ComplexDataLab/Misinfo_Datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

israel prime minister benjamin netanyahu began working wednesday to form a coalition government with nationalist and ultra-orthodox jewish parties after his conservative likud party scored a resounding and surprising victory following a fractious election campaign. netanyahu said that he had spoken with the heads of five other parties that he hoped to bring into his government, adding that he hopes to complete the delicate task in "two to three weeks." "the reality isn't waiting on us," netanyahu said in a statement. "reality isn't taking a break. the citizens of israel expect us to quickly put together a leadership that will work for the sake of the country's security, economy, and society as we promised to do, and that is what i will do." netanyahu's main rival -- isaac herzog of the centrist zionist union -- confirmed wednesday that he had called the incumbent to congratulate him on his victory. "i wished him luck, but let it be clear, the problems are the same problems, nothing has changed," said herzog, who attempted to make economic and social issues the focus of the campaign in contrast to netanyahu's focus on security. herzog also vowed that his party would serve as "an alternative in every area" to likud. according to official results reported in israeli media early wednesday, likud had won at least 29 seats in the 120-member knesset, five more than herzog's centrist zionist union. no other party had more than 14 seats, and a party or coalition must have at least 61 seats to form a government. a key bloc that could sew up netanyahu's premiership is kulanu, another centrist party lead by former government minister moshe kahlon that was projected to earn 10 seats in the latest figures. kahlon, whose campaign focused almost entirely on bread-and-butter economic issues, refused to take sides. "i am loyal to my way," he told his supporters, saying he would work to form a government committed to social justice. likud significantly outperformed all the polls in the run-up to the election, all of which had predicted a second-place finish for the party behind the zionist union. netanyahu claimed victory early wednesday in a speech to cheering supporters at party headquarters in tel aviv. "against all the odds we obtained a great victory for the likud," netanyahu told the gathering. "now we must form a strong and stable government that will ensure israel's security and welfare," he added, in comments aimed at kahlon. at a rally of his supporters, herzog had vowed to do his utmost to form a government and said he too had reached out to potential coalition partners. however, his effort to build a coalition was complicated by the possibility of having to rely on support from a new arab alliance that was projected to capture 14 seats. but arab parties have never sat in an israeli coalition before. stav shaffir, a leader of the zionist union, called the results a "clear vote of no confidence in netanyahu." netanyahu had ruled out a "unity" government with the zionist union that would give him a broader coalition, and herzog had also been cool to the idea without explicitly dismissing the prospect. president reuven rivlin will now spend the next few days consulting with the various parties, whose leaders will all offer recommendations for who should be prime minister. the final weeks of the campaign had become a referendum on netanyahu, a towering figure in israeli politics who has spent more time as prime minister than anyone except the country's founding father, david ben-gurion. netanyahu, who already has a testy relationship with president barack obama, took a sharp turn to the right in the final days of the campaign, staking out a series of hard-line positions that will put him at odds with the international community. in his most dramatic policy reversal, he said he now opposes the creation of a palestinian state <u+2014> a key policy goal of the white house and the international community. he also promised to expand construction in jewish areas of east jerusalem, the section of the city claimed by the palestinians as their capital. netanyahu infuriated the white house early this month when he delivered a speech to the u.s. congress criticizing an emerging nuclear deal with iran. the speech was arranged with republican leaders and not coordinated with the white house ahead of time. in washington, white house spokesman josh earnest said obama was confident strong u.s.-israeli ties would endure far beyond the election regardless of the victor. the palestinians, fed up after years of deadlock with netanyahu, are now likely to press ahead with their attempts to bring war crimes charges against israel in the international criminal court. "what netanyahu is doing and stating are war crimes and if the international community wants peace it should make netanyahu accountable for his acts," said palestinian official saeb erekat. he said the palestinian leadership will meet thursday to discuss its next steps. the associated press contributed to this report. click for more from the jerusalem post.

netanyahu poised for third straight term as israel pm after chief rival concedes

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

80.0

8.0

5094.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

384.0

0.0

107.0

0.0

46.0

5.0

11.0

3.0

7.0

11.0

2.0

8.0

27.0

11.0

40.0

390.0

107.0

46.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

(cnn) - hillary clinton says she'll decide in 2014 about whether she'll make another run for the white house in 2016. "obviously, i will look carefully at what i think i can do and make that decision sometime next year," clinton said in an interview with abc's barbara walters that aired wednesday night. clinton, who was named walter's "most fascinating person of 2013," was quite open in the interview about her feelings towards launching another presidential campaign, but also emphasized again that it's too early to be obsessing about the next race for the white house. "it's such a difficult decision and it's one that i'm not going to rush into ... and i don't think we should be looking at the next election,"clinton said. "i think we should be looking at the work that we have today. our unemployment rate is too high. we have people getting kicked off food stamps who are in terrible economic straits. small business is not getting credit, i could go on and on, so i think we ought to pay attention to what's happening right now." since clinton stepped down as secretary of state at the beginning of the year, speculation has mounted that she'll run again for the democratic presidential nomination. then-sen. clinton battled then-sen. barack obama in a marathon fight for their party's nomination in the first half of 2008 before she bowed out in june. now, for the first time in decades, neither clinton or her husband, former president bill clinton, are in public office, which she calls a "relief." "i knew that i wanted to get off this high wire that i had been on for so long," clinton said. "to spend time just doing things that give us a lot of joy, playing with our dogs, going to movies, just hanging out." asked whether her husband wants her to run, clinton said that bill clinton has been "very respectful," adding that he wants her to "do what i think is right." asked if she wants to see a woman in the white house, clinton answered, "of course," but said, "i don't know the exact timing of it or who that might be." if she decides to run, clinton would instantly become the overwhelming frontrunner for her party's nomination, and she's been miles ahead of the other potential democratic white house hopefuls in every public opinion poll. a new national survey by fairleigh dickinson university indicates that if the 2016 race for the nomination were held today, 63% of democrats would back clinton as their party's nominee, with no other possible contender even cracking<u+00a0> double digits. according to the poll, which was released thursday, clinton grabs the support of 66% of liberals, 61% of moderates and 58% of the smaller faction of conservative democrats. the fairleigh dickinson university poll was conducted december 9-15, with 1,002 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. the survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

clinton says she'll decide about 2016 next year

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

2895.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

225.0

1.0

0.0

54.0

0.0

21.0

4.0

7.0

2.0

7.0

4.0

5.0

0.0

8.0

10.0

16.0

227.0

55.0

21.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

republican donald trump appears to have carved out a wider path to the white house as a number of states including florida and ohio are no longer considered likely wins for democratic rival hillary clinton, according to the latest reuters/ipsos states of the nation project released on saturday. the project, which combines opinion polls with an analysis of voting patterns under different election scenarios, still shows clinton would have the best chance of winning the presidency if the nov. 8 election were held today. yet trump has caught up to her level of support in several states. clinton now has an 83 percent chance of winning the election by an average of 47 votes in the electoral college, the body that ultimately selects the president. in late august, the states of the nation estimated that clinton had a 95 percent chance of winning by an average of 108 electoral votes. over the past few weeks, clinton's lead in the national polls has slipped considerably. polls tend to narrow as election day nears, and the clinton campaign has struggled to overcome controversy about how she handled classified information while serving as secretary of state. a separate reuters/ipsos poll of likely voters showed an 8-point lead for clinton has vanished since the last week of august. clinton is still favored to win 17 states, including many with large, urban populations such as new york, new jersey and california that heavily influence the outcome of the election. trump would likely win 23 states, many of them with smaller populations. the number of states projected for clinton has dropped over the past few weeks. two of those states, ohio and florida, were considered likely wins for clinton in late august. now the candidates are about even in support. five more states, including michigan and north carolina are also up for grabs. the sample size was insufficient to determine the outcome in wyoming, vermont, alaska and the district of columbia, though alaska usually votes republican and washington d.c. for the democratic party candidate. the reuters/ipsos states of the nation project is driven by an online survey that gathers responses from about 15,000 people per week. their responses are weighted according to the latest population estimates, and each respondent is ranked according to their likelihood to vote. once the poll is complete, the project tallies the levels of support and estimated error for both candidates, and then runs multiple election simulations given their respective support.

reuters/ipsos poll: trump closes in on clinton's projected electoral lead

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

73.0

8.0

2532.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

149.0

0.0

43.0

0.0

8.0

1.0

4.0

1.0

3.0

5.0

6.0

8.0

15.0

152.0

43.0

8.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

drama on the docket: high court's term set to end with slate of big cases major decisions are expected this month, as the u.s. supreme court works its way through several cases still pending before it closes out its calendar for the 2014-2015 term. among the biggest issues hanging fire: the status of same-sex marriages, subsidies for health insurance under obamacare and the drugs that states may use to administer the death penalty by lethal injection. but the court is also expected to weigh in on the drawing of lines for congressional elections, the right to put the confederate flag on license plates and the right of a municipality to regulate outdoor signage. "decision days" are scheduled for each monday this month, along with thursday, june 18 <u+2014> and there could be yet another day announced, as well. the court has not gone beyond june in more than 20 years. it is typical for the court to issue its most important and controversial rulings in the final days of its annual session. many expect the same-sex-marriage and obamacare decisions to come later in the month. but many court observers are expecting the lethal injection decision sooner, along with more than a dozen cases that carry considerable significance of their own. the court meets at 10 a.m. et monday and on the other decision days of the month. npr will be covering the proceedings and reporting on the decisions as soon as they become available, on our regular radio programs, on npr.org, npr one and other platforms. lethal injection (glossip v. gross) as traditional methods such as hanging, firing squad and electrocution have fallen from favor, states with the death penalty have been injecting a "protocol," or series of drugs, to execute death row prisoners. but pharmaceutical companies now refuse to provide sodium thiopental, the drug used at the beginning of the series to make the prisoner lose consciousness. states have looked for substitutes, including midazolam, which is a sedative and not an anesthetic. inmates who have brought this case say that those who receive this drug may remain conscious after dosage, when they receive subsequent drugs. some members of the court were clearly sympathetic to this viewpoint in the oral argument earlier this year. but some of the court's conservatives seemed to regard it as a "backdoor" means to undermine the death penalty itself. if the court sides with the inmates, states will have to scramble to find alternative means of execution, which may include a return to the more traditional methods. obamacare (king v. burwell) plaintiffs have argued that only those states that have set up their own exchanges for the purchase of health care insurance are entitled to give subsidies to lower-income people. states that let the federal government set up their exchanges for them, they contend, may not accept the federal tax credits that subsidize those eligible in state-run exchanges. the administration argues that the intent of the legislators was clear, whatever the exact wording of the 2010 affordable care act, and that all exchanges are eligible for the subsidies. if the court rules for the plaintiffs, subsidies could go away for more than 6 million current recipients, although the timetable for their losing insurance is somewhat uncertain. congress would be under pressure to act. taking this many people out of the system would also affect the private health insurance market and the amount that people pay in insurance premiums. the degree of impact would depend on how sweeping the justices' ruling is. but it could affect individuals, small business, large business, the insurance industry, doctors and hospitals. same-sex marriage (obergefell v. hodges and related cases) a series of recent rulings by the high court has led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in three dozen states, which are home to more than 70 percent of the u.s. population. this has happened despite many states' efforts to enact bans on such marriages, either by legislation or by referendum. these laws and state constitutional amendments have been consistently struck down by federal courts at the district and appellate levels <u+2014> except for the federal court of appeals for the 6th circuit. this one court, sitting in cincinnati, upheld the ban enacted in that state and several others and said states did not have to recognize marriages performed legally in other states. this "circuit split" between appeals judges brought the case before the u.s. supreme court earlier this year. the court now has the opportunity to clarify the legal situation by legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states or to adopt any of several more complicated resolutions <u+2014> leaving some states with legal same-sex marriage but others <u+2014> perhaps most <u+2014> without. the court is also deciding a related case regarding the right of a state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage that took place legally in another state. arizona state legislature v. arizona independent redistricting commission are state laws that put redistricting in the hands of independent commissions unconstitutional? arizona voters created a commission by constitutional amendment, and some state legislators say that this strips them of their redistricting power, thus violating the u.s. constitution. walker v. texas division, sons of the confederacy may states constitutionally ban the sons of the confederacy from displaying the confederate battle flag on vanity license plates? reed v. town of gilbert, ariz. what should be the constitutional rules for municipalities seeking to limit sign clutter? in this case, a church posted signs that the town wanted to regulate or remove. michigan v. epa at what point does the federal clean air act require the environmental protection agency to take into account the costs that factory owners face in complying with epa regulation? should it be before or after deciding to regulate hazardous pollutants? texas department of housing and community affairs v. the inclusive communities project the most significant race-related case of the term involves what's called "disparate impact" in housing. must plaintiffs have proof of someone's intent to discriminate?

drama on the docket: high court's term set to end with slate of big cases

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

73.0

8.0

6225.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

434.0

1.0

0.0

122.0

1.0

0.0

54.0

15.0

13.0

8.0

17.0

7.0

15.0

4.0

24.0

30.0

34.0

438.0

123.0

55.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the islamist terrorist attacks that took place almost simultaneously in five locations across paris last friday night were shocking in scale and unprecedented in europe over the past decade: 129 killed immediately, 352 injured (of whom 99 are in critical condition), a country-wide state of emergency declared,<u+00a0>thousands of troops deployed to paris, demonstrations forbidden in the ile-de-france region encompassing the french capital, border checks reimposed. <u+00a0>the death toll would be bad enough alone, but that one of the assailants entered europe (in october, via greece) as a syrian <u+201c>refugee<u+201d> compounds the fear and dread resulting from the massacre: hundreds of thousands of migrants (two out of three of whom are male)<u+00a0>have poured into europe this year, and a majority are from (muslim) syria, iraq and afghanistan. some of the other attackers were french- or belgian-born muslims. french president fran<u+00e7>ois hollande, the following day, addressed his people, denouncing an <u+201c>act of war that was prepared, organized, and planned from the outside, with complicity within our country that our investigation will allow us to establish.<u+201d> <u+00a0>he named the entity behind the perpetrators: the <u+201c>terrorist army, daesh<u+201d> <u+2014> isis <u+2014> <u+201c>a jihadist army,<u+201d><u+00a0>and promised that france would act <u+201c>pitilessly against daesh barbarians.<u+201d> <u+00a0>the <u+201c>barbarians'<u+201d> motive? <u+00a0>they sought to<u+00a0>strike at <u+201c>the values we defend all over the world, at that which we are, a free country that speaks to the entire planet.<u+201d> of the other potential motives <u+2014> avenging the ongoing french bombing raids against isis in iraq and syria, plus the two-year french anti-islamist military intervention in west africa <u+2014> hollande had nothing to say. isis <u+201c>contained,<u+201d> president obama, for his part, having the previous day declared isis <u+201c>contained,<u+201d> called the isis massacre <u+201c>an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share<u+201d> carried out by those with <u+201c>a hateful vision.<u+201d> <u+00a0>just what sort of <u+201c>hateful vision<u+201d> he declined to specify. <u+00a0>(not that we, by this point, expected him to.) <u+00a0>clearly, though, our values are not as universal as he would have us think. isis, however, is never coy or evasive in explaining why it does what it does, and emitted a communique of arresting clarity explaining its motives: <u+201c>a group of believers from the soldiers of the caliphate . . . set out targeting the capital of prostitution and vice, the lead-carrier of the cross in europe <u+2014> paris.<u+201d> <u+00a0>they did so <u+201c>hoping to be killed for allah<u+2019>s sake, doing so in support of his religion, . . . his prophet . . . and his allies.<u+201d> <u+00a0>they <u+201c>cast terror into the hearts of crusaders in their very own homeland,<u+201d> and then detonated their suicide belts with the result that <u+201c>allah granted them what they desired<u+201d> <u+2014> martyrdom. <u+00a0>france and its allies, the text went on to state, <u+201c>will continue to be at the top of the target list for the islamic state . . . as long as they partake in their crusader campaign, as long as they dare to curse our prophet, and as long as they boast about their war against islam in france and their strikes against muslims in the lands of the caliphate with their jets.<u+201d> any rational individual hoping to make sense of why so many people lost their lives in paris last friday night could do no better than dispense with the proclamations issued by presidents hollande and obama and just read isis<u+2019>s explanation. <u+00a0>the facts it presents are clear and indisputable: isis attacked france because france is leading a <u+201c>crusade,<u+201d> bombarding it (in syria and iraq) and (unmentioned but surely relevant) crushing the islamist insurgency in west africa. on secularist constitutional grounds, france has banned islamic headgear from schools as<u+00a0>potentially divisive <u+201c>ostentatious religious symbols<u+201d> and outlawed wearing face-concealing veils in public places as threats to security and national cohesion, as well as being inimical to personal freedom<u+00a0><u+2014> the equivalent, for isis, of waging a <u+201c>war against islam.<u+201d> france stood behind the satirical cartoonists of charlie hebdo and free speech ideals after a pair of islamist brothers assassinated 12<u+00a0>of them last january for repeatedly depicting the prophet muhammad, which, for isis, amounts to <u+201c>cursing<u+201d> him. <u+00a0>the isis assailants sought, and mostly received, death for the sake of their faith <u+2014> martyrdom <u+2014> just as the quran promises. note the communique<u+2019>s defiant, triumphal tone <u+2014> the tone of victors. <u+00a0>note, concomitantly, the absence of all the factors to which islamist apologists have ascribed as contributing to islamist violence committed by french citizens of mostly north african descent in the past; nary a word about discrimination, racism, lack of opportunity, youth unemployment, police brutality, or poverty in parisian suburbs. <u+00a0>this is not to say that these factors had no role to play in disposing the french-born assailants to play their role in the attacks <u+2014> they may have. <u+00a0>but the primum mobile for isis transpires as unmistakably politico-religious (natural, given that <u+00a0>islam blends faith and politics), buttressed, to be sure, by the virulent excoriations of infidels found in the quran . <u+00a0>france is attacking isis in the middle east (and thus acting as <u+201c>crusaders<u+201d>) and thwarting the unhindered observance of islam in france. <u+00a0>france is, thus, impeding the advance of islam, the true religion, and thus must incur god<u+2019>s wrath. now no fair observer of the growing religion-inspired chaos we see around us today would contend that all muslims, be they in europe or elsewhere, crave martyrdom and are ready to kill for it, or even pose a security threat. <u+00a0>what is clear, though, is that the doctrine of jihad as laid out in the islamic canon does repeatedly motivate lethal instances of terrorist violence. <u+00a0>we don<u+2019>t need to furrow our brows and deduce this from abstruse pronouncements; isis jihadists themselves are telling us why they are acting, just as al-qaida once did. <u+00a0>they are proudly showing themselves in action: check out, if you can stomach it, isis<u+2019>s own videos. and lest you labor under the misconception that, as obama has said , isis has nothing to do with islam, read and share graeme wood<u+2019>s exhaustive account in the atlantic<u+00a0>of the movement and its aims. <u+00a0>isis is not islamic? <u+00a0>there exists no islamic equivalent of the pope to make such a determination. wood<u+2019>s report shreds this ridiculous assertion anyway. that hollande and obama choose to avoid such blunt causal attribution makes (short-sighted) political sense. <u+00a0>france<u+2019>s population may be, by now, 10 percent muslim. <u+00a0>obama does not want to alienate muslim communities in the united states, whose cooperation he needs to track radicalized youths, nor does he wish to endanger american interests abroad by <u+201c>demonizing,<u+201d> as we are so often inclined to say now, islam as a whole. <u+00a0>we get all that. <u+00a0>the underlying assumption, however <u+2014> that muslims must be placated or they may explode into violence <u+2014> may be less obvious. <u+00a0>in any case, by avoiding the issue <u+2014> the jihadist problems the generally accepted islamic canon presents us with <u+2014> our leaders hinder our having conversations we need to have, our asking questions we simply must ask. namely, what are we to do about the strongly illiberal convictions<u+00a0>held, the data demonstrate, by majorities of muslims across the islamic world, convictions that, surely, have stymied any united muslim attempt to counter isis? <u+00a0>muslim migrants are now entering europe, unchecked in any meaningful way, in record numbers. <u+00a0>given that muslim majorities support making sharia the official law of their lands, believe one must believe in god to be moral and that religious leaders should play a role in politics, hold that wives must obey their husbands, and favor stoning adulterers and putting to death apostates, how, if at all, are western societies to adapt? <u+00a0>(majorities, pew found, also profess to approve of democracy and religious freedom, which are simply incongruous with the beliefs just canvassed.) <u+00a0>how will peace and comity in our increasingly multicultural, multi-confessional societies be possible if one group adheres to, and acts upon, violent and divisive dogmas inscribed in immutable ancient texts? <u+00a0>what is the best policy western governments can enact in the islamic world, given that military intervention has proved disastrous and counterproductive; supporting secular dictators has resulted, eventually, in morasses of strife and mayhem; and key western <u+201c>allies<u+201d> (saudi arabia, qatar and kuwait) are clearly playing a double game by accepting western backing yet propagating fundamentalist islam? it<u+2019>s a safe bet that neither hollande nor obama has answers to these questions. if we refuse to address these issues, terrorist attacks will likely multiply and push our politics ever further to the right. <u+00a0>we may well then end up in police states, with security organs even more pervasive and intrusive than they are now. <u+00a0>or even more perniciously, confused about what is at stake, we may continue our slide into craven accommodationism, into accepting illiberal beliefs (and resulting behavior) as the off-limits patrimony of various religious and national groups, thereby consigning to the dust bin of history once-lauded ideals of universal human rights. <u+00a0>(this is just what <u+201c>islamophobia<u+201d> denouncers are after.) <u+00a0>we should always bear in mind that there is only one universal declaration on human rights, and it grants no exceptions on the basis of religion or culture. <u+00a0>that one or another faith happens to boast a majority of nonwhite adherents does not make criticism of that faith racist. <u+00a0>islam in particular has universalist pretensions and so must be liable to criticism by all. <u+00a0>we need to junk, finally, the preposterous claim, advanced by the religion<u+2019>s apologists, that islam cannot motivate violence. if our politicians won<u+2019>t come clean about the parlous juncture at which we find ourselves, we have to. <u+00a0>we must regain confidence in, and appreciation for, our enlightenment and western values <u+2014> reason, equal rights for all (regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or faith), and consensus-based decisions and the rule of law established not by ancient texts, but by elected legislatures operating under the aegis of a secular constitution. <u+00a0>the societies the west has built,<u+00a0>as imperfect as they are,<u+00a0>offer such grand prospects for human happiness and prosperity that they are drawing millions<u+00a0>from less fortunate lands, millions who may have little understanding of what makes these societies work. <u+00a0>we cannot betray those seekers of a better (that is, more secular) life among them, especially women and children, by jettisoning our values under pressure from accommodationists, who often attack straight thinkers as <u+201c>politically incorrect.<u+201d> we either buck up and stand by our enlightenment values, promoting them with zeal, or we will<u+00a0>reap a savage whirlwind and<u+00a0>lose all that we cherish.

a liberal plan to defeat isis: here<u+2019>s how we avoid ted cruz<u+2019>s religious police 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

