asked if he thinks trump is confused, kaine said: "i absolutely think he's confused." paul manafort, trump's campaign chairman, responded to kaine on fox news friday morning, saying he's "not sure there was confusion" on trump's part. "the point that he was making is the cash-transfer took place and it was taking place consistent with the transfer of hostages," manafort said. "again, what the obama administration wants to do is get off of the point. the point is, $400 million in cash that most likely ended up in terrorist camps used against the west was given in exchange for hostages and the president of the united states lied to the american people, that's the point." trump has made criticism of the us delivery of $400 million in cash via a plane to iran -- the first installment of $1.7 billion in payments related to a decades-old dispute over an unfulfilled us arms purchase before the iranian revolution cut relations between the two countries and settled at the same time iran released four american prisoners -- a staple this week on the campaign trail. but wednesday in florida and thursday in maine, he went a step further, claiming he'd seen video of the cash actually being delivered in iran. "it was interesting because a tape was made. right? you saw that? with the airplane coming in -- nice plane -- and the airplane coming in, and the money coming off, i guess. right? that was given to us, has to be, by the iranians," trump said in portland, maine. "and you know why the tape was given to us? because they want to embarrass our country. they want to embarrass our country. and they want to embarrass our president because we have a president who's incompetent. they want to embarrass our president," trump said. "i mean, who would ever think they would be taking all of this money off the plane and then providing us with a tape? it's only for one reason. and it's very, very sad."

trump backs off false iran video claim

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

38.0

8.0

4002.0

0.0

2.0

3.0

0.0

324.0

0.0

73.0

0.0

33.0

14.0

9.0

4.0

7.0

5.0

9.0

8.0

10.0

19.0

14.0

327.0

73.0

33.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

data scientists at facebook recently<u+00a0>published their research on how people consume political news on the social network. the study is noteworthy because the researchers had direct access to facebook<u+2019>s own data. it examines the factors that influence the likelihood that liberals or conservatives will click on news articles that are cross-cutting or those that run counter to their beliefs.<u+00a0>many americans get a significant portion of their news from facebook and in effect the social network is the largest news platform in the u.s. the study shows how the makeup of our social networks, the facebook news feed algorithm, and individual user choice all influence the content people consume. social scientists have built a large body of evidence that people tend to befriend others with similar political beliefs. the facebook study demonstrates that the polarization phenomenon also applies to the social network. the study finds that roughly speaking a facebook user has five politically likeminded friends for every one friend on the other side of the spectrum. in a democracy it<u+2019>s generally a value add for citizens to encounter a variety of political opinions. this fact does not enumerate the <u+201c>right<u+201d> number of friends to have from across the political aisle. the facebook news feed does limit the amount of cross-cutting links that viewers choose to read. the news feed algorithm ranks stories based on a variety of factors including their history of clicking on links for particular websites. if a user regularly clicks on stories from sources with a partisan leaning then the chances of seeing a similar story increases. the news feed algorithm functions in this way to make the experience of using the website more enjoyable. this approach also has some unintended negative consequences. the authors find that the news feed algorithm reduces the politically cross-cutting content by 5 percent for conservatives and 8 percent for liberals. individual choice also plays a role in exposing facebook users to less cross-cutting content. users make their own decisions about the stories they want to read. even after controlling for where the stories appear in the news feed, the authors estimate that user choice decreases the likelihood of clicking on a cross-cutting link by 17 percent for conservatives and 6 percent for liberals. the study does not present the findings in a way that separates out the effects of the algorithm and individual choice. both of these factors certainly influence each other. it appears that the impact of individual<u+2019>s user choices is larger in magnitude than the news feed algorithm. facebook has tweaked the news feed algorithm for a variety of reasons. the company could leverage the popularity of their network to help mitigate the impact of political polarization. the website could change the algorithm to rank cross-cutting news stories highly. it could also include cross cutting links in the trending section of the website. facebook is not just a social network. it<u+2019>s the platform that millions of people use to learn about current events. taking small steps to help combat political polarization in the long run will add to the trust that users have in facebook.

political polarization on facebook | institution

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

48.0

8.0

3216.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

226.0

0.0

74.0

2.0

0.0

39.0

3.0

2.0

4.0

3.0

8.0

7.0

13.0

233.0

74.0

41.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington (cnn) in order to pursue a presidential bid, florida sen. marco rubio has agreed not to run for re-election, leaving democrats with a shot at retaking the seat, and with it, increasing their chances of reclaiming the senate. but it's no easy feat -- especially as florida democrats may have a primary problem ahead of them. national and state democrats see rep. patrick murphy, a second-term centrist democrat with a proven ability to fundraise, as their best shot at a win. the democratic senatorial campaign committee this week endorsed murphy in an effort to dissuade others from jumping into the primary. but that hasn't discouraged liberal firebrand rep. alan grayson from the race. if anything, it's made him more eager to compete. "florida democratic voters choose our party nominee, not out-of-touch party bosses sipping cognac in a smoke-filled room in washington," grayson said in a statement shortly after the dscc announced its endorsement. it's a prospect that already has democrats worried. "it would certainly be better to not have him in the race," said florida democratic strategist steve schale, a murphy supporter. "[grayson] tends to sort of rely on hyperbole and invective, and i'm not sure that's the kind of primary which is healthy for us." "i think it's a center-right state, i think he is not electable in a general and i think he has the ability to create a pretty divisive primary if he runs," he said. but grayson has a different theory on what it takes to win in florida. he believes "there are no more swing voters" in the state, and so democrats must offer a clear contrast with republicans to turn out otherwise apathetic voters and disaffected democrats. "we consistently fail them by making it seem like we're republican light," he said. "it's not the winning formula to pretend you're a republican and hope some republicans vote for you. it's not the winning formula to be wishy-washy on the issues." while he declined to discuss murphy by name, he referenced "somebody else in the [primary] race who might have the party-switcher vote" -- a veiled jab at the younger member, who was a registered republican up through 2010, though he claims he backed john kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign. that's part of what's given the congressman reason for such strong interest in a run, and murphy's supporters reason for concern. grayson has a much clearer appeal among democratic primary voters than murphy, who's made a point of breaking with his party on key issues, like the keystone xl pipeline. while it's murphy's willingness to compromise and centrist profile that has democrats bullish on his chances statewide, those could also be hurdles in a democratic primary, if grayson were to force the issue. "i would be very surprised if i ever lost a primary in my life," grayson boasted. "our voters will crawl over hot coals to vote for me." the congressman is already fashioning himself as the heir to liberal darling sen. elizabeth warren, who pulled out a difficult win in one of 2012's most expensive, hardest-fought senate races. indeed, grayson said he's "had many discussions with her and her campaign staff about this already." "and i think we can duplicate her success not only in fundraising, but in the enormous grassroots army she put together," he said. but the prospect of a murphy-grayson faceoff could make things difficult for democrats, as regardless of the outcome, it's likely to become a nasty, personal fight. grayson is not one to mince words --<u+00a0>he once compared the tea party movement to the kkk, and ran a campaign ad in 2010 calling gop challenger dan webster "taliban dan." and democrats wary of grayson hurting the party's chances in the state are already promising that the lurid details of his messy annulment --<u+00a0>which included accusations of abuse, bigamy and cheating -- will gain greater notice if it's clear he's serious about jumping in. grayson detractors believe once progressives are more familiar with his personal issues, they'll question their support for his policies. and a bruising, resource draining intraparty fight through the end of august, when florida holds its primary, leaves the eventual nominee little time -- just nine weeks -- to replenish depleted campaign offers and correct any negative attacks that stuck during the primary. it'll be a hugely expensive race, said former democratic state sen. dan gelber. "money plays an outsize influence in florida because of the number and expense of the media markets," he said. "we have 11 expensive media markets, and creating an identity with voters is incredibly expensive." he predicted the primary alone could require candidates to spend up to $15 million. there's also a chance the field could become more crowded in the weeks ahead. florida's supreme court has yet to issue a final ruling on the state's contested congressional map, and if legislators are directed to redraw it, the changes would cause a domino effect that could make some house incumbents decide a run for senate is more attractive than a tough reelection fight. schale indicated at least one candidate who's already opted out of the senate race -- gwen graham, a freshman democratic rising star who's facing a tough reelection fight in florida's 2nd district -- could change her mind in such a situation. "she'll reassess what her options will be and make a decision," said schale, who described himself as close to the democrat and said he speaks with her often. he emphasized, however, "absent something dramatically changing that is not in her control, there is no way she's not running for re-election." others still are keeping their names in the mix. gelber said he hasn't "ruled it out," but that he's "not right now prepared to do it," because of the significant time and energy commitment and his young family. but he added: "i'd have to see what happened in the race." still, democrats say if they do end up with a messy primary, it can't possibly rival the gop's, which is facing a field in disarray after two top-tier candidates unexpectedly opted out. a number of conservative groups have already expressed support for tea party favorite rep. ron desantis, but a number of establishment-preferred candidates have shown interest, including carlos lopez-cantera, the state's lieutenant governor.

could florida dem primary cost party rubio's seat?

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

6.0

50.0

8.0

6358.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

435.0

0.0

114.0

0.0

47.0

12.0

21.0

7.0

11.0

17.0

14.0

11.0

28.0

25.0

51.0

438.0

114.0

47.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

immigration reform used to be an issue that split both parties: pro-business republicans faced off against cultural conservatives, while within the democratic party latino advocates faced off against labor. but over the past 10 years, immigration has become a partisan issue. this change isn't just a shift in where politicians take certain policy questions. it's also a change in whether americans think that immigrants, in general, are a good thing for america: to a certain extent, polarization on immigration in washington and polarization among voters reinforce each other. in 2005, when comprehensive immigration reform was a key priority of president george w. bush, republicans and democrats were about equally likely to think that immigrants strengthened america. once bush's successor, barack obama, started stressing the need for comprehensive immigration reform, though, republicans were much less likely to look favorably on immigrants <u+2014> according to pew's findings, republican attitudes changed precipitously between late 2009 and summer 2010. but this isn't the whole story, because the debate in washington over comprehensive immigration reform has always had a tenuous relationship to how americans actually feel about immigrants. historically, even the "anti-amnesty" politicians who opposed comprehensive immigration reform stressed that immigrants were welcome in america as long as they came (and stayed) legally. for most americans, though, the difference that matters isn't between legal and unauthorized immigrants <u+2014> it's between immigrants they find likely to assimilate into "american culture" and those who (they believe) cannot. americans are much more ambivalent about immigrants, in general, than you might expect from listening to politicians talk about immigration <u+2014> or than you might guess by looking at polling for various immigration reform proposals. for many white americans over the past couple of decades, that ambivalence has hardened into a constellation of stereotypes: associating "immigrant" with "illegal immigrant," "illegal immigrant" with "latino immigrant," and "latino immigrant" with "criminal." this is the genius of donald trump's presidential campaign: his rhetoric homes in directly on the things that actually worry many americans about immigrants, rather than using economic or legal arguments as a way to gesture toward cultural fears. but as the chart shows, trump wasn't just exploiting a sentiment among american voters <u+2014> he's exploiting a sentiment among specifically republican voters. the changes shown in the pew chart don't just reflect democrats or republicans changing their minds about whether immigrants are good for america. (in fact, most of the people changing their minds are embracing immigrants; overall, the most recent pew poll found 59 percent of americans agree that immigration strengthens the country, which is the highest level of support in 20 years.) they reflect changes in who identifies as a republican or a democrat. over the past 20 years, the democratic party has gotten markedly more ethnically diverse... ...as white voters have increasingly identified with republicans: not all of the white voters who have switched parties are motivated by anti-latino sentiment. but the voters who are motivated by anti-latino sentiment are particularly likely to have switched parties. before 2000, there was a correlation between negative feelings toward latinos and identifying as strongly republican. but that was just a side effect; how people felt toward black americans was a much better predictor of how strongly they identified with the gop. in the 21st century, the two have diverged. all else being equal <u+2014> even sentiment toward african americans <u+2014> a white american in 2008 who felt negatively toward latinos was likely to be more strongly republican (one-third of a point on a seven-point scale from strong republican to strong democrat) than someone who felt positively toward them. there's no indication that the trend has abated since 2008. indeed, the pew polling shows that sentiment toward immigrants among republicans hit new lows in may 2015, with only 27 percent of republicans saying immigrants strengthened america. that was just before donald trump launched his presidential campaign. while donald trump didn't make republicans wary of immigrants' effect on america, though, he does appear to have made the remaining skeptics in the democratic party embrace them. in may 2015, on the eve of trump's campaign launch, 62 percent of democrats said that immigrants strengthened america. in march 2016, 78 percent said they did <u+2014> a 16-percentage-point jump. that's the biggest reason pro-immigrant sentiment is at a 20-year high: the democrats who hadn't already embraced immigrants are doing so now. if that holds, it will complete the last phase of the partisanization of immigration. republican voters are already fairly united in their distrust of immigrants, and many republican politicians are following their lead. democratic politicians, meanwhile, are fairly united in their support of immigrants. and now, democratic voters appear to be embracing their identity as the pro-immigrant party.

one chart that shows why the republican party was ready for donald trump

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

72.0

8.0

5219.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

428.0

1.0

0.0

79.0

0.0

46.0

7.0

10.0

4.0

10.0

8.0

5.0

8.0

17.0

15.0

30.0

429.0

80.0

46.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

just how far could republicans go to deny donald trump the party's nomination? a delegate to this summer's convention in cleveland asserts that the gop gathering could do anything it wants. curly haugland, a gop national committeeman from north dakota, told morning edition on thursday of his interpretation of party rules. not for the first time, haugland declared that party rules do not bind any delegate to vote for any particular candidate. he argues that even delegates who are "pledged" to trump or other contenders due to state primary results are, in reality, free to do as they like. custom, haugland said, may dictate that delegates should support the winners of their state primaries. but the reality of the rules is that primary votes are "absolutely irrelevant" come convention time. "no matter what the popular belief might be," he said, "there is no connection between primaries and the actual convention." in our interview and in other conversations, haugland has cited the gop's convention rules 37 and 38. he interprets these convoluted rules to mean that delegates may "vote their conscience." the rules do not explicitly say this. rule 37 is a detailed explanation of the procedure for roll call votes. however, rule 38 does say that no delegate may be "bound" by the "unit rule," meaning that delegates from a state can't all be forced to vote the same way. haugland's interpretation is by no means a unanimous view. it's more widely accepted that delegates currently pledged to trump, ted cruz, john kasich, or others must support them at least on the first ballot. but if no candidate received a majority, delegates would necessarily vote in different ways on later ballots in order to resolve the impasse. another of haugland's points is indisputable: "when the convention convenes," he said, "the delegates adopt their own rules, which haven't been adopted yet." there is a standard template for conventions, but delegates could tweak the template, changing the game in any way that they want. the only real constraint is that their actions would be publicly known and therefore open to criticism. the latitude afforded delegates explains why it's considered significant that senator ted cruz has outmaneuvered trump in several states, ensuring that as many delegates as possible are cruz supporters. haugland says his personal goal is to adopt a rule that assures delegates the chance to choose from a wide range of alternatives, including candidates such as jeb bush or marco rubio who have suspended their campaigns. listen to our conversation at the link above.

gop delegate: trump primary wins 'absolutely irrelevant' at convention

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

3.0

70.0

8.0

2601.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

142.0

0.0

49.0

0.0

21.0

4.0

1.0

4.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

9.0

8.0

18.0

146.0

49.0

21.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the former arkansas governor and republican presidential contender who's known for his social conservatism admonished the alleged shooter in an interview with cnn's brianna keilar sunday on "state of the union. "what he did is domestic terrorism, and what he did is absolutely abominable, especially to us in the pro-life movement, because there's nothing about any of us that would condone or in any way look the other way on something like this," huckabee said. "we're not going to have the kind of language that you heard from john kerry where he talked about legitimizing or rationalizing terrorist actions," huckabee said. "there's no legitimizing, there's no rationalizing. it was mass murder. it was absolutely unfathomable. and there's no excuse for killing other people, whether it's happening inside the planned parenthood headquarters, inside their clinics where many millions of babies die, or whether it's people attacking planned parenthood." in the interview, huckabee also took shots at president barack obama over the tone of his remarks about isis and the acceptance of syrian refugees into the united states in the wake of the paris attacks. former arkansas gov. mike huckabee speaks at the point of grace church for the iowa faith & freedom coalition 2015 spring kick off on april 25, 2015, in waukee. the republican is expected to announce may 5 he is running for president. huckabee was born in the same arkansas town as former president bill clinton. he is an ordained baptist minister. huckabee, here at a the iowa ag summit in march 2015, served two terms as governor. huckabee, center, visits the western wall in jerusalem on february 1, 2010. in 2008, he debuted a weekend show for fox news titled "huckabee." he ended the program in early 2015. former arkansas gov. mike huckabee speaks during the nra-ila leadership forum in nashville, tennessee, in april 2015. former arkansas gov. mike huckabee delivers remarks to the conservative political action conference (cpac) at the washington marriott wardman park on february 10, 2012. huckabee is surrounded by supporters and members of the news media after talking about his new book, 'a simple government: twelve things we really need from washington (and a trillion that we don't!),' at the national press club on february 24, 2011, in washington, d.c. former gov. mike huckabee signs a copy of his new book, 'a simple government: twelve things we really need from washington (and a trillion that we don't!),' at the national press club on february 24, 2011. huckabee attends a corner stone dedication ceremony for a new jewish settlement in east jerusalem on january 31, 2011. mike huckabee speaks to guests at the iowa freedom summit on january 24, 2015, in des moines, iowa. the politician plays bass guitar with his band capitol offense. t the band has opened for willie nelson and the charlie daniels band and has played for two presidential inauguration balls. huckabee (second from right), students and others attend the may 14, 2010, namm foundation wanna play fund event at fox news studios in new york. the initiative, in conjunction with the vh1 save the music foundation, includes instrument donations. huckabee visits the west bank settlement of beit el, near ramallah, on august 18, 2009. he issued controversial statements in support of israeli settlements. republicans to obama: keep syrian refugees out "this president has shown considerable more intensity of anger toward republicans than he has toward isis," huckabee said. "i mean i remember those press conferences -- the one in manila and the one in turkey prior to that -- where you could see the visible, visceral anger this president had as he spoke about republicans. and he was so frustrated that there was not just a universal acceptance of his point of view about relocation of refugees, calling people who disagreed with him as un-american," huckabee said. "it was harsh. and i just want him to show the same kind of anger directed toward the isis terrorists , and frankly, all the radical islamists, that we saw from the french president (francois) hollande ," he said. "that's what we all need to do -- the family of civilized nations needs to get together and we need to destroy them once and for all." sign up for cnn politics' nightcap newsletter, serving up today's best and tomorrow's essentials in politics.

huckabee: planned parenthood shooting is 'domestic terrorism'

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

9.0

61.0

8.0

4375.0

0.0

2.0

5.0

0.0

295.0

0.0

88.0

0.0

30.0

13.0

4.0

7.0

11.0

9.0

8.0

4.0

14.0

19.0

23.0

300.0

88.0

30.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the new york billionaire went into the cbs debate with a head of steam, having won new hampshire last tuesday and holding a big lead in polls in south carolina a week before republicans vote on feb. 20. rather than play it safe, trump responded to every comment leveled his way, interrupted his opponents at will and called them liars repeatedly in an emotional outburst that could raise more questions about whether he has the temperament to serve in the white house. he made his most blistering attacks against bush and his brother, former president george w. bush, who has many admirers in the republican establishment. it was hard to declare a winner in the debate amid the constant volley of insults, not all of them from trump. cruz and fellow senator marco rubio also took pointed jabs at each other over illegal immigration. but trump dominated the debate conservation on twitter with 40 percent of the mentions, according to data from the micro-blogging platform. trump's combative style has set the tone for much of the campaign but in recent days he had pledged to pursue a more measured, positive approach. at the debate, that strategy lasted only through his comments about supreme court justice antonin scalia, who was found dead on saturday. trump was quickly goaded when bush criticized trump's past statements that russia has a role to play in syria. russia, bush said, is not attacking islamic state militants but instead helping syrian president bashir assad, who washington wants to leave power. trump blasted bush's brother for launching the iraq war in 2003 over claims, later proven false, that iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. "a big, fat mistake," said trump, noting that the sept. 11, 2001, attacks had also occurred on bush's watch. "george bush made a mistake," trump thundered. "we all make mistakes. but that one was a beauty ... they lied! they said there were weapons of mass destruction. and there were none." many in the crowd booed trump and the republican front-runner dismissed them as "lobbyists and special interests" supporting the former florida governor. bush, who has wilted in the past under assault from trump, stood firm this time. he will campaign with his brother george on monday in north charleston, south carolina. "i'm sick and tired of him going after my family," bush said. "my dad is the greatest man alive in my mind. while donald trump was building a reality tv show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. and i'm proud of what he did. "he had the gall to go after my mother," bush said, reminding the audience that trump had criticized his 90-year-old mother, barbara bush, wife of former president george h.w. bush. "my mother is the strongest woman i know." "she should be running," trump responded. bush provoked another outburst from trump by saying the republican nominee should be someone "who doesn't brag, for example, that he has been bankrupt four times." "that's another lie," trump said. "i never went bankrupt." trump also was drawn into a fight with cruz over whether the real estate developer is sufficiently conservative. trump called himself a "common-sense conservative," which cruz dismissed. "if donald trump is president he will appoint liberals to the supreme court," cruz said. "you are the biggest liar," trump said sharply. as they tried to talk over each other, cruz chided trump by saying, "donald, adults do not interrupt each other." ohio governor john kasich, who finished second in the new hampshire primary last tuesday and who pushes an optimistic message, called for calm. "these attacks, some of them are personal. i think we're fixing to lose the election to (democratic front-runner) hillary clinton," he said. cruz and rubio renewed their battle over who is the toughest on illegal immigration with cruz insisting that the florida senator, as part of a gang of eight senators who sought a compromise on legislation in 2013, was for "amnesty" but now is against it for political purposes. he insisted that rubio had said in spanish on univision that he would not rescind an executive order signed by president barack obama in support of the children of illegal immigrants. rubio shot back: "i don't know how he knows what i said on univision because he doesn't speaking spanish." as the crowd roared, rubio said cruz is "telling lies... he's lying about all sorts of things and now he makes things up." before the clashes broke out, the republican candidates urged obama not to nominate a successor to scalia, saying it should be up to the next president to decide.

refusing to sit on lead, trump gets bitter in republican debate

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

63.0

8.0

4622.0

0.0

1.0

6.0

0.0

316.0

0.0

97.0

2.0

0.0

26.0

18.0

11.0

15.0

12.0

15.0

10.0

21.0

32.0

31.0

322.0

97.0

28.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

update: on march 13, 2016<u+00a0>i realized i was wrong about this. when not delighting in the epic meltdown of establishment republican party politics, many people i know <u+2014> my wife, my boss, etc. <u+2014> are expressing terror at the notion that donald trump might actually become president of the united states. i'm more sanguine. not out of any particular love for trump, but because he's actually running on a much less extreme agenda than his "establishment" rival marco rubio, who's offering a platform of economic ruin, multiple wars, and an attack on civil liberties that's nearly as vicious as anything trump has proposed <u+2014> even while wrapping it in an edgy, anxious, overreaction-prone approach to politics that heavily features big risky bets and huge, unpredictable changes in direction. rubio has proposed a tax cut that will reduce federal revenue by $6.8 trillion over 10 years. numbers that large don't mean anything to people, so for comparison's sake let's say that if we entirely eliminated american military spending over that period we still couldn't quite pay for it. but of course rubio doesn't want to eliminate military spending <u+2014> he wants to spend more. he also promises to avoid any cuts to social security and medicare for people currently at or near retirement. for good measure, he is also proposing a balanced-budget amendment to the constitution. you could eliminate the entire non-defense discretionary budget and you'd still need $100 billion to $200 billion more per year in cuts to make this work. this is, of course, totally unworkable. and the process that led rubio to this point is telling and troubling. rubio entered the senate at a time when an intellectual movement known as "reform" was hot in conservative circles, which argued that republicans should concentrate less on supply-side tax cuts and more on tax policy focused on the working class. this originally took the form of a $2.4 trillion tax cut plan crafted by utah sen. mike lee that rubio signed on to but then kept transforming into a larger and more regressive tax cut, as rubio came under pressure from the supply-side wing of the party and it became clear that the constituency for "reform" conservatism was limited to a handful of media figures. eager to prove that his dalliance with the reformocons was over, he actually ended up proposing to entirely eliminate taxes on investment income, meaning that billionaire captains of industry could end up paying nothing at all. the upshot is a plan that is costly and regressive, yet paired with other commitments around entitlements, military spending, and constitutional amendments that make it completely impossible. trump's tax plan is even costlier than rubio's by most measures. but in his defense, he barely ever talks about it and hasn't compounded the cost problem with a balanced-budget amendment or a firm commitment to enormous quantities of new military spending. rubio's approach to world affairs essentially repeats the "let's have it all and who cares if it adds up" mentality of his fiscal policy. his solution to every problem is to confront some foreign country more aggressively, with no regard to the idea of trade-offs or tensions between goals or limits to how much the united states can bite off at any particular time. he'd start things off by alienating latin american allies by undoing the obama administration's normalization of relations with cuba in order to return to a decades-long failed policy of isolation. but that's small potatoes compared with the consequences of rubio's pledge to cancel the nuclear deal with iran on day one. he isn't too worried that this will lead to iran building a nuclear weapon because there will be a "credible threat of military force if iran decides to ramp up its program." he also wants to deploy more american troops to syria and iraq to fight isis. he wants to attack ships and aircraft bound for north korea that are "suspected of carrying material related to north korea<u+2019>s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs."<u+00a0>he is also hoping to convince china to help with the korea situation, but his china policy calls for tougher measures to "stand on the side of freedom and human rights, both inside china and on its periphery." he also wants to send more weapons to ukraine, increase sanctions on russia, move more heavy weapons into eastern europe, and clarify "that there will be no u.s.-russia cooperation in the fight against isil until russia brokers the departure of bashar al-assad from power." we really did have a president who tried to govern this way for a year or two. his name was george w. bush, and starting some time in 2004 he realized it was unworkable. with a larger army already occupying iraq and a smaller one in afghanistan, there was no way to make coercive military force the main terms of relating to iran and north korea, to say nothing of russia and china. over the next several years, bush steadily recognized the need to pull back and adopt a more realistic approach to dealing with the world. not everyone in the republican party was happy with this retrenchment, and rubio is essentially running as the candidate of that faction that wishes condoleezza rice never rose in stature to check dick cheney's influence and robert gates never came in to replace don rumsfeld. in contrast to rubio, trump is more prone to offering simply ignorant remarks but also has considerably more restrained instincts. trump essentially takes the world-conquering nationalism of george w. bush and turns it inward, offering suspicion of outsiders and a reluctance to launch new wars. this kind of quasi-isolationist thinking isn't exactly my cup of tea, but it certainly reduces the risk of utter catastrophe relative to a return to high bushism. of course, what has most high-minded liberals alarmed about donald trump isn't his tax or foreign policies <u+2014> it's his bashing of muslims and immigrants to the united states. but while rubio clearly didn't get into the race to push these issues, his response to trump's rise has been telling and alarming. after the paris attacks, trump vowed to shut down mosques where radical preaching might be taking place;<u+00a0>rubio said that didn't go far enough and that a rubio administration would be willing to stamp out muslims' freedom of assembly wherever it might present itself. he<u+00a0>told fox news: rubio said trump's proposed ban on muslim immigration wouldn't pass muster constitutionally but agrees we should block any syrian refugees from entering the country. rubio also opposed a bipartisan effort to curb the national security agency mass surveillance and promises to permanently extend mass surveillance as president. most famously, of course, rubio was a leading proponent of a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill until it became clear that he'd underestimated the extent of conservative opposition to the idea and began furiously denouncing his own work. now, rubio is an enforcement-first guy, who takes such a dim view of both immigration and any concept of limits to the power of the federal government that he wants to cut off all federal funds to towns and cities whose local police departments have chosen to deprioritize immigration enforcement work in favor of crimes that do actual damage to human life and property. under pressure from ted cruz, rubio is now promising to start deporting dreamers as soon as he takes office. he's even turned a wink-nudge promise to bring back torture as an instrument of government policy into an applause line in debates and on the stump. nobody knows what lurks in rubio's heart on these matters, of course. but one could say the same about trump. what we do know for sure is that rubio's strategy for beating back the most repugnant aspects of trumpism is to imitate them. more than any particular policy stance, what is perhaps most troubling about the ebbs and flows of rubio's positioning is the larger picture they paint of a tendency toward systematic overreaction. in the wake of rubio's funny-but-not-serious debate gaffe where he repeated the same canned line several times, mckay coppins wrote: i sympathize with this a lot. two or three days before the launch of vox.com, i succumbed to my personal occasional propensity to panic and was insisting that we had to delay or cancel the debut of the site. the good news is that more levelheaded voices prevailed. the even better news is that it is extremely unlikely that i am going to become president of the united states. and i like to think that if the possibility did present itself, my friends, allies, and advisers would have the good sense to politely suggest that a "propensity to panic in moments of crisis, both real and imagined" is not a great quality in a chief executive, and that addressing the substantive concern would be a more valuable contribution to the nation than laboring to keep it from public view. but so far, playing his hand aggressively has paid off for rubio. he beat a sitting governor to get into the senate, and has displaced his own mentor as the favorite of the party establishment. many of rubio's moves have looked reckless, but many of them have paid off. and reckless moves that didn't pay off <u+2014> like the reformocon tax cut or the gang of eight immigration bill <u+2014> haven't killed him either, because he was able to swing hard and fast enough in the other direction to stay alive. as president, rubio would likely stick with the approach that's worked for him so far <u+2014> gambling hard and counting on his ability to swerve sharply if something like launching his presidency by provoking a major international crisis around iran turns out to create some problems. if we're all very lucky, it just might work. but i have some concerns.

why i'm more worried about marco rubio than donald trump

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

56.0

8.0

9795.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

731.0

0.0

144.0

0.0

80.0

22.0

24.0

8.0

32.0

18.0

20.0

15.0

42.0

54.0

70.0

734.0

144.0

80.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

it was a few weeks before hillary clinton would announce her 2016 presidential bid, and she was already worried about money. <u+201c>can we discuss the fundraising plans for first quarter?<u+201d> her top aide huma abedin wrote to other senior staffers in march 2015, noting that clinton was concerned. <u+201c>is the issue that she<u+2019>s doing too much? too little?<u+201d> asked campaign manager robby mook. at the time, donors to the former florida governor were socking millions into a super pac, pushing the limits of campaign-finance rules. the stockpiling of seven-figure checks before bush even declared his candidacy spurred a flurry of anxious conversations between clinton and her staff, according to hacked emails posted by wikileaks. but the former secretary of state had her own financial weapon: a network of political backers that she and her husband, former president bill clinton, had methodically cultivated over 40 years. determined not to fall behind in the money race, hillary clinton ramped up her appeals to rich donors and shrugged off restrictions that president obama had imposed on his fundraising team. even as her advisers fretted about the perception that she was too cozy with wealthy interests, they agreed to let lobbyists bundle checks for her campaign, including those representing some foreign governments, the emails show. top aides wooed major donors for super pacs, taking advantage of the leeway that campaigns have to legally collaborate with the groups on fundraising. the effort paid off. together with the party and pro-clinton super pacs, the democratic nominee had amassed $1.14 billion to support her campaign by the end of september <u+2014> on par with what obama and his allies brought in for his 2012 reelection bid. gop presidential nominee donald trump, who did not begin fundraising in earnest until the end of may, had collected $712 million, including $56 million of his own money. unlike obama, clinton fully embraced super pacs from the very beginning of her race, helping pull in larger checks from donors than the president did. an analysis by the washington post found that more than a fifth of the $1 billion donated to help her bid was given by just 100 wealthy individuals and labor unions <u+2014> many with a long history of contributing to the clintons. the analysis included contributions to her campaigns, joint fundraising committees, national parties, convention host committees and single-candidate super pacs. the top five donors together contributed one out of every $17 for her 2016 run: hedge fund manager s. donald sussman ($20.6 million); chicago venture capitalist j.b. pritzker and his wife, m.k. ($16.7 million); univision chairman haim saban and his wife, cheryl ($11.9 million); hedge fund titan george soros ($9.9 million); and slimfast founder s. daniel abraham ($9.7<u+2009>million). since modern-day campaign finance rules were put in place in the 1970s in the wake of the watergate scandal, no president has ever been elected with the help of wealthy contributors who doled out such huge sums. the possibilities changed with the 2010 advent of super pacs, which can accept unlimited sums from individuals and corporations. <u+201c>i would prefer if the limits were much smaller, but that<u+2019>s the way it is,<u+201d> abraham, 92, said in an interview. he and his wife made 26 contributions to the clintons<u+2019> campaigns between 1994 and 2008, which together totaled $461,000, according to a database built by the post. this year, he has given nearly 21 times that amount. sussman, clinton<u+2019>s top backer, said his top priority is dismantling the big-money system that has flourished in the wake of the supreme court<u+2019>s citizens united v. federal election commission decision. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s very odd to be giving millions when your objective is to actually get the money out of politics,<u+201d> sussman said. <u+201c>i am a very strong supporter of publicly financed campaigns, and i think the only way to accomplish that is to get someone like secretary clinton, who is committed to cleaning up the unfortunate disaster created by the activist court in citizens united.<u+201d> clinton has emerged as both one of the sharpest critics and biggest beneficiaries of the new campaign-finance landscape. on the campaign trail, she has repeatedly called for an overhaul of how elections are financed and vowed to overturn the citizens united ruling, which allowed corporations to spend money on independent political activity. she has also pledged to sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose political spending and to create a matching system for small donors in federal races. <u+201c>more than 2.6 million americans have donated to this campaign because they know hillary clinton is the best candidate to bring us toward a more inclusive society with an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top,<u+201d> said spokesman josh schwerin. but clinton would also enter the white house deeply indebted to a group of elite donors who have backed her and her husband for decades <u+2014> helping raise $4<u+2009>billion for their political and philanthropic causes over the years, according to an analysis by the post. an investigation by the post last year found that the clintons kept donors in their orbit for years by methodically wooing competing interest groups and balancing their liberal base with powerful business constituencies such as wall street and the tech sector. top allies have financed not only their political causes, but their legal needs and their philanthropy. about half of the money they have raised <u+2014> more than $2<u+2009>billion <u+2014> went to the clinton foundation, which has financed access to hiv treatments around the world, promoted early literacy programs and trained african farmers on improving their crop yields. the foundation<u+2019>s fundraising has also generated controversy in this year<u+2019>s campaign, as critics have seized upon its acceptance of money from foreign governments while hillary clinton was secretary of state. separately, donors gave $888<u+2009>million to support bill clinton<u+2019>s two presidential runs, hillary clinton<u+2019>s two senate campaigns and her 2008 presidential bid, according to campaign finance records. as she ramped up her 2016 bid, clinton<u+2019>s advisers worried that her call for a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united <u+2014> a long-shot policy goal <u+2014> would not be enough to combat the view that she was closely aligned with wealthy interests. in a may 2015 discussion about possible campaign finance proposals clinton could endorse, dan schwerin, director of speechwriting, wrote that he was concerned about <u+201c>complaints of hypocrisy.<u+201d> <u+201c>policy alone won<u+2019>t make the cognitive dissonance go away, in fact it might heighten it,<u+201d> he added. <u+201c>but having her make the unilateral disarmament argument directly and maybe even some straight talk that cuts to the core of people<u+2019>s concerns about her relationship with donors in general, might help.<u+201d> at the same time, her campaign was contending with a new reality: the political world had changed since clinton<u+2019>s last run for office. super pacs were now central players in campaigns. and many of her gop rivals, including bush and wisconsin gov. scott walker, were pushing the bounds of the use of such groups. [it<u+2019>s bold, but legal: how campaigns and their super pac backers work together] the republicans<u+2019> aggressiveness <u+2014> and the lack of response from regulators <u+2014> alarmed clinton. in early may 2015, she forwarded her advisers an article about the lack of enforcement by the polarized federal election commission, which is charged with policing election rules. <u+201c>what do you suggest we do?<u+201d> she asked. <u+201c>i have no magic solutions other than execution,<u+201d> responded campaign chairman john podesta, adding that the campaign needed to expand its network of fundraisers who bundle checks and <u+201c>get priorities functional,<u+201d> a reference to priorities usa action, the main super pac backing clinton. <u+201c>we should also ask bho to do more in light of this, although they are kind of prissy about how they approach this,<u+201d> he added, referring to obama. mook agreed: <u+201c>i think we focus hard on raising as much as we can and then throw the kitchen sink at everyone who we believe steps over the line, understanding that has limited impact.<u+201d> the clinton campaign has refused to confirm the authenticity of the emails posted by wikileaks, which were allegedly hacked from podesta<u+2019>s personal account. government officials have already officially accused russia of attempting to interfere in the u.s. election, including through a previous hack of the democratic national committee, and are investigating whether russian intelligence services are behind the podesta hack. the emails show that clinton decided to step up her own fundraising schedule that spring even if, as adebin noted at one point, it made the schedule <u+201c>a little crazy.<u+201d> and she decided to forgo some of the self-imposed limitations that obama had put on his own fundraising. the campaign decided to not only let lobbyists bundle checks, but, after extensive internal debate, permitted some of those registered as representing foreign governments to raise money as well. mook explained to other top advisers that the campaign<u+2019>s outside attorney, marc elias, <u+201c>made a convincing case to me this am that these sorts of restrictions don<u+2019>t really get you anything .<u+2002>.<u+2002>. that obama actually got judged more harshly as a result,<u+201d> he wrote. <u+201c>he convinced me. so .<u+2002>.<u+2002>. in a complete u-turn, i<u+2019>m ok just taking the money and dealing with any attacks. are you guys ok with that?<u+201d> clinton and her aides also sent clear signals early on that they wanted supporters to back priorities usa, which had originally formed to support obama<u+2019>s reelection despite his objections to super pacs. in an april 2015 memo, elias laid out the ways that super pacs and the campaign could legally interact, noting that the campaign could share the names of prospective donors with priorities <u+2014> including how much they might be willing to give. campaign officials could not explicitly tell the super pac how much to ask for, he stressed. but they could say something like, <u+201c>donor a works in financial services and has been a long-time contributor. i think she<u+2019>d be willing to do six figures for priorities,<u+201d> he wrote. clinton also got a boost from another super pac, correct the record, led by her ally david brock, which coordinates directly with the campaign on opposition research, taking advantage of an exemption designed for bloggers. to donors, the different groups were often presented as pieces of a unified enterprise. four days before clinton officially jumped in the race, retired banker herb sandler got an email from a washington fundraiser working for priorities usa action who introduced himself as <u+201c>the finance director for hillary clinton<u+2019>s superpac,<u+201d> according a message sandler forwarded to podesta. two months later, sandler gave priorities $1 million. podesta was recruited to pitch major donors to support both the campaign and priorities as he traveled around the country, the emails show. after a trip to san francisco in december 2015, podesta reported back that sandler was willing to give the maximum contribution to a joint fundraising committee between clinton<u+2019>s campaign and the democratic party. <u+201c>he is also prepared to double down on his priorities support as well,<u+201d> podesta added. <u+201c>thanks, john!!!!!<u+201d> responded national finance director dennis cheng, punctuating his message with the hashtag <u+201c>#chairmancash.<u+201d> [univision chair, a clinton donor, urged campaign to hit trump on immigration] the emails show that clinton<u+2019>s aides were intensely focused on locking up the support of labor unions <u+2014> a source of cash and ground troops <u+2014> and often agonized over how to keep them on board amid competing political interests. in april 2015, after attending a gathering of major liberal donors, senior policy adviser ann o<u+2019>leary noted that <u+201c>a number of our friends<u+201d> <u+2014> including the service employees international union <u+2014> wanted clinton to back organized labor<u+2019>s <u+201c>fight for 15<u+201d> campaign to raise the minimum wage. <u+201c>can we do something creative to support efforts without coming out for a number?<u+201d> she asked. two months later, clinton garnered huge cheers when she called in to a convention of fast-food workers, telling them <u+201c>thank you for marching in the streets to get that living wage<u+201d> <u+2014> stopping short of endorsing a specific figure for the minimum wage. seiu president mary kay henry dashed off a note to podesta with the subject line, <u+201c>it worked!<u+201d> <u+201c>i looked around the stage and most fast food leaders had tears streaming down their face,<u+201d> she wrote, adding that the sentiment in the room was, <u+201c>she<u+2019>s on our side.<u+201d> <u+201c>amazing,<u+201d> responded abedin when a staffer forwarded her the note. <u+201c>hope you shared with hrc!<u+201d> seiu officials said henry<u+2019>s email was referring to the support clinton has shown for working families on a variety of issues, adding that members of the union have felt even more energized by her candidacy as the election has drawn closer. in the fall of 2015, the seiu endorsed clinton, who has since expressed support for a $15 minimum wage. the union donated $1<u+2009>million to priorities and is spending tens of millions on an independent field effort to turn out voters in battleground states. wealthy individuals supporting clinton also frequently weighed in with requests and advice, the emails show. one regular correspondent was saban, a dual israeli-american citizen who dispensed ideas about how to appeal to latino and jewish voters. after trump described mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers in his speech announcing his run for president, saban spurred the campaign to respond more forcefully. he urged clinton aides to call sen. bernie sanders (vt.) on the fact that he had super pac backing, like clinton. and he encouraged the former secretary of state <u+201c>to differentiate herself from obama on israel.<u+201d> <u+201c>it can easily be done w/o criticizing the president,<u+201d> he wrote in june 2015, adding that she should <u+201c>speak strongly against anti-semitism, and boycott, reaffirm the us commitment to israel<u+2019>s security +anything else your research tells you the jewish community is sensitive to. <u+201c>this is not a ny or california issue,,,,it is a florida one,<u+201d> he added. <u+201c>pls lmk how i can help here.<u+201d> the next year, when clinton expanded her delegate lead over sanders in the march 15 primaries, saban sent podesta, mook and abedin a jubilant message. <u+201c>cheryl and i are so very happy...... relieved....... and looking forward to continued success,<u+201d> he wrote. <u+201c>onward and forward.<u+201d> <u+201c>thank you for making it possible!!<u+201d> mook responded. <u+201c>she is the one that made it happen with you guys and your teams by her side,<u+201d> saban replied. <u+201c>thank you for saying what you said about us but we<u+2019>re just on the periphery.<u+201d> note: an earlier version of this story erroneously referred to the late wife of slimfast founder s. daniel abraham. abraham<u+2019>s wife is alive.

how mega-donors helped raise $1 billion for hillary clinton

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

24.0

59.0

8.0

14940.0

0.0

9.0

6.0

0.0

1053.0

1.0

0.0

287.0

0.0

127.0

19.0

27.0

4.0

19.0

20.0

13.0

9.0

64.0

35.0

91.0

1059.0

288.0

127.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

you can buy snacks, condoms, fishing bait, marijuana and even gold from vending machines, so sam piccinini figured, <u+201c>why not bullets?<u+201d> a 25-year police department veteran who now runs his own ammunition manufacturing and wholesale business, piccinini, of rochester, pa., has two of his retrofitted vending machines at his local gun club. the machines, which sell nearly every caliber of bullet from .22 to .45, are doing a brisk business and, piccinini said, other clubs want his machines. <u+201c>i have clubs lining up at my door wanting them,<u+201d> piccinini told foxnews.com. <u+201c>i have five clubs chomping at the bit, wanting these machines.<u+201d> piccinini, who owns master ammo co., a licensed manufacturer of ammunition, said he got the idea two years ago, when bullet shortages around the nation left members of the beaver valley rifle & pistol club unable to buy the <u+201c>non-jacketed<u+201d> rounds preferred at most shooting ranges. first, piccinini asked local attorney eugene martucci if such a machine would be legal. told such a device could be operated lawfully, piccinini bought a vending machine and had some modifications made to it, allowing it to accept larger bills and credit cards and to hoist and dispense bags of .45-caliber automatic colt pistol cartridges. he figures he spent about $4,000 on the first vending machine. he now has two of them at the club and a third ready to be deployed. piccinini<u+2019>s machines sell both handgun and rifle ammunition, which are regulated differently. in pennsylvania, people ages 18 and over can buy long gun ammunition and people over 21 can buy bullets for handguns. critics say selling from a machine, without an attendant to ensure the purchase is legal, poses a problem. piccinini likens his machines to cigarette vending machines in social clubs, noting that a prominent sticker on them states, <u+201c>you must be 21 years of age to purchase ammunition for use in handguns from this machine.<u+201d> since the club does not admit minors without adult guardians, and since anyone entering must pass through a security gate and swipe an id card to enter, piccinini does not believe there is a risk of illicit sales. <u+201c>it's not like someone walking off the street can get in and buy ammunition,<u+201d> piccinini said. selling bullets out of a vending machine, as opposed to over a counter, is "not a big deal," said ladd everitt, spokesman for the washington-based pro-gun control group coalition to stop gun violence. "ammunition is widely available at ranges to begin with,and we don't take issue with that," everitt said. "if they put it in a school, call me back." the federal bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives regulates sales of ammunition, and piccinini has permits allowing him to manufacture, sell and even export guns and ammunition. stephen bartholomew, of the batfe's philadelphia field office, told the beavercountian.com he had never come across vending machines that sell ammunition. <u+201c>i don<u+2019>t want to speculate as to what is or is not happening in this particular situation, but a licensee cannot sell ammunition to anyone under the age of 18 and, importantly, you cannot sell handgun ammunition to individuals under the age of 21,<u+201d> he said. the club makes no money off of sales or for renting space for the machines, which piccinini, who sells ammunition to retailers and police departments in pennsylvania, hopes will become a growing part of his company. <u+201c>the club doesn<u+2019>t receive any profits and the machines are strictly there for the convenience of its members,<u+201d> said piccinini. the club is not looking for publicity for the machines, according to its president, bill fortuna. <u+201c>this has been kept a secret, it<u+2019>s nobody<u+2019>s business, it<u+2019>s our club, we can do as our members allow us,<u+201d> fortuna told beavercountian.com. <u+201c>legally, there<u+2019>s nothing anybody can do about it.<u+201d> piccinini, who is running for beaver county sheriff, a post he has twice sought unsuccessfully, believes criticism he has received for his brainchild will ultimately backfire and win him the votes of second amendment advocates in the march 19 republican primary. "some people have been critical, but i think even more people support me and support the right to bear arms," he said.