1.0

0.0

18.0

84.0

8.0

10887.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

841.0

1.0

0.0

174.0

0.0

107.0

41.0

35.0

22.0

57.0

24.0

32.0

18.0

57.0

71.0

77.0

849.0

175.0

107.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

why is canada so boring? it's a question that canadian journalist jeet heer tried to answer in a<u+00a0>series of tweets that are both quaintly earnest (this is a canadian writing about canadianness, after all) and surprisingly insightful. the question, it turns out, gets to the very core of what it means to be canadian. that might sound to americans like the setup to a joke, but to the country's 36 million citizens it's a very real <u+2014> and not totally settled <u+2014> issue. the full series of tweets is embedded below and well worth your time, but heer lands on two theories. (as he clarifies, these apply to english-speaking canada, not to the culturally un-integrated french-speaking quebec.) the nice theory: canadians have cultivated an identity of boringness as an alternative to the two other cultures that loom so large for them: the british, whose empire they were a part of until relatively recently, and the noisy americans to the south. "canadian boringness isn't intrinsic: it's something we work at, cherish and reward," heer writes. because both of those cultural forces exert such power in canada, cultivated boringness is another way of saying, "we are not british and we are not american." the less nice theory: canada's self-made image of boringness is really just shorthand for whiteness. in other words, canadian culture emphasizes "look at how charmingly boring we are" as a polite way of saying "this is a white, anglo nation." or, as heer put it, "the constructed mask of boringness is also the mask of whiteness." this, he suggests, "presents the county as being much whiter than it is" and is a way to exclude first nations and ethnic minorities from canadian identity. there is probably real truth to both of these. one point i will add is that i've noticed canadians frequently describe their culture in contrast to american culture. but talking so much about how you are different from americans is really just another way of talking around all the ways you're similar, and this<u+00a0>preoccupation with highlighting the differences and downplaying the similarities has always felt telling to me. canadian writer bruce mccall, in a great 2013 vanity fair<u+00a0>piece on why canada produces so many successful comedians, explained it as a kind of<u+00a0>resistance to american culture.<u+00a0>"it is impossible to fully express canadian resentment of america's cultural dominance, and the sense of impotence and helplessness," he writes. "humor <u+2014> subversive, ironic, usually dark <u+2014> is one of the very few weapons available to the oppressed." but that's not just a reaction to american identity, of course; it's also a way of dealing with the fact that it leaves very little room for a distinct canadian identity. cultivated canadian boringness is perhaps a way of owning that problem, and making it the identity itself. here's jeet heer's full series of tweets on the subject: if you made it to the bottom, as a reward, here is a great old jim carrey standup bit on american conceptions of canada that speak to my earlier points:

a surprisingly fascinating theory for why canada is so boring

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

61.0

8.0

3029.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

226.0

1.0

0.0

54.0

0.0

41.0

6.0

10.0

1.0

4.0

6.0

7.0

5.0

14.0

16.0

22.0

232.0

55.0

41.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

donald trump, who has proposed a moratorium on muslim immigration into the united states and possible surveillance of mosques, is now talking about "profiling" muslims as a response to terrorism. "i think profiling is something that we're going to have to start thinking about as a country," trump said on cbs' face the nation. while adding that "i hate the concept of profiling," trump said that "we have to start using common sense and we have to use, you know, we have to use our heads." profiling is an oft-criticized law enforcement tactic.<u+00a0>the national institute of justice -- the research and development of the justice department -- defined racial profiling as a "practice that targets people for suspicion of crime based on their race, ethnicity, religion or national origin." african-americans and hispanics have long protested police profiling that ranges from traffic stops to questioning about alleged crimes. trump has stepped up comments about "radical islamic extremism" in the wake of last week's mass shooting at a gay nightclub in orlando, and his proposals have drawn criticism from opponents. democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton said the muslim migration ban and other proposals<u+00a0>would help the islamic state and other extremists recruit new members, and alienate muslim nations who are helping the u.s. fight terrorism. trump's approach "is un-american," clinton said last week. "it goes against everything we stand for as a country founded on religious freedom. but it is also dangerous." in his cbs interview, trump said israel and other nations use profiling.<u+00a0>"we're not using common sense," he said.

trump suggests 'profiling' of muslims as response to 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

2.0

62.0

8.0

1646.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

151.0

0.0

21.0

0.0

9.0

8.0

2.0

4.0

9.0

1.0

4.0

2.0

8.0

12.0

7.0

156.0

21.0

9.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

libertarian presidential nominee gary johnson received the endorsement of a prominent virginia paper in an editorial posted saturday night, notching a labor day weekend win for his third party bid. the glowing appraisal of johnson's candidacy by the richmond times-dispatch's editorial board contrasts the former new mexico governor with republican nominee donald trump and democratic standard-bearer hillary clinton, both of whom lack the proper character traits to be president, the paper said. "neither donald trump nor hillary clinton meets the fundamental moral and professional standards we have every right to expect of an american president," the editorial board writes. the editorial board's backing of johnson is also a break in its partisan leanings, as it has endorsed republican candidates in every presidential election for the past 36 years. johnson performed poorly in virginia during his 2012 effort, securing less than one percent of the state's vote . the ex-governor has said he hopes to break out this year due to the low favorability ratings for trump and clinton, and the paper followed that line of thinking. the editorial also called for johnson to join the nationally-televised debates alongside trump and clinton. the former governor has said repeatedly that he needs to make the general election debates to have any realistic chance at the white house. the presidential debate commission requires a candidate to reach an average of 15 percent in the polls it has selected. johnson must rapidly improve his position to meet this threshold. cnn's latest poll of polls found johnson sitting at an average of 9 percent nationwide, and a quinnipiac poll from mid-august had johnson at 12 percent in virginia.

gary johnson snags newspaper endorsement

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

40.0

8.0

1736.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

129.0

0.0

29.0

0.0

16.0

2.0

6.0

0.0

5.0

1.0

6.0

14.0

6.0

19.0

130.0

29.0

16.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

christian leaders are responding with love, concern and warnings of civil disobedience in the aftermath of the supreme court's historical decision on marriage. the high court has declared that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry anywhere in the united states. they have already had the right in 36 states and the district of columbia.<u+00a0> now, the remaining 14 states will no longer be allowed to uphold their definitions of traditional marriage. *click play to watch more of our extensive coverage as christian leaders react to the court's decision. former governor and presidential candidate mike huckabee tweeted that the ruling is "an out-of-control act of unconstitutional judicial tyranny." bob vander plaats, a conservative activist in iowa, told supporters the court "succumbed to demands to invent a new constitutional 'right' never imagined by our founders." what impact with the gay marriage ruling have on religious liberty? cbn news spoke with austin nimocks of the alliance defending freedom for his perspective. click below to watch. rev. albert mohler, the president of the southern baptist theological seminary, admonished followers in a tweet, "the challenge for christians now is to speak the truth in love and to speak love in truth.<u+00a0> love of neighbor means we cannot lie about marriage." many christian leaders believe the ruling will create a restricted role for people of faith in american society. "the supreme court has stripped all americans of our freedom to debate and decide marriage policy through the democratic process," jim campbell, of the alliance defending freedom senior legal counsel, said. "the freedom to democratically address the most pressing social issues of the day is the heart of liberty." *** many faith leaders believe the supreme court ruling recognizing gay marriage will put religious liberty will be at risk. in the weeks before the ruling came down, the southern baptist convention partnered with the alliance defending freedom to provide guidance for churches and other faith-based institutions called protecting your ministry. cbn news interviewed dr. russell moore about the booklet earlier this month. watch our interview below. rev. samuel rodriguez says the decision "serves as a defacto and legal catalyst for the marginalization of americans who embrace a biblical worldview." <u+00a0><u+00a0> many leaders, such as liberty counsel's mat staver, have already called for civil disobedience in response to such a ruling.<u+00a0> others individuals and organizations are studying the ruling to determine the best ways to respond.

gay marriage ruling fallout: christian leaders react

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

52.0

8.0

2604.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

203.0

0.0

48.0

0.0

16.0

8.0

13.0

4.0

10.0

11.0

4.0

3.0

24.0

9.0

31.0

207.0

48.0

16.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

although donald trump's punch lines drew few laughs, some critics are the most embarrassed for nbc, saying the network sacrificed comedic integrity for trump-promised ratings. will trump's plan to register muslims make it to the white house? tesla under trump: how will electric cars fare under the next president? this nov. 3, 2015 photo provided by nbc shows, "saturday night live" cast member cecily strong, left, and republican presidential candidate donald trump in new york. trump hosted the show on nov. 7. for nbc<u+2019>s late night comedy <u+2018>saturday night live,<u+2019> cameos by presidential candidates are pretty much expected. but a presidential candidate as host? that is more surprising. and as the associated press put it, <u+201c>despite a 40-year history of lampooning politicians while inviting some to mock themselves as on-air guests, booking a presidential candidate to host the nbc sketch-comedy show is almost unprecedented.<u+201d> on saturday, leading gop presidential candidate donald trump hosted saturday night live, as protesters<u+00a0> picketed outside of the new york studio.<u+00a0>and although trump drew few laughs, some say his hosting appearance was a smart political move for the real estate mogul. trump shaped the show to his advantage, and nbc let him. before the show, trump told fox news<u+2019> bill o<u+2019>reilly that he refused to participated in some skit ideas because they were <u+201c>too risqu<u+00e9><u+201d> and <u+201c>i<u+2019>m leading in iowa, i want to stay leading in iowa.<u+201d> <u+201c>i walk into the room, there are 100 [writers] <u+2013> and they<u+2019>re all about 17 years old, ok? they<u+2019>re all young and all up in your face,<u+201d> trump told o<u+2019>reilly. <u+201c>but they come up with many, many skits and you pick the ones you think you like.<u+201d> according to a measurement by variety, trump was on screen for about 12 minutes <u+2013> far less than past hosts<u+2019> time on screen, with amy schumer clocking in nearly 26 minutes for the oct. 10 episode <u+00a0>she hosted and miley cyrus starring in almost 22 minutes for her oct. 3 episode. maybe nbc was conscious of trump<u+2019>s limited experience performing scripted comedy, or maybe they were hyper-aware of the fcc<u+2019>s <u+2018>equal time rule<u+2019> that requires television stations to grant equal air time to other presidential candidates who request it. either way, trump seemed confident that his snl appearance would garner high ratings for nbc <u+2013> no matter how they were won. trump<u+2019>s episode gave snl its biggest ratings since 2012, close to 10 million viewers. saturday<u+2019>s episode beat the previous ratings high from the season premiere a few weeks ago with host miley cyrus by 47 percent. the <u+2018>trump effect<u+2019> is also evident in gop debates, where the first three debates hit 61 million viewers, a statistic that took 13 debates in 2011. with the majority of americans having <u+2018>unfavorable<u+2019> views of trump, the ratings are could be less of a signal towards political success and more proof of americans fascination, morbid or otherwise, with the billionaire presidential contender. hank stuever, the washington post's television critic, called trump's appearance "almost certainly inappropriate" for the network, as well as unfunny. "having trump host <u+201c>snl<u+201d> is a tacit nod of approval <u+2014> of his message, his antics and, yes, his campaign to be the republican presidential nominee," wrote mr.<u+00a0>stuever. "bring back the old america," he writes, "the one where our preeminent vehicle for topical satire would have ably skewered a hateful, nonsensical, vainglorious presidential candidate, rather than invite him into the club and give him more of the empty-calorie media attention he seeks."

should nbc have let donald trump host 'saturday night live'?

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

14.0

60.0

8.0

3557.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

259.0

0.0

59.0

0.0

35.0

5.0

11.0

3.0

4.0

10.0

9.0

15.0

11.0

21.0

261.0

59.0

35.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

nearly one year after a new va secretary vowed to clean up a broken health care system for america's veterans, a vital new hospital hangs in the balance as lawmakers and the agency fight over how to pay for it. the dispute came to a head this week as construction on the medical center in aurora, colo., was poised to grind to a halt sunday without congressional approval for more spending beyond the current $800 million. just in time, lawmakers found a stopgap solution. after what one aide called grueling discussions between lawmakers and the va, the house on thursday was able to pass a temporary fix that would keep things moving -- for three more weeks. the senate followed suit late friday afternoon. but for a project whose estimated costs have ballooned to $1.73 billion, the funding band-aid does not solve the long-term issue. "this is by no means a solution to the problems in denver, which va leaders created and are refusing to take responsibility for," said rep. jeff miller, r-fla., chairman of the house veterans affairs committee. "rather it is a last-chance effort to convince va and obama administration leaders to take the department's problems seriously." the latest agreement would raise the authorization cap to $900 million, though the estimated price tag for the hospital is expected to hit $1.7 billion. according to a spokesman for rep. mike coffman, r-colo., who was against stopping construction for any reason, the deal would hand the va another $20 million for now, as the project had already reached $880 million in costs since it began. "the va ignored my warnings for two years that the aurora hospital was out-of-control and their refusal to heed my warnings has made a bad situation much worse," coffman said in a statement on thursday. the hospital is meant to replace the city's aging, overcrowded facility, and could help relieve a system whose long wait times were at the center of last year's scandal over veterans' care. but the stand-off over construction was just the latest problem for the over-budget, behind-schedule project beset by allegations of waste and mismanagement. original designs for the hospital, which is supposed to include a series of nearly a dozen outbuildings for specialty care, estimated a total cost of $328 million. further changes led congress to authorize $568 million for the project, and last year, the va was still saying the facility would cost $630 million, and be complete in 2015. when it was clear the campus could not be finished for under $1 billion, the general contractor, kiewit-turner, walked off the job and sued the va. a panel of judges sided with the contractor in december 2014. the project is now under the auspices of the army corps of engineers. as the project was turned over to the army, va deputy secretary sloan gibson apologized for the mess. "i apologize to veterans and to american taxpayers for the delays and the added costs," he said at an april 2 news conference, blaming a lack of communication with planners and incomplete designs at the outset, among other things. both sides in the va-congress dispute have been pointing the finger. "right now, va is essentially asking taxpayers to bail it out of a massive problem of the department's own creation," miller said in a lengthy letter to va secretary bob mcdonald on may 20. miller and others had been willing to turn off the spigot and let work stop this weekend on the project, which has been in the works since 2004. he's going along with the stopgap plan, but he and other lawmakers say they are still waiting for the va to offer a plan for how it would pay for the rest of the construction. rep. tim huelskamp, r-kan., who sits on the same committee, told foxnews.com that the three-week extension is a band-aid, and he is firmly against continued funding if the va does not show willingness "to pay for their mistakes and their screw ups." "they need to go back to the drawing board," he said. "and i just don't see a bail-out coming from the house." several senators on the senate veterans affairs committee also expressed frustration. but mcdonald, who officially replaced former secretary eric shinseki in july 2014 after it was revealed workers were falsifying records to cover up long wait times, rejected the idea that the va has not offered detailed options on how to pay for the project. "i have provided multiple proposals ... the options were rejected and the result has been inaction. our veterans deserve better than that," he said in a statement wednesday.<u+00a0>"i have presented a plan. congress has not proposed a counter plan." mcdonald said the va wants to repurpose and reallocate fiscal 2015 funds. lawmakers want to make sure the va won't take money away from other projects or services for veterans to do that. there was talk earlier about dipping into the $5 billion fund that offers private care to veterans who need it, but that was opposed by lawmakers who told the va it would have to concentrate on cost-cutting measures and other solutions. lawmakers like huelskamp and coffman have suggested the money come out of top employee bonuses. glenn haggstrom, the va construction chief, who earned $64,000 in bonuses as he was overseeing the project, was pushed into retirement in march. critics said haggstrom, though, should have been available for an ongoing investigation and instead was going home with a fat pension. "to date, not a single person has been fired for this blatant waste of taxpayer money," miller said in his letter to the secretary. a government accountability office (gao) report in 2013 on the va's largest medical center projects, including the denver facility, showed that combined, all four were responsible for $1.5 billion in cost overruns and were an average of three years behind schedule each. house speaker john boehner expressed frustration wednesday with what he said was the va's inability to correct itself over the last year -- not just in the area of construction, but in its long wait times and backlogs for veterans seeking benefits and care. "at this point, the va can't even build a hospital," he said on the house floor.

vital va hospital project in limbo as price tag soars, lawmakers vow no <u+2018>bail-out<u+2019>

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

23.0

82.0

8.0

6167.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

361.0

0.0

121.0

2.0

0.0

50.0

11.0

21.0

8.0

13.0

7.0

12.0

3.0

35.0

26.0

37.0

367.0

121.0

52.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington (cnn) a house panel approved a measure wednesday that cuts funding for amtrak, less than a day after a train derailment left at least seven people dead and many more injured. the republican-led house appropriations committee voted 30-21 to reduce grants to amtrak by $252 million -- a drop of about 15% from last year's level. the cut would apply only to amtrak's capital spending and wouldn't touch funding levels for safety and operations. the measure still needs to clear the full house and senate before it would go into effect in october. democrats on the panel fought unsuccessfully to boost amtrak funding by $1 billion, to $2.4 billion. but republicans argued that such a spending increase would need to be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget, and they admonished democrats for pointing to the derailment in an effort to increase funding for the passenger rail service. "don't use this tragedy in that way. it was beneath you," rep. mike simpson, r-idaho, said to democrats. the derailment late tuesday in philadelphia is renewing focus on how the u.s. funds and maintains infrastructure. amtrak has become a political hot button in recent years as republicans have sought to reduce the rail service's funding and focus it more on the popular boston to washington northeast corridor. in march, the house approved legislation that would authorize amtrak to pump more money into the northeast corridor route but that measure has yet to muscle its way through the senate. in a separate house transportation committee hearing on wednesday, democrats like rep. peter defazio of oregon complained about sspending cuts, saying republicans should be "cognizant of the real world out there, of what happened last night, of what the capital needs of amtrak are, and will not engage in short-sighted budget cutting." republicans also brought up the derailment, but in more general terms, saying it needs to be studied. "it's critical we find out exactly what happened out there and make sure we take the appropriate response to make sure it doesn't happen again," said rep. mario diaz-balart, r-florida. white house press secretary josh earnest said wednesday on cnn's "new day" that investing more in transportation infrastructure "is a common sense" decision and said investing in amtrak should not be a partisan issue. "there is clearly more that can be done when we're talking about a railway infrastructure that is decades-old," earnest said. "if there's an opportunity for us to make further investments in our infrastructure that would better safeguard the traveling public, then those are investments that we should make." vice president joe biden, perhaps the most famous amtrak fan in the country, issued a statement saying that "the victims could have been any one of our parents, children, or someone from one of our communities. amtrak is like a second family to me as it is for so many other passengers." opposition to funding cuts isn't just coming from democrats. some republicans representing districts in the northeast corridor are pushing back against conservatives who want to cut funding to amtrak and privatize the rail service. rep. ryan costello, r-pennsylvania, said congress should boost funding for amtrak, rather than cutting into its budget. "if we're not investing in our safety for the northeast corridor, we're not doing what we should be doing down here," he said wednesday morning on cnn. "we need to continue to invest in our passenger rail system...a critical piece of the economy in the northeast part of the country." it is still unclear what caused the crash, though the derailment happened as the train rolled through a curve, which investigators from the national transportation safety board were inspecting wednesday morning. the fbi is also at the scene assisting investigators, though there is nothing to suggest a terrorism connection at this point, a law enforcement official told cnn. the state's two senators, democrat bob casey and republican pat toomey, toured the crash site wednesday. some of the most gruesome images from inside the train came from a former democratic congressman, patrick murphy of pennsylvania, who was onboard one of the seven cars that derailed. murphy quickly tweeted images of injured passengers and first responders inside his overturned caf<u+00e9> car. he was not seriously injured, but his seatmate was knocked unconscious and was bleeding. sen. tom carper, a democrat from delaware, was also on the train but got off at a stop in his state before the train derailed in philadelphia. rep. bill shuster, r-pennsylvania, chair of the house transportation committee, and his republican colleague, jeff denham, who chairs the railroads subcommittee, released a statement wednesday saying they were "saddened by the tragic accident. u.s. house transportation and infrastructure committee chairman bill shuster r-pennsylvania, railroads, pipelines, and hazardous materials subcommittee chairman jeff denham (r-california). "both the national transportation safety board and the federal railroad administration are on the scene, and while we don't yet know many details, we need to know how this happened and ensure the safety of the system and the millions of americans who rely on the northeast corridor," they said in the statement.

house committee passes bill that cuts amtrak funding

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

52.0

8.0

5334.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

344.0

0.0

85.0

1.0

0.0

29.0

6.0

12.0

5.0

9.0

2.0

8.0

3.0

23.0

18.0

22.0

348.0

85.0

30.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

jordan<u+2019>s king abdullah ii vowed wednesday that his military forces would hit islamic state militants with <u+201c>relentless<u+201d> strikes upon <u+201c>their own homes,<u+201d> an escalation that could place jordan in the middle of the syrian civil war. the king huddled with his security cabinet and top generals wednesday just hours after jordan hanged two convicted terrorists in retaliation against the islamic state, which posted a video tuesday of its fighters burning alive a captured jordanian pilot in a cage. the immolation prompted harsh condemnation from leaders across the middle east and in the united states, with the white house speaking of jordan<u+2019>s <u+201c>strength and commitment<u+201d> to the international coalition against the islamic state <u+201c>in the face of this barbaric act.<u+201d> [the chilling reason the islamic state burned the pilot alive] in jordan, the killing mostly silenced critics of the u.s.-led offensive against the islamic state, the heavily armed al-qaeda offshoot also known as isis or isil. it was used by the government to stoke patriotic sentiment, with billboard-size posters in amman reading <u+201c>we are all jordan<u+201d> and a rally of flag-waving supporters greeting the king at the airport as he arrived back in the country from a visit to the united states. <u+201c>we will be on the lookout for these criminals, and we will hit them in their own homes,<u+201d> abdullah declared, according to the state news agency petra. <u+201c>we are fighting this war to protect our faith, values and our humanitarian principles. our fight will be relentless.<u+201d> the hangings underscored the hardening stance by the monarch and his military in jordan, a key u.s. ally in the fight against the islamic state, amid street protests calling for revenge against the militant group. the backlash from the video <u+2014> released while abdullah was in washington to sign a deal boosting the amount of u.s. aid to jordan <u+2014> appears to have drawn the usually cautious monarch into a direct confrontation with radical islamists. the king, who claims to be a descendant of the prophet muhammad and was educated in britain and the united states, has previously avoided direct threats against the islamic state and has sought to keep secret the number of bombing missions his air force has flown over syria. but according to rep. duncan d. hunter (r-calif.), abdullah <u+2014> who met with members of congress before he left washington <u+2014> quoted the clint eastwood character william munny, an aging gunslinger in the oscar-winning film <u+201c>unforgiven<u+201d> who exacts vengeance when his friend is tortured to death. abdullah did not elaborate on where or how jordan<u+2019>s retaliation would be carried out. it is unlikely that jordan would fly strike missions in syria outside those coordinated by the u.s- directed coalition. out of about 1,000 strikes in syria since september, the vast majority have been by u.s. aircraft. but <u+201c>the coalition is not going to turn their nose up at additional kinetic activity by one of the members,<u+201d> said a senior u.s. defense official in washington. <u+201c>if they want to do more, we welcome it.<u+201d> overall, the coalition strategy and the pattern of strikes will not change, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter and spoke on the condition of anonymity. but outside of coalition operations, <u+201c>we can<u+2019>t speak for jordan,<u+201d> the official said. <u+201c>they might feel that for their own sense of national pride, they need to do something.<u+201d> the obama administration declined to join with the european union <u+2014> where there is no death penalty <u+2014> in criticizing the rapid jordanian executions. white house press secretary josh earnest noted that both individuals <u+201c>had gone through the jordanian justice system<u+201d> and were <u+201c>sentenced to death.<u+201d> the administration did not immediately respond to a letter sent to defense secretary chuck hagel and secretary of state john f. kerry by the senate foreign relations committee, which wrote that abdullah, in a meeting with the panel in washington before his departure tuesday for amman, had complained of <u+201c>complications and delays<u+201d> in providing defense items such as aircraft parts and munitions. jordan<u+2019>s chief government spokesman said the two prisoners executed wednesday included sajida al-rishawi, an iraqi woman sentenced to death for her role in a deadly 2005 terrorist attack in amman. the islamic state had sought her release as part of a possible prisoner swap. jordan had offered to free rishawi in exchange for the pilot, lt. muath al-kaseasbeh, and a japanese journalist, kenji goto, held by the islamic state. the other inmate was ziad al-karbouli, who was linked to a terrorist attack against jordanians in iraq in 2005 and whose freedom was also demanded by the islamic state. the two were hanged less than 12 hours after the video of the pilot<u+2019>s killing was posted online. across jordan, voices that recently called for the country to withdraw from the u.s.-led offensive against the islamic state fell silent as jordanians came together to denounce the militants. <u+201c>this terrible act has created tremendous unity in jordan,<u+201d> said jawad anani, a senator and former foreign minister. <u+201c>ordinary jordanians now see the threat to their own security.<u+201d> anani, who is close to abdullah, suggested that airstrikes by jordan and the coalition would intensify, and he said it was possible that jordanian ground troops or special forces might be deployed in syria. <u+201c>the next logical step, you can intensify the conflict,<u+201d> anani said. but others doubt that the backlash will stir major changes in muslim participation in the u.s.-led coalition against the islamic state. <u+201c>the killing<u+2019>s impact on the coalition will not really be a game-changer, because the participation of countries depends on a variety of issues that are specific to each country,<u+201d> said elias hanna, a retired lebanese general who teaches geopolitics at the american university of beirut. <u+201c>we won<u+2019>t see arab boots on the ground,<u+201d> he predicted. <u+201c>that<u+2019>s for certain.<u+201d> in his first public statement since the video, safi al-kaseasbeh, the pilot<u+2019>s father, said wednesday that he expects jordan and the u.s.-led coalition to avenge his son<u+2019>s death. just last week, the elder kaseasbeh had appealed for jordan to pull out of the coalition. <u+201c>i urge the government, i expect the government, to seek revenge, severe revenge, for the blood of muath against this horrid organization, this criminal organization, this organization that is far from islam and the spirit of islam,<u+201d> the pilot<u+2019>s father said wednesday. [related: the islamic state was dumped by al-qaeda a year ago.] members of the extended kaseasbeh clan greeted a stream of visitors at their mourning tent outside the city of karak, south of amman. the family had no body to bury. in the video, islamic state fighters are shown dumping a bulldozer load of cement rubble over the pilot<u+2019>s body. mosques across jordan held prayers for the pilot at noon, with government-supported imams denouncing the islamic state. meanwhile, churches in amman pealed their bells in interfaith solidarity. after noon prayers, royal jordanian air force fighter jets flew over amman and karak. but jordan also faces tests on whether it can build on the displays of unity and resolve. there have been past signs of support for the islamic state in jordan <u+2014> especially in poorer regions <u+2014> although relatively few people have waved islamic state flags or endorsed the group on the internet. labib kamhawi, an amman-based political analyst, said abdullah is in <u+201c>a difficult position<u+201d> on how to frame the response. <u+201c>the issue is whether he can transform this into a national issue that affects jordanians, or whether it becomes a tribal matter with mounting calls for revenge and eye-for-an-eye attacks,<u+201d> he said. hugh naylor in beirut and karen deyoung, brian murphy and greg jaffe in washington contributed to this report.

jordan signals escalation vs. 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

3.0

43.0

8.0

7852.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

585.0

0.0

167.0

0.0

79.0

26.0

16.0

30.0

13.0

20.0

10.0

42.0

59.0

589.0

167.0

79.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

(cnn) she's staring down the worst polling numbers of her campaign, struggling to overcome the scandal surrounding her private emails and grappling with persistent chatter that vice president joe biden might challenge her. but hillary clinton has one key advantage going into primary season: a firm perception that she's the only democrat who can keep the white house. "except for hillary who is there?" said brent budowsky, a democratic insider who worked for party luminaries including former sen. lloyd bentsen. "there is really no one else at this moment who has a chance of winning. that is a problem that democrats face -- that is the problem progressives face. he added: "if for some reason she dropped out, there would be chaos." as progressives swoon for bernie sanders and biden allies float trial balloons and even rumors of an al gore comeback swirl, budowsky's sentiment points to the reality at the heart of clinton's 2016 efforts. while grassroots democrats might not love the former secretary of state, who often seems to the right of the party's increasingly liberal base, they appear ready to make a pragmatic choice that she is their best -- or only -- hope on election day. though her lead has narrowed in some instances, clinton is still on top of most polls of democratic primary voters. and she beats potential republican nominees in most match-up surveys. such is the power and aura of the clinton family that few democrats will go on the record as criticizing the former first lady and many say they respect her and will ultimately support her if she is the nominee. but from multiple conversations with democratic activists, it's clear that suspicion lingers over her true beliefs and instincts. some fear, for instance, that she would prove to be more to the right of her current political position once in the white house. all the love in a party that tends to fall hard for its favored candidates is going to sanders. and after all, there is a precedent -- 2008 -- for clinton's primacy as her party's apparently unassailable front runner being undermined by a grass roots revolt. new polls are adding to the jitters. a survey this week for the first time put sanders in the lead in a key nominating state -- new hampshire -- and clinton's negative ratings continue to rise over the email controversy that has haunted her candidacy and looks set on to drag on for months, giving a torrent of material for the gop to brand her secretive and shady. clinton's presidential campaign is hardly setting the party on fire either. she's failed so far to recapture the barnstorming persona which prolonged her battle against barack obama for the party nomination seven years ago. and clinton often seems a ponderous campaigner -- the undeniable connection she has with individuals does not translate easily to the campaign trail and she frequently suffers by comparison with the political magnetism of her husband -- former president bill clinton. as she tries to prove that despite her wealth and life in the political bubble she's in touch with everyday americans, clinton's choice of campaign events also makes it hard to inspire. for instance, on friday in iowa, clinton held a wonkish event on cutting college debt -- part of an emerging attempt to lay a policy foundation under her presidential bid. asked later about her repeated focus on mental health -- one of the core of issues on which she likes to focus in depth -- she was unapologetic. "i think a president should try to help people have better lives," clinton said, defending a strategy of narrowing in on issues that preoccupy everyday voters rather than big venue campaign events like the ones with which sanders is packing out sports arenas. the former secretary of state has also sometimes seemed an uneasy fit with progressives in a party that has undeniably moved left since 2008. she's dodged taking a stand on issues that fire up the party base in united opposition like the keystone xl pipeline and obama's push for a pan-pacific trade deal -- a pact she supported as secretary of state. some democrats are increasingly worried following clinton's handover to the justice department of the private server she used as secretary of state, which is at the center of a controversy over classified intelligence. there is so far no evidence that clinton is the target of an investigation or could face criminal charges and her campaign says she never sent email with information that was classified at the time. but the latent fear of the unknown may be one reason why clinton communications chief jennifer palmieri sent an email to the democratic frontrunner's supporters this week assuring them the so-called scandal was mere campaign "nonsense" trumped up by republicans. some senior democrats believe it's too early to push the panic button for clinton. "it's in the dna of democrats to worry and to freak out and a lot of folks out there are worrying and freaking out," said mo elleithee, who worked on clinton's 2008 campaign and now leads the georgetown institute of politics and public service. "give it a couple of months. if the dynamics don't start to improve, then you start to worry but at this point there is no reason to worry." there's another reason why the clinton campaign is unlikely be to raising the alarm over nervousness in party ranks. despite sanders' rise -- he's basking in adulation and drawing huge crowds for a campaign based on blasting wall street, demanding campaign finance reform, free college, a battle against climate change and universal healthcare -- many party insiders doubt america is ready to elect a 75-year-old self declared socialist as president. and while biden is beloved in the party, stirs deep sympathy following the death of his son beau from a brain tumor, and enjoys the stature of office, there are still questions about his electability. that's not stopping supporters of the vice president -- who wrapped up his last presidential campaign in 2008 after barely registering in the iowa causes -- from laying the groundwork for a possible run. a draft biden movement has kicked into high gear, drawing more donations and support, at a time when reports say biden is considering whether there is a path to run in 2016. the group took in roughly $200,000 in the first quarter and has amassed almost 200,000 signatures. but, those figures pale next clinton's $45 million haul and the 18 million votes she got in 2008. that current landscape is part of biden's calculus as he mulls challenging clinton. for the last week he has been vacationing in south carolina and reaching out to supporters to gauge interest. "if he does decide to enter the race, he will add more gravitas to the democratic field," said jon cooper, the national finance chairman or draft biden 2016. "he has a strong capable hand and is ready to lead on day one without any learning curve." that decades long resume, however, could also be an achilles heel as polls show that voters are pining for outsiders and fresh faces. aside from biden, the democratic bench is scarcely populated by alternative power players. two other democrats in the race, former maryland gov. martin o'malley and former virginia sen. jim webb, might pose tricky moments for clinton in democratic debates. but they're the longest of long shot challengers. meanwhile, the next generation of democratic presidential possibles -- like new york governor andrew cuomo and senators elizabeth warren and kirsten gillibrand -- have yet to emerge, partly because of the prohibitive presence of clinton as the heir apparent. any late entrants to the race at this stage would run headlong in to the clinton machine. the campaign has quietly been building the kind of comprehensive grassroots voter identification structure in early states to swell her delegate count that she lacked in 2008. and she's consolidated her support among democratic party elites -- a barometer of political strength that history suggests is just as important as polling in early states in the summer before nominating votes are cast. on friday, clinton trumpeted the latest significant endorsement, welcoming the support of former sen. tom harkin, a liberal iowa political icon. "i have had the privilege of knowing hillary clinton for a long time. she and i share many of the same deeply-held beliefs," harkin said, in a statement that may help insulate clinton from claims she is aloof from the economic woes of many americans. as often happens with clinton, however, over a long political career marked by fierce fights with republicans and questions about her trustworthiness, good news shares equal billing with unflattering headlines. it's that trend that has some democrats worried, and looking with some trepidation towards clinton's prospects in an eventual general election. in july, a quinnipiac university poll of three swing states<u+2014>colorado, iowa, and virginia<u+2014>showed clinton lagging behind possible gop opponents, marco rubio, jeb bush and scott walker. as she has battled bad headlines about her personal e-mail account, her negative ratings have spiked in those states and her trust numbers have also taken a hit. a cnn/orc poll of democratic voters in iowa released this week shows that clinton still beats sanders overall, yet voters see the vermont senator as more trustworthy. and since july, sanders has attracted cumulative crowds of 100,000 people with his soak-the-rich rhetoric. "hillary clinton has been doing well in iowa but her people there are rattled by the bernie sanders crowds which by iowa standards are quite large," said david yepsen, who has covered iowa politics for decades. "the polls look good for her now but we are six months away and i've seen things change rapidly. the drip, drip, drip, drip, is causing some concern."

clinton's best defense -- there's no one else

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

45.0

8.0

9862.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

658.0

1.0

0.0

190.0

0.0

55.0

21.0

32.0

12.0

33.0

14.0

22.0

11.0

42.0

52.0

70.0

659.0

191.0

55.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

when i think of freedom of the press, what comes to mind is the pentagon papers, watergate, abu ghraib, nsa surveillance<u+2014>the tough terrain of investigative reporting. not the handiwork of people trying to get a few laughs. yet satire, it seems, has suddenly become the new battleground for free expression. and that requires some rethinking for all of us. i love a good comedic skewering as much as the next person. but satire, fairly or not, has always seemed less <u+201c>serious<u+201d> than other forms of journalism, more of an indulgence. yet as the massacre at charlie hebdo reminds us, cartoonists, satirists and funnymen are often on the front lines of very risky battles. perhaps because their barbs sting in a personal way that news stories and commentary do not. perhaps because the comedic overlay gives them license to tackle incendiary subjects from which others shy away. and here<u+2019>s the rub: sometimes what they peddle is truly offensive<u+2014>maybe to me, maybe to you. and that makes it harder to defend. who wants to go to bat for the piss christ photo, or the virgin mary covered in cow dung, or depictions of mohammad that obviously make muslims angry? but we must defend the right to publish, if not the content. free speech is meaningless if it doesn<u+2019>t apply to unpopular, even repulsive speech. if you think about the north korean-backed hacking of sony pictures, it was triggered by a movie whose idea of comedy was a plot to assassinate kim jung un that ends with his head exploding. that, as i said at the time, was an incredibly stupid and needlessly provocative project. yet i also ripped sony for caving to threats and deep-sixing the film before bowing to public and hollywood pressure and making <u+201c>the interview<u+201d> available. in america, you have the right to make a moronic movie. nor would i defend the content of such charlie hebdo cartoons as one in which rolls of toilet paper were marked <u+201c>bible,<u+201d> <u+201c>torah<u+201d> and <u+201c>quran,<u+201d> with the caption: <u+201c>in the toilet, all religions.<u+201d> but the satirical french newspaper has the right to publish outrageously offensive material without being attacked by terrorists. the issue has surfaced before because of charlie hebdo<u+2019>s poke-in-the-eye editorial approach. the paper<u+2019>s offices were firebombed in 2011 after it published a cartoon mocking muhammad. the following year, both the white house spokesman and the french foreign minister criticized the newspaper<u+2014>but not its right to publish<u+2014>for another muhammad cartoon following the benghazi attack that the administration initially blamed on an anti-islam film. stephane charbonnier, the paper<u+2019>s courageous editor and one of the 12 killed in wednesday<u+2019>s attack, told abc in 2012: <u+201c>we can<u+2019>t live in a country without freedom of speech. i prefer to die than to live like a rat.<u+201d> chuck lane made the broader point in his washington post column: <u+201c>it turns out that such political jokesters take big risks, bigger than perhaps even they realize or anticipate <u+2014> and the repercussions affect us all. <u+201c>yet it is vitally important that the united states and all other western democracies rally to their unequivocal defense.<u+201d> lane faulted the officials who criticized charlie hebdo in 2012 for <u+201c>mixed messages<u+201d> that ran the risk of conveying <u+201c>how dangerous it is to give violent extremists a veto over what your citizens can and cannot say.<u+201d> the washington post ran of one of charlie hebdo<u+2019>s muhammad cartoons in a gesture of solidarity yesterday. other news organizations, including fox news, cnn, the ap and the new york times, have since made an editorial decision against running the images. some critics say that<u+2019>s cowardly; i think it<u+2019>s a tough call. i would prefer that they continue aggressive reporting, commentary and, yes, satire if warranted against islamic terrorists and those who would extinguish free speech at the point of a gun. in one encouraging sign, google, guardian media and several french publishers have donated money to ensure that charlie hebdo will publish next week. that is a message that even terrorists can understand. 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.

the new war on the press: when satire sparks 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

5.0

54.0

8.0

4317.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

310.0

3.0

0.0

74.0

0.0

33.0

17.0

12.0

10.0

22.0

6.0

7.0

6.0

19.0

30.0

24.0

312.0

77.0

33.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

when donald trump told abc's george stephanopoulos in an interview on sunday that he didn't think the republican party needed to be unified behind his candidacy, it wasn't really clear what he meant. "does [the party] have to be unified? i'm very different than everybody else, perhaps, that's ever run for office. i actually don't think so," trump said. "i think it would be better if it were unified, i think it would be -- there would be something good about it. but i don't think it actually has to be unified in the traditional sense." so how will he win? "i think i'm going to go out and i'm going to get millions of people from the democrats," trump said. "i'm going to get bernie [sanders] people to vote, because they like me on trade." a charitable interpretation is that trump doesn't think members of the republican establishment need to align behind him in order for him to be successful. that was certainly true in the primaries, but it's less clear that it's true in the general. why? for the same reason that the uncharitable interpretation of trump's comments is so baffling: trump very much needs republicans to vote for him in november. that sounds obvious, of course, but it's worth delving<u+00a0>into. consider, for example the relative unfavorability of trump and hillary clinton within their own parties. clinton's got the democratic nomination essentially locked up, but is still battling bernie sanders and still maintaining only a small lead over him in national polling. but she is much more positively viewed by members of her own party than is trump -- and consistently so. trump's numbers have improved, but they're still pretty abysmal. this is a large part of the reason that trump's overall favorability ratings are lower than clinton's: republicans look at him a lot more skeptically than democrats do clinton. for him to be successful in november, he needs those skeptical republicans to come out and vote for him anyway. after all, this happens at a time when partisans have been more willing than ever to vote for the candidate their own party nominated. even independents -- a group that largely still tends to vote on a partisan basis -- were largely loyal to the party with which they identified in 2008. if republicans waver on their choice but democrats stay true to their party, trump's in a lot of trouble. (yes, a chunk of bernie sanders supporters say that they won't back clinton in november, but when clinton lost the nomination in 2008, the number of defections was much smaller than polling at the end of the primary suggested.) donald trump will end the primary season with<u+00a0>more votes from republicans than any republican in history. but he's also had the most people vote against him, as the splintered party struggled to reach consensus. the fact that prominent republicans are reluctant to back trump is a both a cause and side effect of that split. house speaker paul ryan declining to endorse trump won't hurt trump among trump's existing base of support; they don't like ryan anyway. but if ryan argued for trump's candidacy -- if more moderate/establishment republicans were to embrace and make the case for his nomination -- it's likely that wavering republicans might be influenced. trump needs them to be. he waves this away by suggesting he'll find some space in the political middle. he returns to this baffling idea that he can lure bernie sanders's supporters to his cause -- an effort that will almost certainly fail based on the politics at play and an effort about which sanders himself has been increasingly vocal. there has been a repeated suggestion that trump can lure democrats to his cause in the way that ronald reagan did in 1980. (you can see the dip reagan caused in democratic party loyalty on the first graph above.) but that idea is flawed for several reasons. first of all, those reagan democrats -- mostly working-class white males -- have already migrated to the republican party. you can see the trend in data from the general social survey; the reagan democrats of 1980 are the regular-old republicans of today. in that sense, trump is right: his campaign hinges on those voters supporting him. on top of that, though, white voters are a much smaller part of the electorate than they were in 1980. that year, 88 percent of the electorate was white. in 2012, the figure was 72 percent. in 1988, working-class whites made up half of the electorate, as the atlantic's peter beinart noted in march. this year, they'll be only one-third. yes, it's possible that trump will inspire more whites to come to the polls, but there's also some evidence that he's inspiring nonwhites to turn out, too -- to vote against him. trump can't count on wooing a large group of democrats to vote for him in part because most of the democratic party is made up of groups that view him very negatively: women, blacks, hispanics. if he can't convince democrats, and if democrats and democratic-leaning independents maintain their party loyalty, he needs every republican vote he can get. to do that, he needs help -- the sort of help he didn't get in the primaries, leading to his earning less than 50 percent of the total votes. it sounds macho to say he doesn't need loyalty, that he'll go it alone, with the party or without it. but a non-unified republican party is a republican party that endures four more years of a democratic white house.

donald trump says he doesn<u+2019>t need a unified gop. logic and math suggest otherwise.

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

82.0

8.0

5416.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

344.0

2.0

0.0

110.0

0.0

48.0

3.0

11.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

6.0

25.0

14.0

34.0

348.0

112.0

48.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

several gunmen seized a luxury hotel in mali<u+2019>s capital on friday, killing at least 20 people in an attack that raised fresh concerns about security in a country that has battled islamist insurgents for years. even after a multinational campaign to defeat them, militants have proved capable of targeting prominent locations like the city<u+2019>s radisson blu hotel, where the seven-hour standoff took place. security forces swept through the radisson on friday afternoon, freeing the last hostages and pursuing the gunmen, who had charged through the hotel yelling <u+201c>allahu akbar!<u+201d> <u+2014> or <u+201c>god is great!<u+201d> as the troops cleared the hotel, they found the floors littered with the bodies of malians and foreign visitors, including a belgian government official. the state department said a u.s. citizen was among the dead. a department spokesman had reported earlier that no americans were killed or injured. an al-qaeda affiliate based in africa claimed friday<u+2019>s attack. it was the latest in a year of deadly islamist-led assaults across sub-saharan africa, where a patchwork of conflicts has sometimes been overshadowed by islamic state violence in other parts of the world. from al-shabab in somalia to boko haram in nigeria, the continent is host to a profusion of violent extremist groups, with a range of local and transnational goals, seeking to execute large-scale attacks against civilians. [it<u+2019>s not just the islamic state. other terror groups surge in west africa.] in mali, friday<u+2019>s attack underscored how vulnerable the west african country remains, even after french forces and a small number of u.s. troops helped unseat islamists from their northern stronghold in 2013. before that campaign, militants appeared to be gaining ground, moving closer to the capital, seizing on the chaos caused by a 2012 military coup. the current government still has only tenuous influence in parts of the country, and the remaining french forces in particular are considered targets. the gunmen stormed the hotel early friday, sending some of the 170 guests and staff members fleeing in panic and prompting others to seek hiding places. one witness said the attackers freed some captives who were able to recite verses from the koran. by late friday afternoon, mali<u+2019>s security minister, col. salif traore, said the remaining hostages were safe. at least 20 people were killed, traore said. the reuters news agency, citing u.n. officials, said at least 27 bodies were seen. authorities worked through the evening to identify the dead. three u.n. staff members in the hotel during the attack were safely evacuated, said st<u+00e9>phane dujarric, spokesman for u.n. secretary general ban ki-moon. u.n. peacekeepers helped secure the perimeter and provided medical aid and forensics assistance, dujarric said. the united nations has envoys in bamako as part of mali<u+2019>s reconciliation efforts <u+2014> what has become the deadliest peacekeeping mission of the past three years, with 53 u.n. peacekeepers killed since 2013. the chinese foreign ministry said three chinese nationals were among the dead and four were rescued. [how u.s. troops aided at the scene of the hostage standoff] meanwhile, security forces tried to pin down the attackers in the heart of bamako. officials said that four gunmen were holed up friday night in a hotel room but that there were no hostages with them. a group affiliated with al-qaeda, al-mourabitoun, said its followers were behind the attack <u+2014> similar to a smaller assault on a hotel in august that was claimed by the same group. mali has faced repeated attacks from insurgents linked to al-qaeda and other factions, but the islamic state does not have major footholds in the region. one senegalese guest, aissatou gueye, was in her room when the attackers entered. like many other guests, she was there to attend a large mining conference. <u+201c>they were asking people to recite the koran, and if they do, nothing will happen to them,<u+201d> she said outside the hotel. gueye saw one person shot dead before she ran to safety. about a dozen americans were rescued from the hotel, including several employees of the u.s. embassy in bamako, said state department spokesman john kirby. the american victim was identified by her family as anita datar, an international development worker from takoma park, md. the u.s. ambassador to mali called the family late friday afternoon to inform them, datar<u+2019>s mother said. datar, the mother of a young son, worked for palladium, an international development firm with offices in washington. [anita datar, the only known american killed in mali, was there to help] a member of a u.s. special operations unit helped to escort guests evacuated from the hotel, the pentagon said. about 22 u.s. defense department personnel were in bamako when the hotel was attacked. president obama, speaking to business leaders at a summit in kuala lumpur, malaysia, expressed condolences to the people of mali. <u+201c>mali security forces and our own diplomatic and security agencies rushed in to save lives,<u+201d> obama said. <u+201c>this barbarity only stiffens our resolve to meet this challenge. we will stand with the people of mali to rid the country of terrorists and strengthen their democracy.<u+201d> authorities drew no direct links to last week<u+2019>s terrorist attacks in paris. but mali <u+2014> home to the ancient city of timbuktu <u+2014> has been at the center of a french-backed effort to drive back islamist rebels who once controlled large portions of the country. security had been reinforced in bamako <u+2014> specifically around locations popular with foreigners, including the radisson <u+2014> after the paris attacks, traore said. he added that the attackers entered the hotel through a side entrance, <u+201c>which makes us believe that they were familiar with the hotel.<u+201d> foreigners are often targeted in mali. yet militants had never seized a target as prominent as the 190-room radisson blu, where foreign business people and diplomats are known to stay and dine. earlier this month <u+2014> before the rampage in paris <u+2014> the leader of ansar dine, one of mali<u+2019>s main islamist groups, released a statement encouraging attacks that would <u+201c>push away the aggression of the french crusader assailant<u+201d> in the former french colony, which stretches from tropical west africa to desert regions bordering algeria. a contingent of french troops is stationed in mali, and president fran<u+00e7>ois hollande on thursday had praised the campaign against the islamist insurgents. <u+201c>france is leading this war with its armed forces, its soldiers, its courage,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>it must carry out this war with its allies, its partners giving us all the means available, as we did in mali, as we are going to continue in iraq, as we will continue in syria.<u+201d> one of the rescued hostages, popular guinean singer s<u+00e9>kouba <u+201c>bambino<u+201d> diabate, told reporters that he hid under his bed and heard two assailants speaking in english as they searched an adjacent room. <u+201c>i stayed still, hidden under the bed, not making a noise,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>i heard them say in english: <u+2018>did you load it? let<u+2019>s go.<u+2019><u+2009><u+201d> extremist violence has hit mali repeatedly. in march, attackers reportedly shouting <u+201c>allahu akbar<u+201d> fired on a popular bar in bamako. three malian civilians were killed, along with a belgian security officer working for the european union and a french national. two months ago, more than a dozen people <u+2014> including five u.n. contractors <u+2014> were killed in a 24-hour hostage siege at a hotel in sevare in central mali. responsibility for that attack was claimed by al-mourabitoun, led by algerian mokhtar belmokhtar. belmokhtar, an infamous one-eyed militant, had also orchestrated the bloody seizure of an algerian gas facility in 2013 in which at least 100 workers were held hostage and dozens were killed. he was targeted in a u.s. airstrike in june in libya, and libyan authorities said he was killed. but the islamist group al-qaeda in the islamic maghreb rejected that claim. sieff reported from nairobi. carol morello, brian murphy, william branigin, sarah kaplan, craig whitlock and joe heim in washington, david nakamura in kuala lumpur and liu liu in beijing contributed to this report. it<u+2019>s not just the islamic state. other terror groups surge in west africa.