worth a shot: former pennsylvania police officer's vending machines sell ammo

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

77.0

8.0

4216.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

335.0

0.0

61.0

0.0

47.0

12.0

6.0

2.0

15.0

2.0

6.0

5.0

22.0

18.0

21.0

341.0

61.0

47.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

obama has maintained neutrality in the primary and recently met with clinton's opponent, vermont sen. bernie sanders , at the white house. still, his comments on the race have seemed to favor his former secretary of state, if only slightly. jay carney told cnn's brooke baldwin on wednesday that's no accident -- and the president does want clinton to win. "i don't think there is any doubt that he wants hillary to win the nomination and believes that she would be the best candidate in the fall and the most effective as president in carrying forward what he's achieved," said carney, a cnn contributor. the white house declined to comment on carney's comments wednesday. carney said obama won't make an official endorsement until the race is decided, but his intentions are clear. "i think the president has signaled, while still remaining neutral, that he supports secretary clinton's candidacy and would prefer to see her as the nominee," carney said. "he won't officially embrace her unless and until it's clear that she's going to be the nominee. i think he is maintaining that tradition of not intervening in a party primary." clinton has made a point to draw from her closeness with obama on the campaign trail, attacking sanders for criticizing the president and seeking a primary challenger to him in 2012

jay carney: obama supports hillary clinton

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

42.0

8.0

1319.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

101.0

0.0

30.0

0.0

8.0

2.0

4.0

2.0

4.0

3.0

4.0

3.0

11.0

5.0

11.0

103.0

30.0

8.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

hillary clinton's ties to large corporations have come under more scrutiny after it was revealed that dozens of companies that have donated millions to her family's foundation also lobbied the state department during her tenure as secretary of state. the wall street journal reports that the 60 companies who lobbied clinton's state department between 2009 and 2013 donated over $26 million to the clinton foundation in that period. the donors include instantly recognizable names like general electric, exxon mobil, and boeing. the journal also reports that at least 44 of the 60 companies participated in philanthropy projects valued at $3.2 billion set up by the clinton global initiative, which is a wing of the foundation. at least 25 of the companies also contributed to 15 public-private partnerships created by clinton and coordinated by the state department. while there is no evidence that any laws were broken, the connections do raise potentially thorny ethical questions as clinton prepares for a likely 2016 run for the democratic presidential nomination. clinton spokesman nick merrill told the journal that she "did the job that every secretary of state is supposed to do and what the american people expect of them<u+2014>especially during difficult economic times. she proudly and loudly advocated on behalf of american business and took every opportunity she could to promote u.s. commercial interests abroad." the latest report comes on the heels of the disclosure that donations from foreign governments to the clinton foundation have increased considerably following the removal of a self-imposed ban on such contributions during hillary's time as secretary of state. experts have said that the donation ban should be immediately re-imposed until clinton formally decides one way or another whether she will seek the white house. on thursday, the foundation said it would consider whether to accept such contributions should clinton decide to run, but would not commit to rejecting such donations in the future. the journal report cites several examples of clinton promoting eventual donors to the foundation and its various activities. for example, in october 2012, she lobbied the algerian government to contract general electric to build power plants in that country. the following month, the foundation approached the company about expanding a health-access initiative. an eventual partnership was formed, to which the company contributed between $500,000 and $1 million. the algerian government awarded ge the power plant contract in september 2013. other efforts were less successful. in 2010, clinton announced cooperation between the u.s. and poland on a scheme to develop shale gas deposits in eastern europe. after several years of false starts, exxon mobil and chevron gave up their polish plans. in 2012, clinton persuaded bulgaria's government to issue a five-year license to chevron allowing conventional gas exploration. that, too went nowhere. the following year, the journal reports, chevron donated $250,000 to the foundation.<u+00a0>exxon mobil, for its part, has donated at least $18.8 million to various initiatives, including a nonprofit women's group called vital voices. in at least one case, a sizable corporate monetary promise was made before a clinton overseas trip. in 2012, wal-mart, a company with whom the clintons have ties going back to their days in arkansas, pledged $12 million to various causes supporting woman in latin america. $1.5 million of that money went toward a clinton foundation public-private partnership and another $500,000 went to vital voices. a month later, clinton lobbied the indian government to reverse a ban on multibrand retailers, opening up a potentially lucrative market for several u.s. companies, including wal-mart. the effort was unsuccessful. click for more from the wall street journal.

hillary clinton's ties to corporate donors, lobbyists while secretary of state scrutinized

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

90.0

8.0

3875.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

257.0

0.0

68.0

0.0

20.0

2.0

13.0

0.0

5.0

3.0

4.0

10.0

11.0

28.0

264.0

68.0

20.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

u.s. resets obamacare deadline for some businesses to 2016 the obama administration says businesses employing 50-99 people now have until jan. 1, 2016, to provide health insurance, rolling back part of the requirement known as the employer mandate. under the affordable care act, larger companies must offer the coverage in 2015. npr's julie rovner filed this update for our newscast desk: it's the second time the requirement for middle-size businesses has been postponed. julie will have more analysis of the change later, for the shots blog. the change was announced monday by the department of the treasury and the internal revenue service. the agencies say the delay will affect only about 2 percent of u.s. employers. the agencies also announced a new rule allowing large employers to phase in the percentage of workers they cover, "from 70 percent in 2015 to 95 percent in 2016 and beyond." as the announcement notes, many of those firms, which employ 100 or more people, already offer insurance coverage.

u.s. resets obamacare deadline for some businesses to 2016

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

58.0

8.0

1018.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

49.0

0.0

21.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0.0

1.0

5.0

1.0

2.0

53.0

21.0

2.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

one of the big themes of the 2014 midterm elections was the insistence from republicans that they, given the chance, would be able to competently govern. as house majority leader kevin mccarthy explained it in late october, just before election day, it was critical for the party<u+2019>s political future to demonstrate to voters that they could get stuff done. <u+201c>i do know this,<u+201d> mccarthy said in an interview with politico. <u+201c>if we don<u+2019>t capture the house stronger, and the senate, and prove we could govern, there won<u+2019>t be a republican president in 2016.<u+201d> here we are a little less than a year later, and mccarthy has dramatically withdrawn his name from consideration in the race to replace the outgoing speaker of the house, who announced his resignation as a last-ditch effort to get past the second government shutdown drama of 2015. with the debt ceiling rapidly approaching and yet another government-funding chokepoint soon after that, the house republicans are too divided and unruly to even pick someone to lead them through these two tests of basic governance. i think even mccarthy would have to admit at this point that the <u+201c>prove we could govern<u+201d> test has been a colossal failure for the gop. and that<u+2019>s obviously bad news for the party, but it means the rest of us are kinda screwed too. let<u+2019>s retrace the steps that led to mccarthy<u+2019>s embarrassing withdrawal. he got promoted to majority leader after eric cantor was upset in his primary race by a hardline tea party candidate who successfully caricatured cantor as a rino who sold out conservatives. by sliding into cantor<u+2019>s position, mccarthy resigned himself to the same fate <u+2013> being in the leadership necessarily means having to occasionally compromise with the democrats, and in the eyes of the increasingly potent far-right house freedom caucus, that<u+2019>s an unforgivable sin against conservatism. speaker john boehner barely managed (and sometimes failed) to keep the house gop together over four years of bitter infighting, and he ended up resigning just to keep his own party from shutting the government down over planned parenthood. mccarthy, as majority leader, was the natural successor to boehner and aggressively sought the job. then, seemingly out of nowhere, he backed out of the race. did he get bumped because of his unseemly truth-telling about the political agenda of the house select committee on benghazi? maybe! though it<u+2019>s uncertain whether he would have had sufficient support in the absence of a high-profile gaffe. did he back off because of rumors that he was having an extramarital affair with another republican in the house? probably not! but there was apparently a good deal of unsourced <u+201c>buzz<u+201d> and <u+201c>chatter<u+201d> to that effect circulating among the gossipy children we elect to represent us at the highest levels of government. the most likely explanation is that he realized that even if he did clear the threshold to be elected speaker, he<u+2019>d be weakened by defections within his own caucus and probably fail at the first critical task facing him: raising the debt limit before the country defaults on its debt payments early next month. faced with those prospects and the long-term problem presented by an influential, uncontrollable and politically suicidal faction within his own party, you can<u+2019>t really blame him for wanting out. mccarthy<u+2019>s rapid departure has left the republican caucus in the purest state of chaos <u+2013> members were apparently weeping in private corners <u+2013> and opened the floor to all manner of crazy suggestions for who should be the next speaker. ted cruz? sounds plausible! donald trump? yeah man yeah! mitt romney? hah. terrific! but really it seems like no one knows what happens now. some republicans are pushing for a placeholder speaker, some retiring republican member who won<u+2019>t have to worry about their political future. boehner is apparently making personal appeals to paul ryan, begging him to take the job he<u+2019>s desperate to abandon, and ryan is resisting. we<u+2019>re at the point where one of the most powerful men in washington can<u+2019>t seem to give away his position of authority and prestige. the reason no one wants to be in charge of the house republican caucus is because it is impossible to govern. conservatives are claiming mccarthy<u+2019>s and boehner<u+2019>s scalps and demanding that a real conservative be installed as speaker <u+2013> someone who will cater to the demands of the extremist right. one can not meet those demands and still be an effective leader of the legislative body. boehner tried to do it several times, and each time he ended up leading his party into defeat and embarrassment. when he inevitably ended up compromising to pass must-pass legislation, he was branded as a traitor by the hardliners in his own ranks. as i wrote when boehner announced his resignation, it doesn<u+2019>t really matter who replaces him because <u+201c>they<u+2019>ll run into the same problems he did as the leader of political party that is actively hostile to the very idea of competent governance.<u+201d> and that<u+2019>s a big problem because we need competent leadership and basic governance to keep the federal government<u+2019>s lights on and avoid a thoroughly unnecessary debt default that could kick the legs out from underneath the economic recovery. but right now we don<u+2019>t have that because nobody with a modicum of political intelligence wants to be in charge of the house of representatives.

the gop is ungovernable: what happens when one major party is dysfunctional to the core

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

3.0

87.0

8.0

5377.0

0.0

5.0

3.0

0.0

332.0

3.0

0.0

114.0

0.0

50.0

16.0

11.0

12.0

23.0

8.0

24.0

10.0

22.0

41.0

35.0

335.0

117.0

50.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

fiorina, the former hewlett-packard executive and cruz's rival for the gop nomination, hit cruz in an interview with cnn's dana bash on "state of the union." she kept up her criticism of the texas senator for his 2013 push for a government shutdown in an ill-fated attempt to repeal president barack obama's signature health care law. "ted cruz is just like any other politician. he says one thing in manhattan, he says another thing in iowa," fiorina said sunday. recordings of cruz speaking about gay marriage to donors in new york city appear to differ in style, but not substance, from his speeches to conservative supporters. "he says whatever he needs to say to get elected, and then he's going to do as he pleases," she said. "i think people are tired of a political class that promises much and delivers much of the same." cruz on conference call: i'll win, but attacks are coming in the interview, fiorina, a stanford alum, also dismissed social media criticism of her new year's day tweet in which she said she was rooting for iowa over stanford in the rose bowl. fiorina tweeted: "love my alma mater, but rooting for a hawkeyes win today. #rosebowl" love my alma mater, but rooting for a hawkeyes win today. #rosebowl <u+2014> carly fiorina (@carlyfiorina) january 1, 2016 fiorina said her tweet was tongue-in-cheek, and people in iowa knew she "was torn" on the game, noting she'd attended a hawkeyes tailgate in the fall. "let's just say if the biggest mistake i make is a tongue-in-cheek tweet about a rose bowl, the american people will sleep safely when i am president of the united states," fiorina said. skywriters have message for trump at rose parade

carly fiorina: ted cruz says 'whatever' to get elected

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

54.0

8.0

1667.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

118.0

0.0

38.0

0.0

9.0

3.0

4.0

1.0

3.0

4.0

2.0

5.0

9.0

7.0

120.0

38.0

9.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the rubio campaign is on its last legs, stumbling dehydrated and desperate through the florida everglades like the heroine in the second act of a carl hiaasen novel, trying to stay one step ahead of the bloodhounds who want nothing more than to drag the florida senator into the swamp and tear his throat out, or at least convince him to join with ted cruz on some sort of unity ticket to stop donald trump, which might be an even worse fate. the establishment is telling rubio his dropping out would be for the good of the republican party. which is why he<u+2019>ll probably at least consider it. he is a party man through and through, and since he gave up his senate seat to run for president, he<u+2019>s going to want to come out of this cluster-screw of a campaign with something to show for it besides the humiliation of a crushing defeat in his home state<u+2019>s primary on tuesday. run for vice-president on a ticket with cruz, the party will whisper in his ear, and when he gets destroyed in the general election in the fall and the country suffers through four years of socialism under a democrat, you<u+2019>ll be perfectly positioned to be the 2020 nominee. what<u+2019>s not to like about that scenario? and why wouldn<u+2019>t you trust a gop establishment that has displayed such a sharp political acumen this cycle that it just about handed its nomination over to a jar of orange marmalade in a bad wig before it knew what hit it? rubio might not be smart, but he<u+2019>s a politician who can read poll numbers. it must have sunk in by now that his <u+201c>baghdad bob<u+201d> primary strategy (claim victory even when you came in a distant third/the american military is a block away and roaring towards you unopposed) has been a galactic failure. with even his financial backers and editorial page cheerleaders telling him it<u+2019>s time, he must feel like butch coolidge getting the order to take his ass down in the fifth. the post-mortem on rubio<u+2019>s campaign will point to many, many moments that sealed his fate. the base never fully trusted him after his role in the gang of eight immigration reform bill in the senate, which he later had to renounce in the hope of pacifying the conservative mouth-breathers who were inundating his office with hate mail. there was his apparent circuit-breaker malfunction in the new hampshire debate against chris christie. there was his late-in-the-campaign attempt to turn into don rickles in order to stand up to trump, which only seemed to cause his poll numbers to crash. there were his ham-handed attempts to get to the farthest right edge of the republican field on every issue from abortion to fighting terrorism, the latter of which resulted in his spouting the sorts of fearful, doom-laden paranoia about isis terrorists coming ashore in biscayne bay that might tickle the gop base but erased rubio<u+2019>s image as the sunny and optimistic young man who could lead america into a booming future. it is that last one that i think comes closest to explaining his flameout. it stems from the 30,000-feet view of marco rubio the politician, an ambitious young man with no accomplishments or real-world experience to qualify him, who would don whatever suit <u+2013> neocon hawk, religious extremist, crazy guy hollering about a war on christianity from a steam grate <u+2013> he or his advisers thought the gop electorate wanted at any given moment, no matter how awkward the fit. he was the best example of a blow-dried establishment candidate this cycle, so perfect he might have been grown in that space station lab in <u+201c>alien: resurrection<u+201d> where they kept all those malformed ripley clones, and raised to be the great hope of the republican party. in an era where carefully maintaining and presenting a focus group-approved persona to the world is the paramount goal of almost every politician at the national level, rubio still stood out for how many of his edges had been sanded off. rubio was the product of personal ambition in overdrive and married to a republican party that has bought so fully into the idea that our current president was elected despite being an unaccomplished lightweight, all it had to do was roll out another young, telegenic pol with a non-waspy last name and the white house would be the gop<u+2019>s to lose. never mind the lack of accomplishments, or the fact he was a career politician who had barely seen a time in his adult life when he wasn<u+2019>t collecting a government paycheck while dining with lobbyists. never mind that when he spoke in debates, his talking points, which were mostly warmed-over standard-issue conservative pabulum, all sounded so memorized that you could half-imagine him cramming with flash cards the night before in a dorm room decorated with a dan marino poster. never mind the awkward attempts to connect with young people <u+2013> did you know that marco loves the rap music? <u+2013> while spouting anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage positions that are as out of place in the twenty-first century as a horse and buggy. it would have been much more hilarious, if it hadn<u+2019>t also felt so desperate. rubio and his handlers seemed to think he could cruise to the nomination on the strength of an appeal that was as chimerical as a unicorn. to that end, he never really built much of a ground game for his campaign, a fact that observers have been harping on for months. his team seemed to think that it was running some sort of high-tech, futuristic operation where retail politics didn<u+2019>t matter, where you could, as one adviser infamously put it, save on office rent by having your entire team set up in a starbucks and use the free wifi. meanwhile, he seemed to spend as much time huddling with wealthy financial backers behind closed doors as he did getting in front of voters. and while he was flying around being not quite as visible as he needed to be to voters, rubio missed so much time at his day job, and publicly proclaimed he didn<u+2019>t care because the senate bored him anyway, that it became easy to view him as a lazy, entitled dilettante. no amount of repeating the story of his humble beginnings <u+2013> did you know his dad was a bartender? <u+2013> was going to overcome that. it<u+2019>s possible he could still come back and run for statewide office in florida, but one has to think rubio<u+2019>s career in national politics is over. whatever has been loosed in the electorate that gave<u+00a0>rise to donald trump is not likely to fade anytime soon. there is no room in that space for a guy so transparent, if you squint hard enough you can see what he ate for lunch. all the image consultants in the world can<u+2019>t cover that up.

the marco rubio post-mortem: how a supposedly ready-made gop nominee crashed and burned

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

5.0

87.0

8.0

6537.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

477.0

2.0

0.0

144.0

0.0

54.0

12.0

20.0

13.0

25.0

13.0

17.0

10.0

34.0

38.0

41.0

479.0

146.0

54.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

hillary clinton leads donald trump by just 4 points in a new washington post-abc news poll, well within its margin of error and a clear sign that trump may be regaining his momentum. clinton leads trump, 47 to 43 percent, among likely voters in the poll released early sunday. libertarian nominee gary johnson has 5 percent and the green party<u+2019>s jill stein has 2 percent. clinton maintains a 4-point lead over trump, 50 to 46 percent, in the two-way race. clinton led trump by 2 points in a four-way race, 46 to 44 percent, in the same poll earlier. the new poll was conducted following the release of a 2005 tape in which trump makes lewd comments about women. the poll of 740 likely voters, conducted oct. 10-13, has a 4-percentage-point margin of error. nearly 70 percent of respondents said they believe that the republican presidential nominee likely made unwanted sexual advances. most also said his apology was insincere. more than half of all respondents, 64 percent, said the tape won<u+2019>t make a difference in their votes.

washpost poll: clinton leads trump by 4

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

39.0

8.0

1035.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

58.0

0.0

13.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

59.0

13.0

4.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

las vegas (cnn) the bitter battle between donald trump and ted cruz escalated thursday, as prominent members of the gop fought over which one of them would do more damage to the republican brand. for months, the two republican candidates have sparred over who could rightly claim the mantle of party outsider. but with some republican leaders in open revolt against cruz as he has surged in iowa, trump is pivoting to an argument that he is more electable than cruz -- suggesting that cruz's abrasive personality makes him unfit for the presidency. the texas senator's image as a strident party pariah, trump said in nevada thursday, would cripple his ability to "make deals" and govern effectively. noting that not a single one of cruz's senate colleagues has endorsed him, trump questioned not only whether cruz could negotiate with members of congress, but whether he is capable of relating to people at the most basic level. "it's one thing to be like a very tough guy -- we're all tough people -- but you've got to be able to get along a little bit with people. you can't be so strident," trump told the crowd at two raucous events in las vegas . "he can debate, but he can't talk." alluding to dole's statement to the new york times interview that trump has the "right personality" to work with congress, trump played up his reputation as a deal maker as the underpinning of his electability argument: "we've got to be a little establishment," he said in vegas. "we've got to get things done." across the country in new hampshire, cruz told reporters that trump was getting "more and more riled" up as cruz's campaign has surged in the polls. "each day, he's engaging in more and more personal attacks," cruz said after speaking at the new hampshire institute of politics "life of the party" forum. "i have no intention of responding in kind. i like donald trump. i respect donald trump. i will continue to praise him personally." he repeated his somewhat dubious assertion that the washington establishment is "rushing" to get behind trump -- specifically highlighting trump's past friendships and political alliances with democrats. "he gave $100,000 dollars to the clinton foundation," cruz said in manchester. "he's actively supported hillary clinton as a political candidate. he's supported chuck schumer. he's supported andrew cuomo. he's supported rahm emanuel. so they know he will cut a deal." the conservative establishment, however, shows no sign of rallying around trump. in a press conference, trump brushed off the national review's criticisms, calling the magazine a failing, irrelevant publication. cruz also sought to use dole's comments to his advantage. in an interview with the boston herald radio show earlier thursday, he said the establishment is "terrified of a president who won't go along to get along." "he had his moment and he blew it," trump said of cruz in las vegas. "he looks like a nervous wreck.... he's going down." trump again goes after jeb though the latest polling data suggests that no candidate other than cruz is within striking distance of trump, the brash new york candidate could not resist a fresh round of withering attacks on jeb bush thursday. calling bush "a lost soul," trump mocked the lavish spending by his campaign and the political committees supporting him -- pointing to bush's stubborn position in the low single digits in the polls. "this guy, he's a maniac," trump said at his rally in las vegas. "he's not even on the scale -- these people, we've got a bunch of real dummies." trump assured the crowd that if bush stopped running ads against him, he would leave him alone. "jeb is down the toilet," he said, "and ted is starting to go down." trump continued his efforts to burnish his conservative credentials thursday, touting his endorsement from sarah palin (without whom, trump asserted, cruz never would have won his u.s. senate race). later in the day, he appeared at the outdoor sportsman awards, which are held in conjunction with the national shooting sports foundation's annual trade show. during his evening speech, he vowed to fight for second amendment rights as president. "the second amendment is 100% protected. 100%," he said on stage at the venetian theatre. introduced by supporter willie robertson of a&e's "duck dynasty," trump was flanked by his two sons, who he described as avid outdoorsmen. he told the crowd he shared their passion, but did not get "outdoors" as often as he would like because he works so much. "they are trying to take away so many rights," he said. "i think you're going to be very, very happy with a president donald trump." the drumbeat of establishment attacks against cruz continued in washington on thursday as a number of prominent republicans try to slow cruz's momentum. a number of current and former lawmakers are echoing the criticisms of cruz voiced by dole and iowa gov. terry branstad, who urged voters this week not to support cruz because of his position on ethanol subsidies. "i think we'll lose if he's our nominee," utah sen. orrin hatch told cnn's manu raju. hatch, who is supporting bush, said cruz has not demonstrated his ability to appeal to moderates and independents: "we can't just act like only one point of view is the only way to go. that's where ted is going to have some trouble." trump, graham said, "is the most unprepared person i've ever met to be commander in chief. and when it comes to sen. cruz, he's exhibited behavior in his time in the senate that makes it impossible for me to believe that he could bring this country together." when faced with a decision between the two men, graham said: "what does it really matter?"

republican elders ask 'who's worse' for the gop brand: trump or cruz

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

3.0

68.0

8.0

5702.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

367.0

1.0

0.0

125.0

0.0

43.0

11.0

10.0

5.0

10.0

8.0

10.0

7.0

26.0

23.0

31.0

368.0

126.0

43.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

these are some of the dead and missing in tuesday's terror attacks in brussels. at least 31 people were killed and 300 wounded in tuesday's attacks at the brussels airport and a subway, authorities said. the victims span 40 nationalities. americans were among the dead, u.s. secretary of state john kerry confirmed friday during a visit to the belgian capital. he didn't say how many or identify them, but a u.s. state department official later said that two americans died. france confirmed that one of its citizens was dead and 12 were wounded without providing details. china also said a citizen had died, but it was unclear if the victim, identified only by the surname deng by the chinese embassy in belgium, was among the 31 already reported dead. "we express deep condolences over the death of our chinese compatriot and strong condemnation on the criminal act of the terrorists," an embassy statement said. meanwhile, the stories of many of the victims are emerging as loved ones struggle to know more. she had lived in belgium for six years. originally from peru, the 37-year-old, her husband and twin 4-year-old daughters waited to board a flight to new york for an easter holiday family reunion, according to peruvian media and cnn en espa<u+00f1>ol. the daughters and husband left the boarding area for a moment. and in that moment, a bomb exploded. her family survived. one of the girls injured her arm but is doing better, her uncle fernando tapia told peruvian media. tapia told cnn that his half sister was a chef and worked with the peruvian consulate in brussels to promote peruvian food. she met her husband in 2005 during a tourist trip in puno, peru. she moved to belgium with him. "we never imagined we were going to have to suffer something like this: my sister killed in an inhumane, terrorist act," tapia said. "she had a happy marriage. she loved her husband, her family life and the girls. she left the country to live abroad in search of a better life and found death in such an inexplicable way. it's something we will never understand." the belgian law student died in the attack, his school, universite saint-louis bruxelles, said in a statement. delespesse was killed in the metro explosion, according to his employer, la federation wallonie-bruxelles, a government ministry serving francophone brussels and wallonia. others posted drawings of a cartoon man, weeping, a broken red heart on the ground. a friend wrote, "courage to his family, his friends, his colleagues." "may his soul rest in peace," another posted. the british foreign office confirmed dixon died in the attacks but provided no details. 'i am deeply saddened to hear david dixon was killed in the brussels attacks," british prime minister david cameron tweeted friday. "my thoughts and prayers are with his friends and family." dixon's family believes he died in the explosion at the maelbeek metro station. "he obviously took the train with the bomb, otherwise he would have got to his office," sutcliffe told the times. in a statement provided by the foreign office, the family said: "this morning we received the most terrible and devastating news about our beloved david. at this most painful time our family would gratefully appreciate it if we could be left alone to grieve in private." dixon and sutcliffe have a son. "i just want him to come home," she had said earlier. the family of the dutch siblings who had been missing since the blasts confirmed friday that the brother and sister had died. "we received confirmation this morning from belgian authorities and the dutch embassy of the positive identification of the remains of alexander and sascha," the family said in a statement. "we are grateful to have closure on this tragic situation, and are thankful for the thoughts and prayers from all. the family is in the process of making arrangements." the siblings were in the delta air lines ticket line at the airport to check in for their flight to new york when the bombs went off. alexander was talking to his mother on the phone when the line went dead, jim cain, a former u.s. ambassador to denmark, told cnn. "the family would like to thank the dutch embassy and delta airlines for all of their support in our search in brussels," the family said in an earlier statement. "we especially thank all of our friends and family, across two continents, for their expressions of love, support and prayers for sascha and alex." reacting to their deaths, new york gov. andrew cuomo said in a statement, "their lives were cut short by cowards who have chosen extremism and hate instead of peace and unity. on behalf of all new yorkers, i extend our deepest prayers and condolences to the pinczowski family, as well as all those who lost loved ones in tuesday's heartbreaking attacks." migom, 21, a belgian national, was confirmed dead friday, according to family members. a belgian hospital notified his mother. migom was on his way to athens, georgia, the day of the attack at the brussels airport. his girlfriend, emily eisenman, checked to make sure his train arrived at the airport at 7:30 a.m. tuesday. it had. his flight was scheduled to depart at 10:30 a.m. "but i don't think he ever made it," she said. migom and eisenman met last year on a health and fitness retreat in the united states. he and her brother were friends. the couple started dating on october 29. she remembers the exact date. he was studying marketing at howest university in bruges, belgium, eisenman said, and was living with his mother, two brothers and sister. he had booked his flight to visit her in the states. "i've never been to belgium," she said. laurent's family believes he was at the metro station at the time of the attack. they haven't heard from him since, his cousin wrote on facebook. raghavendran ganesan, an indian citizen and employee of infosys, has been missing since the attacks, his brother said. his brother wrote on facebook that the indian embassy in brussels is searching for him. "we are coordinating with @indembassybru & local authorities to locate our employee in brussels & are in touch with his family," infosys tweeted. the couple from tennessee have lived in belgium since 2014. they were dropping off stephanie shults' mother, carolyn moore, at the airport. moore, who was just about to walk through security, was knocked over by an explosion. she is now having trouble hearing in one ear. their families have not heard from the couple and are still awaiting news. moore remains in brussels and has been in touch with family in the united states. justin shults' brother, levi sutton of kentucky, said he woke up on the day of the attacks to texts from his mother. she was asking him to call her. "it's the longest day of my life. it's just frustrating not knowing. not knowing is maddening," sutton said tuesday. the two both have been working in brussels and are expected to move back to the united states in 2017. on wednesday, hope emerged the couple had been found, but sutton later posted a tweet saying the family had been misinformed. sabrina esmael fazal, 24, is missing. she took the metro to her university. jonathan selemani, 25, has been scouring the city's hospitals looking for his partner and mother of their 1-year-old child. "i saw her in the morning, before she went to school, before she was leaving for class," selemani said. "then when i learned the news i immediately started looking for her. i haven't found her. "i don't know how i'm going to explain it to my son." hours after the attack, she learned her mother was taken to a hospital in flanders. her father, she said, is missing. gigi has pleaded on facebook for people to stop calling her unless they have news about her father. every time the phone rings, her hope rises. "no news," she posted. "thank you...refrain from leaving new messages of sympathy...every tweet, ping, ring has us trembling just in case..." cyombo was at the metro at the time of the attack and has not been seen since, his uncle told cnn. cyombo is a student living in brussels. before the attack he sent a text to his younger brother saying he was about to get on the metro at maelbeek, the station that was targeted. his family posted on facebook urging anyone with information to get in touch. "please come back to us," they said in the post, adding they believe in "miracles." bastin's family believes she was at the maelbeek metro at the time of the attack, and they have not heard from her. lafquiri is a physical education teacher at la vertu school, an islamic school in brussels, according to mohamed allaf, the school's co-founder. lafquiri is believed to have been at the maelbeek metro. "she was supposed to start at 9:45, but she didn't show up. we started to worry, thought she was sick. we called and called, but there was no answer on her phone," allaf told cnn. she was born in brussels, and her parents are originally from morocco. lafquiri is married with three sons. "she was an exceptional woman. she represented the true values of islam with generosity and caring," allaf said. he said her family spoke with officials at multiple hospitals and provided dna samples in the hope of identifying lafquiri. atlegrim's friends and family believe she was in the metro at the time of the attacks. the 31-year-old swedish woman has lived in brussels for many years. she studies at ecole nationale superieure des arts visuels de la cambre and is an illustrator, according to her facebook page. friends have described her as tall and thin with large eyes. panasewicz was on the metro about the time of the attacks, anabelle schatten wrote on facebook. originally from poland, she is described as having a scar from a recent thyroid surgery and was believed to be wearing black pants and a gray jacket. correction: an earlier version of this story misspelled johanna atlegrim's name.

brussels stories: grief for the lost, hope for the missing

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

6.0

58.0

8.0

9936.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

723.0

2.0

0.0

264.0

0.0

68.0

14.0

25.0

13.0

29.0

19.0

31.0

10.0

34.0

40.0

48.0

728.0

266.0

68.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

olive branch, mississippi (cnn) ted cruz gushes about his wife, heidi, on the campaign trail, telling an audience here that she is "beautiful, brilliant and my very best friend in the whole wide world." she's also something else: the best fundraiser in the republican presidential candidate's corner. the senator's wife, a top executive at goldman sachs who is taking a leave to work at campaign headquarters, is effectively leading her husband's fundraising operation, running some weekly finance calls and pushing major donors to give the maximum they're allowed under federal law. it's a far cry from the caricatured profile of the behind-the-scenes wife, posing for photos on stage and then receding quickly behind it. heidi cruz, senior campaign aides say, has been intimately involved in the process of raising the $14 million that ted cruz brags about on the stump, often while standing alongside the woman who made that haul possible. top cruz advisers and friends describe her as a competitive fundraising dynamo, unwilling to leave each night without completing her call sheet and determined to use the rolodex and business know-how she built as a wall street investor. "she works the phones the way she worked them when she was at goldman," said chad sweet, the cruz campaign's chairman, who recruited heidi to work at the giant investment bank. "there are very few spouses who can get on the phone on a cold call to a prospective donor and make a more compelling case in a personal and effective way than heidi cruz." nearly every candidate heralds their spouse as an asset, but few significant others in this election season -- with the exception of hillary clinton's -- have the same level of political experience as heidi cruz. a harvard business school graduate, she helped guide economic policy on george w. bush's campaign -- where she met a hard-charging domestic policy aide, ted -- and then worked in the bush white house for four years. that makes her husband's bid her second time on the presidential campaign trail. campaign bundlers report up the chain to willie langston, cruz's finance chair, but fundraisers and advisers say heidi cruz is just as much involved in counting the dollars and cents needed to build for the long haul. it's a familiar role for heidi cruz, who the campaign declined to make available for an interview. in the final two weeks before her husband's primary in 2012 against david dewhurst -- who would pour $25 million of his own money into his campaign -- she agreed to dedicate the couple's entire savings to the senate campaign, cruz writes in his new autobiography. and once cruz and dewhurst advanced to a runoff, heidi and sweet led a 60-person finance team that raised $60,000 each -- the "60 by 60" project -- that put the campaign back on tv, cruz writes. "she would sit down with a call sheet at night and call through 40, 50, 60 names, and get donor after donor to max out on the phone -- and be thrilled to do so," cruz recalled in a recent interview with cnn as his campaign bus ambled toward memphis, tennessee. "she is disciplined and she engenders trust, which is a powerful thing in life." now, heidi cruz has focused her energies on drop-off donors who may have given in 2012 but haven't yet ponied up for the presidential run, or others on the fence. she isn't allowed to actively solicit money from her co-workers at goldman, but advisers say those specific relationships matter less than do her fluency with the language of business and her work ethic that leaves even other aides in awe. during the final weeks before the second-quarter fundraising deadline, she made about 30 calls a day. born in california but raised around the globe by missionary doctors, heidi cruz also showcases an easy rapport with the less fortunate. she gamely donned a neon pink hat offered by a cruz fan selling paraphernalia in huntsville, alabama, and shared her religious upbringing with fellow adventists in franklin, tennessee. when throngs of cruz fanatics mob her husband as he ends his stump speech, heidi cruz stands in a corner within earshot of her chief of staff, taking not just photographs but also business cards from eager backers who want to help. at sweet pea's table in this northern mississippi suburb last week, the 42-year-old has one eye on catherine and caroline -- who are barnstroming the south with their parents -- and another on the platform, where her husband summons the three cruz women to meet the tea-drinking faithful. with one hand clasped in each of her daughters', heidi cruz leads them off and on stage. then as her husband rails against obamacare and shouts about jeb bush, heidi steps outside, where she works the overflow crowd with a pitchman's touch: "when were you elected?" she asks one local official. "thank you for serving." "the sense of genuine concern was elegant," said the official, alderman eddie nabors of batesville, mississippi, after meeting her here. he praised how she "meets, greets and identifies" with those waiting outside. "i have one afterthought: get her on the podium." courting local elected officials like nabors also falls into her growing portfolio, which includes closing the deal on local endorsements. and the campaign is listening to nabors' advice: she is slowly becoming an ambassador for her husband, embarking this week on her second solo trip in north and south carolina, much like the other cruz family salesman, his father, rafael. should donald trump fall, as cruz allies anticipate, heidi cruz is expected to be at the forefront of the cruz campaign's effort to win over disaffected trump loyalists, especially women. contributors, advisers and friends describe her as sunny and cheerful but fiercely goal-driven, using her personal nudge to make it very difficult for donors to say no to her entreaties. those who have known her longest note how different she is from her husband, whose political persona is defined by an unyielding ideology that critics see as arrogant and inflexible. "she's not the ideologue that ted is on so many things. and i think she would be the first to say that," said ed haley, a mentor of heidi's since he taught her in college. lawrence lindsey, an economic adviser on the bush campaign, said that appeal likely made her a better, more accessible fundraiser than the person who is the campaign's chief check collector: the candidate himself. "heidi could get along with almost anyone," lindsey said. "and i don't think the same is true with ted."

meet ted cruz's top fundraiser: his wife

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

3.0

40.0

8.0

6535.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

457.0

1.0

0.0

177.0

0.0

36.0

4.0

18.0

2.0

7.0

17.0

4.0

9.0

39.0

13.0

46.0

461.0

178.0

36.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

a general view taken on march 27, 2016, shows part of the remains of the arch of triumph monument that was destroyed by islamic state militants in october 2015 in the ancient syrian city of palmyra.

antiquities destroyed at palmyra by the islamic state

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

53.0

8.0

198.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

14.0

1.0

0.0

3.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

3.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

5.0

20.0

4.0

3.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

michael d'antonio is the author of the new book , "the truth about trump." the opinions expressed in this commentary are his. (cnn) like a football team that must shake off defeat in order to prepare for the next game, donald trump has a short time to get over his drubbing in the first presidential debate and get ready for the next. he has, instead, been whining like a kitchen blender about the moderator, the microphone and his opponent while continuing to draw attention to the worst parts of his performance. advisors who want trump to win the next debate, on october 9, must get him to change. but to do this, they must overcome the candidate's 40-plus years of doing things his way. to appreciate the daunting nature of this task, consider just 10 things trump could do to prepare for the next debate, and why it's likely he won't be able to do any of them. 1) accept your defeat in the first debate trump likes to say "i'm a winner" and is not accustomed to losing, which may explain the poor sportsmanship he has shown since hillary clinton defeated him . ignoring real poll results that show he was swamped, trump has ordered aides to stop saying he lost. of course, this kind of denial means that no one can ask the emperor to put on some clothes. he won't look down to see his own nakedness. when he was asked in the first debate what he would say to african-americans about his scandalous role in the "birther" controversy that questioned president obama's citizenship, trump replied , "i say nothing." you will search in vain for an example of trump ever taking responsibility for the damage he has done to any individual, community or nation, though examples abound. he is not going to learn how to do it now. manners may not count when you fire people on reality tv, but they matter in a two-way presidential debate. trump looked like a 6-year-old as he interrupted with witticisms such as "wrong!" as clinton spoke during the first debate. but as trump told me, he believes he is the same person he was in first grade. his advisers are not going to get him to mature into an adult now. 4) act like you want the job one of the oddest moments in the first debate saw trump say that if he loses the election he'll still get to pennsylvania avenue in washington because he has a new hotel there. someone who wants to occupy the white house shouldn't suggest he'd be satisfied with a hotel down the street. but trump is first and always a salesman -- not a statesman -- and he will never pass up an opportunity to get free advertising for his business. during the first debate trump's cringe-worthy moments included bragging about not paying any federal taxes and about betting on a housing crisis. as he crowed about his wealth, he added that he was speaking "not in a braggadocious way." but of course he was bragging. boasting and bragging are off-putting to debate watchers but they are essential elements of trump's personality and he will not stop. on the day after the first debate, body language experts noted trump's negative body language and timid facial expression. (these signals were enough for one reporter to call trump the loser after viewing the contest with the sound turned off.) advisers may want trump to control his exaggerated nonverbals, but this is not something this rubber-faced man can do. always ready to use a little gamesmanship, trump allowed his campaign staff to broadcast the fact that he was taking a confidently casual approach to the first debate. he said himself, "i believe you can prep too much for these things." the result was obvious, as trump seemed ill-equipped with either arguments or rhetorical parries to use against his opponent. could he do differently? trump told me that he doesn't like to read and prefers to depend on instinct, which makes it's hard to imagine he will suddenly become open to training. another person might turn a debate defeat as a moment to learn. this is not trump's way. in the first debate trump referenced gen. douglas macarthur, who died in 1964, to make a point about america's pursuit of the isis terror organization. those who got as in history, know of macarthur, but the reference surely bypassed millions who watched the debate. trump must have heard a lot about the general when he attended a military school in the 1960s, but he needs to update himself. given the evidence that he doesn't understand the workings of our most vital technology, the internet, modernizing his knowledge base would be a big challenge. despite the evidence showing that recent cyberattacks against the democratic national committee and others emanated from russia, trump told the first debate audience, "she's [clinton] saying 'russia, russia, russia,' but i don't." this stand is consistent with trump's earlier sloughing off of russia's invasion of the ukraine and his expressed admiration for vladimir putin. because everything is personal for him, trump likes putin in part because putin has said he likes him. don't expect him to change his mind about the russians on the basis of geopolitics. they are going to have to insult him personally before he does that. in the first debate, clinton pointed out his penchant for insulting people and trump talked about "somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds." after the debate, trump decided to make veiled threats about using president bill clinton's sex scandal against her. nastiness doesn't play well in a general election when a candidate must appeal to those beyond his or her base. however being nasty has always been a key element of trump's repertoire, as shown by his feuds with cher, bette midler, rosie o'donnell and others. trump once told me that he doesn't respect most people because they don't deserve it. he is not likely to become respectful overnight. among trump's advisers there is one, former new york city mayor rudolph giuliani, who shares much in common with him. like trump, he poses as a tough man and wants the world to believe that his meanness is a virtue. he is also, like his candidate, a thrice-married man who feels entitled to criticize hillary clinton's lifelong marriage. consider giuliani's persona and you see someone who understands trump on a gut level.

10 things trump could (but probably won't) change to win next debate

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

3.0

68.0

8.0

6253.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

417.0

0.0

163.0

0.0

39.0

13.0

18.0

9.0

14.0

11.0

14.0

8.0

35.0

28.0

47.0

419.0

163.0

39.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

bernie sanders, party crasher: notes on the (looming) end of a campaign three days ahead of california's democratic presidential primary, bernie sanders made several appearances in southern california before headlining a rally in san diego. there was a sunday morning walk through a farmers market in downtown los angeles. there was a walk through west hollywood, la's gayborhood, with a pre-drag brunch address to diners at a hamburger joint on santa monica boulevard. that was followed by a stroll through santa monica pier, where the candidate rode a merry-go-round and even interrupted an outdoor spin class fundraiser to give an impromptu stump speech. and there was a stop at plaza mexico, an outdoor market that caters to a primarily latino audience in lynwood, a bit south of la. once sanders arrived, with traveling press in tow, he walked through the crowded mall, which happened to be hosting a music festival that day. after shaking hands and hugging fans, sanders tried to take the main stage of the festival. as he and his entourage approached the side of the stage, he was denied by several of the event staff. there were vigorous head shakes of disagreement and, as a female event staffer pulled a barricade closer to keep sanders and his crew out, she said, angrily, "this is our event." sanders staffers walked away from the exchange flustered, some muttering profanities. sanders himself seemed befuddled. it was the exact opposite of the reception he received earlier in the day when he took over the stage at that outdoor spin fundraiser, stumping in front of stationary bikes and large images of the black and brown inner-city youth the event was raising money for. sanders' experience in southern california offers glimpses into everything that went right <u+2014> and wrong <u+2014> for his campaign. in more ways than one, at lynwood and in santa monica and all throughout the primary season, sanders was a party crasher. sometimes that worked out for him. and sometimes it did not. this week marked the final presidential nominating contest for the democratic party, in washington, d.c. bernie sanders lost. and he isn't throwing in the towel just yet, he says. but sanders also says he can do "arithmetic." and that math shows he did not get enough votes or delegates to be the democratic nominee. (he trails clinton by millions in the democratic popular vote, and hundreds in party's delegate count, with or without superdelegates.) hillary clinton was declared the "presumptive nominee" last week, and she is now campaigning as one would expect a presumptive party nominee to campaign, complete with the endorsement of a sitting president. it'd be fair to say that the only thing keeping bernie sanders' campaign alive is that he hasn't yet said it is dead. sanders met with clinton on tuesday night for what both campaigns called a "positive discussion," but did not drop out. he has said he will do everything he can to defeat donald trump <u+2014> even if sanders is not the nominee. and he will address his supporters thursday evening, online, in a live stream. his plans for the future aren't yet clear, but looking back, sanders' insurgent campaign accomplished more than anyone could have expected <u+2014> even the senator himself. from the way he fundamentally changed how presidential campaigns can raise money, with the millions he raked in from small donations from supporters, often averaging $27 (as he repeatedly proclaimed on the stump), to his introduction of many of the ideas of democratic socialism into the mainstream. in many ways, his successes seemed to come out of nowhere. sanders had been a senator from vermont for decades, with low name recognition and single-digit showings in early presidential polls. and he wasn't even a democrat. it would be easy to see the sanders campaign as something that just happened. but, in fact, he was part of a concerted effort, the outgrowth of a social movement that began a few years back in zuccotti park in new york. the sanders campaign has direct links to the occupy wall street movement. winnie wong, founder of the online group people for bernie, is one of the former occupy wall street activists who helped draft bernie sanders to run. and she said sanders actually wasn't the first senator activists approached. "we started the draft [elizabeth] warren effort first," she told npr. "ready for warren came out of occupy. and people for bernie came out of ready for warren." wong is not shy about identifying sanders and his candidacy as a tool to get occupy wall street ideals into the mainstream. "it was always a tactic," she said at a sanders rally in san francisco. "in every way, at every step of the way." but if sanders was in some ways an outgrowth of occupy, his reach quickly expanded beyond that movement's confines. it would have been hard to predict that from the beginning, though. sanders' press conference announcing his run in april of last year had little in common with the rock concert-like rallies he's become known for this campaign. that april announcement was small, organized on a lawn outside the u.s. capitol, with sanders seemingly startled by the microphone itself, urging reporters to keep it quick because he had to get back to his day job as a senator. in fact, many of sanders' campaign staff had day jobs as well; early on, a lot of them worked for the campaign for free, after they finished those. but within months, sanders had made a movement. tapping into a new wave of progressive populism, first hinted at during the occupy movement, sanders' self-described "political revolution to transform our country economically, political, socially and environmentally" quickly became a force. by february, sanders' razor-thin finish with clinton in the iowa caucuses (he lost by only 0.3 percentage points), it became official: the sanders campaign was now no longer outsider, but insurgent. sanders rallies grew larger and took on their own feel <u+2014> part concert, part picnic, part love fest. sanders' fans danced freely before his rallies began. mothers breast-fed their young children in the aisles. tie-died shirts could be spotted throughout the crowds. sanders himself seemed like a kind, loving grandfather to many of his supporters. famously, at one sanders rally in portland, ore. (because portland), a bird landed on the candidate's lectern. in many ways, the sanders campaign was a love revolution, with a message of unity, diversity and prosperity for all. but under the surface, the sanders movement was just as much an exercise in anger. over time, another side of the sanders phenomenon began to reveal itself: a palpable disgust not just for sanders' opponent, clinton, but for the party she is a part of, the media that covered her and a system that many sanders supporters thought was rigged. the night of california's presidential primary, sanders held a rally in an airplane hangar at the santa monica airport. the tall and wide half-circle roof made for a dramatic scene as thousands of supporters poured into the space to support their candidate, even as his chances at winning the democratic nomination were all but zero. beneath the sweeping metal roof, while a man dressed as jesus holding a sanders sign paced the room, the anger that had been building in sanders' supporters for months was on full display. when a big screen at the rally showed hillary clinton leading in the california race, the crowd chanted "bullshit!" over and over again until the image on the screen changed. the crowd also chanted things like "cnn sucks!" when clinton's name was mentioned in sanders' speech, the crowd booed. many in attendance cornered reporters to share disgust with their coverage of the election, particularly reporting on the associated press' announcement the night before that clinton had secured the support of enough superdelegates, or unpledged party leaders and elected officials, to put clinton over the top to become the party's presumptive nominee. many of sanders' supporters didn't believe he lost fair and square. (sanders himself still hasn't said he has. the day president obama endorsed clinton <u+2014> and told sanders in the oval office that he was about to do so <u+2014> sanders pointed to ballots still out in california. on tuesday, after a statement about the orlando massacre, sanders talked about long lines in arizona.) instead, sanders supporters, in the crowd in santa monica that night and elsewhere, called the delegate count itself a conspiracy. a day earlier, sanders surrogate nina turner (a former ohio state senator) suggested the ap call, coming the night before california voted, was intended to suppress voter turnout there. dutch merrick was in the crowd that tuesday night. he said he was hopeful that sanders would take his fight to the democratic convention, and "demand an actual count of the actual votes." he felt the democratic party establishment had decided clinton would be the nominee months ago, before the primary election was complete. "it's a fait accompli. ... that message had not changed in a year," he said, holding a sanders poster. "all the coverage went to one woman candidate: hillary." for merrick, the entire system was rigged in clinton's favor. he pointed to voting irregularities in several states over the past few months, long lines at polling places in arizona, and names disappearing from voter lists in places like new york. "she [clinton] just puts a friendly face on fascism," merrick continued. "i was excited, eight years ago, to vote for an african-american for president. but it essentially put someone that pushed the same agenda, kept the same defense department, the same cia, the same wall street policies, with a black face. it didn't do us any good. so now we're going to get a female face on the same policies. not going to do us any good." he concluded, "i would probably vote for trump, to burst the bubble, to finally pop the zit." sigma scott, who was at the rally with merrick, said, "if she takes it [the nomination] by petty theft, or grand theft, i would rally and vote that she's impeached." that mood seemed to be present at sanders events all throughout california in the lead-up to the primary in these waning days of the campaign. it wasn't just that bernie sanders was the truth and the light to these super supporters <u+2014> it's that in their eyes, hillary clinton was the lie and the darkness. clinton wasn't just an opponent to many sanders supporters; she was a cheater, perhaps even a criminal. the democratic party wasn't just a political party; it was an apparatus focused solely on doing whatever it took to grant clinton the nomination. and whatever math would justify her win was fraudulent, because the system itself was an undemocratic sham. at a san francisco rally for sanders the previous day, sanders supporter aaron selverston seemed to crystallize the emotions of many who felt alienated by the democratic party and the primary process. "i think the whole argument about the [delegate] math is irrelevant to most bernie supporters," he said, as dave matthews played in san francisco's crissy field before sanders took to the mic. "because it's not about some sort of allegiance to a party. the party has failed. the party has failed half of the people who typically vote democratic. and those are the people who are supporting bernie." though much of the anger some sanders supporters show is directed at the media or clinton or trump, some of the blame for sanders' failing to reach the nomination is his own. from the start, sanders said he would run a positive campaign, on the issues, refusing to directly attack his primary opponent, clinton. he famously declared at one democratic presidential debate, "the american people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails," when asked about clinton's use of a private server during her time as secretary of state. the emails have been a constant line of attack for republicans against clinton, but sanders refused to hit her on the issue, even as staffers urged sanders to find some line of attack on her. over time, sanders did attack, particularly on paid speeches she gave to wall street executives after her time as secretary of state, repeating in stump speeches, "i kind of think if you get paid a couple hundred thousand dollars for a speech, it must be a great speech. i think we should release it and let the american people see what the transcript was." by the time that message stuck, though, clinton's lead had become all but insurmountable. another sore spot for his campaign, that would perhaps inflict even more damage, was an inability to connect with large numbers of minority voters. in several nominating contests throughout the primary season, sanders did win a majority of black and latino primary and caucus voters ages 35 and under. but in south carolina's primary, after strong showings in iowa and new hampshire, sanders lost the black vote by almost 70 percent, even admitting himself, "we got decimated." at a seattle rally last year, sanders was forced from the stage by two black lives matters protesters; he had to end his own event without finishing his stump speech. for many minority voters, sanders' message on income inequality failed to connect the dots between wealth disparity and institutional racism, and many people of color felt that white sanders supporters were too eager to dismiss them as low-information when they did not support the vermont senator. sanders responded. he hired minority staff in key positions, namely hiring symone sanders, a blm activist, as his national press secretary soon after the seattle incident. sanders' campaign recruited surrogates of color as well, like the rapper killer mike and actress rosario dawson. and he had no shortage of key celebrity endorsements from the likes of danny glover and spike lee. but it wasn't enough. sanders' coalition of liberals, working-class whites, and young voters of all colors couldn't shake clinton's lead with women and older minority voters. sanders' campaign also did not focus on the sweep of super tuesday states on march 1. that's when clinton put real separation between herself and sanders. his campaign was often outmatched by clinton's superior ground game, with its infrastructure seemingly never dismantled after her 2008 democratic primary loss, and bolstered, even, by remnants of the obama political machine. as time went on, clinton racked up an increasingly bigger lead, one that sanders would never be able to overcome, even as he regularly out-fundraised his democratic opponent and his rallies filled stadiums throughout the country. maybe there's nothing sanders could have done to overcome the clinton machine on the ground. but university of vermont professor huck gutman, a close friend of sanders and his former chief of staff, seemed to predict the problems sanders would have with minority voters in an interview with npr soon after sanders launched his presidential campaign. "one of the differences between bernie and so many other people who are liberals," gutman said, "is that bernie's central concern has always been with the condition of what he calls working-class families. he is consumed by the need for economic justice." even as gutman pointed out sanders' track record of support for other progressive causes, he said of sanders, "his central concerns have never been war or civil rights or gay rights or women's rights." "the very idea that something has failed, it's not a part of our language" the day of the california primary, after the ap had declared clinton the presumptive nominee, it was really hard to find anyone saying sanders actually lost the race <u+2014> or would lose it soon. you didn't hear it as sanders block-walked and greeted thousands on hollywood boulevard and at coffee shops and the farmers market in silver lake in los angeles. you didn't see it when the senator was on the hollywood walk of fame, greeting fans and celebrity impersonators alike. you didn't hear it in his speech that night, or even later in the week, after president obama endorsed clinton. sanders campaigned that day, and in many of the days before and after, like a winner. and if you just saw those scenes from the trail in california, and not the news, you could have been convinced that sanders had actually won the whole thing. and perhaps that is the lingering juxtaposition of the sanders campaign. numerically, he has lost. sanders will not be his party's nominee. but in so many ways, he has won, just by surviving this long. and not just surviving, but at many points thriving and influencing a movement that could have a very long tail. "one of the great successes of this campaign is that bernie sanders has really electrified a whole new generation of young people to become engaged in the political process," winnie wong said. "and they're young, and they're not apathetic, and they're energetic, and they're smart." wong contends that sanders fundamentally changed america's political conversation, making a movement like occupy, and an ideology like democratic socialism, mainstream. "prior to bernie sanders, nobody ever dared utter the word socialism," she said. "forget about the 10 million who cast their vote for a democratic socialist. think about the many more millions, across this country, who are talking about it, probably right now. that's even more important." if you look at sanders' campaign as part of a larger progressive, populist movement that had been building for years <u+2014> from zuccotti park to burlington, vt., and almost to the white house <u+2014> all of a sudden it makes more sense. and it also feels, in many ways, not finished just yet. "people in social movements don't really see an end to their work," wong said. "the very idea that something has failed, it's not a part of our language." after being rejected from the stage at plaza mexico in lynwood, calif., that sunday before the state primary, sanders walked into a mexican restaurant at the mall and enjoyed a meal with his family. a mariachi band played and, at one point, sanders danced with one of his grandchildren. the embarrassment of the moments before seemed to have been forgotten; the candidate was having a good time. and when he left the mall, a large crowd was waiting to greet him. regardless of what happened at the stage, he was able to interact, positively, with hundreds of potential voters. but already, tweets and videos recounting the details of sanders being blocked from the stage were circulating on social media, with many using the moment to mock sanders and critique his record of outreach to latino communities. traveling press asked for comment on the incident, and soon spokesman michael briggs told a washington post reporter that, in fact, sanders hadn't been denied a microphone in lynwood, contradicting multiple eyewitness reports. briggs told a washington post reporter that another supervisor at the event had come to offer sanders a place on the stage and "to say bernie was welcome." but, briggs said, it was, in fact, the sanders campaign that denied the festival organizers. "by that point," he said, "we had moved on." it was a moment that, in several ways, could symbolize sanders' entire campaign <u+2014> a victory and a defeat, all at the same time. and, in spite of it all, a dogged determination to keep pressing ahead <u+2014> and to seemingly never, ever admit you've lost.