at least 20 hostages dead in siege of hotel in mali, official says

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

8230.0

0.0

2.0

6.0

0.0

576.0

0.0

148.0

0.0

74.0

24.0

10.0

8.0

33.0

12.0

15.0

6.0

29.0

41.0

44.0

582.0

148.0

74.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

a number of new polls show libertarian presidential nominee gary johnson doing very well with millennials and democratic presidential nominee hillary clinton underperforming with the same demographic that helped president obama build winning coalitions in 2008 and 2012. a new york times/cbs poll shows 26 percent of voters under the age of 29 supporting johnson and a further 10 percent supporting green presidential nominee jill stein. similarly, a quinnipiac poll shows johnson at 29 percent of young voters, and stein at 15. in that poll, clinton barely edges out johnson among young voters, getting 31 percent. republican presidential nominee donald trump is at 26 percent among that demographic in the poll. further, a global strategy group poll of millennials in 11 battleground states found 73 percent of millennials saying that trump was a racist, and just 38 percent supporting clinton in a 4-way matchup. the results have yielded unsurprising hand-wringing from older liberals who feel the vote of millennials belongs to them. clara jeffrey, editor-in-chief of mother jones, tweeted that she has "never hated millennials more" in response to the nyt/cbs poll, which earned refreshing responses from millennials. new york times columnist ross douthat, meanwhile, quips that it looked "like 'liberaltarianism' is a real thing" and that donald trump was "very glad" of it. while republicans have a few politicians who could be called 'liberaltarian' (two former republican governors who might be called that are on the libertarian party ticket, after all), trump is not. in a tight race, those votes could be crucial, and trump has nothing to offer them. not something to be glad about. the same goes for democrats, whose nominee has nothing to offer a demographic that has increasingly become more libertarian-friendly. a reason-rupe poll of millennials in 2014 found 66 percent of them believing government was wasteful and inefficient even as many said they planned to vote democrat in that year and in 2016. the drop off in support for democrats is unsurprising, given that the rhetoric about government that democrats deploy does not match the reality on the ground. that reality was bound to catch up with millennials who, even when they are fans of government, give authority the side eye. many of the responses to jeffrey's tweets encouraged her sarcastically to keep alienating millennials if she wanted clinton to win. the narrative of the older generation of liberals is that donald trump is so bad, voters have to hold their nose and vote for clinton. the option alone of a third party vote is skewered online, mostly by establishment liberals who have increasingly come to represent the poor policy making that has led to a mammoth-sized debt and veritable police state in the u.s. and u.s. warfare state abroad. donald trump does not "scare" millennials as much as the mess older voters have made of the country. clinton's courting of neo-conservatives and figures like henry kissinger only serves to alienate millennials more. johnson's refusal to play political games, like powering through a question about aleppo without knowing what it's in reference to, while it makes him an easy target for the media establishment to mock, likely ingratiates him to millennials who see both trump and clinton as products of a corrupt political system their parents' generation has glorified. clinton and president obama's decision to call trump a break from republican tradition instead of the inevitable evolution of it, as more dishonest partisans might frame it, has also placed johnson and the libertarian party in a better position. millennials are used to start-ups. they are early adopters whose behaviors and decisions are helping drive old giants of industry out of business, from blockbuster to taxicabs. the latest polls suggest they have the potential to disrupt the political industry in this country in the same way they've disrupted so many others. all the fearmongering over trump, the cries of false equivalency, and the attempts by millennial "influencers" like vox.com to frame the clinton campaign as something transformative millennials ought to get behind, won't bring millennials to heel in the way major parties were able to in days gone by. neither will false alarms about "spoilers" (spoiler: third parties aren't spoilers, shitty candidates are). the persistence of never trump republicans (even if they don't go for johnson), combined with obama and clinton's refusal (as of yet) to smear the principles of limited government, freedom, and constitutionalism with trumpism because of republicans' history of running on those principles while never acting on them, and the libertarian party's decision to nominate socially tolerant and fiscally responsible candidates (as many millennials describe themselves) means millennials have the chance to catapult the libertarian party into major party status, if not through this election cycle alone, almost certainly in cycles to come. both millennials and libertarians should expect the smears and attacks to become more vociferous and detached from reality as the old establishment partisan order slowly but surely comes to an end.

millennials just aren't that into hillary clinton, and it could cost her the election

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

85.0

8.0

5224.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

372.0

2.0

0.0

73.0

1.0

0.0

43.0

8.0

9.0

7.0

5.0

9.0

12.0

9.0

22.0

19.0

31.0

380.0

75.0

44.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

(cnn) as the first primaries creep ever closer, candidates are feeling the pressure to rise above the pack and prove their electoral viability. each candidate came in with different marks to hit. jeb bush needed a game-changing performance. marco rubio and ted cruz wanted to maintain their momentum. and rand paul wanted to get into the act. rubio was once again the debate's maestro -- hitting all the right notes and not once appearing to bend under pressure. the florida senator skillfully weaved his personal biography as the son of immigrant parents as he answered almost every question he fielded. he also flashed his foreign policy chops and seized the opportunity to set up a contrast between himself and the less mainstream non-interventionist views of his opponent, kentucky sen. rand paul. "i know that rand is a committed isolationist," rubio needled, before offering a deftly handled rebuttal to paul's questioning of how spending billions on the u.s. military was conservative. "we can't even have an economy if we're not safe," rubio argued. "yes i believe the world -- i don't believe, i know the world is a safer and better place when america is the strongest military power in the world." as during most of rubio's responses -- the audience roared in approval. while ben carson did have to answer one question about the controversy that has swirled around his campaign in the last week, rubio did not have to field the rolling questions about his finances, notably his use of a republican party credit card for personal expenses. the texas senator gave another classic cruz performance on tuesday night, one that could serve to further his steady rise in the polls -- and the rising chorus of pundits viewing him as the eventual conservative alternative to whichever establishment candidate emerges in a two- or three-person race. the firebrand conservative slammed critics who dub his hardline position on illegal immigration as "anti-immigrant," calling that "offensive"; he staked out the middle ground as rubio and paul argued for opposing degrees of american intervention in middle east conflicts; and he played to his base by slamming moderate, establishment republicans. "the democrats are laughing -- because if republicans join democrats as the party of amnesty, we will lose," cruz said. he hit one snag reminiscent of a memorable 2011 debate moment when rick perry forgot the name of the third agency he would eliminate. cruz, naming five federal agencies he would abolish, named just four -- twice naming the department of commerce, leaving the department of education off of his list. the retired neurosurgeon is sticking with what works, offering supporters more of the same mild-mannered, reserved demeanor that has rocketed him into a dead heat with trump. carson's most notable moment is one that is sure to please his supporters, who have been devouring his upbraiding of the mainstream media over the course of more than a week of questions about crucial elements of his inspirational biography. "thank you for not asking me what i said in the 10th grade," carson said to laughter as fox business moderator neil cavuto asked him about the impact of the media scrutiny on his campaign. "we should vet all candidates. i have no problem with being vetted. what i do have a problem with is being lied about and then putting that out there as truth," carson proclaimed. "people who know me know that i'm an honest person." his closing statement was also a memorable break from the feisty tenor of the evening, coming right after rubio and cruz trumpeted their campaign websites. carson, softly showed why he is connecting on the trail. "in the two hours of this -- of this debate, five people have died from drug-related deaths, $100 million has been added to our national debt, 200 babies have been killed by abortionists, and two veterans have taken their lives out of despair," he said. "this is a narrative that we can change, not we the democrats, not we the republicans, but we the people of america, because there is something special about this nation, and we must embrace it and be proud of it and never give it away for the sake of political correctness." the former florida governor improved, but he was still upstaged by the competition. after his widely panned debate performance last month, bush got to work. he hired a media coach, got angrier on the campaign trail and attempted to reboot his struggling campaign with a new slogan: jeb can fix it. the takeaway? jeb can (sort of) fix it. bush forced his way into more speaking time, got his points across more clearly and concisely, and -- perhaps most importantly -- didn't pick a fight he wasn't going to win (against rubio). but he also still appeared awkward at times and let up too easily where other candidates would have pressed further, adding to the impression that he lacks the verve to lead his party into the general election. and with several other candidates -- namely rubio -- soaring above the field with exceptionally strong debate performances, bush's slightly above-average performance just doesn't rank in the same category. bush's two best moments came when he confronted trump. bush jumped in as trump suggested the u.s. should stop being the policeman of the world to say that the billionaire "is absolutely wrong on this." and on trump's plan to deport the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the u.s., bush said "it's just not possible and it's not embracing american values" -- drawing more applause. as he did in the last debate, trump once again showed that he can be one man on the stump before a crowd of zealous supporters, and another when he's debating a range of issues before a national audience. trump's tone was measured and his message was largely policy-centric. even when he faced pointed criticism and pushback from his rival candidates -- notably ohio gov. john kasich, former florida gov. jeb bush and carly fiorina -- trump didn't get personal. he challenged their contentions and stuck to his message: yes, the federal government should deport all undocumented immigrants and build a wall, he insisted; no, the u.s. should not be the world's policeman. and while sticking with the debating style he first debuted at the cnbc debate, trump even appeared to show some improvement -- delivering longer and more in-depth responses to questions on everything from the economy to foreign policy. but some of trump's persona bled out. when carly fiorina tried to get a word in, declared: "why does she keep interrupting everybody?" the crowd wasn't happy and booed. the former fortune 500 ceo reclaimed her spot as one of the field's most effective and hard-hitting debaters --- a quality that first hoisted her onto the main debate stage after a stand-out performance in the cycle's first primary debate. fiorina played to her strengths as a business executive, status as an outsider and displayed her command of the biggest foreign policy issues confronting the u.s. her sharp-elbowed strategy produced results as she nabbed her most impressive moment of the night when she jumped into a foreign policy debate between trump and bush -- piling onto bush's critique of the brash front-runner before putting forward her own credentials for the commander-in-chief post. skipping from country to country in the middle east after laying out specific steps she would take to bolster the u.s.'s standing in the face of russian aggression, fiorina came away breathless, over time -- but wildly successful. but there's a big footnote: her previous strong debate performances didn't yield sustainable results because she failed to capitalize off her gains in the polls. she'll need to have a strategy ready this time. the ohio governor didn't miss an opportunity to jostle his opponents and the moderators for more speaking time. as trump defended his plan to deport all undocumented immigrants living in the u.s., kasich looked to get in a word edgewise. "maria, can we comment on that? can we comment on that?" he asked a moderator in one of the rare occasions in which he actually asked -- and got -- permission to interject. but it's a strategy that kasich has applied to previous debates -- both taking on trump and jumping in at every opportunity -- without earning any real upward movement in the polls following the last debate. the kentucky senator with strong libertarian-leanings showed up at the republican debate tuesday night -- diving into an impassioned defense of his foreign policy views, challenging the hawkish instincts of the republican party and most of his fellow contenders. paul hasn't shined through in the previous debates, but a relatively long back and forth with the surging rubio gave paul the face time and the speaking time he needed to make his mark.

takeaways from the 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

3.0

36.0

8.0

8872.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

622.0

1.0

0.0

202.0

0.0

47.0

13.0

20.0

8.0

18.0

10.0

11.0

43.0

28.0

62.0

623.0

203.0

47.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the federal reserve is likely to raise the federal funds rate at the conclusion of its two-day meeting on wednesday. raising the banks<u+2019> overnight borrowing rate<u+2014>held near zero since the depths of the financial crisis in 2008<u+2014>has the potential to push up the cost of mortgages, slow jobs creation and curb stock prices but not always. here are five things to expect. 1. mortgage rates are not likely to rise much the effects of fed tightening importantly depends on whether a higher federal funds rate pushes up the 10-year treasury rate, because rates on mortgages, corporate and municipal bonds generally follow that rate up and down. when ben bernanke raised the federal funds rate in 2004-2006, those rates hardly budged, because the chinese government was purchasing u.s. bonds at a maddening pace to keep the yuan cheap against the dollar. now, both the chinese and european economies are deeply troubled and their monetary authorities are printing lots of money to push down borrowing costs. private investors seeking safer and better returns will increase their purchases of u.s. securities limiting any increase in u.s. long rates. 2. bank fees and car loans will get more expensive tighter banking regulations designed to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis have pushed up banks<u+2019> costs for providing ordinary retail services. <u+00a0>higher short-term borrowing rates for<u+00a0> banks will make things even tougher and banks will likely try to further boost fees on checking accounts and other services, and charge higher rates for short-term credit<u+2014>credit cards, car loans and home improvements. the good news is banks may start competing more for your money and pay higher rates on 1 to 5-year cds. the stronger dollar and lower oil prices are pinching corporate profits and hiring has slowed this year to about 210,000 new jobs a month<u+2014>less than the 260,000 monthly average in 2014. small businesses are a particularly important source of new jobs in an economic recovery but even before the fed pushes up bank borrowing costs, tighter federal regulations forced large banks to curtail lending to these. somewhat higher short rates are not likely to have much additional impact on their access to credit. finding a job remains toughest for the long-term unemployed whose skills atrophied during the great recession and slow recovery, and for whom government benefits<u+2014>expanded medicaid and food stamps for healthy men<u+2014>have often overwhelmed incentives to reskill. 4. economic growth and inflation will pick up household balance sheets are in their best shape since the recovery began and lower gasoline prices give consumers more disposable income. those factors should overwhelm the consequences of marginally higher short-term interest rates on consumer spending, and economic growth should accelerate to 2.5 to 3 percent in the new year. overall, if beijing can mount an adequate stimulus program to stabilize its economy, the global economy won<u+2019>t sink america<u+2019>s boat and job gains will continue. once gasoline prices have bottomed, overall inflation will rise to about 2 percent. problems in china and shifts in the broader global economy have rocked equity prices recently. however, the fed rate increase is widely anticipated and is likely already built into equity prices. the market is more likely to react positively to a rate increase simply because uncertainty about timing has been removed. the economy has emerged from a tough recession and slow recovery in which the fed deemed ultra-low interest rates necessary. <u+00a0>however, conditions have much improved and in past decades, stock prices have often moved up even as the fed raised interest rates. this remains a good time to be in stocks and if you are an investor on the sidelines, gradually start buying in. peter morici served as chief economist at the u.s. international trade commission from 1993 to 1995. he is an economist and professor at the smith school of business, university of maryland, and a widely published columnist. he is the five time winner of the marketwatch best forecaster award. follow him on twitter @pmorici1.

will interest rates go up? five things to expect

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

4128.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

271.0

0.0

72.0

0.0

22.0

3.0

16.0

2.0

9.0

8.0

6.0

22.0

16.0

31.0

275.0

72.0

22.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

a verdict in 2017 could have sweeping consequences for tech startups.

obama's fragile climate legacy

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

30.0

8.0

69.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

top u.s. intelligence officials are running out of patience with the state department's reluctance to turn over emails from hillary clinton's private email server, which have already been shown to have included top secret communications, fox news has learned. the intelligence community's inspector general has requested some 30,000 emails from clinton's tenure as secretary of state in order to conduct its own review. those emails are in possession of the state department, which has been gradually releasing them to the public. clinton has agreed to turn over a similar-sized batch of emails, as well as the highly unusual private server she had installed in her chappaqua, n.y., home, to the department of justice which is conducting a separate investigation. an intelligence source told fox news the state department has pushed back on the government intelligence watchdog's request, and that director of national intelligence james clapper is considering intervening. the source said the inspector general wants to check the controls on the redaction process and ensure that the office can get a handle on all of the potentially sensitive information that was contained in the clinton emails. the flurry of activity came after charles mccullough, the inspector general, notified senior members of congress that two of four retroactively classified emails found on clinton's server were deemed "top secret, sensitive compartmented information" <u+2014> a rating that is the government's highest classifications. clinton, the former first lady, senator from new york and top diplomat now running for the democratic presidential nomination, announced tuesday that she had told aides to turn over the actual server to the justice department, giving in to months of demands that she relinquish the device she used to store her correspondence while secretary of state. senate judiciary committee chairman chuck grassley, r-iowa, said mccullough had reported the new details about the higher classification to congress on tuesday. the state department disputes mccullough's determination that the emails were classified at the time they were sent. mccullough had previously told congress that potentially hundreds of classified emails are among the cache that clinton provided to the state department. a state department spokesman said wednesday that the agency is still processing the emails clinton initially turned over and took a veiled swipe at grassley for disclosing what mccullough had said. "the emails that have been discussed have not been released to public," said deputy press secretary mark toner. "we are working to resolve if it is indeed classified [and] we are taking steps to make sure the information is protected and stored properly. "these emails were not marked classified when they were sent," he added. a source familiar with the investigation told fox news late tuesday that the two emails in question contained operational and geospatial intelligence from the cia and the national geospatial-intelligence agency (nga), which produces satellite images. the fbi is investigating whether classified information was improperly sent via and stored on the so-called "home-brew" e-mail server she ran from her home in the new york city suburb after concerns were raised by mccullough. investigators have said that the probe is not criminal in nature and have denied that clinton is a target of their inquiries. clinton campaign spokesman nick merrill said she has "pledged to cooperate with the government's security inquiry, and if there are more questions, we will continue to address them." it's not clear if the device will yield any information <u+2014> clinton's attorney said in march that no emails from the main personal address she used while secretary of state still "reside on the server or on back-up systems associated with the server." an intelligence source familiar with the matter told fox news that the campaign's statement of cooperation was overblown, as the fbi had previously taken possession of a thumb drive containing sensitive emails that had been held by clinton's personal attorney, david kendall. the associated press reported that kendall gave three thumb drives containing copies of roughly 30,000 work-related emails sent to and from clinton's personal email address to the fbi after the agency determined he could not remain in possession of the classified information contained in some of the emails. the ap's report cited a u.s. official briefed on the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly. the state department previously had said it was comfortable with kendall keeping the emails at his washington law office. clinton had to this point refused demands from republican critics to turn over the server to a third party, with kendall telling the house committee investigating the 2012 attacks in benghazi, libya, that "there is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server." clinton has also defended her use of the server, saying she used it as a matter of convenience to limit the number of electronic devices she had to carry. "it's about time," house speaker john boehner, r-ohio said in a statement. "secretary clinton's previous statements that she possessed no classified information were patently untrue. her mishandling of classified information must be fully investigated." "secretary clinton said she created this unusual email arrangement with herself for 'convenience.' it may have been convenient for her, but it has been troubling at multiple levels for the rest of the country," said rep. trey gowdy, r-s.c., the chairman of the benghazi select committee. "secretary clinton's decision to prioritize her own convenience - and desire for control - over the security of our country's intelligence should concern all people of good conscience." there is no evidence clinton used encryption to shield the emails or her personal server from foreign intelligence services or other potentially prying eyes. kendall has said that clinton is "actively cooperating" with the fbi inquiry. in march, clinton said she exchanged about 60,000 emails in her four years in the obama administration, about half of which were personal and were discarded. she turned over the other half to the state department in last december. the department is reviewing those emails and has begun the process of releasing them to the public. "as she has said, it is her hope that state and the other agencies involved in the review process will sort out as quickly as possible which emails are appropriate to release to the public, and that the release will be as timely and transparent as possible," merrill said tuesday. earlier this week, clinton said in a sworn statement submitted to a federal judge that she has turned over to the state department all emails from the server "that were or potentially were federal records." the statement, which carries her signature and was signed under penalty of perjury, echoed months of clinton's past public statements about the matter. fox news' matt dean and the associated press contributed to this report.

state dept. accused of stiff-arming intel watchdog over hillary emails

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

70.0

8.0

7135.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

516.0

0.0

144.0

0.0

42.0

7.0

15.0

5.0

11.0

5.0

4.0

35.0

18.0

45.0

522.0

144.0

42.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

following the democratic national convention, hillary clinton now leads donald trump by 8 points <u+2014> 50 percent to 42 percent <u+2014> up from a single-point difference last week, according to the latest nbc news|surveymonkey poll. clinton's gain also comes after a series of controversial comments made by the republican nominee this past week regarding the family of a fallen american soldier and trump's suggestion that russian hackers should seek out deleted clinton emails. the republican national convention did not result in a post-convention bounce for trump. clinton also saw a bounce in a four-way general election match-up against trump, libertarian gary johnson and green party candidate jill stein. clinton now leads trump by 5 points <u+2014> 43 percent to 38 percent <u+2014> in the four-way race. this is a lead-reversal from last week, when trump was beating the democratic nominee by 2 points. support for johnson (9 points) and stein (4 points) remained virtually unchanged from last week. these results are according to the latest from the nbc news|surveymonkey weekly election tracking poll conducted online from july 25 through july 31 among 12,742 adults who say they are registered to vote. perhaps a result of a series of well-received speeches from high-profile democrats, clinton's gains this week were not only in the horserace numbers. overall, the number of voters who say they have a strongly favorable impression of the democratic nominee is up 5 points <u+2014> from 15 percent to 20 percent <u+2014> since the question was asked two weeks ago. clinton's favorability among democrats and democratic-leaning voters rose from 74 percent two weeks ago to 80 percent this week. her unfavorable rating also dropped among democrats from 24 percent to 19 percent. president obama, who spoke at the convention last week, also got an increase in approval this week. his job approval rating is up 3 points <u+2014> 52 percent approve this week compared to 49 percent last week. after a contentious primary season, the convention offered democrats the chance to unite as a party. overall, most voters who watched or followed the convention did not view the democratic party more favorably as a result <u+2014> 27 percent viewed the democratic party more favorably as a result of the convention, but 35 percent viewed the party less favorably, and 37 percent said their opinion of the democratic party didn't change. among democrats and democratic-leaning voters, half said they have a more favorable opinion of the democratic party as a result of the convention. among independent voters, 42 percent said they view the democratic party less favorably and 49 percent said the convention did not change their opinion. these results are similar to the favorability ratings we saw for the republican party last week following the gop convention. overall, four in 10 voters said they were more interested in this year's democratic national convention compared to previous years. among democrats, 58 percent said they were more interested in this year's convention than in prior years. roughly the same number of republicans said that about the gop convention last week. among independents, 46 percent said they had about the same level of interest this year as in previous years and 34 percent said they were less interested this year. a strong democratic convention combined with trump's troubles over the past few days surrounding his tweets toward the khan family and comments about russia produced a very good bounce for clinton. the question is whether the bounce is short lived or represents a more permanent shift in the race. the nbc news|surveymonkey weekly election tracking poll was conducted online july 25 through july 31, 2016 among a national sample of 12,742 adults who say they are registered to vote. respondents for this non-probability survey were selected from the nearly three million people who take surveys on the surveymonkey platform each day. results have an error estimate of plus or minus 1.2 percentage points. for full results and methodology, click here.

poll: clinton support spikes following democratic 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

0.0

5.0

60.0

8.0

4064.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

210.0

0.0

73.0

0.0

16.0

7.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

6.0

13.0

9.0

26.0

215.0

73.0

16.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

sanford, fla.<u+2014>the struggle for the white house and the capitol took center stage this week in one familiar battleground<u+2014>florida<u+2014>as donald trump and hillary clinton swept across the state. mr. trump finished three days of campaigning here tuesday, touching down in its biggest cities and filling the airwaves with his most expensive advertising buys. at the same time, mrs. clinton launched a two-day trip, seeking to capitalize on an...

florida once again a focus in 2016 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