bernie sanders, party crasher: notes on the (looming) end of a campaign

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

9.0

71.0

8.0

19500.0

0.0

2.0

3.0

0.0

1210.0

2.0

0.0

378.0

0.0

137.0

38.0

48.0

20.0

35.0

36.0

35.0

26.0

64.0

66.0

102.0

1213.0

380.0

137.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

republican presidential candidates are attacking president obama<u+2019>s plan to use his oval office powers to try to tighten gun-control laws, arguing his efforts are <u+201c>unconstitutional<u+201d> and another attempt to sidestep congress. "we're not changing the second amendment," front-running donald trump said saturday at a campaign rally in biloxi, miss. "i will veto that. i will un-sign that so fast." obama said over the weekend that he<u+2019>ll meet monday with attorney general loretta lynch to discuss his options on tightening federal firearms laws to reduce gun violence, after instructing his white house team several months ago to look at what type of <u+201c>action<u+201d> he could take. <u+201c>the president is a petulant child,<u+201d> gop candidate new jersey gov. chris christie told <u+201c>fox news sunday.<u+201d> <u+201c>whenever he doesn<u+2019>t get what he wants, <u+2026> this president acts like a king.<u+201d> obama purportedly will use executive action to require small-scale gun sellers to order background checks on prospective buyers and tighten laws for gun sales to those who have committed domestic-abuse offenses. <u+201c>the president has a pattern of taking away rights of citizens,<u+201d> gop candidate and former florida gov. jeb bush told <u+201c>fox news sunday.<u+201d> bush also suggested that he didn<u+2019>t object in principle to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, but that he is wary of how far-reaching and burdensome the proposed changes might be on small-scale gun sellers. <u+201c>how do you know?<u+201d> he asked. <u+201c>the better approach would be to punish people who violate federal gun laws. <u+2026> if it<u+2019>s such a great idea, let (obama) go to congress.<u+201d> the president tried unsuccessfully in the aftermath of the 2012 mass shooting at sandy hook elementary school, in newtown, conn., to get congress to pass comprehensive gun control legislation. the national rifle association, which opposed that plan, also opposes the new plan, calling it a <u+201c>political stunt.<u+201d> christie and others point out that obama has tried to use executive action to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the united states and work. however, a federal appeals court has temporarily stopped that action, pending a final ruling. <u+201c>i<u+2019>m sure (the gun executive action) will get stopped by the courts,<u+201d> christie also said sunday. trump, a billionaire businessman, on sunday told cbs<u+2019>s <u+201c>face the nation<u+201d> that if elected he would use the same executive powers to repeal obama<u+2019>s likely new executive orders on gun control. <u+201c>the one thing good about executive orders: the new president, if he comes in -- boom, first day, first hour, first minute, you can rescind that,<u+201d> he said. gop candidate carly fiorina told cnn<u+2019>s <u+201c>state of the union<u+201d> that obama <u+201c>has been a lawless president<u+201d> in his use of executive orders. <u+201c>it is delusional, dangerous, not to mention unconstitutional,<u+201d> she said. <u+201c>we have long lists of criminals who own guns, who routinely purchase guns. we know who these people are, and we are not prosecuting any of them.<u+201d> the three democratic presidential candidates -- hillary clinton, former maryland gov. martin o<u+2019>malley and vermont sen. bernie sanders -- support tighter gun control. sander told abc's <u+201c>this week<u+201d> he wishes obama could get bipartisan congressional support but that he supports the president<u+2019>s renewed efforts. <u+201c>there is a wide consensus. (the) overwhelming majority of the american people believe we should expand and strengthen the instant background checks,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>i think that's what the president is trying to do, and i think that will be the right thing to do.<u+201d> sanders also said he supports more background check, which would likely help close what gun-control advocates call the <u+201c>gun show loophole" as well as strong measures to keep criminals and people with mental health issues from owning firearms.

gop field rips obama's move toward executive action to tighten gun control laws

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

6.0

79.0

8.0

3754.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

236.0

0.0

65.0

0.0

14.0

18.0

7.0

6.0

19.0

4.0

7.0

3.0

14.0

20.0

16.0

241.0

65.0

14.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

here's everything you need to know about how the labor market fared in march

employers added a disappointing 126,000 jobs in march

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

53.0

8.0

76.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

3.0

6.0

2.0

0.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

if you get your news from cable tv you don<u+2019>t know any of this. whatever their age or gender, cable<u+00a0>reporters still cover politics like cigar-chomping old men poring over racing forms. history was made under their noses and they still spent the night talking win, place or show, obsessed by the order of finish in the crowded middle of a lame republican pack. it was a coming out party for a political revolution, but gil scott heron had it right: the revolution will not be televised. sanders made history even by the metrics of horse-race journalism. he had the most votes (155,578), biggest vote share (60.4<u+00a0>percent) and biggest margin in a contested race (22.4<u+00a0>percent) of any candidate of either party in new hampshire primary history. as in iowa, he outperformed late polls by more than their alleged margins of error. sanders won 55<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>of women, a stunning 84<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>of voters under 30, and 92<u+00a0>percent<u+00a0>of those who say the trait they prize most in a politician is honesty. clintonites said sanders had home-court advantage. (if you buy that excuse, just ask a friend to name a senator from a neighboring state.) hillary may be the world<u+2019>s best-known politician after barack obama, vladimir putin and her husband. it gives her an overwhelming head start<u+00a0>in every state but vermont, which is why she began new hampshire 30<u+00a0>points up. they made other lame justifications for their loss,<u+00a0>but after the flood there was nothing left to spin. how clinton<u+00a0>lost is as telling as the historic margin she lost by. just as in 2008, she presented as a hawk to a party bone-weary of war. now as then, her high-dollar, tone-deaf, leak-prone campaign telegraphed every punch. her backers harp on her experience <u+2014> but experience only counts if you learn from it.<u+00a0>eight years later,<u+00a0>clinton makes the exact same mistakes. still, party elites have bet the farm she<u+2019>ll have it all sorted out by october. dangerous wager. she isn<u+2019>t learning from this race, either. her response to new hampshire has been to double-down on her strategy. how such a bright person could be such a slow learner is a mystery. her worst moments prior to new hampshire were her ham-handed attempts to take down sanders. chelsea distorted his healthcare plans, bill ripped his character. hillary accused him of an <u+201c>artful smear<u+201d> for suggesting, obviously, that banks give to super pacs to influence policy. she<u+00a0>voiced <u+201c>concern<u+201d> over reports he<u+2019>d mingled with real live lobbyists at democratic fundraisers. but to many voters the clintons attacking sanders<u+2019> integrity was like draft-avoider george w. bush swift-boating purple heart-winner john kerry <u+2014> except this time it backfired, and her whole family took the hit. at this point she might have decided to curtail the personal attacks, but alas, no. in a public television debate two days after the primary, she waited till the last second to launch an attack, this time on sanders<u+2019> alleged disloyalty to obama. it seems this will be a principal theme going forward, so in case you missed, a sample: much of this is flat-out false; all is shorn of context and rife with what politifact called <u+201c>half-truths.<u+201d> bill press wrote a book criticizing obama, but sanders didn<u+2019>t write the foreword (just a blurb that doesn<u+2019>t criticize obama). he never called obama weak or a disappointment, though he once said obama showed weakness in budget negotiations. talking to a radio host who wanted obama primaried, sanders said open debate was a good thing. but notice in the above quote how clinton, the mary lou retton of syntax, made it seem sanders said all these things. when clinton at last holstered her weapon, moderators judy woodruff and gwen ifill, who<u+2019>d done yeoman<u+2019>s work to that point, said there wasn<u+2019>t time for sanders to answer her final fusillade, but that he could do so in his closing remarks. off balance for the first time all night, he split the difference, which made for a weak finish to an otherwise strong performance. too bad; he deserved a chance at a full rebuttal even if it meant shaving a minute or two off <u+201c>antiques roadshow.<u+201d> clinton<u+2019>s playing an explosive game, especially since she herself spent much of 2015 sniping at obama. when obama described his foreign policy as <u+201c>don<u+2019>t do stupid stuff,<u+201d> she ridiculed him. when he wouldn<u+2019>t violate international law by declaring a no-fly zone in syria, she broke with him. she talks a lot about being commander in chief. she must know it<u+2019>s hard to be one when your old secretary of state is taking shots at you. ironically enough, on foreign policy sanders has been more loyal to obama than clinton, but the irony doesn<u+2019>t end there. as hillary laced into sanders, bill was miles away lacing into obama. in a listless swipe at the banking system, he said, <u+201c>yeah, it<u+2019>s rigged, because you don<u+2019>t have a president who<u+2019>s a change maker.<u+201d> it<u+2019>s what hillary accuses bernie of saying. (note too, the tacit admission that bernie<u+2019>s right on dodd frank.) all in all, hillary looks cunning, not loyal. because integrity is for her what intelligence was for dan quayle, she can ill afford to appear hypocritical or be caught doctoring the truth. clinton<u+2019>s ad hominem attacks <u+2014> call it the politics of personal destruction <u+2014> poison the air around her. just before new hampshire, deservedly beloved feminist icon gloria steinem told bill maher that young women join sanders<u+2019> campaign to meet guys. steinem got taken to the internet woodshed for making a lighthearted, self-deprecating joke, on a comedy show, no less, but only because the tone of clinton<u+2019>s campaign is so rancid. clinton must see how her scorched-earth policy hurts her family, her friends and her campaign, but for her there<u+2019>s never any turning back. in another reminder of 2008, clinton has added race to the mix. on primary night on cnn, clinton ally michael nutter slyly accused sanders of subtle racism, terming his call for criminal justice reform <u+201c>mildly offensive<u+201d> because, nutter falsely charged, sanders never talks about other african-american issues. for some reason<u+2014> it can<u+2019>t be ratings <u+2014> cnn lets commentators with clear conflicts of interest mouth thinly veiled partisan message. this is worse. nutter is no more <u+201c>offended<u+201d> than hillary is <u+201c>concerned<u+201d> or bill <u+201c>shocked<u+201d> to discover trolls on the internet. they want us to think bernie does what they do, but of course he doesn<u+2019>t. lots of african-americans live in upcoming primary states. because they are the firewall clinton hopes will save her, she<u+2019>ll ratchet this up as high as she can. last week the congressional black caucus pac endorsed her. asked about sanders<u+2019> civil rights record, rep.<u+00a0>john lewis dryly replied, <u+201c>i never met him,<u+201d> and went on to praise clinton for her close ties to african-american politicians. lewis is a hero to me and to millions. nothing he says or does in a campaign could change that. but bernie deserves better. it<u+2019>s been reported that he and sanders did meet when bernie was the sole white member on hand for a hearing lewis held on voter suppression. or he might have bumped into him back in the day, when a young bernie joined the congress of racial equality and braved jail to protest segregated housing in chicago. the real problem with the black caucus pac endorsement isn<u+2019>t anything lewis said, but the way washington works. only seven of 46 caucus members voted on the caucus endorsement but 11<u+00a0>lobbyists voted, including at least two tobacco and two healthcare industry lobbyists. like the iowa democratic party, the pac won<u+2019>t reveal the tally <u+2014> but we know at least two of the seven actual members voted no. on friday we learned that dnc chairwoman and clinton lifer debbie wasserman schultz ended obama<u+2019>s ban on federal contractors donating to the party. (so much for loyalty to obama.) on wednesday we learned clinton will get a majority of new hampshire delegates despite losing in a landslide. schultz told cnn the reason 700 unelected superdelegates get to vote at the convention is to spare grass-roots activists the burden of having to primary them. no matter how much money schultz wrings from contractors or how many superdelegates clinton piles up in states sanders wins, it won<u+2019>t equal the price they pay for such cynicism. to the extent clinton gets away with it, she can thank a media nearly as out of touch as she is. newspapers beat tv for analysis, but the gap narrows every year, and not because tv is getting better. elite reporters reflect the elite consensus, which accounts for such recent washington post<u+00a0>headlines as <u+201c>democrats would be insane to nominate sanders<u+201d> and <u+201c>sanders<u+2019> oddball coalition savors its victory.<u+201d> it may explain the boffo reviews of clinton<u+2019>s pbs debate performance, as in the times headline, <u+201c>analysis: clinton is cool, calm and effective.<u+201d> pundits praised her superior grasp of policy partly out of habit<u+2013> it was true of earlier debates<u+2013> but also because it<u+2019>s how they see the world. they should read the transcript. if anything, bernie does the better job of explaining how he<u+2019>d fund his programs. hillary won<u+2019>t say how she<u+2019>d pay for social security. she says she has a universal healthcare plan but she doesn<u+2019>t. she has a laundry list of programs, one for each demographic, all with unanswered questions about implementation, effectiveness and affordability. the most striking thing about the debate, other than the low blow clinton struck at the end of the last round, was that sanders<u+00a0>got the better of her on foreign policy. has any other presidential candidate ever told the american people that iran doesn<u+2019>t <u+201c>hate us for our freedom<u+201d> but because we engineered the violent overthrow of their democratically elected president and installed a vicious tyrant in his place? the rest of the world knows, why not us?<u+00a0> is clinton<u+2019>s jingoism about not talking to iran the signal we want to send to thousands of iranians who joyously took to the streets to celebrate the nuclear weapons pact? shouldn<u+2019>t clinton<u+2019>s airbrushing of the hyper-secretive, lawbreaking kissinger concern us? has anyone but bernie ever said henry kissinger<u+2019>s china opening may have cost us some jobs? clinton mocks him for citing her iraq vote but he now casts a wider net. pundits citing her foreign policy cred should feel honor-bound to tell us why she<u+2019>s right and he<u+2019>s wrong. the press doesn<u+2019>t understand any better than hillary what made new hampshire historic. they<u+2019>re great at figuring out who<u+2019>s ahead in south carolina, but awful at grasping <u+2014> let alone conveying <u+2013>the terms of the new debate. it<u+2019>s too soon to describe that debate whole, but among democrats at least it has begun to clarify. a word about it, and what it means to this race. thirty years ago, reeling from the reagan revolution, elite democrats rebranded their party, which had long championed both economic and cultural liberalism. they kept cultural liberalism, but ditched economic liberalism for <u+201c>neoliberalism<u+201d>; a blend of economic deregulation, free trade, smaller government and targeted tax cuts. few said it out loud, but it was the end of the roosevelt coalition, which had been built on economic issues of universal appeal and which had lasted 50<u+00a0>years. neoliberalism appeals to the rich. neoliberal bill clinton was the first democratic presidential nominee to outspend a republican. in 2008 obama outspent john mccain 2-to-1, breaking a record set in 1972 by richard nixon. but neoliberalism is killing the middle class. it<u+2019>s why both parties rely on cultural issues to hold their bases. if you back abortion rights, same sex marriage and gun safety you<u+2019>re a democrat. if not, you<u+2019>re a republican. on economic issues it<u+2019>s more complex. if you hate big banks and political corruption, you could be for sanders or trump. it<u+2019>s why sanders talks so much about these things; they<u+2019>re what the election<u+2019>s all about. when clinton isn<u+2019>t calling sanders a traitor, she says she shares his goals. but she doesn<u+2019>t. clinton<u+00a0>was part of the neoliberal revolt that destroyed the roosevelt coalition and she is as we<u+2019>ve seen, a woman of markedly fixed views. she may be obama<u+2019>s heir, but sanders<u+00a0>is fdr<u+2019>s. she campaigns as she does out of habit, and to hide the very real choice. the neoliberal experiment is over. democrats, proud heirs to franklin roosevelt, are ready to come home.

the clintons really don<u+2019>t get it: false attacks and failed strategies as hillary repeats 2008

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

12.0

93.0

8.0

12228.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

792.0

1.0

0.0

257.0

1.0

0.0

101.0

33.0

34.0

23.0

42.0

24.0

34.0

20.0

53.0

80.0

797.0

258.0

102.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

there is no denying it: climate-change deniers are in retreat. what began as a subtle shift away from the claim that man-made global warming is not a threat to the planet has lately turned into a stampede. the latest attempt to deny denial comes from the conservative american legislative exchange council, a powerful group that pushes for states to pass laws that are often drafted by industry. as my post colleagues tom hamburger, joby warrick and chris mooney report, alec is not only insisting that it doesn<u+2019>t deny climate change <u+2014> it<u+2019>s threatening to sue those who suggest otherwise. the group, which suffered the highly visible defection of google because of its global-warming stance and an exodus of other top corporate members, sent letters to common cause and the league of conservation voters instructing them to <u+201c>remove all false or misleading material<u+201d> alleging alec questions global-warming theory. the problem for alec is that as recently as 2013, it was still reaffirming <u+201c>model legislation<u+201d> calling on states to consider <u+201c>legitimate and scientifically defensible alternative hypotheses<u+201d> to the <u+201c>mainstream scientific positions<u+201d> on climate. the proposed legislation states that there is <u+201c>a great deal of scientific uncertainty<u+201d> about the matter and suggests states treat possible beneficial effects of carbon <u+201c>in an evenhanded manner.<u+201d> the turnabout at alec follows an about-face at the heartland institute, a libertarian outfit that embraces a description of it as <u+201c>the world<u+2019>s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.<u+201d> but on christmas eve, justin haskins, a blogger and editor at heartland, penned an article for the conservative journal human events declaring: <u+201c>the real debate is not whether man is, in some way, contributing to climate change; it<u+2019>s true that the science is settled on that point in favor of the alarmists.<u+201d> haskins called it <u+201c>a rather extreme position to say that we ought to allow dangerous pollutants to destroy the only planet we know of that can completely sustain human life,<u+201d> and he suggested work on <u+201c>technologies that can reduce co2 emissions without destroying whole economies.<u+201d> to be sure, this is a tactical retreat, and you shouldn<u+2019>t expect conservative groups to start lining up in favor of a carbon tax. rather, they<u+2019>re resorting to more defensible arguments that don<u+2019>t make them sound like flat-earthers. my post colleagues quoted energy lobbyist scott segal saying that <u+201c>the science issue just isn<u+2019>t as salient as it once was.<u+201d> instead, segal talks about the cost and viability of proposed regulations. it<u+2019>s likely no coincidence that the shift is occurring as the obama administration approaches a june target to finalize rules on power-plant emissions. those who oppose regulation are wise to abandon a position that holds little public appeal; a healthy majority of americans accept that global warming is real, and a new york times poll earlier this year found that even half of republicans support government action to address it. more and more conservative officeholders are embracing the <u+201c>i am not a scientist<u+201d> agnosticism on climate change rather than skepticism. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, house speaker john boehner and presidential candidates bobby jindal and marco rubio have adopted this response, and rubio has joined mitt romney and chuck grassley in embracing the less assailable position that u.s. efforts to restrict carbon are pointless without similar efforts across the globe. certainly, figures such as senate environment committee chairman jim inhofe (who calls man-made warming a <u+201c>hoax<u+201d>) and presidential candidate ted cruz (who fancies himself a modern-day galileo opposing the <u+201c>global-warming alarmists<u+201d>) are not about to change. but as corporations abandon the untenable position of denial, ideologues will be forced to do the same. as my post colleagues noted, southern co., an operator of coal-fired power plants, decided to drop funding for a smithsonian scientist who challenged climate-change theory but failed to disclose that his work was funded by fossil-fuel interests. alec<u+2019>s declining skepticism also comes as even oil companies such as occidental petroleum and bp quit the group. at alec<u+2019>s december meeting, a climate-change contrarian got applause for declaring in his presentation that <u+201c>carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. it is a benefit. it is the very elixir of life.<u+201d> for politicians and climate-denial groups, the elixir of life is money. now that corporations are becoming reluctant to bankroll crazy theories, the surrender of climate-change deniers will follow. read more from dana milbank<u+2019>s archive, follow him on twitter or subscribe to his updates on facebook.