1.0

43.0

8.0

437.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

36.0

0.0

11.0

0.0

6.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

2.0

4.0

41.0

11.0

6.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

donald trump and newt gingrich are both mavericks, but with complementary skills. and they have a good personal rapport. republican presidential candidate donald trump (l.) and former house speaker newt gingrich (r) acknowledge the crowd during a campaign rally at the sharonville convention center on july 6, 2016, in cincinnati. vice president newt gingrich. it has a certain ring to it, especially if you are mr. gingrich. and clearly, the former speaker of the house would love to be donald trump<u+2019>s running mate. gingrich has acknowledged that he<u+2019>s being vetted for the job, and is widely seen as a top prospect. mr. trump is expected to announce his choice this week, ahead of the republican national convention, which opens july 18. would it be a mistake for trump to put someone as controversial as gingrich at his side? the rap sheet on gingrich is a mile long: as speaker in the 1990s, he presided over two unpopular shutdowns of the federal government. in 1995, at a monitor breakfast, gingrich showed a lack of discipline when he whined about being seated in the back of air force one on a flight to israel, inspiring the famous <u+201c>cry baby<u+201d> cartoon. in 1997, the house reprimanded gingrich on ethics charges and fined him $300,000. then gop colleagues launched an unsuccessful coup to force him out of the speakership. by late 1998, he had resigned from congress altogether. then there<u+2019>s gingrich<u+2019>s messy personal life, including three marriages, just like trump. as a presidential candidate in 2012, gingrich won two gop primaries but he was widely disliked by the general public, and his campaign ran aground. so why are we arguing that gingrich might just be the perfect running mate for trump? start with the fact that he meets trump<u+2019>s r<u+00e9>sum<u+00e9> requirement: someone with washington political experience, someone who <u+201c>could truly be good with respect to dealing with the senate, dealing with congress, getting legislation passed,<u+201d> the billionaire said in may. but didn<u+2019>t gingrich mishandle his time as speaker? in important ways yes, but he also got some things done. he and president clinton reached a deal that resulted in four straight balanced budgets. they also cut capital gains taxes and reformed welfare. so in gingrich, trump would get deep knowledge of how washington works, and the lessons an older, wiser gingrich learned from past mistakes. but wouldn<u+2019>t putting a controversial running mate next to a controversial presidential nominee make for, well, too much controversy? maybe. but the public is clamoring for change. gingrich was all about change when he led the republican revolution of 1994 with his 10-point platform, the contract with america <u+2013> ushering in a gop majority in the house for the first time in 40 years. more than 20 years later, gingrich is still, in a way, an outsider, despite his insider experience. none of the above, however, gets to why gingrich might be trump<u+2019>s most effective running mate, which is this: he is great at capturing media attention, and could use that to go after hillary clinton relentlessly. <u+201c>with an untethered attack animal such as former speaker gingrich on his ticket, trump can set down his twitter account and start behaving presidential,<u+201d> says john gizzi, chief political columnist at newsmax. or trump and gingrich could double-team mrs. clinton, reinforcing the message of <u+201c>lying crooked hillary.<u+201d> <u+201c>they can sing from the same hymn book,<u+201d> says republican strategist ford o<u+2019>connell. as trump considers whom to pick <u+2013> indiana<u+2019>s low-key governor and former house member, mike pence, is another reported finalist <u+2013> personal rapport also looms large. trump is a <u+201c>relationship guy,<u+201d> says mr. o<u+2019>connell. trump and gingrich have a bond formed in part at the trump national golf club in northern virginia, which is near gingrich<u+2019>s home. gingrich and his wife are members, and when trump was visiting the club, they would socialize. last week, the outlines of a potential trump-gingrich ticket began to take shape, when the two campaigned together in cincinnati. "newt has been my friend for a long time,<u+201d> trump said. <u+201c>and i'm not saying anything, and i'm not telling even newt anything, but i can tell you, in one form or another, newt gingrich is going to be involved with our government. that i can tell you." if he selects gingrich to be his running mate, trump added, <u+201c>nobody<u+2019>s going to beat him in those debates.<u+201d> ultimately, running mates don<u+2019>t matter to presidential nominees<u+2019> chances - except when they do. lyndon johnson helped john f. kennedy win texas in 1960. sarah palin was a drag on john mccain<u+2019>s campaign in 2008. with the political novice trump at the top of the ticket, putting someone at his side with policy and governing experience seems a must. but beyond that, trump<u+2019>s candidacy will rise or fall based on trump, and nobody else. his larger-than-life persona will not be eclipsed by anyone, even a big personality like gingrich.

why gingrich could be the ideal running mate for 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

3.0

54.0

8.0

4941.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

375.0

1.0

0.0

87.0

0.0

30.0

7.0

15.0

6.0

7.0

10.0

12.0

7.0

27.0

21.0

39.0

379.0

88.0

30.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

carly fiorina, the former chief executive of hewlett-packard, says she will seek the republican nomination for the 2016 presidential contest. fiorina made the announcement on abc's good morning america and later via a simple tweet. fiorina joins an already crowded field of republicans vying for the presidency. on sunday, retired neurosurgeon ben carson announced his campaign. the new york times reports that former arkansas gov. mike huckabee is expected to join the fray on tuesday. senators ted cruz, marco rubio and rand paul have all already announced their candidacies. former florida gov. jeb bush is still exploring a run. "a former chief executive of hewlett-packard, ms. fiorina is the second woman to make a run for the white house in this election cycle, following hillary rodham clinton's announcement last month. ms. fiorina brings strong business acumen and a promise to be a more compassionate version of mitt romney, the 2012 republican nominee. and she has suggested that she is the perfect antidote to mrs. clinton, who many believe has an easy path to the democratic nomination. " 'i think that if hillary clinton were to face a female nominee, there are a whole set of things she won't be able to talk about,' ms. fiorina said at a breakfast in washington last month." our friends at it's all politics have more on fiorina.

former hp ceo carly fiorina announces she's running 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

2.0

0.0

1.0

65.0

8.0

1352.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

98.0

1.0

0.0

22.0

0.0

5.0

1.0

7.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

1.0

6.0

1.0

13.0

103.0

23.0

5.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

what if the supreme court had gone the other way on obamacare? this post was updated at 12:15 p.m. et to reflect the supreme court's ruling. the supreme court ruled thursday that state-based subsidies under the affordable care act are legal. a different decision could have affected the health care of millions of americans. in king v. burwell, the court chose to allow the exchanges set up under the affordable care act (obamacare, to many) to continue operating as-is. it could have ended the subsidies in most states allowing many lower-income americans to afford the insurance offered through those sites. at issue in the case was a phrase in the law stating that the government will subsidize patients in exchanges "established by the state." in king v. burwell, the question was whether those subsidies should then go to people participating in the exchanges in the 34 states that didn't set up their own <u+2014> that is, in states where the exchanges are federally run to some degree. there are two broad paths the supreme court could have taken here, but within those, there is a lot of room for variation: everything stays the way it is <u+2014> people keep getting their subsidies in all states, regardless of whether the government, the state, or a mix of the two, runs their exchanges. obamacare customers in states using federal exchanges would have likely lost their subsidies altogether. that means an estimated 6.4 million people could have lost the tax credits that helped them pay for their insurance through the exchanges. but there were other potential, more mixed outcomes in which fewer people would have lost their subsidies. because there were different configurations of federal-state cooperation, residents of some states could have kept their subsidies, while others could have lost them. for example, five states have state-run marketplaces using federal websites <u+2014> it was possible that the court could have decided either way on those states, as they use federal resources, even while operating their own state marketplaces. so what could have ended up mattering here was the question of what a state-run exchange is. it was possible the court could have defined that, but it could have also sent it to the administration. and depending on how the administration set the bar on what makes a state-run exchange, this path could have led to still more litigation from obamacare opponents, challenging how the administration set that definition, explains linda blumberg at the urban institute. in the 16 states (plus the district of columbia) with state-run exchanges, nothing would have changed with this outcome. but the effects in the other 34 states could have gone beyond just more expensive health care. one study from the urban institute estimated that 8.2 million more people would have joined the ranks of the uninsured in this case. not only that, but because so many healthy individuals would have exited the exchanges, premiums would have gone up by an estimated 35 percent for people remaining on the exchanges in the states that lost their subsidies. florida, by far, leads the pack in having the most people who were at risk of losing their credits. there, a staggering 1.3 million people could have lost subsidized health insurance, missing out on an average subsidy of $294 per month, according to data from the kaiser family foundation. in alaska, fewer than 17,000 people could have been affected, but their price tags could have grown in a huge way <u+2014> by $536 per month on average. with reporting from gisele grayson and joe neel.

what if the supreme court had gone the other way on obamacare?

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

62.0

8.0

3573.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

222.0

3.0

0.0

90.0

0.0

34.0

4.0

6.0

1.0

6.0

4.0

7.0

0.0

9.0

12.0

19.0

225.0

93.0

34.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

in their last meeting, fox news anchor megyn kelly laughed with her former adversary, presumptive republican nominee donald trump, tossing him a handful of softball questions he could swiftly bat away. but kelly took a swing right at him on her show thursday evening, blasting the billionaire for his comments about gonzalo curiel, the federal judge presiding over the civil fraud lawsuits against trump university, whom trump has claimed is biased because of his mexican heritage. <u+201c>this is out of line,<u+201d> kelly said, raising her voice. the fox news host had planned to spend the segment talking about house speaker paul ryan endorsing the candidate, but scrapped it when news broke a few hours before her broadcast that trump told the wall street journal that curiel, a u.s. district judge, had an <u+201c>absolute conflict<u+201d> presiding over a pair of cases in which plaintiffs accuse trump university of duping them into paying thousands of dollars to learn trump<u+2019>s tricks of the real-estate trade. (according to one former employee of the now-defunct for-profit school, whose testimony was revealed on tuesday, <u+201c>trump university was a fraudulent scheme<u+201d> that <u+201c>preyed upon the elderly and uneducated.<u+201d>) the conflict, according to trump, derives from the fact that curiel is <u+201c>of mexican heritage<u+201d> and a member of a latino lawyers<u+2019> association. curiel grew up in indiana. trump told the journal that his plan to close off the u.s. border with mexico and his stated stance against illegal immigration makes the fact that curiel<u+2019>s parents are mexican immigrants relevant. <u+201c>i<u+2019>m building a wall. it<u+2019>s an inherent conflict of interest,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>the man is not mexican. his parents are mexican. he was born in indiana. he has no conflict of interest,<u+201d> kelly deadpanned to the camera. <u+201c>now trump is saying the judge needs to be investigated, someone should look into him, just because he<u+2019>s ruled against trump in this case repeatedly . . . that doesn<u+2019>t make you biased. it doesn<u+2019>t. trump continues to attack a sitting federal judge who, by the way, did a lot to fight the drug cartels when he was a prosecutor, based on his ethnicity, suggesting he has an inherent conflict of interest because of his heritage. a hispanic cannot judge a case against me, that<u+2019>s what he<u+2019>s saying.<u+201d> this was the fired-up anchor many were hoping to see in kelly<u+2019>s first fox broadcast special in may, in which she sat down face-to-face with the candidate after a months-long feud that began when kelly asked him a question about his treatment of women during the first g.o.p. debate in august. for months following the debate, trump slammed kelly as a lightweight, suggested the reason for her tough question was that she was menstruating, and encouraged his online supporters to do the same. kelly harkened back to the months of harassment from trump<u+2019>s followers on thursday night, subtly empathizing with what judge curiel could be about to go through at their hands. <u+201c>let me tell you, i guarantee you right now that this judge is getting threats, and vitriol and who knows what else,<u+201d> she said. kelly set the record straight before moving on to broader trump news: <u+201d>there<u+2019>s no conflict of interest whatsoever based on his ethnicity, just to clear up this man<u+2019>s reputation, who is a sitting federal judge and has served the country for four years in that capacity.<u+201d>

megyn kelly rips into donald trump for his attacks on a federal judge

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

69.0

8.0

3337.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

232.0

1.0

0.0

79.0

0.0

24.0

8.0

3.0

2.0

6.0

1.0

7.0

2.0

10.0

15.0

16.0

236.0

80.0

24.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

donald trump predictably blames "our extremely open immigration system" for saturday's bomb attacks in new jersey and new york city. his critique overlooks the details of this particular case as well as the general rarity of terrorism by immigrants. ahmad khan rahami, the 28-year-old man police arrested on monday in connection with the bombings, is a naturalized u.s. citizen who immigrated to the united states from afghanistan at the age of 7. he seems to have been radicalized within the last few years, a period when he spent nearly a year in pakistan and became noticeably more religious and taciturn. it is hard to imagine how the "extreme vetting" trump advocates for immigrants from "any nation that has been compromised by terrorism" could have kept rahami out of the country. what questions could have been posed to his parents that would have predicted his violent turn two decades later? trump faults his democratic opponent, hillary clinton, for supporting the admission of syrian refugees, who he says pose an unacceptable risk of terrorism. but according to a recent study by cato institute immigration policy analyst alex nowrasteh, "the chance of an american being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year." trump has recommended "a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on"<u+2014>a plan that his own running mate called "offensive and unconstitutional." more recently trump has said the moratorium should apply to all visitors from countries "compromised by terrorism," a category that arguably includes most of the world. some pundits favor a cleaner approach. "confronted with the threat of islamic terrorism," nowrasteh notes, "well-known conservatives like larry kudlow, david bossie, and ann coulter have called for a complete moratorium on immigration." a broad moratorium would have the advantage of preventing all terrorist attacks by newly admitted immigrants. but it would also exclude more than 1 million innocent people each year it was in effect, at a huge economic cost. nowrasteh cites estimates ranging from $35 billion to $229 billion a year. nowrasteh reports that tourists accounted for 94 percent of deaths caused by foreign-born terrorists in the united states from 1975 through 2015. including tourists in the moratorium would raise the annual cost by another $194 billion or so. given the rarity of deaths caused by terrorism, nowrasteh shows, such costs cannot possibly be justified. based on a value of $15 million per life, he puts "the combined human, property, business, and economic costs" of attacks by foreign-born terrorists during the 41-year period covered by his study at $5.3 billion annually, which is "far less than the minimum estimated yearly benefit of $229.1 billion from immigration and tourism." even that calculation overestimates the potential security benefit of cutting off immigration, since it is dominated by the 2001 attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon, an anomalous event that is unlikely to be replicated. the 9/11 attacks (which were perpetrated not by naturalized citizens or by refugees but by visitors with tourist or student visas) account for 99 percent of the 3,024 deaths caused by foreign-born terrorists from 1975 through 2015. excluding 9/11, the overwhelming majority of terrorist murders in the united states<u+2014>more than 90 percent<u+2014>have been committed by native-born americans. except for 2001, the risk of being killed by a foreign-born terrorist has been minuscule and flat for more than four decades. that risk is extremely low even if you include 9/11: about 1 in 3.6 million per year. you are more than 200 times as likely to die in a traffic accident, 20 times as likely to be killed by falling down stairs, and four times as likely to drown in a bathtub. any politician who wants to impose large costs in response to such a tiny risk has a lot of explaining to do.

trump is wrong about terrorism and immigration

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

46.0

8.0

4010.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

282.0

0.0

46.0

0.0

32.0

10.0

5.0

7.0

16.0

1.0

13.0

8.0

17.0

24.0

18.0

287.0

46.0

32.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

saint-denis, reunion island (cnn) when investigators get an in-person view of a wing component that likely came from a boeing 777, they'll be looking for not only a serial number but clues as to why the part broke off the boeing 777. one group of independent observers said thursday that the damage to the component -- a right wing flaperon -- should give authorities a good indication that the piece came off while the plane was still in the air. the group, led by american mobile satellite corp. co-founder mike exner, points to the small amount of damage to the front of the flaperon and the ragged horizontal tear across the back. the rear damage could have been caused if the airliner had its flaperon down as it went into the ocean, some members of exner's group wrote in a preliminary assessment after looking at photos and videos of the component. but the lack of damage to the front makes it more likely the plane was in a high-speed, steep, spiral descent and the part fluttered until it broke off, the group said. boeing and australian officials are confident the debris -- found wednesday off the coast of a remote island in the west indian ocean -- came from a boeing 777 -- and might be from malaysia airlines flight 370, a 777 that disappeared in march 2014 with 239 people on board. exner's group -- an informal cadre of aviation experts -- said that if the flaperon were still on the wing when the plane hit water, the front would have been damaged by hitting the part of the wing to which it was attached. and the rear damage looks like it was caused by stress rather than being bent and broken off when the plane hit the water. but an aircraft component specialist who spoke to cnn disagreed. the lack of damage to the front section "tells me that the component could still have likely been back in its original position inside the wing itself," said michael kenney, senior vice president of universal asset management, which provides plane components to airlines. boeing investigators are confident that debris found on a remote island in the indian ocean comes from a 777 aircraft, according to a source close to the investigation. "we are highly confident but it still needs confirmation that it is a part from a 777 aircraft," he told cnn's "erin burnett outfront." "the only 777 aircraft that we're aware of in the indian ocean that could have led to this part floating is mh370. but as i said, we still need to confirm that through closer study." people cleaning a beach found the debris wednesday on reunion, a french overseas territory in the western indian ocean. the source said boeing investigators feel confident the piece comes from a 777 because of photos that have been analyzed and a stenciled number that corresponds to a 777 component. a component number is not the same as a part number, which is generally much longer. images of the debris also appear to match schematic drawings for the right wing flaperon from a boeing 777. a flaperon helps the pilot control the aircraft. it is lightweight and has sealed chambers, making it buoyant. despite this confidence, no one is saying the part definitely comes from a 777, much less mh370. finding the debris is a "significant development" in the search for mh370, australian deputy prime minister warren truss said. new debris, which washed ashore thursday and appears to resemble remnants of a suitcase, is also part of the investigation, reunion island police officials confirmed to cnn. a preliminary assessment by u.s. intelligence agencies, produced in the wake of the mh370 disaster, suggested it was likely someone in the cockpit deliberately caused the aircraft's movements before the malaysian airliner disappeared. two u.s. officials briefed on the matter told cnn that the assessment, which was not intended for public release, was prepared months ago and was solely based on available satellite and other evidence. the u.s. intelligence assessment was largely focused on the multiple course changes the aircraft made after it deviated from its scheduled kuala lumpur to beijing route. analysts determined that, absent any other evidence, it's most likely someone in the cockpit deliberately moved the aircraft to specific waypoints, crossing indonesian territory and eventually toward the south indian ocean. malaysian investigators haven't reported finding any evidence that casts suspicion on the pilots. if it does turn out to be from flight 370, the development would reassure australian officials that they are looking for the rest of the plane in the right area, truss and dolan said. "it's credible that debris from mh370 could have reached the reunion islands by now," truss said. malaysia airlines is sending a team of investigators to paris and a second team to saint-denis, reunion, on friday, an airline official in kuala lumpur, malaysia, told cnn. it's unclear how identification will be made. normally identification would be aided by a small serial number plate attached to a flaperon, but the part found on the beach appears to be missing the serial number plate, according to photographs. other markings may be found on the part, said kenney, the executive from universal asset management. australia is leading the underwater search for the remains of flight 370 in the southern indian ocean, some 2,300 nautical miles (3,700 kilometers) east of reunion. but truss said that french and malaysian authorities will be responsible for establishing whether the debris found off the island came from the missing jetliner. australia has offered its help, he said, including asking marine experts to look at photos of the debris to determine whether barnacles on it are "consistent with something that was floating in the oceans for 16 months or more."

mh370 search: debris found in reunion may give clues

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

52.0

8.0

5788.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

418.0

0.0

113.0

0.0

40.0

4.0

12.0

5.0

10.0

8.0

7.0

4.0

28.0

17.0

29.0

422.0

113.0

40.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

republican groups are moving to the next phase of their plan to take down hillary clinton. after spending much of the year focused on her use of a private email server as secretary of state as a way of raising doubts about her ethics and honesty, outside gop groups are pivoting to her record as the nation's top diplomat to call into question her leadership abilities. the focus on national security and foreign policy following the paris terror attacks and the san bernardino, calif, mass shooting has created a natural opening for clinton to highlight her experience as secretary of state under president obama. it's also brought a sense of urgency to gop efforts to turn what's long been considered an asset into a liability, by highlighting what they say was clinton's role in the president's failed policy approaches <u+2014> especially in libya as it becomes a safe haven for islamic state militants. america rising pac, an outside republican group, is blasting out missives about clinton's role in the u.s. intervention in libya, iraq, syria and the release of guantanamo bay detainees. other groups are also expected to spend millions on television ads next year. american crossroads is combing through digital archives and poll testing for spots that may begin next year, said crossroads spokesman ian prior. a newly formed super pac called future 45 ran its first round of ads in iowa and new hampshire using her comments before a special house benghazi committee that "i was responsible for quite a bit" of obama's foreign policy. "her tenure of secretary of state is a vulnerability, not an asset, and it merits serious scrutiny," said dan conston, a senior adviser to the group, which is planning additional spots. on monday, jeb bush told an iowa audience that the islamic state is taking hold in libya. "this is the place that hillary clinton, even in the debate in las vegas, said was an example of success in foreign policy, of smart power. really?" said bush. "libya today is completely chaotic." polls show voters trust clinton more than any of the republican candidates, none of whom have similar foreign policy experience, yet, much like 2004 democratic nominee john kerry found himself playing defense on national security issues despite extensive foreign policy credentials, republicans see an opportunity to tarnish clinton. democrats say republicans are grasping for a new line of attack because voter interest in her private email server has waned after her testimony before the house special benghazi committee failed to produce any major revelations about the 2012 attack on the u.s. embassy in libya. further, clinton began her campaign with an advantage even greater than kerry on foreign policy, according to polling, which democrats say makes it unlikely the strategy can work the way it did in 2004. "it's classic karl rove: hit your opponent where she's strong," said heather hurlburt, a former speechwriter to secretary of state madeline albright, referring to president george w. bush's former chief political strategist. "they have no choice but to try to tear her down," she said. republicans acknowledge that this portion of their strategy will be the hardest to execute because it will require significant investments in paid media to make their case. yet there is an opening. beginning with attacks leveled by her democratic challengers in the most recent debate, clinton is facing increased scrutiny over obama's 2011 decision to, along with a large number of nations, intervene in libya without a plan to fill the void left after the ouster of moammar gaddafi. obama himself has called the ensuing chaos "a lesson i had to learn" about the need to manage new transitions to democracy. in a monday interview with cbs's charlie rose, clinton repeated that gaddafi had "american blood on his hands" and "was a threat to the broader region." now the international community needs to join together, as do the armed groups unallied with the islamic state, to defeat the terrorist network, she said. michael o'hanlon, a foreign policy expert at the brookings institution, says libya is the biggest trouble spot for clinton. "i do think she's got to maybe rethink her argument right now," he said. "i certainly don't think one can evaluate it as a success," he said. yet republicans have already spent a significant amount of time on benghazi, and they are circulating talking points on controversies that may be harder to sell. for instance: that clinton also misjudged syrian president bashar al-assad, having referred to him as a "reformer" and different from his father. they are also focused on the administration's drawdown of troops in iraq, which they say left a vacuum for terrorist activity to grow. they say clinton advocated against leaving a residual force in 2011. republicans are also zeroing in on clinton's decision against labeling boko haram, responsible for many more deaths than the islamic state, a terrorist group <u+2014> a decision they say allowed terrorist activity to multiply. some of the accusations, concerning high-level national security decisions made in the most private of meetings, are difficult to prove, while others aren't meaningful to the public, said grant green, a former national security official under presidents ronald reagan and george w. bush. "it's got to be something that the guy out in omaha can understand," he said. meantime "it's easy for her to go out and say 'i'm the only one with significant foreign policy experience,'" said green. "as you get further into the general campaign and people start paying closer attention, she can pick these apart one by one, " said o'hanlon, a nonpartisan expert. "on issues of iraq and syria, it's pretty clear she's a little more hawkish and she's being vindicated," she said. derek chollet, who served on clinton's policy planning staff from 2009 to 2011, said no one "takes pride" in what libya has become. yet, inserting u.s. troops after the fact would have overruled the wishes of another sovereign government, he said. "it's hard to find a compelling path that would have prevented what happened," said chollet, who is now advising the campaign. on iraq, he said the u.s. timetable for withdrawal was negotiated by the previous administration, and that former prime minister nouri al-maliki did not grant legal authority for a continuing troop presence. chollet, who worked closely with clinton at the time, said she was "very worried" about the security of the u.s. embassy and diplomatic facilities absent a u.s. troop presence. "there was an intense debate through the administration on the slope of the withdrawal. we were constrained by the limits of the strategic framework bush had signed," he said.

how republicans are targeting clinton 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

5.0

55.0

8.0

6753.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

513.0

0.0

114.0

0.0

63.0

13.0

22.0

5.0

16.0

11.0

8.0

3.0

37.0

28.0

58.0

518.0

114.0

63.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

house speaker john boehner vowed wednesday to do "everything possible" to stop the newly struck iran nuclear deal, as congress formally begins consideration of the hard-fought pact. "while the president's iran deal may have been applauded at the united nations, i think he faces serious skepticism here at home," boehner told reporters at a briefing. "let me just assure you that members of congress will ask much tougher questions this afternoon when we meet with the president's team, because a bad deal threatens the security of the american people." the warning comes just days after the u.n. security council endorsed the deal, over the objections of many in congress. republicans, and some democrats, had wanted the administration to wait until congress reviews it before seeking approval from the united nations. congress nevertheless will have its say. fox news has learned the administration formally sent the deal to capitol hill on sunday -- this starts a 60-day clock for lawmakers to consider it, and then vote to approve or disapprove it or take no action. the white house has launched an aggressive campaign in recent days, trying to sway wavering democrats while publicly ripping republicans for opposing the deal. in an appearance on "the daily show" tuesday, obama portrayed the controversial deal as the best compromise the government could achieve. in a jab at the george w. bush administration, he joked that his critics think if only former vice president dick cheney had been on the u.s. negotiating team, "then everything would be fine." but congress is facing pressure from both sides of the issue. while the white house lobbies for approval, israeli ambassador ron dermer, a foe of the iran nuclear, is telling republicans that congress must stop the pact. dermer met wednesday morning with some 30 to 40 republicans -- part of the conservative opportunity society -- at the invitation of rep. steve king of iowa, the group's chairman. dermer told the group that congress is the last backstop and no deal is better than a bad deal. the u.n. action would not take effect for 90 days. congress technically has limited leverage over the international aspects of the agreement. still, obama does not want congress to kill any part of the deal, and has vowed to veto any such effort. the agreement itself would roll back sanctions in exchange for limits on iran's nuclear program, with the ultimate goal of blocking tehran's pathway to a nuclear weapon for as long as the deal's in place. critics argue that iran could still be well-positioned to pursue a nuclear weapon after a decade, all the while reaping billions in economic benefits. further, they're concerned the deal gives iran too much leeway to stall when international inspectors want to visit suspected nuclear sites. sen. tom cotton, r-ark., and rep. mike pompeo, r-kan., said in a statement tuesday that they learned from the international atomic energy agency (iaea) that two "side deals" between iran and the iaea will remain secret from congress and the public. according to the lawmakers, one agreement covers inspection of the parchin military complex, and the other concerns potential military aspects of iran's nuclear program. on the former, they said, iran would be able to strike a separate arrangement with the iaea concerning inspections at parchin. "in failing to secure the disclosure of these secret side deals, the obama administration is asking congress and the american people to trust, but not verify," cotton said in a statement. "what we cannot do is trust the terror-sponsoring, anti-american, outlaw regime that governs iran and that has been deceiving the world on its nuclear weapons work for years." fox news' chad pergram and lucas tomlinson and the associated press contributed to this report.

boehner vows fight to scuttle iran nuclear deal

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

47.0

8.0

3823.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

248.0

0.0

76.0

0.0

33.0

13.0

14.0

5.0

12.0

6.0

8.0

3.0

22.0

21.0

24.0

250.0

76.0

33.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the presumptive republican nominee is reintroducing americans to a panoply of dormant scandals, personal transgressions and partisan controversies that rocked bill clinton's white house and first lady hillary clinton in two turbulent presidential terms leading up to the end of the 20th century. the goal is to link them with a flurry of more recent dramas such as those over clinton's private email server and benghazi, to depict her potential presidency as a return to unsavory days of rumor, innuendo and alleged malfeasance that would exhaust and disgust voters -- in effect, making the 2016 election a referendum on the clintons, and the baggage that has always haunted their successful and resilient political careers. case in point: a new instagram video that pictures bill clinton chomping on a cigar and revives claims of wrongdoing against him by several women, which ends with the sound of hillary clinton laughing and a slogan: "here we go again?" the billionaire also appears to be taking aim at the already upside-down approval ratings of hillary clinton to neutralize rock-bottom perceptions of his own character revealed by polls that threaten his general election appeal, especially with women voters, the majority of whom prefer his likely democratic rival. "what he is doing is he is exposing, not just bill clinton for what he was and what he had done, but it's the same as it relates to hillary," michael cohen, trump's legal counsel, said on cnn's "new day." "she attacked mr. trump as being a sexist, misogynist, and he is not any of those things," cohen said, portraying hillary clinton as an "enabler" of her husband's dalliances. but trump's personal broadsides against the clintons are not risk-free. the new york billionaire real estate investor has had a colorful personal life himself, and has been accused by the former secretary of state's allies and in news reports of sexist behavior and a string of unflattering comments about women. still, the strategy, from trump's point of view, has the virtue of forcing clinton into the painful personal position of recalling her husband's past wrongdoing when she would much prefer to focus on other issues. she answered with a terse "no" when asked by cnn's chris cuomo last week whether she ever felt compelled to defend her or her husband's honor against trump. "i know that that's exactly what he is fishing for, and you know, i'm not going to be responding." her campaign has dusted off the classic clinton scandal playbook -- pivoting to focus on trump's own vulnerabilities and stressing that the american people have more pressing concerns. "the reason he is doing it, is his own record his coming under scrutiny," said clinton campaign spokesman brian fallon on "new day" monday , as the clinton camp lit into trump over past comments that he hoped the real estate market would crash as it would benefit his businesses. trump's attacks, aimed at fixing the picture of "crooked hillary" in the public mind as the general election gears up, recall earlier political branding hit jobs that he pulled against "low energy" jeb bush and "little" marco rubio in the gop race. he also is showing he is ready to fight fire with a flamethrower. it is significant for instance that his first veiled reference to 1990s sexual allegations against bill clinton came after he concluded that the clinton campaign was playing the "women card" was against him. trump's attacks recall a tortured political era in which the clinton white house seemed to stagger from scandal to scandal -- but repeatedly defied predictions of its demise to survive and prosper. as soon as the new first couple arrived in washington from arkansas, they were beset by rumors of wrongdoing and mini ethics scandals. there was whitewater, about the first lady's real estate dealings in arkansas. travelgate, about firings of officials in the white house travel office, and filegate about the alleged misuse of fbi papers. early on, the clinton white house was rocked by the suicide of legal counsel vince foster, a close friend of hillary clinton, which became the cue for another round of conspiracy theories. it all culminated in an independent counsel investigation by ken starr, which in turn led to the moment when clinton became only the second president to be impeached by the house of representatives, in 1998, for lying under oath about an affair with monica lewinsky, a white house intern. he was subsequently acquitted in a trial before the u.s. senate in february 1999. none of the other 'scandals' produced criminal charges against the clintons and the whitewater investigation was eventually wrapped up in 2002. all of that seemed like ancient history. bill clinton clinton left office with a 66% approval rating, according to cnn/gallup/usa today polling, and threw himself into an energetic and philanthropic post presidency and built a personal fortune on the lucrative speech making circuit. hillary clinton pursued her own political career in the senate, as secretary of state and her second presidential campaign. even starr has praised clinton's redemptive post presidency and in remarks reported by the new york times on tuesday bemoaned the "tragic dimensions" of the clinton scandals and investigations of which he was a part. but trump is not interested in putting the past to rest. he's dredging it up. "it's the one thing with her, whether it's whitewater or whether it's vince or whether it's benghazi. it's always a mess with hillary," trump said in the post interview. the most pressing question raised by trump's personal assault using the ugliest moments of the clinton presidency is whether it will work. tana goertz, a senior trump adviser, told cnn's pamela brown on tuesday that there were no fears in the billionaire's camp that raising bill clinton's conduct would boost his wife's approval ratings, just as they did back in the 1990s. "back then, people felt sorry for hillary because her husband was unfaithful. they believed she was going to do the right thing for women and empower women, strengthen women and support women and none of that happened," goertz said. "that might have been a sympathy vote back then, but that will not happen again." throughout their turbulent political careers, the clintons have shown an ability to court public support by portraying attacks against them as vicious partisan witch hunts and displayed an almost supernatural capacity to weather political crises. the period of personal anguish, self-reflection and humiliation that hillary clinton endured as she questioned whether to save her marriage after the lewinsky saga meanwhile confounded her enemies as it stirred public empathy for her plight. but she also sparked a public debate over why she had chosen to stay with her husband amid claims by some critics that the marriage was simply a vehicle for her political ambition. but hillary clinton supporter maria cardona dismissed the idea that the ghosts of the 1990s will stalk her campaign a two decades later. "the bill clinton issue is already baked in. people know him," cardona said on cnn. "an attack on her because of what her husband did is going to backfire in an incredibly big way -- she is going to continue to be focused on issues."

why trump is dredging up 1990s attacks against the clintons

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

8.0

59.0

8.0

7301.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

530.0

1.0

0.0

158.0

0.0

62.0

18.0

20.0

13.0

25.0

13.0

17.0

6.0

28.0

40.0

49.0

534.0

159.0

62.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

why are americans expected to die sooner than their peers in other high-income countries? a new study published in the journal of the american medical association takes a look at the question. the results are, well, not too surprising <u+2014> three of the big drivers for the year analyzed, 2012, were guns, drugs, and cars. the study looked at these causes of injury deaths, which are the three biggest causes of injury death in the us and altogether account for more than 100,000 early deaths each year in america. it compared how common these deaths are in the us versus other high-income countries <u+2014> the uk, denmark, sweden, japan, and eight others <u+2014> with 2012 data from the us national vital statistics system and the world health organization mortality database. it found that, on average, men and women in the other high-income countries can expect to live about 2.2 years longer than men and women in the us <u+2014> and guns, drugs, and cars played a prominent role. among men, gun deaths explained 21 percent of the gap, drug overdoses 14 percent, and car crashes 13 percent. and among women, gun deaths explained 4 percent, drug overdoses 9 percent, and car crashes 6 percent. in total, the death rate for guns, drugs, and cars was much, much higher in the us than its developed peers, as this chart shows: "although the reasons for the gap in life expectancy at birth between the united states and comparable countries are complex," study authors andrew fenelon, li-hui chen, and susan baker wrote, "a substantial portion of this gap reflects just three causes of injury." so why do americans die more from these causes? there are cultural factors, but bad policy plays a role too. with guns, the research shows that america's unusually high levels of gun ownership lead to more gun violence. other factors, such as socioeconomic issues, contribute to violence, but guns are the one issue that makes america unique relative to other developed countries in comparable socioeconomic circumstances. (to learn more about america's gun problem, read vox's explainer.) "a series of specific comparisons of the death rates from property crime and assault in new york city and london show how enormous differences in death risk can be explained even while general patterns are similar," uc berkeley's franklin zimring and gordon hawkins wrote in a breakthrough analysis in 1999. "a preference for crimes of personal force and the willingness and ability to use guns in robbery make similar levels of property crime 54 times as deadly in new york city as in london." some research also shows tightening existing gun control measures in the us would help: studies in both connecticut and missouri suggested that gun licensing laws in those states helped reduce homicides and suicides. with drugs, america is now in the middle of a harrowing opioid and heroin epidemic that's killing tens of thousands of people each year. (for an in-depth dive on this topic, read vox's explainer.) academic analyses of the crisis have concluded that the us was too slow to respond to misleading advertising campaigns from opioid producers, in which they claimed that their drugs were safe and effective. americans have suffered the consequences, getting addicted to and dying from opioid painkillers and heroin as pharmaceutical companies have massively profited. with cars, by the 1960s european policies began encouraging walking, cycling, and public transportation. the us, meanwhile, continued to encourage sprawl and driving. the result: americans drive much more than their european peers, and are more likely to die in crashes as a result. (to learn more about us and european transportation policy, read ralph buehler's great explainer at the atlantic's citylab.) even perfect policies might not fix all of these problems <u+2014> americans, after all, love their guns, drugs, and cars, and that cultural preference will likely remain strong for some time. but better policies could push the us in the right direction <u+2014> and save lives.

3 reasons americans die sooner than people in other developed nations: guns, drugs, cars

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

88.0

8.0

4023.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

283.0

1.0

0.0

67.0

0.0

20.0

16.0

14.0

7.0

20.0

9.0

14.0

6.0

24.0

25.0

28.0

288.0

68.0

20.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

obama looking for justice who will 'interpret' the law, not 'make' it the legal world has a new blogger: former constitutional law professor and current president barack obama. the president took to scotusblog, the leading online chronicle of the supreme court, on wednesday to offer some "spoiler-free insights" into what he is seeking in a justice to replace the late antonin scalia. aside from "mastery of the law," obama said he wants to choose a nominee who understands "a judge's job is to interpret the law, not make the law." but in cases where the law's unclear, the president wrote, he will look for "the kind of life experience learned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people's lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times." and, about those times: senate republicans signaled this week they will take no action on whomever the white house nominates. all 11 gop members of the judiciary committee signed a letter tuesday saying they would not give their consent under the constitution. the lawmakers said they did not intend to even meet with the nominee, let alone hold a public hearing on his or her qualifications. on wednesday, president obama blasted the politics of the senate, and said the american people would have the chance to judge his nominee <u+2014> something of a public relations campaign. "my hope an expectation is that once there is an actual nominee... that those on the judiciary committee recognize that their job is to give this person a hearing, to show the courtesy of meeting with them. they are then free to vote whatever their conscience dictates." "i'm going to do my job, i'm going to nominate someone," he continued, "and let the american people decide as to whether that person is qualified." that means the court could operate without a full complement of nine members for a year or more, the equivalent of two terms of the supreme court. at least one current justice, samuel alito, commented on that, telling an audience at georgetown law school this week, "we will deal with it." "there's nothing in the constitution that specifies the size of the supreme court," alito said. "there were times in the history of the court when the court had an even number of justices. they must have been more agreeable in those days."

obama looking for justice who will 'interpret' the law, not 'make' it

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

69.0

8.0

2443.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

179.0

1.0

0.0

70.0

1.0

0.0

26.0

4.0

12.0

0.0

2.0

7.0

3.0

5.0

26.0

5.0

28.0

185.0

71.0

27.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

at monday<u+2019>s presidential debate hillary clinton<u+2019>s asserted that alicia machado, a former miss universe, was victimized about her weight by donald trump. her remarks have, perhaps rightfully, given some women pause.<u+00a0> so let<u+2019>s reflect a moment and add some context to this allegation.<u+00a0> here<u+2019>s where i<u+2019>ve come down. like many young girls of my era, i grew up watching the miss america pageant.<u+00a0> my friends and i would get together, root for the young woman from our state, or pick another favorite if she didn<u+2019>t make the top ten. we held our breath as some of them struggled to answer the interview question and discussed our own answers regarding world peace.<u+00a0> we clapped for the pianist and giggled at the fiery baton twirler. <u+00a0>it was reality tv before reality tv. <u+00a0>and who knew that years later i would be friends with some of those same young women as they went on to have laudable careers in law and broadcasting. the women i know were then, and remain today, smart and gifted women of noble character. fast forward to today, and somewhere along the way pageants fell out of favor.<u+00a0> perhaps it was second wave feminism of the 60s and 70s, or perhaps we just got bored with them.<u+00a0> regardless, in 2004, the abc television network dropped the show<u+2019>s coverage due to record low ratings, but cmt picked it up, and there remains a smaller following.<u+00a0> most of us were done with miss america.<u+00a0> however, her more racy sisters, miss usa and co-owned miss universe were, by this time, split off and vying for our attention. unlike miss america, these pageants make no pretense of being anything more than a <u+201c>beauty<u+201d> pageant.<u+00a0> they have no talent competition and award no scholarships. in fact, according to bustle.com, the entire reason for the split was because miss america 1951 yolande belbeze refused to be photographed for a newspaper wearing a swimsuit.<u+00a0> one of the show<u+2019>s sponsors, catalina swimwear, retaliated by creating its own show and, thus, we have miss usa and miss universe. of course, there are some smart, talented women who have chosen to participate in the miss usa and miss universe pageants, but let<u+2019>s be honest, it<u+2019>s not why they win. the women who participate voluntarily don a bikini and walk in front of judges to be, well, judged. the participants are competing for a job based on their bodies and good looks. their worth is based almost solely upon those things and, for one year, they are to represent the company with the asset of conventional beauty.<u+00a0> not brains, not talent, just beauty.<u+00a0> quite literally, their bodies are their money makers. here<u+2019>s a little known fact, even the u.s government recognizes this arrangement.<u+00a0> i am told by friends who have modeled that they are able to write off of their taxes anything they do to keep their assets looking good. all the things women spend money on <u+2014> hair, makeup, gym memberships, and even botox <u+2014> is a write off. <u+00a0>even uncle sam gets the joke. their bodies are their small businesses i suppose. so here<u+2019>s the deal. logically, i can<u+2019>t get to victim when i think of alicia machado.<u+00a0> name calling is never nice, and <u+2014> shocker! <u+2014> donald trump isn<u+2019>t diplomatic in giving criticism. here<u+2019>s the irony.<u+00a0> regardless of how much hillary clinton wants ms. machado to be the poster child for misused women, she doesn<u+2019>t fit the narrative.<u+00a0> let<u+2019>s be honest, a woman who voluntarily puts on a bikini and literally asks people to judge her based almost solely on her body can<u+2019>t be mad when they do. ms. machado was being paid to look perfect, and when she couldn<u+2019>t -- or wouldn<u+2019>t -- live up to the standard she had asked to be measured by, she caught criticism. maybe she<u+2019>s also smart and kind.<u+00a0> who knows? but that was not why she was chosen to serve as miss universe for one year. at this point in my life, i feel conflicted about pageants.<u+00a0> women i love have done them and will do them.<u+00a0> cwa<u+2019>s young women for america boasts more than one pageant winner. as logical women, however, we can<u+2019>t pretend that alicia machado was misused.<u+00a0> there are millions of women across this nation who are objectified, abused victims of sexism and misogyny.<u+00a0> let<u+2019>s work to protect them, instead of inventing new ones. penny young nance is president and ceo of concerned women for america, the nation<u+2019>s largest women<u+2019>s public policy organization. she is the author of the forthcoming book "feisty and feminine: a rallying cry for conservative women" (zondervan 2016).

penny nance: trump vs. miss universe -- i can<u+2019>t get to victim when i think of alicia machado

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

92.0

8.0

4426.0

0.0

1.0

9.0

0.0

294.0

1.0

0.0

86.0

0.0

45.0

8.0

16.0

5.0

9.0

16.0

11.0

25.0

19.0

43.0

303.0

87.0

45.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

congress appears to be on the glide path to passing legislation to avert a government shutdown later this week as conservatives eager for a funding fight have now set december as the best time to confront president obama on spending levels and abortion policies. a stop-gap spending bill that would fund the government at current levels through dec. 11 cleared a key procedural hurdle in the senate monday on a 77 to 19 vote <u+2014> and the upper chamber is expected to pass the measure as soon as tuesday. if all goes according to the plan hatched by senate majority leader mitch mcconnnell (r-ky.) and speaker john boehner (r-ohio), the house could clear the stop-gap funding bill on wednesday, averting a shutdown with hours to spare before the oct. 1 deadline. the only potential speed bump standing in the way of quick consideration of the bill in the senate was sen. ted cruz, but senate leaders took procedural steps to limit the texas republican<u+2019>s options. cruz railed against planned parenthood and the iran deal on the senate floor following the vote monday, saying he believes the <u+201c>votes are cooked<u+201d> in congress. he said a spending bill without any policy restrictions<u+00a0>is <u+201c>essentially a blank check<u+201d> to obama. <u+201c>that<u+2019>s not very clean to me <u+2013> it actually sounds like a very dirty funding bill,<u+201d> cruz said. he and other conservatives for weeks have been calling on gop leaders to confront obama over abortion policies by using the spending bill needed to avert a shutdown this week to cut off funding for planned parenthood. but they are now focusing their attention on december. this turnabout occurred following house<u+00a0>speaker john boehner<u+2019>s (r-ohio) announcement on friday that he will resign at the end of october rather than continue to battle with the most conservative members over how aggressively to confront obama over issues such as spending, abortion and the affordable care act, known as obamacare. conservatives now view december as the better time to challenge the president because there will be a new house gop leadership team in place that they<u+00a0>will pressure to take a tougher<u+00a0>approach. republican leaders are moving ahead with a separate strategy for confronting obama over planned parenthood and obamacare by using the fast-track budget reconciliation process, under which bills can not be filibustered in the senate. this would allow republicans to pick a veto fight with the president. three house committees on monday announced plans to begin the process of attempting to repeal parts of the president<u+2019>s health care law<u+00a0>and defund planned parenthood through the reconciliation process. the house ways and means, energy and commerce and education and the workforce committees will markup bills this week to start the reconciliation process. once those bills pass the house, the senate is expected consider them as well. it is not clear that the reconciliation strategy will satisfy cruz and other conservatives and cause them to abandon their argument that a government<u+00a0>spending bill is the best way to challenge the president. <u+201c>this fight certainly isn<u+2019>t over. we<u+2019>ve got to remember that this is a short-term funding, a sort of patch, so we<u+2019>ll likely be back here in december,<u+201d> the cruz ally said. <u+201c>december will be a similar fight. it<u+2019>s a new bite at the apple.<u+201d> many gop senators and moderate republicans in the house are wary of conservatives attempts to force a government shutdown over planned parenthood or other differences with obama. they worry republicans will be blamed for a shutdown, hurting the part in advance of the 2016 elections. for instance, sen. kelly ayotte (r-n.h.) wrote to cruz earlier this month asking him to detail his political strategy for defunding planned parenthood. ayotte wrote that she voted for a bill to redirect funds from planned parenthood to other women<u+2019>s health providers but that legislation didn<u+2019>t have enough votes pass, let alone enough votes to reverse a veto from obama. she asked him to explain how he planned to overcome those hurdles. <u+201c>during the last government shutdown, i repeatedly asked you what your strategy for success was when we did not have the votes to achieve the goal of defunding obamacare, but i did not receive an answer,<u+201d> she wrote. <u+201c>i am again asking this question and would appreciate you sharing your strategy for success with all of us before any damaging government shutdown becomes imminent.<u+201d> similar tensions could arise again in december if threats of a<u+00a0>shutdown fight resurface.

congress moves closer to preventing a shutdown

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

46.0

8.0

4500.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

254.0

0.0

88.0

0.0

24.0

10.0

16.0

6.0

12.0

10.0

6.0

4.0

21.0

19.0

21.0

255.0

88.0

24.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the obama administration on friday offered an extension of the current obamacare enrollment period -- though not exactly what republicans were seeking. federal health officials announced friday afternoon that they'd give people another eight days this year to enroll in an insurance policy and still get covered by jan. 1. previously, people had to enroll by dec. 15 to avoid any break in coverage and have insurance at the start of 2014. the administration, amid lingering problems with the main obamacare website, is now pushing that deadline to dec. 23. the move comes after the administration announced a more significant delay to the start of next year's obamacare enrollment period. that decision was pitched as a way to give consumers and insurance companies more time to study their options, but also conveniently pushes the second round of enrollment past the 2014 midterm elections. with the administration still offering only modest relief for the current enrollment period, republicans questioned why the administration was focusing on the second round of enrollment, a year away. "another day, another delay, which begs the question, does the president think enrollment will be just as bad next year?" house energy and commerce committee chairman fred upton, r-mich., said in a statement. "it's stunning to see the president so willing to delay next year's open enrollment period rather than focus on the ongoing chaos and uncertainty that is plaguing implementation today." white house press secretary jay carney and a department of health and human services official confirmed the change to the 2014 sign-up on friday. that decision does not affect those trying to enroll this year. rather, it affects those who will sign up late next year for 2015 coverage. the administration will allow consumers to start signing up on nov. 15, 2014, as opposed to oct. 15. enrollment will last until jan. 15, 2015, instead of dec. 7. an hhs official told fox news the move will give insurers "the benefit of more time to evaluate their experiences during the 2014 plan year" and let them take into account late-filing customers when setting their 2015 rates. the official added: "this change is good news for consumers, who will have more time to learn about plans before enrolling and an open enrollment period that's a week longer." the administration so far has rebuffed calls to delay or extend the current enrollment period beyond march 31, 2014, even as hhs scrambles to repair the flawed healthcare.gov site and some states struggle with their own exchanges. but by pushing off next year's enrollment period, the administration conveniently pushes off the possibility of any obamacare hiccups until after the midterm elections. some of the biggest critics of the current rollout have been democrats up for reelection next year. obama recently tried to address some of their concerns by allowing states and insurance companies to re-offer cancelled insurance policies -- a trend which has become a major headache for the administration. many states, though, are refusing to make any changes to the way they handle those plans. hhs argued that the delay next year will give consumers more time to educate themselves about the plans, though it would not affect coverage this year.