climate-change deniers are in retreat

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

7.0

37.0

8.0

4730.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

319.0

0.0

65.0

0.0

39.0

13.0

17.0

7.0

17.0

8.0

12.0

7.0

26.0

31.0

34.0

322.0

65.0

39.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

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

cruz and trump battle for the south

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

35.0

8.0

117.0

0.0

10.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

3.0

1.0

10.0

2.0

0.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

notable names include ray washburne (commerce), a dallas-based investor, is reported to be under consideration to lead the department.

supreme court, trump engulf capitol hill

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

40.0

8.0

134.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

4.0

12.0

1.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

about 9.9 million people will sign up to have coverage through the affordable care act<u+2019>s insurance exchanges in 2015, millions fewer than outside experts predicted. louise radnofsky reports. photo: healthcare.gov. washington<u+2014>the obama administration said monday it expects up to 9.9 million people to have private coverage through the affordable care act<u+2019>s insurance exchanges in 2015, millions fewer than outside experts had predicted. the exchanges, which reopen saturday for the law<u+2019>s second year of health-insurance enrollment, previously were expected to enroll 13 million people in private coverage for 2015, according to an april 2014...

estimated enrollees for 2015 health care decrease

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

49.0

8.0

646.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

37.0

1.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

38.0

8.0

1.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

eight years after he was the republican presidential nominee, sen. john mccain appears headed toward his toughest re-election fight yet, in no small part because of presumptive gop presidential standard-bearer donald trump. rep. ann kirkpatrick, the democratic senate candidate who is neck-and-neck with mccain in polls, has relentlessly gone after mccain for the senator<u+2019>s support <u+2013> no matter how tepid <u+2013> of trump. mccain has hardly shown enthusiasm for trump, only saying he would support the party<u+2019>s nominee (while planning to skip the gop convention in cleveland). and he<u+2019>s privately warned that trump could hurt his own bid. politico reported on audio from a fundraiser where mccain is heard saying, <u+201c>if donald trump is at the top of the ticket, here in arizona, with over 30 percent of the vote being the hispanic vote, no doubt that this may be the race of my life.<u+201d> but kirkpatrick<u+2019>s campaign is hammering any connection it can between mccain and trump, settling for nothing short of denunciation by the sitting senator. <u+201c>john mccain<u+2019>s supporting donald trump despite declaring trump <u+2018>dangerous<u+2019> and characterizing trump's supporters as <u+2018>crazies,<u+2019><u+201d> kirkpatrick campaign spokesman d.b. mitchell told foxnews.com. <u+201c>it's clear mccain's 'straight talk' days are over.<u+201d> mccain<u+2019>s campaign, meanwhile, has blasted kirkpatrick as <u+201c>siding with the liberal establishment.<u+201d> the race is a snapshot of the conflicted relationship high-profile republican candidates across the country could have with the presumptive presidential nominee. the jury is out on whether, on balance, he would help or hurt congressional candidates. but for mccain, trump<u+2019>s impact is even being felt in the republican primary. one of his opponents, alex meluskey, a businessman and talk radio host, cited an internal campaign poll showing most respondents would be more likely to vote for a businessman who never ran for office over a career politician <u+2013> and claimed the <u+201c>trump phenomenon<u+201d> would be good for him. <u+201c>any time you have an outsider businessman, that absolutely favors us,<u+201d> meluskey told foxnews.com. mccain also is facing opposition from kelli ward, a doctor who resigned her state senate seat last year to run full time for the u.s. senate. she is touting a resounding gop straw poll victory over mccain earlier this month at the arizona republican state convention and is pushing a campaign theme of <u+201c>bold, fresh and fearless,<u+201d> to contrast mccain<u+2019>s status as a longtime washington insider. the republican primary is aug. 30, just one day after mccain turns 80. but it<u+2019>s the expected november race that<u+2019>s causing headaches for the senator this year. during his five decisive senate victories, the relatively moderate mccain has rarely had a real challenge in the general election. <u+201c>he usually has more concern in the state over who his primary challenger will be," barbara norrander, a political science professor at the university of arizona, told foxnews.com. <u+201c>democrats have had a hard time recruiting someone viable to oppose him.<u+201d> this year could be different. a merrill poll in march found mccain leading kirkpatrick by just one point, while a behavior research center poll in april showed the two tied at 42-42 percent. kirkpatrick, a former arizona state legislator, was first elected to the house in 2008. she was voted out of office during the republican wave of 2010, then ran again and won in 2012 <u+2013> and withstood another republican wave in 2014 to keep her seat. mccain has more than $5.5 million cash on hand, according to the federal election commission. that overwhelms every other opponent, as kirkpatrick has $1.3 million, ward has $210,792 and meluskey has $163,764, according to fec reports as of march 31. the mccain campaign is going after kirkpatrick for her support of obamacare, and says arizonans are facing a 21 percent increase in health insurance deductibles, while 59,000 arizonans lost their insurance when the state<u+2019>s co-op was removed from the federal marketplace. <u+201c>even as independent analysts predict a dramatic rise in health care costs and more insurers contemplate exiting a crumbling marketplace, congresswoman kirkpatrick offers no solutions for the people of arizona,<u+201d> mccain campaign spokeswoman lorna<u+00a0>romero said in a statement. <u+201c>instead, she is siding with the liberal establishment and ducking questions about president obama<u+2019>s failed health care law.<u+201d> on the issue mccain fears could be troublesome because of trump, he and kirkpatrick both agree on a pathway to citizenship for some 11 million illegal immigrants in the united states, but clash on the so-called dream act. further, kirkpatrick doesn<u+2019>t necessarily have an automatic advantage with hispanic voters. the u.s. hispanic chamber of commerce endorsed mccain in april. last year, the liberal group emily<u+2019>s list, backing kirkpatrick, criticized another latino coalition endorsing mccain as a <u+201c>taco shop,<u+201d> and said mccain put on a <u+201c>sombrero to pander.<u+201d> the arizona republic editorial board denounced the emily<u+2019>s list stereotypes.

mccain in toughest senate fight of his life

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

4.0

43.0

8.0

5037.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

364.0

2.0

0.0

94.0

0.0

28.0

12.0

15.0

4.0

14.0

6.0

7.0

5.0

28.0

23.0

36.0

369.0

96.0

28.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

donald trump said this week if he went out on fifth avenue in new york and shot someone, he probably wouldn't lose any votes. he chose a pretty big someone <u+2014> fox news (whose offices are one block over from fifth). tune in to thursday night's republican debate on fox (9 p.m. est) in iowa, the last one before monday's caucuses, and you'll notice one very big elephant not in the room <u+2014> trump. the man who helped fox to a record 24 million viewers in the first primary debate of this campaign season won't be there. he pulled out of the debate after getting into (what trump-endorser sarah palin might call) a "squirmish" with fox over its insistence on keeping anchor megyn kelly as a moderator. trump thought kelly treated him "unfairly" in the first debate. fox didn't budge, and then mocked trump, saying in a statement the network had "learned from a back channel" that iran's and russia's leaders were intent on treating trump "unfairly" if he became president, and that trump was planning on using "his twitter followers to see if he should" go to cabinet meetings. that was enough for trump. he bailed, but upped the showmanship. he's holding his own alternative event <u+2014> at the same time and just 3 miles away <u+2014> a benefit for veterans. so, while fox news hosts its debate, every other cable news network <u+2014> which won't have broadcasting rights to the debate <u+2014> will probably be airing the trump event. no, this is not an "ambien dream," as karl zahn, a new hampshire stand-up comic (and trump supporter) wondered aloud to new hampshire public radio's josh rogers this week of trump's campaign. this is very much real life. here are some questions ahead of tonight's split-screen "squirmish": 1. how much does trump talk about the debate, fox news and the gop? this isn't what the republican party wanted when it began sanctioning and limiting debates following the 2012 presidential election. and it certainly didn't expect a blow-up like this with fox news, of all the networks. the republican national committee wanted to control the message and protect its candidates (and brand), but that hasn't worked out so well. trump, as it turns out, has been a bigger force and commands a louder megaphone than anyone else in the party. just how much will he use it thursday night at his veterans event? 2. who exactly will trump's event benefit <u+2014> and how much will be raised? charity events like this aren't exactly things that can be slapped together in 24 to 48 hours very efficiently. what will the energy be like? and who exactly will the money be going to? trump has said maybe it should go to "wounded warriors" (the wounded warrior project <u+2014> the subject of controversy over its spending habits), but the press release just said a "special event to benefit veterans organizations." 3. what about the debate <u+2014> how much will trump come up? trump won't even be at the debate, but he's already the dominant topic. there are two sides to this <u+2014> the moderators and the candidates. you'd have to guess the moderators would have to say something about trump's absence. (and no, there won't be an empty lectern, rnc spokesman sean spicer said on cnn wednesday). and certainly a few candidates would like a free shot at trump, especially his closest rival, ted cruz. the texas senator even challenged trump to a debate at a college in western iowa on saturday evening. and you know what they say about candidates who are asking for debates. (hint: it comes as cruz's poll numbers are slipping in the hawkeye state.) 4. who grabs the spotlight instead? there are still lots of storylines to play out at this debate. cruz will now be in the center of the stage, and that means he might be the one everyone winds up going after. in earlier debates, cruz held back. in the last debate, he showed why he was a champion college debater. but who's his foil without trump on the stage? others need to break through, too. florida sen. marco rubio has quietly remained in third in iowa and in the top three in new hampshire, but his path is still hard to see. rubio has had plenty of differences on these stages with other candidates (cruz, new jersey gov. chris christie and former florida gov. jeb bush, for example). can he show why democrats seem to fear a rubio nomination more than any other candidate? this has been an election dominated by the outsiders, thanks to more hard-line conservatives fed up with the system. in years past, the party has gotten that out of its system in iowa and establishment picks have eventually emerged. this year is pointing in a different direction, but there are still others trying to be viable in that "establishment" lane: <u+2014> ohio gov. john kasich is the latest to have some momentum in new hampshire. this debate may be in iowa, but it's being broadcast to a national audience. and you can bet kasich's target will be some 1,300 miles east. on caucus night, he'll already be in the granite state, not iowa. <u+2014> bush has been on his last legs for a while, but he was more relaxed in the last debate. he has certainly taken on trump, and he'll likely do so again, even if trump's not on the stage. <u+2014> christie had a solid performance in his last debate. he'll probably mix it up again. 6. is trump really the "teflon don" of this race? there's some risk for trump in not going to the debate. he can look presumptuous, entitled and untouchable. maybe he really is the "teflon don" of this race. it's certainly not what a typical front-runner would do. that candidate would play it safe, have a good debate and position himself to win the first two contests. but that's not trump's style. he doesn't just play it big. he plays it huge. and that's what he's doing again. so, will iowans feel snubbed? or more precisely, will iowans who have been supporting him to big numbers suddenly start to peel off? that's pretty unlikely. he can argue he's not snubbing iowa; he's snubbing fox, which in and of itself is pretty remarkable considering the role fox plays in republican politics and conservative circles. some candidate might figure out a way to use trump's absence as an opportunity. but the likelihood, again, is trump will spin this into a win, as the other candidates are forced to participate in a game without the star player whom everyone came to see.

6 questions ahead of the trump-fox split-screen 'squirmish'

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

5.0

59.0

8.0

6307.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

381.0

2.0

0.0

129.0

1.0

0.0

39.0

9.0

17.0

3.0

9.0

10.0

3.0

12.0

24.0

16.0

37.0

385.0

131.0

40.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

u.s. politicians rarely acknowledge this odious past <u+2014> let alone acknowledge that such policies continue well into the present day. in the second democratic presidential debate, however, candidate bernie sanders condemned a long-standing government policy his peers rarely admit exists. <u+201c>i think we have a disagreement,<u+201d> sanders said of fellow presidential candidate hillary clinton. <u+201c>and the disagreement is that not only did i vote against the war in iraq. if you look at history, you will find that regime change <u+2014> whether it was in the early <u+2019>50s in iran, whether it was toppling salvador allende in chile, or whether it was overthrowing the government of guatemala way back when <u+2014> these invasions, these toppling of governments, regime changes have unintended consequences. i would say that on this issue i<u+2019>m a little bit more conservative than the secretary.<u+201d> <u+201c>i am not a great fan of regime changes,<u+201d> sanders added. <u+201c>regime change<u+201d> is not a phrase you hear discussed honestly much in washington, yet it is a common practice in and defining feature of u.s. foreign policy for well over a century. for many decades, leaders from both sides of the aisle, republicans and democrats, have pursued a bipartisan strategy of violently overthrowing democratically elected foreign governments that do not kowtow to u.s. orders. in the debate, sanders addressed three examples of u.s. regime change. there are scores of examples of american regime change, yet these are perhaps the most infamous instances. iran was once a secular democracy. you would not know this from contemporary discussions of the much demonized country in u.s. politics and media. what happened to iran<u+2019>s democracy? the u.s. overthrew it in 1953, with the help of the u.k. why? for oil. mohammad mosaddegh may be the most popular leader in iran<u+2019>s long history. he was also iran<u+2019>s only democratically elected head of state. in 1951, mosaddegh was elected prime minister of iran. he was not a socialist, and certainly not a communist <u+2014> on the contrary, he repressed iranian communists <u+2014> but he pursued many progressive, social democratic policies. mosaddegh pushed for land reform, established rent control, and created a social security system, while working to separate powers in the democratic government. in the cold war, however, a leader who deviated in any way from free-market orthodoxy and the washington consensus was deemed a threat. when mossaddegh nationalized iran<u+2019>s large oil reserves, he crossed a line that western capitalist nations would not tolerate. the new york times ran an article in 1951 titled <u+201c>british warn iran of serious result if she seizes oil.<u+201d> the piece, which is full of orientalist language, refers to iranian oil as <u+201c>british oil properties,<u+201d> failing to acknowledge that britain, which had previously occupied iran, had seized that oil and claimed it as its own, administering it under the auspices of the anglo-persian oil company, which later became the anglo-iranian oil company, and eventually british petroleum and modern bp. the times article noted that the u.s. <u+201c>shares with britain the gravest concern about the possibility that iranian oil, the biggest supply now available in the near east, might be lost to the western powers.<u+201d> the british government is quoted making a thinly veiled threat. this threat came into fruition in august 1953. in<u+00a0>operation ajax, the cia, working with its british equivalent mi6, carried out a coup, overthrowing the elected government of iran and reinstalling the monarchy. the shah would remain a faithful western ally until 1979, when the monarchy was abolished in the iranian revolution. less than a year after overthrowing iran<u+2019>s first democratically elected prime minister, the u.s. pursued a similar regime change policy in guatemala, toppling the elected leader jacobo <u+00c1>rbenz. in 1944, guatemalans waged a revolution, toppling the u.s.-backed right-wing dictator jorge ubico, who had ruled the country with an iron fist since 1931. ubico, who fancied himself the 20th-century napoleon, gave rich landowners and the u.s. corporation the united fruit company (which would later become chiquita) free reign over guatemala<u+2019>s natural resources, and used the military to violently crush labor organizers. juan jos<u+00e9> ar<u+00e9>valo was elected into office in 1944. a liberal, he pursued very moderate policies, but the u.s. wanted a right-wing puppet regime that would allow u.s. corporations the same privileges granted to them by ubico. in 1949, the u.s. backed an attempted coup, yet it failed. in 1951, <u+00c1>rbenz was elected into office. slightly to the left of ar<u+00e9>valo, <u+00c1>rbenz was still decidedly moderate. the u.s. claimed <u+00c1>rbenz was close to guatemala<u+2019>s communists, and warned he could ally with the soviet union. in reality, the opposite was true; <u+00c1>rbenz actually persecuted guatemalan communists. at most, <u+00c1>rbenz was a social democrat, not even a socialist. yet <u+00c1>rbenz, like<u+00a0>mosaddegh, firmly believed that guatemalans themselves, and not multinational corporations, should benefit from their country<u+2019>s resources. he pursued land reform policies that would break up the control rich families and the united fruit company exercised over the country <u+2014> and, for that reason, he was overthrown. president truman originally authorized a first coup attempt, operation pbfortune, in 1952. yet details about the operation were leaked to the public, and the plan was abandoned. in 1954, in operation pbsuccess, the cia and u.s. state department, under the dulles brothers, bombed guatemala city and carried out a coup that violently toppled guatemala<u+2019>s democratic government. the u.s. put into power right-wing tyrant carlos castillo armas. for the next more than 50 years, until the end of the guatemalan civil war in 1996, guatemala was ruled by a serious of authoritarian right-wing leaders who brutally repressed left-wing dissidents and carried out a campaign of genocide against the indigenous people of the country. september 11 has permanently seared itself into the memory of americans. the date has also been indelibly imprinted in the public consciousness of chileans, because it was on this same day in 1973 that the u.s. backed a coup that violently overthrew chile<u+2019>s democracy. in 1970, marxist leader salvador allende was democratically elected president of chile. immediately after he was elected, the u.s. government poured resources into right-wing opposition groups and gave millions of dollars to chile<u+2019>s conservative media outlets. the cia deputy director of plans wrote in a 1970 memo, <u+201c>it is firm and continuing policy that allende be overthrown by a coup<u+2026> it is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the usg [u.s. government] and american hand be well hidden.<u+201d> president nixon subsequently ordered the cia to <u+201c>make the economy scream<u+201d> in chile, to <u+201c>prevent allende from coming to power or to unseat him.<u+201d> allende<u+2019>s democratic government was violently overthrown on september 11, 1973. he died in the coup, just after making an emotional speech, in which he declared he would give his life to defend chilean democracy and sovereignty. far-right dictator augusto pinochet, who combined fascistic police state repression with hyper-capitalist free-market economic policies, was put into power. under pinochet<u+2019>s far-right dictatorship, tens of thousands of chilean leftists, labor organizers, and journalists were<u+00a0>killed, disappeared, and tortured. hundreds of thousands more people were forced into exile. one of the most prevailing myths of the cold war is that socialism was an unpopular system imposed on populations with brute force. chile serves as a prime historical example of how the exact opposite was true. the masses of impoverished and oppressed people elected many socialist governments, yet these governments were often violently overthrown by the u.s. and other western allies. the overthrow of allende was a turning point for many socialists in the global south. before he was overthrown, some leftists thought popular marxist movements could gain state power through democratic elections, as was the case in chile. yet when they saw how the u.s. violently toppled allende<u+2019>s elected government, they became suspicious of the prospects of electoral politics and turned to guerrilla warfare and other tactics. these are just a small sample of the great many regime changes the u.s. government has been involved in. more recent examples, which were supported by hillary clinton, as sanders implied, include the u.s. government<u+2019>s overthrow of saddam hussein in iraq and muammar qadhafi in libya. in these cases, the u.s. was overthrowing dictators, not democratically elected leaders <u+2014> but, as sanders pointed out, the results of these regime changes have been nothing short of catastrophic. the u.s. is also still engaging in regime change when it comes to democratically elected governments. in the january 2011 revolution, egyptians toppled dictator hosni mubarak, a close u.s. ally who ruled egypt with an iron fist for almost 30 years. in july 2013, egypt<u+2019>s first democratically elected president, mohammed morsi, was overthrown in a military coup. we now know that the u.s. supported and bankrolled the opposition forces that overthrew the democratically elected president. today, abdel fattah el-sisi, a brutal despot who is widely recognized as even worse than mubarak, reigns over egypt. in august 2013, sisi oversaw a slaughter of more than 800 peaceful egyptian activists at raba<u+2019>a square. his regime continues to shoot peaceful protesters in the street. an estimated 40,000 political prisoners languish in sisi<u+2019>s jails, including journalists. in spite of his obscene human rights abuses, sisi remains a close ally of the u.s. and israel <u+2014> much, much closer than was the democratically elected president morsi. in the second democratic presidential debate, when sanders called clinton out on her hawkish, pro-regime change policies, she tried to blame the disasters in the aftermath in countries like iraq and libya on the <u+201c>complexity<u+201d> of the middle east. as an example of this putative complexity, clinton cited egypt. <u+201c>we saw a dictator overthrown, we saw muslim brotherhood president installed, and then we saw him ousted and the army back,<u+201d> she said. clinton failed to mention two crucial factors: one, that the u.s. backed mubarak until the last moment; and two, that the u.s. also supported the coup that overthrew egypt<u+2019>s first and only democratically elected head of state. there are scores of other examples of u.s.-led regime change. in 1964 the u.s. backed a coup in brazil, toppling left-wing president jo<u+00e3>o goulart. in 1976, the u.s. supported a military coup in argentina that replaced president isabel per<u+00f3>n with general jorge rafael videla. in 2002, the u.s. backed a coup that overthrew democratically elected venezuelan president hugo ch<u+00e1>vez. ch<u+00e1>vez was so popular, however, that venezuelans filled the street and demanded him back. in 2004, the u.s. overthrew haiti<u+2019>s first democratically elected president, jean-bertrand aristide. in 2009, u.s.-trained far-right forces overthrew the democratically elected government of honduras, with tacit support from washington. latin america, given its proximity to the u.s. and the strength of left-wing movements in the region, tends to endure the largest number of u.s. regime changes, yet the middle east and many parts of africa have seen their democratic governments overthrown as well. from 1898 to 1994, harvard university historian john coatsworth documented at least 41 u.s. interventions in latin america <u+2014> an average of one every 28 months for an entire century. numerous latin american military dictators were trained at the school of the americas, a u.s. department of defense institute in fort benning, georgia. the school of the americas watch, an activist organization that pushes for the closing of the soa, has documented many of these regime changes, which have been carried out by both republicans and democrats. diplomatic cables released by whistleblowing journalism outlet wikileaks show the u.s. still maintains a systematic campaign of trying to overthrow latin america<u+2019>s left-wing governments. by not just acknowledging the bloody and ignominious history of u.s. regime change, but also condemning it, sen. sanders was intrepidly trekking into controversial political territory into which few of his peers would dare to tread. others would do well to learn from bernie<u+2019>s example.

this is why they hate us: the real american history neither ted cruz nor the new york times will tell you