hhs announces small extension for obamacare sign-up, bigger delay next year

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

75.0

8.0

3298.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

220.0

0.0

64.0

0.0

23.0

6.0

9.0

3.0

8.0

2.0

6.0

2.0

15.0

11.0

20.0

223.0

64.0

23.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

donald trump is shrugging off the refusal of some republican leaders to endorse him, saying most of the party will back his nomination and new voters will compensate for the rest. "look, i'm going to get millions and millions of votes more than the republicans would have gotten," trump said an interview broadcast sunday on nbc's meet the press. trump was addressing questions raised by<u+00a0>house speaker paul ryan, who is scheduled to<u+00a0>meet with the presumptive presidential nominee on thursday. in an interview on abc's this week, trump said he is a "very different" kind of candidate, and party unity may not be as big a factor because of new republicans. "i think it would be better if it were unified," trump said, adding that "i don't think it actually has to be unified" in the more traditional sense. "it's not called the conservative party," he told abc. "this is called the republican party." ryan has said he is not yet ready to endorse trump because of doubts about his conservatism, while other party members have flatly come out against the nominee-in-waiting. that<u+00a0>group<u+00a0>includes 2012 republican nominee<u+00a0>mitt romney as well as former 2016 gop hopefuls jeb bush<u+00a0>and lindsey graham. they<u+00a0>cited<u+00a0>issues ranging from trump's abrasive language to his comments about women and hispanics. trump lacks the "temperament or strength of character" to be president, bush wrote in a facebook post<u+00a0>on friday. the former florida governor added that<u+00a0>"he has not displayed a respect for the constitution. and, he is not a consistent conservative." bush's brother and father, the two former presidents, have announced they would not attend the july convention that crowns trump<u+00a0>and had no plans to endorse, while<u+00a0>romney<u+00a0>has denounced the new york businessman as a "phony" and a "fraud." graham, the south carolina senator who like bush lost to trump in the republican nomination fight, told cnn: "good luck with paul ryan trying to find a conservative agenda with this guy." in his nbc interview, trump said romney is "ungrateful" for his support in 2012, and that the former massachusetts governor "choked" on his chance to beat president obama. trump said<u+00a0>that bush and graham are angry that he beat them during the nomination fight, and he noted that both once backed a pledge to support the nominee. "now they're breaking," trump said. "you know, that's a question of honor.<u+201d> the presumptive republican nominee said he was "blindsided" by ryan's reluctance to endorse, saying he thought he had a good relationship with the house speaker. ryan told cnn he wants to back the nominee, but "i'm not there right now." democrats are enjoying all the gop<u+00a0>in-fighting <u+2014> particularly likely presidential nominee hillary clinton, who is targeting anti-trump republicans for the fall general election. "obviously i'm reaching out to democrats, republicans, independents <u+2014><u+00a0>all voters who want a candidate who is running a campaign based on issues," clinton told cbs' face the nation. trump, saying he will beat "crooked hillary" easily in the fall, says most republicans will wind up backing his candidacy. "you know, the party's come together," trump told nbc's meet the press. "i have tremendous numbers of endorsements.<u+00a0>i'm never going to get romney's endorsement. he choked. he blew the last election."

trump says he's not worried by opposition to him within 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

10.0

59.0

8.0

3307.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

218.0

2.0

0.0

67.0

2.0

0.0

18.0

7.0

3.0

1.0

7.0

3.0

6.0

15.0

11.0

22.0

224.0

69.0

20.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the report also discloses new details relevant to clinton's motives and her assertion that the use of a private server was simply a matter of convenience. while criminal charges still remain highly unlikely, the inspector general's report is significant and unquestionably damaging to clinton's public defense. most crucially, the inspector general directly contradicts clinton's repeated assertions that she complied both with federal law and state department policies. "at a minimum," the report finds, "secretary clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the federal records act." the report goes further, noting that while clinton's subsequent production of 55,000 pages of emails in response to state department demands partially corrected these violations, the records clinton turned over were incomplete. remarkably, the report includes reference to a previously unreleased 2010 email in which clinton, responding to her deputy chief of staff for operations, huma abedin, directly addresses her lack of an official state department email account and voices a fear of the "risk of the personal being accessible" if she had one. in a briefing, state department officials were unable to confirm the source of this email, but if it was omitted from the records clinton produced, it again would raise questions about the process she used to distinguish between "federal records" and "personal records" before destroying the latter. the inspector general also reveals the comments of state department records management staff in late 2010 expressly raising concerns that clinton's private email server "could contain federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy federal record-keeping requirements." a senior official rebuffed these concerns, claiming that clinton's email arrangement "had been approved by the department legal staff" -- an assertion the inspector general concluded was untrue -- and directed staff "never to speak of the secretary's personal email system again." such facts undermine the argument that the significance of maintaining a private server and the negative effects it could have, including on responses to freedom of information act requests or congressional subpoenas, were simply overlooked. clinton's response to the report is further complicated by the fact that the state department did not contest the inspector general's findings, concurred with its recommendations, and even acknowledges in its response that "the department could have done better at preserving emails." all of this would serve to undermine assertions by clinton that the inspector general's conclusions are biased or politically motivated. indeed, thus far clinton's response has focused on the argument that other secretaries of state also used private email. "well there may be reports that come out," clinton commented, "but nothing has changed. it's the same story. just like previous secretaries of state i used a personal email, many people did. it was not at all unprecedented." and, it is true that the inspector general does not spare former secretary colin powell from similar allegations, documenting his use of private email and his admitted failure to preserve those emails. in a nasty campaign, can politicians play nice? (opinion) yet this arguably only furthers the perception that the inspector general's review was both balanced and non-biased. and clinton's response highlights how her defense -- which began with confident assertions that she followed all the rules and broke no laws -- has now been reduced to the argument that "others did it too" or that the rules she violated were not significant. despite the inspector general's report, criminal charges against clinton remain highly unlikely. while the report provides previously nonpublic information relevant to clinton's motivations, the available public evidence remains insufficient to illustrate two facts needed for a criminal charge -- that she knew that emails on her private server were classified and that she intentionally mishandled classified information. who in the world really wants donald trump to win? yet the inspector general's report also highlights the uncertainty that surrounds the precise scope of the current fbi investigation. to the extent the fbi has limited its inquiry to security issues and the possible mishandling of classified information, for example, the inspector general's report finding violations of the federal records laws potentially implicates a different criminal statute. removing, concealing, or destroying federal records, regardless of whether they are classified, can constitute a federal felony. but again, courts have generally required prosecutors pursuing this charge to prove that defendants knew they were violating the law, for which the evidence against clinton appears to be lacking. in the end, extracting the truth in the clinton email controversy in the current polarized political environment remains a nearly impossible task. some have already begun to seize upon the inspector general's report, mischaracterizing it as clear evidence of a crime. and when the department of justice announces that it is not filing criminal charges -- as is both expected and perhaps inevitable -- clinton will likely argue that it constitutes proof that she did nothing wrong. based on the publicly available evidence, the reality appears to be nuanced in a way that is satisfying to neither side. clinton violated the law, but committed no crime.

hillary clinton's shrinking email defense

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

41.0

8.0

5688.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

415.0

0.0

96.0

0.0

35.0

10.0

4.0

12.0

3.0

9.0

2.0

23.0

29.0

31.0

420.0

96.0

35.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the deadly hostage situation at a luxury hotel in mali's capital city ended friday, with a u.n. report indicating dozens of bodies were littered across multiple floors of the building. one of those killed was an american, according to the state department. the siege "has concluded," state department spokesman john kirby announced friday. he said about a dozen americans were rescued uninjured from the radisson in bamako, but a state department official later said one american had been killed. that person was not immediately identified. some of the freed americans were u.s. embassy personnel, kirby said. some attackers may have remained inside the hotel. a mali security ministry spokesman told reuters they "dug in" on upper floors of the building. "they are alone with the malian special forces who are trying to dislodge them," spokesman amadou sangho said. al qaeda-linked jihadists claimed responsibility for the siege. a u.n. official told the associated press that initial reports from the field indicate 27 people were killed in the attack. the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the operation is still ongoing, said 12 bodies were found in the basement and 15 bodies were found on the second floor. another u.n. official, mali mission spokesman olivier salgado, said two extremists have been killed and that forces were going from room to room, checking for more casualties. at least one guest reported the attackers instructed him to recite verses from the koran before he was allowed to leave the hotel, malian army commander modibo nama traore told the associated press. at least five u.s. defense department personnel were among the americans freed, according to a senior u.s. defense official, who told fox news the 22 defense department and military personnel in bamako at the time of the incident "have all been accounted for." traore said malian special forces entered the hotel and freed hostages "floor by floor." hours after the attacks began, local tv images showed heavily armed troops in what appeared to be a lobby area. some u.s. military personnel in bamako assisted in the rescue efforts, a defense official told fox news. traore said 10 gunmen stormed the hotel friday morning shouting "allahu akbar," or "god is great," in arabic before firing on the guards. a staffer at the hotel who gave his name as tamba diarra said over the phone that the attackers used grenades in the assault. al-mourabitoun, a militant group based in northern mali, said on twitter that it was behind the attack, but the claim could not immediately be verified. the group is led by notorious one-eyed jihadist mokhtar belmokhtar, who gained recognition in 2013 for an attack on an algerian gas plant that left 40 people dead, including three americans. a handful of jihadi groups, some linked to al qaeda, seized the northern half of mali -- a former french colony -- in 2012 and were ousted from cities and towns by a french military intervention. the brussels-based rezidor hotel group that operates the hotel said the assailants had initially "locked in" 140 guests and 30 employees. the white house said president obama was briefed about the attack by his national security adviser, susan rice. the u.s. embassy in mali told citizens to shelter in place amid reports of an "ongoing active shooter operation." in august, the embassy had issued a message warning americans of a "heightened security risk to westerners in southern mali, including the area outside bamako city." the hotel raid friday unfolded one week after the attacks on paris that killed 130 people. one witness, a guinean singer, told reuters that he heard the attackers speaking english. "i heard them say in english ,'did you load it?', 'let's go'," s<u+00e9>kouba bambino diabat<u+00e9> told the news agency after he was freed. french president francois hollande said france was ready to help mali with all means necessary in the wake of the attack and urged french citizens in mali to make contact with the french embassy there "in order that everything is made to offer them protection." a top official at the french presidency told the associated press that french citizens were in the hotel but could not give more. the official spoke anonymously in line with presidency policy. in belgium, foreign minister didier reynders said there were four belgians registered at the attacked hotel but it's unclear if they were taken hostage by the gunmen or not. five turkish airlines personnel were among the freed hostages, turkey's state-run news agency said. the website of the official china daily newspaper also cited an unidentified witness as saying one chinese citizen had been rescued. mali's president ibrahim boubacar keita has cut short its trip to chad where he was attending a meeting of g5 sahel. the mali presidency said on twitter that keita will be back to bamako "in the next hours." meanwhile, france's national gendarme service says about 50 elite police troops were en route from paris to bamako. a spokesman for the service who was not authorized to be publicly named said they are heading friday from two different units of special police forces trained for emergency situations. even after the french-led military intervention in early 2013 that drove extremists from northern towns and cities in mali, the northern part of the country remains insecure and militant attacks have extended farther south this year, including the capital. in march, masked gunmen shot up a restaurant in bamako that is popular with foreigners, killing five people. about 1,000 french troops remain in the country. the netherlands also has troops working with the un mission in mali. according to the dutch defense ministry, some 450 dutch military personnel are taking part in the mission along with four apache and three chinook helicopters. most of the dutch force is based in gao, but there are a few officers at the u.n. mission headquarters in bamako. fox news' greg palkot, jennifer griffin, lucas tomlinson, michelle macaluso and the associated press contributed to this report.

dozens dead, including one american, as hostage situation in mali hotel ends

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

76.0

8.0

6103.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

446.0

0.0

120.0

1.0

0.0

61.0

12.0

3.0

22.0

8.0

7.0

18.0

22.0

29.0

454.0

120.0

62.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

daron dylon wint was arrested<u+00a0>thursday by a fugitive task force and is charged with first-degree<u+00a0>murder<u+00a0>of a wealthy dc family and their housekeeper.. wint<u+00a0>is expected to appear in dc superior court on friday afternoon. about a week after the bodies of a wealthy d.c. family and their housekeeper were discovered after a fire in their<u+00a0>mansion, an ex-convict who once worked for the businessman and is<u+00a0>suspected<u+00a0>in the killings has been arrested. daron dylon wint, 34, was arrested about 11 p.m. thursday by a fugitive task force and is charged with first-degree<u+00a0>murder<u+00a0>while armed, d.c. police and the u.s. marshals service said. he is expected to appear in d.c. superior court on friday afternoon. police have not detailed why wint <u+2014> who moved to the u.s. from guyana in 2000, joined the marines and later worked as a certified welder before racking up a criminal record <u+2014> would want to kill 46-year-old savvas savopoulos; his 47-year-old wife, amy; their son, philip; and housekeeper veralicia figueroa. three of the four victims had been stabbed or bludgeoned before the fire. wint showed little emotion when he was captured, robert fernandez, commander of the u.s. marshal service's capital area regional fugitive task force told the associated press on friday. "he was stoic," fernandez said. investigators had tracked wint to the brooklyn area of new york city, where they barely missed him wednesday night, fernandez said. "we believe he saw himself on the news and just took off," fernandez said. investigators then tracked wint to a howard johnson express inn in college park, maryland, on thursday night, he said. a team realized wint was probably in one of two vehicles in the motel parking lot: a car or a moving truck. the vehicles left together and the team followed as they took a u-turn and a strange route <u+2014> seeming to be lost or trying to shake those who followed, fernandez said. officers eventually got between the two vehicles in northeast washington and took wint, three other men and two women into custody, fernandez said "we had overwhelming numbers and force," fernandez said. "they completely submitted immediately." fernandez said he noticed a big wad of cash in the moving truck, but he didn't know how much was there. it was not clear whether that money might have been connected to the savopoulos family. fernandez said he did not know whether any weapons were found as the group was taken into custody. police said thursday that they haven't ruled out the possibility that other people were involved in the slayings, but no other<u+00a0>suspects<u+00a0>have been identified. wint had worked for savopoulos' company, american iron works, in the past, police said. savopoulos was the ceo of american iron works, a construction-materials supplier based in hyattsville, maryland, that has been involved in major projects in downtown washington. the savopouloses lived in a $4.5 million home in woodley park, where<u+00a0>mansions<u+00a0>are protected by fences and security systems and local and federal law enforcement officers are a constant presence, in part because vice president joe biden's official residence is nearby. text messages and voicemails from the savopouloses to their confused and frightened household staff suggest something was amiss hours before the bodies were found. their porsche turned up in suburban maryland hours after the slayings. it too had been set on fire. dna analysis at a bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms lab linked wint to the crime, a law enforcement official involved in the investigation told the associated press on condition of anonymity for lack of authorization to discuss the investigation publicly. during the family's final hours, someone called domino's from their house and ordered pizza. the washington post reported that the dna was found on a pizza crust. at a domino's about 2 miles away, a worker told the ap that a pizza was delivered from there to the<u+00a0>mansion<u+00a0>that day. wint was convicted of assaulting one girlfriend in maryland in 2009, and he pleaded guilty the next year to malicious destruction of property after he allegedly threatened to kill a woman and her infant daughter, breaking into her apartment, stealing a television and vandalizing her car. "i'm going to come over there and kill you, your daughter and friends," wint told that woman, according to the records. "the defendant advised he was good with a knife and could kill them easily and was not afraid of the police," a detective wrote. also in 2010, wint was arrested carrying a 2-foot-long machete and a bb pistol outside the american iron works headquarters, but weapons charges were dropped after he pleaded guilty to possessing an open container of alcohol. attorney robin ficker said wint didn't seem violent when he defended him in earlier cases. "my impression of him <u+2014> i remember him rather well <u+2014> is that he wouldn't hurt a fly. he's a very nice person," ficker said. a housekeeper who worked for the savopoulos family for 20 years, nelitza gutierrez, told the ap that she believes the family and figueroa were held captive for nearly a day before they were killed, citing an unusual voice mail from savopoulos and a text message sent from the phone of his wife, telling her not to come to the house. gutierrez said she and savopoulos spent may 13 cleaning up a martial arts studio he was opening in northern virginia before his wife called around 5:30 p.m. she could hear his half of the conversation. he later said his wife told him to come home to watch their son because she was going out, gutierrez said. later that night, sounding flustered, he left gutierrez a voice mail saying figueroa would stay with his sick wife overnight, that she shouldn't come the next day, and that figueroa's phone was dead. "it doesn't make any sense. how come you don't have another phone <u+2014> iphones are all over," gutierrez said. "he was kind of building stories." the next morning, gutierrez received a text message from amy savopoulos that read, in part, "i am making sure you are not coming today." she called and texted back and got no response. the savopouloses had two teenage daughters who were away at boarding school at the time of the killings. relatives of the victims have made few public statements and have not returned calls from the ap. representatives of american iron works have repeatedly declined to comment. associated press photographer alex brandon in washington and ap freelancer meredith somers in upper marlboro, maryland, contributed to this report.

suspect who worked for wealthy dc family arrested for their deaths

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

10.0

66.0

8.0

6537.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

428.0

1.0

0.0

137.0

1.0

0.0

35.0

19.0

16.0

8.0

24.0

7.0

11.0

6.0

24.0

29.0

33.0

431.0

138.0

36.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

congress is upgrading the role religious freedom plays in u.s. foreign policy. on monday, house lawmakers unanimously approved the frank wolf religious freedom act. the bill updates a 1998 law sponsored by the former virginia congressman. "nearly 20 years ago, led by u.s. congressman frank r. wolf, the congress had the foresight to make advancing the right to religious freedom a high u.s. foreign policy priority," rep. chris smith, r-n.j., the bill's author, said. "today religious freedom is still under attack and we must upgrade our programs and methods to meet the challenges of the 21st century," he added. the original law established a framework to investigate religious freedom abuses, name the world's worst violators and suggest courses of action. the new bill will target radical jihadist groups like nigeria's boko haram and the islamic state. "the world is experiencing an unprecedented crisis of international religious freedom," smith said, "a crisis that continues to create millions of victims, a crisis that undermines liberty, prosperity and peace; a crisis that poses a direct challenge to the u.s. interests in the middle east, russia, china and sub-saharan africa and elsewhere." the legislation now moves on to the senate.

house votes to upgrade international religious freedom law

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

58.0

8.0

1256.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

103.0

0.0

22.0

0.0

4.0

2.0

3.0

1.0

2.0

6.0

0.0

2.0

16.0

4.0

12.0

109.0

22.0

4.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

during the campaign, trump had threatened to impose a large tariff to keep the jobs in the united states.

cruz's immigration gambit

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

25.0

8.0

105.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

3.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

10.0

3.0

2.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the u.s. economy added 292,000 jobs in december while unemployment held steady at 5 percent, according to the latest figures from the bureau of labor statistics. the number of new jobs was higher than many economists had anticipated; npr's john ydstie says experts had expected about 200,000 new jobs. in november, the bls initially said the economy added 211,000 jobs <u+2014> a "healthy pace," as npr's marilyn geewax put it. that number has now been revised upward, to 252,000. the job gains for october have also been revised up, from 298,000 to 307,000. with the revised numbers, the past three months have seen an average of 284,000 new jobs each month. the unemployment rate has held at 5 percent all three months. professional and business services, the restaurant industry, health care and construction showed some of the strongest job growth in december, the bureau says, while mining jobs declined and manufacturing jobs stayed stagnant. the labor participation rate was little changed in december, and average wages fell by a penny. over the year as a whole, average wages rose 2.5 percent, the bls says <u+2014> the fastest rise since 2008. but a healthy growth rate for wages would be "in the 3-4 percent range," writes the wall street journal. all told, employers created 2.65 million new jobs last year <u+2014> not as strong as 2014's 3.2 million total jobs, but enough to make 2015 the second-best year for u.s. job growth since 1999, the associated press reports. the news comes during a week of turmoil in the international stock markets. chinese stocks plunged this week, while the s&p 500 and dow jones industrial average had their worst-ever start to a year. last month, the federal reserve raised interest rates in the u.s. by 0.25 percentage point, signaling confidence in the american economy. it was the first change in the interest rate since 2008, and the first increase since 2006.

u.s. economy added a robust 292,000 jobs in december

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

52.0

8.0

1900.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

89.0

0.0

38.0

0.0

7.0

1.0

3.0

1.0

3.0

2.0

6.0

5.0

13.0

92.0

38.0

7.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the supreme court is expected to issue a decision in a major new lawsuit against obamacare this june, and the health coverage for millions hangs in the balance. this challenge to the affordable care act, called king v. burwell, came from longtime obamacare opponents who claim that, because of a key phrase in the law, the federal government may provide tax credit subsidies only in states that operate their own health insurance exchanges. thirty-four states declined to establish these marketplaces, and instead left that responsibility in the hands of the federal government. if the supreme court rules for the plaintiffs in this case, it would eliminate health insurance subsidies for 7.5 million low- and moderate-income people in those states, causing most of them to become uninsured when their premiums become unaffordable without financial assistance. here's how the numbers break down in each state with a federally operated health insurance exchange. infographic by alissa scheller for the huffington post. jonathan cohn and jesse rifkin contributed reporting. update: june 4 -- the numbers displayed on this map are derived from a report that counted health insurance exchange enrollment as of feb. 22, which the department of health and human services published on march 10. the department released new data on june 2, detailing enrollment as of march 31. according to the new report, 7.3 million people were covered by plans purchased via the federally operated health insurance exchanges in the 34 states subject to the supreme court ruling, and 6.4 million of them received subsidies. the new report includes additional information about each state, but does not update the calculation of average unsubsidized premiums.

here's how many people in each state may not be able to afford insurance if the supreme court rules against obamacare

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

117.0

8.0

1745.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

115.0

2.0

0.0

41.0

0.0

11.0

4.0

5.0

1.0

6.0

1.0

4.0

2.0

6.0

7.0

16.0

121.0

43.0

11.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

gop vice presidential candidate mike pence said friday he has a "lot of respect" for first lady michelle obama, but he doesn't understand "the basis of her claim" in a her speech thursday condemning donald trump for using what she called sexually predatory language in a conversation caught on a hot-mic in 2005. "i have a lot of respect for the first lady and the job she has done for the american people over the last seven-and-a-half years," the indiana governor told the "cbs this morning" host charlie rose, continuing that he does not believe the language described sexually predatory actions. "i already spoke about my concerns about the language he used in that 11-year-old video," said pence. "but what he has made clear is that was talk, regrettable talk on his part. but that there were no actions." further, trump has "categorically denied these last unsubstantiated allegations" that were made this week from at least five women who claimed trump groped and kissed them against their will in years past. "frankly, i think before the day is out the allegations will be questioned," said pence. "the same reporters who wrote a similar story six months ago for the new york times have written this story and that story was completely discredited." pence told fox news' "fox & friends" the trump campaign is working to bring out evidence that will disprove the allegations being made about him, and said during an interview with nbc's "today" show that evidence "is coming in, frankly, a matter of hours." he told "today" show hosts matt lauer and savannah guthrie that melania trump has already contacted people magazine for a retraction of its story about trump, but lauer commented that was different than showing evidence. "just say tuned," pence told the "today" show. "there is more information coming forward. but donald trump has made very clear that he's categorically denied these allegations. yet, he can't be more definitive than that. "and the difficulty is that at this point in a campaign, it is astonishing to see, with all due respect, the enormous coverage of these really unfounded allegations, unestablished allegations, compared to an avalanche of emails coming out of hillary clinton's years as secretary of state." pence said he agrees that allegations such as those being made against trump "should always" be taken "seriously and respectfully, but in the case of bill clinton, he actually admitted to being involved with a 23-year-old intern at the white house named monica lewinsky when he was president. bill clinton actually paid a settlement of over $800,000 to one of those women [paula jones]." "the remarkable thing, as the media goes chasing after unsubstantiated allegations, coming from a newspaper that six months ago, did a massive similar story that was utterly discredited by the same reporters," pence told fox news. "it's remarkable to me they continue to literally ignore the hard evidence that's flowing out of hillary clinton's years as secretary of state and the clinton foundation, whether it's a speech supporting socialized medicine in canada, a paid speech supporting open borders in brazil." he said the "most concerning" to him was the news that clinton's aides, while she was secretary of state, were "directing contracts for the rebuilding of haiti, after the earthquake, to friends of the clintons. i mean, this is exactly the kind of pay-to-play politics the american people are tired of. it's going to end when donald trump becomes president of the united states." pence told cbs that as the father of two daughters and as a public person, he does take allegations like those facing trump seriously, but also noted the gop presidential nominee "categorically denied" the claims against him. further, the indiana governor said he urged trump to apologize, which he has. he also questioned the timing of the news against trump, as "we have hard evidence flowing out of the clinton foundation [and] the clinton years, but the "unsubstantiated claims are dominating the news." pence said he's spoken with trump over the allegations being made about him, and he believes the presidential candidate. "donald trump has asserted that all of these recent unsubstantiated allegations are categorically false and i believe him," said pence. "the donald trump as i come to know, and my family has come to know and spent considerable amount of time, is someone who has a long record of not only loving his family and lifting his family up, but employing and promoting women in positions of authority in this company." and, pence told rose, he gave up a job he loves as governor of indiana, a state he loves, to join the trump race "because i think this country is in a lot of trouble," and he thinks it's time to return the issues and move away from the scandals. the trump scandals have caused many to question his character, but pence said he has found trump's response to be "extraordinary." "he apologized for what he said 11 years ago," said pence. "he showed humility, he showed heart. he focused that national presidential debate back on the issues that really affect the american people at home and abroad." meanwhile, he pointed out that the "avalanche" of emails from clinton's accounts continue to emerge. "clinton was advocating open borders when she was giving a speech in brazil, advocating socialized medicine when she gave a speech in canada," said pence. "the haitian issue to me is the biggest one . . . the friends of the clinton's were given preference shall treatment for contracts for the reconstruction of haiti after an earthquake." also on friday, pence commented on trump's claims that the upcoming election may be rigged, and he agrees that voter fraud has been an issue. "we are currently involved in a pretty vigorous investigation in the state of indiana over voter fraud," said pence. "it is in the interest of everybody on every side of the spectrum to defend the one vote, one principle. "the way elections are managed at the state level is to become involved as a poll-watcher and poll volunteer and we consistently encourage people to do that."