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

9.0

105.0

8.0

12504.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

879.0

6.0

0.0

215.0

2.0

0.0

82.0

32.0

28.0

19.0

42.0

10.0

22.0

13.0

42.0

55.0

65.0

889.0

221.0

84.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

president obama earned a double-barreled rebuke monday from the washington post's fact-checker, for repeating a faulty claim that the keystone xl pipeline "bypasses" the u.s. -- and for saying it would only carry "canadian oil." the president made the claims in an interview last week with wday of fargo, n.d. obama continued to downplay the impact of the canada-to-texas oil pipeline, just days after vetoing a bipartisan-backed bill that would approve the construction project. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, r-ky., has teed up a vote to override that veto later this week. in the local interview, obama said: "i've already said i'm happy to look at how we can increase pipeline production for u.s. oil, but keystone is for canadian oil to send that down to the gulf. it bypasses the united states and is estimated to create a little over 250, maybe 300 permanent jobs. we should be focusing more broadly on american infrastructure for american jobs and american producers, and that's something that we very much support." the president has been called out before for claiming the oil would bypass the u.s. washington post fact-checker glenn kessler explained monday that while the crude oil would travel to the gulf coast, it would then be refined into products like gasoline -- and much of it certainly would be used in the u.s. "current trends suggest that only about half of that refined product would be exported, and it could easily be lower," kessler said. he cited a february report by energy industry consultant ihs energy, which predicted most of the refined products would likely be "consumed in the united states." further, even the state department issued a report downplaying the notion that a large amount of that crude would be exported, since foreign refiners would have to shoulder additional transportation charges. kessler said with his recent comments, obama "appears to be purposely ignoring the findings of the lead cabinet agency on the issue." further, he challenged obama's claim that keystone would just be for canadian oil, since producers in north dakota and montana want to move oil from the bakken area through it. kessler gave obama "four pinocchios" for his comments -- the worst rating on his fact-check scale. "if he disagrees with the state department's findings, he should begin to make the case why it is wrong, rather than assert the opposite, without any factual basis," kessler wrote. "moreover, by telling north dakota listeners that the pipeline has no benefit for americans, he is again being misleading, given that producers in the region have signed contracts to transport some of their production through the pipeline." mcconnell is aiming for a final vote on the keystone veto override on wednesday, with a procedural vote set for tuesday. so far, supporters of the pipeline have not demonstrated they have the necessary two-thirds majority in congress to override. obama, in opposing that bill, has argued the state department needs to be allowed to finish its official review of the pipeline.

fact-checker calls out obama for saying keystone <u+2018>bypasses<u+2019> us

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

3.0

62.0

8.0

3067.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

186.0

1.0

0.0

55.0

0.0

25.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

5.0

4.0

1.0

16.0

12.0

18.0

188.0

56.0

25.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

political columnists michael gerson and ej dionne reflected on the polarization of politics tuesday night at the sanford school of public policy. gerson, a former speechwriter for president george w. bush, and dionne, a former political reporter for the washington post and the new york times, discussed how the public and the political establishment in america have <u+201c>sorted<u+201d> themselves into increasingly exclusive ideological camps. the speakers noted that members of different political parties interact with and resemble each other less and less. the discussion also explored how social and political institutions have driven polarization and how those same institutions might heal the partisan divide. <u+201c>you have two parties where no one in those parties can see anyone in the other party that looks and thinks like they do,<u+201d> gerson said. dionne and gerson emphasized the increasing polarization of political parties not only on ideological lines, but also along cultural and regional boundaries. they noted that this has led to heated debates over issues that were previously areas of agreement. <u+201c>equality of opportunity is not a natural state. it is a social condition that is developed<u+2014>consciously developed<u+2014>through educational institutions, working communities and economic policies.<u+201d> <u+2014>michael gerson <u+201c>my concern with that is that it tends to turn every issue into a culture war debate, no matter what it is," dionne said. both dionne and gerson generally agreed that the republican party is currently more ideologically uniform than the democratic party. gerson noted, however, that the democratic party appears to be polarizing at a faster rate than the republican party. he also explained that the growth of conservative movements outside the republican party has made it harder for moderates within the party. gerson said that while there are members of the republican party that want to reform government, there is also a significant wing of the party which dismisses the role of government in society. <u+201c>we have the emergence of an ideological movement that has an apocalyptic tone, that america is very much on the verge of collapse,<u+201d> gerson said. <u+201c>they have adopted an ideology<u+2014>a rather lazy ideology<u+2014>called <u+2018>constitutionalism<u+2019> which essentially rules out the new deal and the great society and all the modern purposes of government. that<u+2019>s a very simple ideological approach and it<u+2019>s not an adequate one for modern government.<u+201d> dionne noted that some republicans have now started to focus on inequality, which may lead to more centrist policies from the party. <u+201c>we have started to focus on the costs of the long rise of inequality,<u+201d> dionne said. <u+201d>at least republicans are now giving some lip service to these problems.<u+201d> dionne and gerson both said that republicans who acknowledge the role of government in creating equal opportunity and democrats who acknowledge the role of families in creating social stability stand the best chance of reducing political polarization. <u+201c>equality of opportunity is not a natural state. it is a social condition that is developed<u+2014>consciously developed<u+2014>through educational institutions, working communities and economic policies,<u+201d> gerson said. <u+201c>we<u+2019>re not achieving that for maybe a third of the american workforce, who now don<u+2019>t have the skills and human capital to compete in the modern economy. it<u+2019>s a fundamental challenge to the definition of the american experiment.<u+201d>

political pundits talk polarization at sanford school tuesday

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

61.0

8.0

3432.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

264.0

0.0

52.0

2.0

0.0

42.0

3.0

6.0

1.0

7.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

14.0

8.0

23.0

269.0

52.0

44.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

this has been a rough year for pollsters and pundits, with prediction after prediction going painfully awry. even those supposedly unflappable data journalists have found themselves stepping in it. but it<u+2019>s not just the journalists and pollsters. since i<u+2019>m a professor of statistics as well as a blogger who often comments on academic papers that i think misuse numbers, i have a front-row seat to some of the least persuasive academic takes on politics and elections. and it<u+2019>s been a big year for bad studies. in journalism and polling, premature obituaries of trump have been one common problem. in july 2015, the new york times<u+2019>s nate cohn remarked on "a shift that will probably mark the moment when trump<u+2019>s candidacy went from boom to bust." (that was a reference to trump crudely dismissing the war record of john mccain, the former republican presidential nominee.)<u+00a0>"his support will erode," cohn wrote confidently, "as the tone of coverage shifts from publicizing his anti-establishment and anti-immigration views <u+2026> to reflecting the chorus of republican criticism of his most outrageous comments and the more liberal elements of his record." whoops. only a month later, famed number cruncher nate silver gave trump a 2 percent chance of winning the republican nomination. a couple of months after that, gallup made the historic announcement that the organization would no longer do horse race<u+2013>style election polling. you can see why this might be a smart time to get out of the predictions game. i'd love to claim that i'm above all this myself, but really i too had no idea what would happen during the primary season. whenever anyone asked me, i'd point them to an article i wrote in 2011 explaining why primaries are hard to predict. in short, in the general election voters have months to make their decisions, the choice is between two candidates who are ideologically distinct, and most voters can rely on party cues. in contrast, primaries come in a rushed sequence, competing candidates tend to be similar in ideology, and (of course) they come from the same party. and with multiple candidates comes the opportunity for strategic voting (casting a vote for someone you dislike to defeat someone you dislike even more), which is a hard thing to model. in recent years we have seen claims that political attitudes and preferences were determined by menstrual cycles and smiley face icons in short, i avoided making any embarrassing predictions about primary election winners only by the tactic of avoiding making predictions, period <u+2014> an option that was not so available to the nates cohn and silver, who were expected to make real-time predictions (and who, to their credit, examined their errors afterward). but academia has had no shortage of errant "findings" as well. this year, perhaps more than others, the internet has been swarming with conspiracy theories <u+2014> some of these defended with statistical arguments. in june, various people pointed me to a paper by axel geijsel and rodolfo cortes barragan, graduate students at tilburg university and stanford, respectively, with the portentous title "are we witnessing a dishonest election? a between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 democratic party primary for the presidency of the united states of america." (yes, indeed: that presidency.) the paper, issued before the primary race between hillary clinton and bernie sanders was decided, made the case that sanders tended to win in states where electronic voting could be double-checked with a paper trail. clinton, suspiciously <u+2014> or "suspiciously" <u+2014> tended to win when there was no paper trail. moreover, geijsel and barragan wrote, the inaccuracy of exit polling supposedly rose in states without a paper trail, and the official results seemed biased toward clinton. the paper itself did not convince me, as there can be all sorts of differences between different states, and there<u+2019>s no reason to pick just one of these factors and give it a causal interpretation.<u+00a0>it<u+2019>s what we call an observational comparison. you never know, fraud could always happen, but the paper supplied no useful evidence that this difference was the one driving the election results.<u+00a0>(not that you<u+2019>d need an explanation as to why a 74-year-old socialist fails to win a major party nomination in the united states.) but if going viral among bernie followers counted in academia, these students would have tenure already. closer to the mainstream, in june, economics professors ray fisman and andrea prat, of boston university and columbia, posted a piece in slate claiming that fox news support for donald trump "could erase a 12-percentage-point democratic lead in the popular vote." i<u+2019>m skeptical that this number is anything close to reasonable. after looking at the cited study, by professors gregory martin (political science, emory) and ali yurukoglu (stanford business school), it seems to me that fisman and prat improperly extrapolated an estimate that was already probably too high. martin and yurukoglu estimated that watching fox news an extra 2.5 minutes a day increased a voter<u+2019>s probability of voting republican by 0.3 percentage points. but it<u+2019>s not reasonable to assume that if the time watching the channel continued to grow, the shift in vote preference would continue to be strong and linear <u+2014> all the way to 12 percent! in addition, while i trust that the authors found what they reported, there is a well-known tendency for small but variable effects to be overestimated in this sort of statistical study. in general, estimates near zero are discarded and high estimates are reported. we call this the "statistical significance filter," which can turn weak results into robust-seeming ones. regarding partisan news sources, i have more trust in a study by political scientists dan hopkins and<u+00a0>jonathan ladd of georgetown university, who analyze data from a 2000 pre-election poll and find a positive effect of fox news on support for george w. bush, but only for republicans and independents. in summarizing this study, hopkins writes that media influence "fosters political polarization. for republicans and pure independents, fox news access in 2000 reinforced gop loyalties." not a lot of room for a 12 percent swing in that claim. the next month came a piece, based on work by the research psychologist robert epstein <u+2014> epstein also publicized it last year <u+2014> called "how google could rig the 2016 election." it claimed that "google<u+2019>s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more <u+2014> up to 80 percent in some demographic groups <u+2014> with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated. <u+2026> given that many elections are won by small margins, this gives google the power, right now, to flip upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide." quite a claim. the numbers, however, came from a highly artificial set of lab experiments in which participants were asked questions about unfamiliar political candidates after being shown unrealistically rigged search results. the researchers put extremely biased articles favoring one candidate on page one, moderately biased articles on page two, and so on, so participants had to go to pages four and five of a five-page search to find anything strongly favoring the other candidate. epstein then compounded his exaggerations by claiming, ridiculously, that the real-world impact of google on elections would "undoubtedly be larger" than in his loaded experiments. in fact, the real presidential election is not being held in an isolated lab: voters have many sources of information about clinton and trump, beyond those found in (hypothetically) rigged search results. (full disclosure: some of my research is funded by google.) and it<u+2019>s still only early september! just wait till next month, when just about any election-related study will get 15 minutes of fame. in recent years we have seen claims that political attitudes and preferences were determined by menstrual cycles, smiley faces displayed near survey questions for subliminally short durations, and the mood swings caused by the results of college football games (really). all of these studies struck me as flawed, either in design or in the analysis of the data. (follow the links for more details about my doubts.) i'm not saying that these studies shouldn't have been done (well, in most cases). researchers should be free to try out all sorts of outside-the-box ideas, and, indeed, in some of these cases i<u+2019>m not criticizing the studies so much as the accompanying hype. but respected news organizations should think twice about dramatic claims about voting and elections, even if they are published in reputable scientific journals. when it comes to research, election season is silly season, and there always seems to be room for one more story about how irrational those voters are. who knows what else they<u+2019>ll come up with before november 8? andrew gelman is a professor of statistics and political science and director of the applied statistics center at columbia university. he blogs at statistical modeling.

why you should be skeptical of wacky new studies about what sways elections

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

75.0

8.0

9172.0

0.0

2.0

3.0

0.0

653.0

0.0

123.0

0.0

65.0

11.0

19.0

8.0

12.0

8.0

11.0

9.0

29.0

34.0

48.0

656.0

123.0

65.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

fidel castro, the frail and aging former president of cuba, made his first public appearance this week in more than a year, shaking hands with a group of venezuelan visitors, according to official cuban media. it was also his first public appearance since president obama announced a new policy toward normalizing relations with cuba. the 88-year-old castro was last seen in public in january 2014 at the inauguration of an artist's studio. the official cuban web site cubadebate on friday published four images of castro sitting inside a bus or van shaking hands with members of the 33-person group of visitors. wearing a baseball cap and sporting longish gray hair and a beard, castro is shown gripping the outstretched hand of four different people who lean through the window. castro's face is largely obscured in the pictures. cubadebate said the encounter occurred in havana outside an educational complex on march 30, but did not explain why the news wasn't reported until saturday. castro temporarily stepped aside as president in july 2006 due to a serious illness. his brother raul took over the post permanently in february 2008 after he was elected as the new leader. an article accompanying the photos said castro shook hands with the venezuelan group "for hours" during the "chance encounter." the article said the group noted that "fidel is full of vitality." it said the venezuelans were impressed by his lengthy and hearty hand-shaking session and the "lucidity of the attentive listener to the multiple details of the venezuelan reality, especially now that this great nation has become the target of imperial greed." in his remarks to the visitors, castro was quoted as urging people to write to president obama to stop labeling venezuela a threat to the the united states. venezuela, under the late president hugo chavez, forged probably the closest ties with cuba of any country in latin america. in february and march of this year, official cuban media published photographs of the former president taken during private meetings with a cuban student leader, with the cuban agents who were freed from prison in december, and with venezuelan president nicolas maduro, the associated press reported.

fidel castro makes rare public appearance in cuba

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

49.0

8.0

2229.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

151.0

0.0

45.0

0.0

21.0

3.0

4.0

2.0

4.0

2.0

4.0

1.0

13.0

6.0

14.0

154.0

45.0

21.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

atrocities such as the horrific shooting in charleston provoke heartrending anguish and grief in people everywhere. however, for members of the black community who have too often experienced senseless violence due to racial hatred, our sorrow is visceral and makes us question whether our country will ever be free of racial animus. the answer is no. not because america is inherently racist or because it is not a just society. rather, it is because racial hatred is premised on evil <u+2014> an evil that takes over rational thought, thereby allowing irrational and destructive thinking to cloud one's judgment. it is this same evil that took the lives of four beautiful school girls in birmingham, alabama, more than 50 years ago, and it is the same evil that will always be present in the hearts and minds of some people. in light of this, what, as a country, are we to do? as i try to answer this, i imagine myself as one of reverend pinckney's congregants sitting on the pews of emanuel ame church studying the word on that fateful night. i imagine posing the question to him. i imagine hearing him provide the following answer: "we are to do as christ teaches us. we are to love. we are to treat others the way we would want to be treated, and we are to forgive those who trespass against us." although many of us have been taught these lessons since childhood, it is admittedly very difficult to put them into practice during heartbreaking times such as this. however, this is not only what we are called to do but also what we must do in order to heal racial tensions that threaten the progress our country has made. here in south carolina, there has been much improvement in the racial climate, particularly as it relates to whites and blacks. state officials took swift and just action against former police officer michael slager in the death of walter scott, and the general assembly recently passed new legislation requiring body cameras for all state and local law enforcement officers. however, disagreements on issues ranging from the placement of the confederate flag on state grounds to the racial and economic disparities in educational opportunities remain. when discussing these and other race-related issues, starting from a place of love and empathy instead of accusation and distrust can help move us forward to a place of mutual understanding and advancement. as a black community, we cannot let our pain and anger harden our hearts such that we stop engaging in meaningful dialogues about race relations with others who neither look like us or think like us. the white community cannot retreat from the uncomfortable conversations about race, or harden their hearts to the painful experiences that blacks and other minorities have endured and continue to endure on a daily basis. if we are to combat the evil that darkened mother emanuel's door, we must learn from her and interact with one another in the same loving and welcoming spirit as she has shown for nearly 200 years. may god's love provide comfort to the victims' families and to our country during this difficult time.

don't let charleston shooting divide us (opinion)

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

49.0

8.0

3104.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

236.0

0.0

63.0

0.0

23.0

19.0

13.0

11.0

22.0

15.0

5.0

26.0

29.0

40.0

242.0

63.0

23.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

in a monday column for the far-right website world net daily, the longtime anti-feminist crusader lamented the declining portion of university enrollments accounted for by men. schlafly <u+2014> ba and jd, washington university in st. louis; ma, radcliffe college <u+2014> argued that it may even be time to implement quotas to ensure that men constitute at least half of a college<u+2019>s enrollment. <u+201c>long ago when i went to college, campuses were about 70 percent male, and until 1970 it was still nearly 60 percent,<u+201d> schlafly wrote. <u+201c>today, however, the male percentage has fallen to the low 40s on most campuses.<u+201d> never one to shirk victim-blaming, schlafly proceeded to link the problem of campus sexual assault to the increased enrollment of women in postsecondary institutions. <u+201c>boys are more likely than girls to look at the cost-benefit tradeoff of going to college,<u+201d> schlafly asserted. <u+201c>the imbalance of far more women than men at colleges has been a factor in the various sex scandals that have made news in the last couple of years.<u+201d> with so many women around, what do you expect a college man to do <u+2014> seek consent!? <u+201c>so, what<u+2019>s the solution?<u+201d> schlafly asked. <u+201c>one solution might be to impose the duty on admissions officers to arbitrarily admit only half women and half men.<u+201d> <u+201c>another solution might be to stop granting college loans,<u+201d> she suggested, <u+201c>thereby forcing students to take jobs to pay for their tuition and eliminate time for parties, perhaps even wiping out time for fraternities and sororities. i went through college while working a full-time manual-labor job, and i don<u+2019>t regret a minute of it; it was a great learning experience.<u+201d> while minimum wage jobs once sufficed to pay one<u+2019>s way through college, skyrocketing tuition has created a harsher reality for college students. absent financial aid and family assistance, the typical college student would now need to work 48 hours a week at a minimum wage job in order to pay for her courses <u+2014> and that<u+2019>s before accounting for the ever-increasing cost of room and board.

phyllis schlafly: campus sex assault is on the rise because too many women go to college

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

3.0

88.0

8.0

2034.0

0.0

1.0

6.0

0.0

129.0

1.0

0.0

22.0

0.0

19.0

3.0

11.0

0.0

4.0

2.0

8.0

15.0

135.0

23.0

19.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

kim davis <u+2014> the rowan county, kentucky clerk who earlier today brazenly defied the supreme court<u+2019>s order to issue marriage licenses citing <u+201c>god<u+2019>s authority<u+201d> <u+2014> has been ordered to stand before u.s. district judge david bunning on thursday and explain why she shouldn<u+2019>t be jailed and fined for her actions. in a statement released after she refused, for the fourth time, to issue david moore and david ermold a marriage license, davis said that <u+201c>[t]o issue a marriage license which conflicts with god<u+2019>s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. it is not a light issue for me. it is a heaven or hell decision.<u+201d> <u+201c>i was elected by the people to serve as the county clerk,<u+201d> she continued, and <u+201c>i intend to continue to serve the people of rowan county, but i cannot violate my conscience.<u+201d> that she is an elected official has become a point of contention, because as such she can<u+2019>t be fired for refusing to abide by the supreme court<u+2019>s ruling. removing her from office would entail impeachment proceedings, which will either have to wait until the next legislative session or require the calling of a special session, which could be prohibitively expensive. in the meantime, no one in rowan county will be issued a marriage licenses. lawyers representing the four couples who were denied licenses told the associated press that <u+201c>[s]ince defendant davis continues to collect compensation from the commonwealth for duties she fails to perform,<u+201d> they want judge bunning to <u+201c>impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous<u+201d> <u+2014> but that they are not seeking for her to be jailed for contempt. the scene at davis<u+2019> office this morning was raucous, with supporters of both side lining the walkway into it and occupying the tiny building. <u+201c>praise the lord!<u+201d> yelled one, <u+201c>stand your ground!<u+201d> another demanded davis <u+201c>do your job!<u+201d> one of her supporters was her husband, who noted that his family has received death threats and warned people that he<u+2019>s a firm believer in the second amendment. <u+201c>i<u+2019>m an old redneck hillbilly,<u+201d> he warned. <u+201c>that<u+2019>s all i<u+2019>ve got to say. don<u+2019>t come knocking on my door.<u+201d> watch video via the courier-journal below.

u.s. district judge orders homophobic kentucky clerk to explain why she shouldn<u+2019>t be fined or jailed for contempt

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

113.0

8.0

2201.0

0.0

3.0

6.0

0.0

181.0

1.0

0.0

41.0

0.0

14.0

7.0

10.0

5.0

9.0

4.0

6.0

2.0

19.0

12.0

18.0

187.0

42.0

14.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

on one hand, it is yet another example of how rubio, despite poll numbers touted as shiny, is running a pretty lousy overall campaign. for months, stories have percolated about its cheapness, which rubio<u+2019>s advisers have bragged about. lay out the cash to rent campaign offices? pfffft. who needs an office when the team can do everything from their laptops in starbucks, nursing $4<u+00a0>lattes for several hours while poaching the free wi-fi? it<u+2019>s edgy and hip, to people who still think of starbucks as hip. rubio<u+2019>s team instead has spent their money, as nr points out, more on tv ads and <u+201c>digital outreach.<u+201d> the theory seems to be that in this interconnected modern world where you can take harvard classes or get your melanoma diagnosed online, the candidate can be less engaged in old-fashioned retail politics while selling himself on a national level to republican voters across the country. which might not be a bad strategy, if voting for all the primaries happened on the same day. but in places like iowa and new hampshire, voters still value the candidate who makes the effort to come to their state and schmooze for their vote. in fact, the modest-at-best success of this strategy so far highlights just how much of rubio<u+2019>s status as one of the top contenders for the gop nomination is an artificial creation of the republican establishment and the mainstream media. for a republican party that needs more young voters, the florida senator must seem like a godsend. he<u+2019>s the perfect synthesis of youthful energy and revanchist policies, a dudebro who can exhort his love of football to people under 30, reeling them in before explaining why abortion should be outlawed with no exceptions and the united states should reinstate the embargo against cuba. on the other hand, the complaints of people in iowa and new hampshire that a candidate is failing to pay proper fealty to them in exchange for their votes highlights the absurdity of the primary process in this modern, multi-cultural america. the two states are among the smallest in population, with a total population of just under 4.5 million. they are also two of the least diverse states, both ethnically and economically. yet any campaign that doesn<u+2019>t at least make a strong showing in one or both states<u+2019> primaries gets tagged as <u+201c>struggling,<u+201d> saddled with bad press and a campaign death watch, and sends donors fleeing to candidates who made stronger showings. but anyone who questions the states<u+2019> place in line gets shouted down and disappeared faster than a communist apparatchik mildly criticizing a five-year plan. republican strategist liz mair got a hard lesson in this dynamic last march. hired by wisconsin governor scott walker to work on his now-defunct campaign, mair was forced to resign after one day when someone uncovered tweets she had posted mocking iowa<u+2019>s place at the forefront of the primary process. or recall the firestorm that erupted before the 2008 primaries, when michigan and florida tried to jump the line and move their own primaries forward. this resulted in lots of shouting, finger-pointing, complaints about a lack of respect for tradition, and iowa almost moving its caucuses into 2007 so it could still be the state where the primary voting started. the democratic national committee came very close to stripping michigan and florida of their delegates as punishment. in 2012, the republican national committee did strip florida of its delegates when the state once again tried to flout the rules to move its primary forward. rubio<u+2019>s strategy might be easier to understand if there was some indication that the campaign is hoarding resources for later. but that does not appear to be the case, and it might cost him down the road, when he will need more than hype from the establishment and the press to keep his campaign aloft. on the flip side, he<u+2019>s highlighting an absurdity of the primaries and pissing off a bunch of self-important republicans in the process. for liberals, it<u+2019>s a win-win.

if this is what a <u+201c>rubio surge<u+201d> looks like, republicans really are screwed

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

3.0

74.0

8.0

4001.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

270.0

1.0

0.0

84.0

0.0

32.0

12.0

20.0

7.0

11.0

15.0

11.0

7.0

23.0

21.0

36.0

276.0

85.0

32.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

doubleline capital<u+2019>s jeffrey gundlach said donald trump, if he<u+2019>s elected president, would help the u.s. economy recover by going further into debt, just as ronald reagan fueled growth in the 1980s. <u+201c>trump is going to win, and trump is going to increase the deficit,<u+201d> gundlach said during a panel discussion thursday in new york. reagan <u+201c>did it by taking three or four decades of stable nonfinancial debt-to-gdp ratio and putting it on a hockey stick higher.<u+201d> gundlach, 56, isn<u+2019>t endorsing any candidate, according to loren fleckenstein, a doubleline analyst. the fund manager, who has been predicting a trump election victory since february, noted that trump<u+2019>s campaign slogan, <u+201c>make america great again,<u+201d> resembles reagan<u+2019>s <u+201c>let<u+2019>s make america great again.<u+201d> under reagan, the u.s. debt grew to more than $2.3 trillion at the end of 1988 from $807 billion eight years earlier, according to data compiled by bloomberg. the total u.s. debt as of dec. 31 was $15.1 trillion. markets might not react favorably to a trump election at first, because the republican presidential candidate has criticized international trade agreements, according to the fund manager. <u+201c>first, i think you<u+2019>re going to get a global growth scare, trade-based,<u+201d> gundlach said. <u+201c>that could cause a market rollover which to me looks like it<u+2019>s already under way.<u+201d> this retreat in the s&p 500 index could be <u+201c>an excellent buying opportunity,<u+201d> gundlach added, as the debt binge <u+201c>will probably stimulate growth, at least temporarily.<u+201d> the s&p 500 is down about 0.6 percent since trump<u+2019>s victory tuesday in the indiana primary. his win prompted his two remaining republican opponents, texas senator ted cruz and ohio governor john kasich, to suspend their campaigns. <u+201c>when i say donald trump<u+2019>s going to win, it<u+2019>s not that i<u+2019>m wildly rooting for him, although i don<u+2019>t dislike donald trump,<u+201d> gundlach said in an interview with fox business network<u+2019>s <u+201c>wall street week<u+201d> set to air friday at 8 p.m. new york time. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s just like, i think it<u+2019>s going to happen.<u+201d> on the panel discussion, gundlach said oil prices must get to $60 a barrel to avoid a wave of high-yield debt defaults, a price he doesn<u+2019>t expect to see soon. he predicted more junk-bond defaults when borrowers are forced to roll over debt in a rising interest-rate environment by 2018 or the following two years. gundlach said he continues to be long on gold. spot gold was trading at about $1,277 an ounce as of 6:48 p.m. thursday in new york, up 20 percent this year. in january, gundlach said he expected gold would climb to $1,400.

gundlach: trump would use debt like reagan for growth

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

1.0

53.0

8.0

2568.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

171.0

0.0

31.0

0.0

12.0

3.0

11.0

2.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

4.0

10.0

9.0

18.0

173.0

31.0

12.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

top officials at the department of veterans affairs acknowledged to house lawmakers monday that they have been spending billions of dollars a year on private medical care for veterans without contracts, and said it would be too costly and cumbersome to put them in place. <u+201c>va acknowledges that our long-standing procurement processes for care in the community need improvement,<u+201d> edward murray, va<u+2019>s acting secretary for management and interim chief financial officer, testified,<u+00a0>referring to what<u+2019>s called non-va care. murray said that <u+201c>serious legal questions<u+201d> have arisen over medical care veterans get outside va hospitals and clinics, a growing cost that<u+2019>s expected to reach more than $10 billion this fiscal year. the hearing before the house committee on veterans<u+2019> affairs<u+2019>s investigations panel was the second of three scheduled for the<u+00a0>spring to address allegations of billions of dollars in misspending flagged by<u+00a0>jan r. frye, va<u+2019>s deputy assistant secretary for acquisition and logistics, about contracting practices.<u+00a0>the washington post reported in may that frye had sent a 35-page memo to va secretary robert mcdonald in march accusing agency leaders of making a <u+201c>mockery<u+201d> of federal acquisition laws and spending at least $6 billion a year in violation of contracting rules. frye<u+00a0>described a culture of <u+201c>lawlessness and chaos<u+201d> at the veterans health administration, the massive health-care system for 8.7<u+00a0>million veterans, and said his efforts to reform a wasteful, disorganized contracting process that put veterans health and taxpayers money at risk have been met with resistance from agency leaders for years. frye, testifying monday, repeated his concerns that va has failed to engage in competitive bidding or sign contracts with outside hospital and health-care providers that offer medical care for veterans that the agency cannot provide, such as specialized tests and surgeries, obstetrics care and other procedures. va has paid billions of dollars in such fees, in violation of federal acquisition rules that the agency<u+2019>s own general counsel has said since 2009 must be followed, murray and other officials acknowledged at the hearing. frustrated lawmakers<u+00a0>from both parties said the lack of contracts represented another case of bureaucratic incompetence they said has become the order of the day at va. <u+201c>if the atom bomb can be built and wars conducted under the acquisition regulations, surely va can deliver patient care under them as well,<u+201d> rep. mike coffman (r-colo.), chairman of the oversight panel, said, and later called<u+00a0>the contracting issues an example of <u+201c>bureaucratic lawlessness.<u+201d> but va officials said they would need to hire at least 600 employees to write and oversee contracts for private care, an expense they cannot afford. they also said that in rural areas in particular, many physicians are nervous about doing business with the government and are wary of the paperwork involved in a contract with va. phillipa anderson, va<u+2019>s assistant general counsel for government contracting, said that if a doctor or other clinician is paid, properly billed and provides a service to a veteran, that effectively constitutes a contract. but frye and several lawmakers said that practice puts taxpayers and veterans at risk. <u+201c>when federal contracts are required and you don<u+2019>t use them, there are terms and conditions that are missing from the contract,<u+201d> frye said. <u+201c>there are termination issues. disputes over fair and reasonable prices. a whole host of issues. safety and efficacy. without them, the contractor is there to do what he or she wants.<u+201d> va operates one of the largest health-care systems in the country, spanning 150 hospitals and more than 800 outpatient clinics. the agency has been struggling to serve not only the veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan, but also a surge in veterans who served in the 1960s and 1970s. va has been rocked since last year by revelations about long wait times for veterans seeking treatment for health issues including cancer and post-traumatic stress disorder. mcdonald<u+2019>s predecessor, eric k. shinseki, resigned as va secretary last year after a coverup of months-long hospital wait times became public, and congress has given the system $10<u+00a0>billion in new funding to ramp up private medical care. the agency is urging congress to pass legislation that would allow an expedited form of purchasing care for veterans who need to go outside the va system, allowing the use of agreements other than those required by federal acquisition regulations.

va admits it has no contracts in place for billions of dollars spent on veterans<u+2019> medical care

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

17.0

94.0

8.0

4544.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

279.0

0.0

64.0

2.0

0.0

34.0

11.0

13.0

4.0

18.0

3.0

12.0

4.0

22.0

29.0

31.0

286.0

64.0

36.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

while facing budget cuts, the irs nevertheless prioritized worker bonuses, union activity and the implementation of president obama<u+2019>s health care law over assisting taxpayers during tax season, according to a new report released wednesday by the house ways and means committee. the findings, in a republican-led report, were released ahead of a subcommittee hearing wednesday morning with irs commissioner john koskinen. at the hearing, koskinen stressed that the agency is significantly under-funded, and those cuts have consequences. he said less funding means there will be a decline in service for taxpayers, and pledged that service would improve if they got more money. "customer service -- both on the phone and in person -- has been far worse than anyone would want. it's simply a matter of not having enough people to answer the phones and provide service at our walk-in sites as a result of cuts to our budget," he said. but republicans argued the irs is making bad spending choices. "i would just suggest to you that there's hardly a person in america today that isn't doing more with less, that hasn't tightened their belt and learned how to work with less," rep. mike kelly, r-pa., said. the irs has faced congressional budget cuts of $1.2 billion since 2010, and has faced criticism in recent years over the targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status and reports of wasteful spending. the new report said the cuts were intended to <u+201c>force the irs to manage its resources more effectively and immediately stop inappropriate activities.<u+201d> however, while cuts were made in part to focus the agency on customer service, the report asserted that <u+201c>spending decisions entirely under the irs<u+2019>s control led to 16 million fewer taxpayers receiving irs assistance this filing season.<u+201d> the panel found the irs had cut customer services while continuing to hand out bonuses to employees, allowing staff to conduct union activities, failing to collect debt owed by employees of the federal government and spending over $1.2 billion on implementing obamacare. even though the irs<u+2019>s budget for taxpayer assistance remained flat from fiscal year 2014 to 2015, the level of over-the-phone customer service significantly decreased, with the agency shifting staff in customer service to focus on written correspondence instead of telephone calls. meanwhile, the number of calls doubled in that period. the panel found that wait times increased from 18.7 minutes to 34.4 minutes, and answered calls decreased from 6.6 million to 5.3 million. <u+201c>in january 2015, the irs commissioner estimated that taxpayer service would decline while delays in tax refunds would increase. while the irs commissioner has blamed this solely on budget cuts, in reality the irs deliberately diverted resources away from taxpayer services,<u+201d> the report found. despite the drop in service, there was no significant decrease in bonuses for irs employees. notably, in november 2014, despite another round of budget cuts at the irs, koskinen announced that employees would receive bonuses at the same level as for the previous year, unless they had substantiated conduct issues, the report said. while acknowledging that the agency has cut the amount of time spent on discretionary union activity, the report questioned why it could not have been decreased further, asserting that <u+201c>the amount of resources spent on discretionary union activity could have assisted nearly 2.5 million taxpayers.<u+201d> the report noted that while the irs<u+2019>s implementation of obamacare was deemed a success by koskinen, <u+201c>the irs achieved this supposed success by prioritizing <u+2026> implementation over other activities, including core responsibilities like taxpayer assistance.<u+201d> the panel also claimed the agency had failed to pursue recommendations for streamlining and reducing waste and abuse. it concluded that what it called <u+201c>large areas of systemic waste and inefficiency<u+201d> present in 2010 remained unaddressed in 2015, and highlighted in particular that the irs spent $2.1 million on litigation services that the government could have conducted itself.

house report: cash-strapped irs prioritized bonuses, union activity over helping taxpayers

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

17.0

90.0

8.0

4128.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

310.0

1.0

0.0

65.0

2.0

0.0

32.0

10.0

14.0

7.0

9.0

8.0

10.0

3.0

16.0

23.0

26.0

320.0

66.0

34.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

after suspending its arctic program for years following the grounding of one of its drilling rigs, the company announced thursday that it plans to start drilling this summer in<u+00a0>alaska<u+2019>s chukchi sea. <u+201c>will we go ahead?<u+201d> ceo ben van beurden<u+00a0>said during the company<u+2019>s fourth quarter results conference. <u+201c>yes if we can. i<u+2019>d be so disappointed if we wouldn<u+2019>t.<u+201d> it<u+2019>s a perplexing decision. for one thing, arctic drilling is an inherently risky activity, and shell has a poor track record of getting it right. and even when it is done right, says mackenzie funk, who reported an in-depth e-book on the company<u+2019>s 2012 arctic fiasco, it<u+2019>s incredibly expensive. <u+201c>simply the practicality of getting giant rigs up there, the practicality of getting oil from that far away from the rest of us to market is a huge, huge undertaking,<u+201d> funk recently told salon. <u+201c>we will only do this if we feel that we can do it responsibly,<u+201d> van beurden told the bbc, adding, <u+201c>i think that we are as well prepared as any company can be to mitigate the risks.<u+201d> but funk<u+2019>s take on shell<u+2019>s prospects for safe drilling basically came down to whether the company<u+2019>s going to be willing to invest enough money in the project to do it right. seeing as how the announcement comes at a time when the price of crude oil is at a six-year low, it<u+2019>s hard to imagine how they expect to do both that and profit at the same time. shell already plans to cut spending by more than $15 billion over the next three years due to dwindling revenues. despite that, <u+201c>shell hasn<u+2019>t taken the opportunity to cut its most high-cost high-risk project,<u+201d><u+00a0>greenpeace<u+2019>s charlie kronick said in a statement. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s time for investors to recognise that it<u+2019>s impossible for shell to justify its continued pursuit of offshore arctic oil.<u+201d> in the same meeting, moreover, shell made the unprecedented decision to back a resolution from <u+201c>activist shareholders<u+201d> to analyze whether its business model is compatible with the global effort to limit warming to 2 degrees celsius. to reach that goal, scientists say, we<u+2019>re going to have to leave three-quarters of our remaining fossil fuel reserves in the ground <u+2014> and, according to a major study recently published in the journal nature, that includes all of the oil and gas in the arctic. so what gives, shell? according to<u+00a0>chief financial officer simon henry, the company<u+2019>s already invested $1 billion preparing to tap the arctic, and just keeping things operational since the moratorium has cost it several hundred millions more each year. but even if that<u+2019>s enough for it to decide it<u+2019>s worth it to go ahead and drill, it still has a number of legal hurdles to overcome, chief among them being the ruling of a u.s. federal appeals court, last january, that the interior department<u+2019>s sale of chukchi sea leases back in 2008 didn<u+2019>t take sufficient account for the environmental risks posed by drilling. a final environmental impact statement is due out soon; in the meantime, federal regulators are informally reviewing the company<u+2019>s drilling plans. the environmental group friends of the earth, meanwhile, points to the absurdity of the $10 billion in u.s. subsidies (that<u+2019>s the low-ball estimate) from which shell partakes each year. <u+201c>the last thing the arctic needs is an invasion from big oil, and the last thing those invaders deserve are taxpayer dollars,<u+201d> lukas ross, the group<u+2019>s climate and energy campaigner, said in a statement. <u+201c>shell<u+2019>s dismal record of accidents and safety violations demonstrates an inability to operate in the unpredictable arctic waters. if we are going to avoid climate catastrophe we must make the arctic off limits to drilling.<u+201d>

bad idea: shell<u+2019>s gearing up to start drilling in the arctic again

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

66.0

8.0

3642.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

281.0

2.0

0.0

68.0

0.0

35.0

9.0

14.0

6.0

10.0

2.0

10.0

8.0

12.0

18.0

20.0

288.0

70.0

35.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

a gunman killed three u.s. contractors and wounded a fourth thursday evening at the kabul airport in afghanistan, pentagon officials said. a local afghan was also killed in the attack at about 6:40 p.m. on the military side of the airport, said u.s. army col. brian tribus, a spokesman for the nato-led resolute support mission. an afghan air force official told reuters the shooter was an afghan soldier. tribus would not confirm whether the dead afghan was the gunman or a member of the security forces. he provided no information about the victims or their duties. "this incident is under investigation," he said. "further information will be released as available and appropriate." the taliban subsequently claimed responsibility for the attack. the unnamed afghan officer described the americans as "advisers" and said "no one else was there to tell us the reason" for the attack. in the past several years, more than 142 members of the u.s.-led coalition fighting taliban insurgents have been killed in so-called green-on-blue insider attacks by afghan security forces. the shooting was apparently the first of its kind since u.s. and nato forces ceased their combat mission a month ago. in august, an afghan solider killed army maj. gen. harold j. greene, who was overseeing preparations for the transition. greene was the highest-ranking u.s. officer to die in combat since 1970

taliban claim responsibility for kabul attack

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

2.0

45.0

8.0

1394.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

101.0

0.0

32.0

1.0

0.0

9.0

7.0

3.0

0.0

9.0

3.0

2.0

5.0

8.0

9.0

106.0

32.0

10.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

california<u+2019>s drought<u+00a0>has touched everyone in the state. first the government eliminated irrigation water deliveries through much of the public canal system. then the governor told cities and industry to cut back water use by 25 percent. now the state is taking a step it hasn<u+2019>t resorted to since 1977: it<u+2019>s claiming water<u+00a0>from people with old riparian water rights. these are people who have been drawing water from rivers since the gold rush era, and who are generally immune to cuts. but in the most severe shortages, the state can order them to stop pumping. when governor jerry brown<u+00a0>ordered cities to conserve water, many people were disappointed that he did not set a similar mandate for ag. of course, the state had already turned off the tap for many farmers. and now it<u+2019>s making further cuts, going after senior water-rights holders this time. to protect some of this water, farmers in the sacramento<u+2013>san joaquin delta volunteered to<u+00a0>cut their water use 25 percent from 2013 levels if the state would promise not to mandate deeper cuts in the growing season. about 10 percent of california<u+2019>s irrigated farmland is in the delta; today, the state announced it would take the deal. other cuts are virtually inevitable for farmers who don<u+2019>t participate, said felicia marcus, chair of the state water resources control board. those cuts could come next week, unless rain and cool weather allows for delay. further cuts will go beyond any that have ever happened before: "senior [water rights] holders have never been cut as much as they will be this year," marcus said. "lawsuits are inevitable." the restrictions may be hard to enforce because california simply doesn<u+2019>t measure water use in some places. here<u+2019>s the associated press: however, state officials said they would use satellite and aerial photography to ensure that farmers were letting their fields go dry. cheating is expensive if you get caught. violators can be fined $10,000 a day. most californians support the cuts to urban water use and think the cuts to ag won<u+2019>t cause real hardship to the general population, according to a field poll. grist is a nonprofit news site that uses humor to shine a light on big green issues. get their email newsletter here, and follow them on facebook and twitter.

it<u+2019>s official: california farmers volunteer to give up water

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

0.0

60.0

8.0

2277.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

144.0

0.0

44.0

1.0

0.0

21.0

3.0

5.0

2.0

4.0

5.0

3.0

1.0

13.0

7.0

17.0

151.0

44.0

22.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

donald trump continues to rage against hillary clinton over her suggestion during the democratic debate that trump has become <u+201c>isis<u+2019>s best recruiter.<u+201d> clinton argued that terrorists are using videos of trump insulting islam to <u+201c>recruit more radical jihadists,<u+201d> and trump has demanded an apology. the clinton camp has since walked back the video comment, though her advisers continue to point to social media evidence of the broader claim that trump<u+2019>s rhetoric has become a terror recruiting tool. the clinton camp has refused trump<u+2019>s demand for an apology. make no mistake: both trump and clinton must be very happy to be embroiled in this spat. indeed, the clinton camp has cheerfully fed the flames of this fight, in what appears to be a concerted effort to boost trump among gop voters. the theory may be that trump benefits among those voters if he is perceived as a chief antagonist of clinton, thus helping him spread more intra-gop damage. here<u+2019>s the latest on this: clinton campaign chairman john podesta told a conference call of clinton supporters that the clinton camp takes the possibility of a trump nomination <u+201c>very seriously.<u+201d> the wall street journal reports on the call: one person on the call mentioned the extent to which mr. trump<u+2019>s name came up in the democratic debate saturday and asked if that represented a <u+201c>shift<u+201d> in the clinton campaign<u+2019>s view of his <u+201c>viability<u+201d> as a candidate. mr. podesta said that mr. trump has <u+201c>demonstrated to be a serious<u+201d> candidate for the republican nomination, and that he is <u+201c>someone who could very well be successful in their nominating process. people have come around to the conclusion that this isn<u+2019>t just<u+2026>going to go away at some point.<u+201d> it<u+2019>s hard to know whether the clinton camp really believes this. but one obvious possibility is that the clinton camp is signaling to top supporters that they should publicly make the case that trump now looks like a genuinely viable candidate to win the gop primary. if so, this takes the clinton camp<u+2019>s trolling of gop voters to another level: hillary is attacking trump because democrats are afraid that he<u+2019>ll become the nominee!!! but there may be a deeper rationale here, too. as i reported the other day, democrats plan to increasingly make the case that trump<u+2019>s simplistic bluster and belligerence are forcing the other gop candidates to dumb down their rhetoric to match his, thus revealing clinton to be more prepared to lead in complicated and dangerous times than any of the gop candidates. this is a political and policy argument: democrats are claiming that trump<u+2019>s rhetoric has become a threat to national security, which in turn makes the other gop candidates<u+2019> efforts to match it <u+2014> or at least, fail to condemn it in a full-throated fashion <u+2014> more consequential, and reveals clinton to be a steadier, more reliable presence. (the bet is that, while all the bluster may appeal to gop primary voters, it will taint the party in the eyes of the general election audience.) clinton<u+2019>s increasing efforts to highlight trump<u+2019>s reckless anti-muslim demagoguery not only gives trump a way to boost himself among republican voters, by arguing that he has emerged as clinton<u+2019>s chief foe; it<u+2019>s also designed to advance that larger argument. * trump still leads, but cruz is closing in: a new quinnipiac poll finds that donald trump still leads with 28 percent of republicans and gop-leaning independents nationally, while ted cruz is a close second at 24 percent. marco rubio has 12 percent and ben carson has 10 percent. notable details: trump leads cruz among non-college voters (another sign that<u+2019>s where his base of support lies) while cruz dominates trump among tea partyers and white evangelicals, suggesting his assiduous courting of that demographic might be working. also: where<u+2019>s that rubio-mentum? * clinton holds vast lead over sanders: the new quinnipiac poll also finds that hillary clinton leads bernie sanders by 61-30 among democrats and dem-leaning independents nationally. clinton leads among those who self describe as <u+201c>very liberal<u+201d> by 52-42, and among those who are <u+201c>somewhat liberal<u+201d> by 60-31, suggesting her campaign may be in the process of patching up whatever problems she had with the democratic party<u+2019>s left flank. indeed, only 10 percent of <u+201c>very liberal<u+201d> dems say they definitely won<u+2019>t support clinton. * americans would be <u+2018>embarrassed<u+2019> by president trump: one last fun nugget from the quinnipiac poll: 50 percent of americans say they would be <u+201c>embarrassed<u+201d> by having donald trump as president, while only 23 percent say they would be <u+201c>proud<u+201d> and another 24 percent say they would be neither. but a plurality of republicans, 44 percent, say they would be <u+201c>proud<u+201d> to have president trump in the oval office, while only 20 percent of them would be embarrassed by it. * talk radio conservatives rally to cruz: politico reports on all the conservative talk radio hosts who are rallying to ted cruz<u+2019>s defense, fending off attacks on the texas senator from trump and marco rubio. notably, radio conservatives are defending cruz against rubio<u+2019>s false claim that cruz once supported legalization, as rush limbaugh does here: conservative radio is determined not to let gop voters forget rubio<u+2019>s heinous support for comprehensive immigration reform, which could give a big boost to cruz over the long haul. * sanders hits hillary over wall street: at saturday<u+2019>s dem debate, clinton said she wants to be loved by everyone, including wall street. on the campaign trail in iowa, sanders went after clinton over this: clinton has not embraced as robust a wall street reform agenda as the sanders/elizabeth warren wing of the party has wanted. but paul krugman, for one, has argued that clinton<u+2019>s plan for wall street is better than the one sanders has offered. it will be interesting to how the gop candidates attack this. it<u+2019>s likely they<u+2019>ll blast the plan for hiking taxes. * and the trump vulgarism of the day: at a rally in michigan, the donald deconstructs hillary clinton<u+2019>s debate bathroom break: trump then described obama<u+2019>s 2008 dem primary victory over clinton this way: <u+201c>she was favored to win, and<u+00a0>she got schlonged.<u+201d> all this should give him another poll bump!

hillary clinton campaign trolls gop by boosting donald trump

noauthor

na

https://t4.rbxcdn.com/c5695e5f087535e2066dc473e03b1819

na

nocountry

na

null

na

null

na

null

ti_cnn_train.parquet

na

0.0

na

nothread

na

1.0

0.0

52.0

60.0

8.0

6212.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

383.0

0.0

116.0

0.0

35.0

16.0

17.0

5.0

14.0

8.0

7.0

21.0

29.0

40.0

387.0

116.0

35.0

na