pence: i don't understand 'the basis' of michelle obama's claims

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

64.0

8.0

6156.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

398.0

2.0

0.0

142.0

0.0

29.0

6.0

13.0

0.0

6.0

11.0

8.0

5.0

26.0

15.0

41.0

402.0

144.0

29.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

bernie sanders <u+2014> who is winning delegate contests against hillary clinton<u+00a0>but not catching up much in terms of actual delegates <u+2014> insists he has a path to the democratic presidential nomination, starting with primaries in new york and pennsylvania. "we believe that we have the momentum," sanders said sunday on abc's this week. "we believe that the polling is showing that we're closing the gap." the vermont senator toured a string of sunday shows a day after beating clinton by double digits<u+00a0>in the wyoming caucuses <u+2014> though clinton will wind up with more convention delegates thanks to<u+00a0>"superdelegates" who can back any candidate they want. speaking on nbc's meet the press, sanders said he has cut clinton's lead by one-third in recent weeks, won eight of the last nine delegate contests, and is moving up in national polls against both clinton and potential republican opponents. "we're running stronger against donald trump and other republicans than secretary clinton," sanders told nbc. "i think we stand a really good chance to do well in new york state, in pennsylvania, and as we head into other states." the new york primary is april 19, and clinton holds a double-digit lead there, according to recent polls. pennsylvania<u+00a0><u+2014> along with connecticut, delaware, maryland and rhode island<u+00a0><u+2014> <u+00a0>holds its primary<u+00a0>a week later. the associated press reports that, when superdelegates are included, clinton holds a significant lead over sanders: 1,756 to 1,068. sanders said he believes his campaign can block clinton from winning the 2,383 delegates needed for nomination at the convention. "i believe that we have a real path to victory," sanders said on cbs' face the nation, "and that at the end of the day, we're going to win this." the former new york senator and secretary of state told cnn's state of the union<u+00a0>on sunday:<u+00a0>"i intend to have the number of delegates that are required to be nominated."

sanders, losing in delegates to clinton, claims 'path to victory'

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

65.0

8.0

1919.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

115.0

0.0

30.0

0.0

7.0

2.0

4.0

1.0

3.0

4.0

8.0

3.0

13.0

120.0

30.0

7.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

two of the country<u+2019>s most powerful and politically influential labor unions are backing president obama in the recent court challenge to his 2014 executive action on illegal immigration, saying they support the president<u+2019>s effort because "undocumented workers" need more workplace protection and their participation helps the u.s. economy. the afl-cio and the national education association on monday each filed so-called amicus briefs in a federal appeals court case in which texas and 26 other states are challenges the president<u+2019>s 2014 memorandum on illegal immigration. the memorandum essentially expands work authorization and delayed-deportation programs for illegal immigrants. and it provides similar opportunities for the parents of u.s. citizens or legal permanent residents. the afl-cio<u+2019>s 36-page brief essentially argues that texas lacks the so-called <u+201c>legal standing<u+201d> to challenge the memorandum and that the administration didn<u+2019>t violate procedural requirements in issuing the order. however, the union also makes very clear its interest in the outcome of the proceedings. <u+201c>first, through existing collective bargaining relationships, afl-cio affiliates represent many undocumented workers in workplaces throughout the country,<u+201d> according to the brief by the afl-cio, the country<u+2019>s bigger union collective, with 56 unions representing roughly 12 million workers and retired workers. union lawyers argue such workers have substantive protection under labor and employment law but not to a <u+201c>full range of remedies<u+201d> when such laws are violated. such workers are not entitled to back pay under the national labor relations act and are vulnerable to employer retaliation if they complain about violations, the lawyers argue. <u+201c>secondly, this lack of legal remedies and vulnerability to retaliation creates an incentive for some unscrupulous employers to employ large numbers of undocumented workers at sub-standard wages and working conditions,<u+201d> they continue in the brief. <u+201c>law-abiding employers must compete with these employers, making it more difficult for afl-cio affiliate unions to raise wages and improve working conditions.<u+201d> many critics of obama<u+2019>s plans to reform federal immigration law without a vote in congress say he is providing <u+201c>amnesty<u+201d> to those who have entered the u.s. illegally. they also say his plans -- backed by americans companies and labor unions -- take away jobs from u.s. citizens. "the labor unions, like democratic politicians, have decided to rely on importing the citizens of other nations to gain power in this one. of course this cancels out jobs and votes for americans," a gop congressional aide told foxnews.com on saturday. in 2004, the afl-cio spent $5.1 million in lobbying and gave $8.7 million in political-related contributions, with no money going to republicans, according to opensecrets.org. the entire case, texas et al v. usa, started in february when a federal judge granted the states a preliminary injunction, which temporarily stops obama<u+2019>s 2014 plan from going into effect. the u.s. government wants the injunction lifted so obama's actions can proceed but meanwhile has appealed the texas court ruling to the u.s. court of appeals for the 5th circuit, in new orleans, in which the amicus briefs have been filed. obama's actions would prevent as many as 5 million people who are in the u.s. illegally from being deported. the 27 states also argue that the 2014 action is unconstitutional and would force them to invest more in law enforcement, health care and education. the injunction is intended to stall obama's actions while the lawsuit progresses through the courts. obama's orders to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the u.s. illegally as children was set to take effect feb. 18. the part that would extend deportation protections to the parents of u.s. citizens and permanent residents was slated to begin on may 19. the 44-page amicus brief from the american federation of teachers includes seven other groups including aspira -- the largest national latino organization in the country. the document largely makes the case that all children in the u.s. should have access to education for their <u+201c>psychological, emotional, and physical well-being<u+201d> and that children in families in which at least one member is an illegal immigrant should not be forced to live apart from their parents. a coalition of groups including the service employees international union, the second-largest public service union and a big supporter of democratic political candidates and organizations, filed an amicus brief in the original case. <u+201c>the november 20, 2014 executive action on immigration would have beneficial effects on the u.s. economy and u.s. workers,<u+201d> the brief states in part. <u+201c>temporary work authorization for those immigrants who are eligible for deferred action will raise not only their wages, but the wages of all americans, which will in turn increase government tax revenue and create new jobs.<u+201d> the associated press contributed to this report.

unions fight to preserve obama<u+2019>s immigration actions, their members

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

15.0

67.0

8.0

5092.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

371.0

1.0

0.0

86.0

1.0

0.0

35.0

13.0

17.0

5.0

16.0

14.0

8.0

6.0

20.0

22.0

40.0

379.0

87.0

36.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

<u+201c>i felt it is important to take the opportunity to meet the president-elect now before the drumbeats of war that neocons have been beating drag us into...

house gop smells victory in budget battle

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

41.0

8.0

154.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

5.0

3.0

5.0

14.0

3.0

2.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

last year, a white male princeton undergraduate was asked by a classmate to <u+201c>check his privilege.<u+201d><u+00a0>offended by this suggestion, he shot off a 1,300-word essay to the<u+00a0>tory, a right-wing campus newspaper.<u+00a0>in it, he wrote about his grandfather who fled the nazis to siberia, his grandmother who survived a concentration camp in germany, about the humble wicker basket business they started in america. he railed against his classmates for <u+201c>diminishing everything [he<u+2019>d] accomplished, all the hard work [he<u+2019>d] done.<u+201d> his missive was reprinted by<u+00a0>time. he was interviewed by the<u+00a0>new york times<u+00a0>and appeared on fox news. he became a darling of white conservatives across the country. what he did not do, at any point, was consider whether being white and male might have given him<u+2014>if not his ancestors<u+2014>some advantage in achieving incredible success in america. he did not, in other words, check his privilege. to robin diangelo, professor of multicutural education at westfield state university and author of<u+00a0>what does it mean to be white? developing white racial literacy,<u+00a0>tal fortgang<u+2019>s essay<u+2014>indignant, defensive, beside-the-point, somehow both self-pitying and self-aggrandizing<u+2014>followed a familiar script. as an anti-racist educator for more than two decades, diangelo has heard versions of it recited hundreds of times by white men and women in her workshops. she<u+2019>s heard it so many times, in fact, that she came up with a term for it: <u+201c>white fragility,<u+201d> which she defined in a<u+00a0>2011 journal article<u+00a0>as <u+201c>a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. these moves include outward display of emotions such as anger, fear and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence and leaving the stress-inducing situation.<u+201d> when the black lives matter movement marched in the streets, holding up traffic, disrupting commerce, and refusing to allow <u+201c>normal life<u+201d> to resume<u+2014>insofar as normalcy means a system that permits police and vigilantes to murder black men and women with impunity<u+2014>white people found themselves in tense conversations online, with friends and in the media about privilege, white supremacy and racism. you could say white fragility was at an all-time high. i spoke with diangelo about<u+00a0>how to deal with all the fragile white people, and why it<u+2019>s worth doing so. sam adler-bell: how did you come to write about <u+201c>white fragility<u+201d>? robin diangelo: to be honest, i wanted to take it on because it<u+2019>s a frustrating dynamic that i encounter a lot. i don<u+2019>t have a lot of patience for it. and i wanted to put a mirror to it. i do atypical work for a white person, which is that i lead primarily white audiences in discussions on race every day, in workshops all over the country. that has allowed me to observe very predictable patterns. and one of those patterns is this inability to tolerate any kind of challenge to our racial reality. we shut down or lash out or in whatever way possible block any reflection from taking place. of course, it functions as means of resistance, but i think it<u+2019>s also useful to think about it as fragility, as inability to handle the stress of conversations about race and racism sometimes it<u+2019>s strategic, a very intentional push back and rebuttal. but a lot of the time, the person simply cannot function. they regress into an emotional state that prevents anybody from moving forward. sab: carla murphy recently referenced <u+201c>white fragility<u+201d> in an article for<u+00a0>colorlines, and i<u+2019>ve seen it referenced on twitter and facebook a lot lately. it seems like it<u+2019>s having a moment. why do you think that is? rd: i think we get tired of certain terms. what i do used to be called <u+201c>diversity training,<u+201d> then <u+201c>cultural competency<u+201d> and now, <u+201c>anti-racism.<u+201d> these terms are really useful for periods of time, but then they get coopted, and people build all this baggage around them, and you have to come up with new terms or else people won<u+2019>t engage. and i think <u+201c>white privilege<u+201d> has reached that point. it rocked my world when i first really got it, when i came across<u+00a0>peggy mcintosh. it<u+2019>s a really powerful start for people. but unfortunately it<u+2019>s been played so much now that it turns people off. sab: what causes white fragility to set in? rd: for white people, their identities rest on the idea of racism as about good or bad people, about moral or immoral singular acts, and if we<u+2019>re good, moral people we can<u+2019>t be racist <u+2013> we don<u+2019>t engage in those acts. this is one of the most effective adaptations of racism over time<u+2014>that we can think of racism as only something that individuals either are or are not <u+201c>doing.<u+201d> in large part, white fragility<u+2014>the defensiveness, the fear of conflict<u+2014>is rooted in this good/bad binary. if you call someone out, they think to themselves, <u+201c>what you just said was that i am a bad person, and that is intolerable to me.<u+201d> it<u+2019>s a deep challenge to the core of our identity as good, moral people. the good/bad binary is also what leads to the very unhelpful phenomenon of un-friending on facebook. sab: right, because the instinct is to un-friend, to dissociate from those bad white people, so that i<u+2019>m not implicated in their badness. rd: when i<u+2019>m doing a workshop with white people, i<u+2019>ll often say, <u+201c>if we don<u+2019>t work with each other, if we give in to that pull to separate, who have we left to deal with the white person that we<u+2019>ve given up on and won<u+2019>t address? rd: exactly. and white fragility also comes from a deep sense of entitlement. think about it like this: from the time i opened my eyes, i have been told that as a white person, i am superior to people of color. there<u+2019>s never been a space in which i have not been receiving that message. from what hospital i was allowed to be born in, to how my mother was treated by the staff, to who owned the hospital, to who cleaned the rooms and took out the garbage. we are born into a racial hierarchy, and every interaction with media and culture confirms it<u+2014>our sense that, at a fundamental level, we are superior. and, the thing is, it feels good. even though it contradicts our most basic principles and values. so we know it, but we can never admit it. it creates this kind of dangerous internal stew that gets enacted externally in our interactions with people of color, and is crazy-making for people of color. we have set the world up to preserve that internal sense of superiority and also resist challenges to it. all while denying that anything is going on and insisting that race is meaningless to us. sab: something that amazes me is the sophistication of some white people<u+2019>s defensive maneuvers. i have a black friend who was accused of <u+201c>online harassment<u+201d> by a white friend after he called her out in a harsh way. what do you see going on there? rd: first of all, whites often confuse comfort with safety. we say we don<u+2019>t feel safe, when what we mean is that we don<u+2019>t feel<u+00a0>comfortable. secondly, no white person looks at a person of color through objective eyes. there<u+2019>s been a lot of research in this area. cross-racially, we do not see with objective eyes. now you add that he<u+2019>s a black man. it<u+2019>s not a fluke that she picked the word <u+201c>harassed.<u+201d> in doing that, she<u+2019>s reinforcing a really classic, racist paradigm: white women and black men. white women<u+2019>s frailty and black men<u+2019>s aggressiveness and danger. but even if she is feeling that, which she very well may be, we should be suspicious of our feelings in these interactions. there<u+2019>s no such thing as pure feeling. you have a feeling because you<u+2019>ve filtered the experience through a particular lens. the feeling is the outcome. it probably feels natural, but of course it<u+2019>s shaped by what you believe. sab: there<u+2019>s also the issue of <u+201c>tone-policing<u+201d> here, right? rd: yes. one of the things i try to work with white people on is letting go of our criteria about how people of color give us feedback. we have to build our stamina to just be humble and bear witness to the pain we<u+2019>ve caused. in my workshops, one of the things i like to ask white people is, <u+201c>what are the rules for how people of color should give us feedback about our racism? what are the rules, where did you get them, and whom do they serve?<u+201d> usually those questions alone make the point. it<u+2019>s like if you<u+2019>re standing on my head and i say, <u+201c>get off my head,<u+201d> and you respond, <u+201c>well, you need to tell me nicely.<u+201d> i<u+2019>d be like, <u+201c>no. fuck you. get off my fucking head.<u+201d> in the course of my work, i<u+2019>ve had many people of color give me feedback in ways that might be perceived as intense or emotional or angry. and on one level, it<u+2019>s personal<u+2014>i did do that thing that triggered the response, but at the same time it isn<u+2019>t<u+00a0>onlypersonal. i represent a lifetime of people that have hurt them in the same way that i just did. and, honestly, the fact that they are willing to show me demonstrates, on some level, that they trust me. rd: if people of color went around showing the pain they feel in every moment that they feel it, they could be killed. it is dangerous. they cannot always share their outrage about the injustice of racism. white people can<u+2019>t tolerate it. and we punish it severely<u+2014>from job loss, to violence, to murder. for them to take that risk and show us, that is a moment of trust. i say, bring it on, thank you. when i<u+2019>m doing a workshop, i<u+2019>ll often ask the people of color in the room, somewhat facetiously, <u+201c>how often have you given white people feedback about our inevitable and often unconscious racist patterns and had that go well for you?<u+201d> and they laugh. because it just doesn<u+2019>t go well. and so one time i asked, <u+201c>what would your daily life be like if you could just simply give us feedback, have us receive it graciously, reflect on it and work to change the behavior? what would your life be like?<u+201d> and this one man of color looked at me and said, <u+201c>it would be<u+00a0>revolutionary.<u+201d> sab: i notice as we<u+2019>ve been talking that you almost always use the word <u+201c>we<u+201d> when describing white people<u+2019>s tendencies. can you tell me why you do that? rd: well, for one, i<u+2019>m white (and you<u+2019>re white). and even as committed as i am, i<u+2019>m not outside of anything that i<u+2019>m talking about here. if i went around saying white people this and white people that, it would be a distancing move. i don<u+2019>t want to reinforce the idea that there are some whites who are done, and others that still need work. there<u+2019>s no being finished. plus, in my work, i<u+2019>m usually addressing white audiences, and the <u+201c>we<u+201d> diminishes defensiveness somewhat. it makes them more comfortable. they see that i<u+2019>m not just pointing fingers outward. sab: do you ever worry about re-centering whiteness? rd: well, yes. i continually struggle with that reality. by standing up there as an authority on whiteness, i<u+2019>m necessarily reinforcing my authority as a white person. it goes with the territory. for example, you<u+2019>re interviewing<u+00a0>me<u+00a0>now, on whiteness, and people of color have been saying these things for a very long time. on the one hand, i know that in many ways, white people can hear me in a way that they can<u+2019>t hear people of color. they listen. so by god, i<u+2019>m going to use my voice to challenge racism. the only alternative i can see is to not speak up and challenge racism. and that is not acceptable to me. sab: yes, and racism is something that everyone thinks they<u+2019>re an authority on. rd: that drives me crazy. i<u+2019>ll run into someone i haven<u+2019>t seen in 20 years in the grocery store, and they<u+2019>ll say, <u+201c>hi! what<u+2019>ve you been doing?<u+201d> and i say, <u+201c>i got my ph.d.<u+201d> and they say, <u+201c>oh wow, what in?<u+201d> and they<u+2019>ll go <u+201c>oh, well you know. people just need to<u+2014><u+201d> as if they<u+2019>re going to give me the one-sentence answer to arguably the most challenging social dynamic of our time. like, hey, why did i knock myself out for 20 years studying, researching, and challenging this within myself and others? i should have just come to you! and the answer is so simple! i<u+2019>ve never heard that one before! imagine if i was an astronomer. everybody has a basic understanding of the sky, but they would not debate an astronomer on astronomy. the arrogance of white people faced with questions of race is unbelievable.

america<u+2019>s white fragility complex: why white people get so defensive about their privilege

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

18.0

90.0

8.0

12106.0

0.0

4.0

10.0

0.0

908.0

1.0

0.0

189.0

4.0

0.0

183.0

36.0

27.0

14.0

35.0

23.0

28.0

11.0

47.0

58.0

73.0

918.0

190.0

187.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

(cnn) president barack obama strongly pushed back against claims that he has used anti-semitic rhetoric in criticizing those opposed to the nuclear deal with iran. "there is not a smidgen of evidence for it, other than the fact that there have been times where i've disagreed with a particular israeli government's position on a particular issue" obama said in an interview published monday with the forward , a leading jewish newspaper, adding that such charges are hurtful. obama's comments come as the obama administration is making a full-court press to sell the iran deal to the american public and prevent congress from blocking in a september vote the agreement brokered in july between iran and world power. secretary of state john kerry will deliver a major speech on the deal at the national constitution center in philadelphia on wednesday as part of that push, cnn has learned. kerry will use the speech to defend the merits of the agreement and respond to its critics, as obama has done in several speeches and interviews since the deal was finalized. federica mogherini, foreign policy chief for the european union, has been representing the europeans in nuclear talks with iran. federica mogherini, foreign policy chief for the european union, has been representing the europeans in nuclear talks with iran. wendy sherman has been a key u.s. negotiator in the iran talks. she is the under secretary of state for political affairs. wendy sherman has been a key u.s. negotiator in the iran talks. she is the under secretary of state for political affairs. kerry, second from left, meets iranian foreign minister mohammad javad zarif, second from right, for talks in lausanne, switzerland, on monday, march 16. at the far left is u.s. secretary of energy ernest moniz. at the far right is ali akbar salehi, head of iran's atomic energy organization. kerry, second from left, meets iranian foreign minister mohammad javad zarif, second from right, for talks in lausanne, switzerland, on monday, march 16. at the far left is u.s. secretary of energy ernest moniz. at the far right is ali akbar salehi, head of iran's atomic energy organization. u.s. secretary of state john kerry has been spearheading negotiations on a possible deal to rein in iran's nuclear program. u.s. secretary of state john kerry has been spearheading negotiations on a possible deal to rein in iran's nuclear program. after arduous talks that spanned 20 months, negotiators reached a landmark deal aimed at reining in iran's nuclear program, announced on july 14. from left, european union high representative for foreign affairs and security policy federica mogherini, iranian foreign minister mohammad javad zarif, head of the iranian atomic energy organization ali akbar salehi, russian foreign minister sergey lavrov, british foreign secretary philip hammond and u.s. secretary of state john kerry pose for a group picture at the united nations building in vienna on july 14. after arduous talks that spanned 20 months, negotiators reached a landmark deal aimed at reining in iran's nuclear program, announced on july 14. from left, european union high representative for foreign affairs and security policy federica mogherini, iranian foreign minister mohammad javad zarif, head of the iranian atomic energy organization ali akbar salehi, russian foreign minister sergey lavrov, british foreign secretary philip hammond and u.s. secretary of state john kerry pose for a group picture at the united nations building in vienna on july 14. the obama administration's strongly worded defense of the nuclear deal and its attacks on those opposed to the deal has concerned some prominent members of the american jewish community, who have worried aloud that the administration's rhetoric could fuel anti-semitic stereotypes. at issue are obama and his top surrogates' claims that opponents of the deal are going to precipitate a war with iran, and that their opposition has come from a well-funded lobbying campaign -- a campaign rooted in the american jewish community and other pro-israel circles. some critics of the deal have gone even further in linking obama's iran deal to anti-semitism, as 2016 gop presidential candidate ben carson did while discussing the agreement in light of iran's threats to israel. "anything is anti-semitic that is against the survival of a state that is surrounded by enemies and people who want to destroy them," he told fox news in mid-august. "to sort of ignore that and to act like everything is normal there and these people are paranoid, i think that's anti-semitic." obama has rejected that premise, and insisted in his interview with the forward that "if you care deeply about israel, then you have an obligation to be honest about what you think, the same way you would with any friend." "and we don't do anybody, any friend, a service by just rubber-stamping whatever decisions they make, even if we think that they're damaging in some fashion," obama added. beyond the heated rhetoric, critics have recently homed in on elements of the deal that they say do not hold up to the test of scrutiny. but kerry, during an interview with cnn in anchorage, alaska, ahead of a conference of arctic nations, pushed back on the notion that the iranians would be able to self-inspect at parchin, as republicans in congress have alleged. "we are satisfied that we will be able to have a process which can get us the answers," kerry said. "if they are not accountable in the way that we expect them to be with appropriate access then they would be in material breach of the agreement and subject to any and all options available to the united states." kerry flew to anchorage to help deliver president barack obama's message on climate change to foreign ministers gathered in alaska for this week's glacier conference. "we still have time to pull back from the total precipice of absolute catastrophe that threatens life itself on the planet providing that we do the things that the president and others are talking about," kerry said. the secretary of state added that global warming skeptics in the republican party like donald trump and ted cruz should travel to alaska to see the impacts of climate change first hand. "ask any alaskan. i think people in alaska will tell donald trump and tell ted cruz it's happening. and all they have to do is come here and open their minds and their eyes and their ears and listen, look. and they will see the impacts of what is happening," kerry said. kerry denied the administration is guilty of climate hypocrisy after its recent approval of shell's application to begin oil and natural gas drilling in the arctic. he also stated that he will not punt a decision on the controversial keystone xl pipeline to the next administration, but he declined to signal how soon a decision might come.

obama says charges he's anti-semitic are hurtful

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

48.0

8.0

6876.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

504.0

1.0

0.0

124.0

1.0

0.0

56.0

11.0

12.0

6.0

13.0

7.0

10.0

6.0

19.0

22.0

36.0

507.0

125.0

57.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

rochester, mich.<u+2014>appearing in liberal philadelphia, hillary clinton told a campaign crowd that corporations have too much clout. in conservative kentucky, she lauded her husband<u+2019>s record in office while avoiding any mention of the locally unpopular current white house resident, president barack obama. mrs. clinton is back on the campaign trail after a six-year hiatus, aiming to rouse democratic voters who don<u+2019>t typically show up for midterm elections. in the course of trying to help her party<u+2019>s candidates, she is also...

on midterm trail, hillary clinton tests themes for possible 2016 run

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

68.0

8.0

527.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

43.0

1.0

0.0

9.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

4.0

2.0

5.0

49.0

10.0

2.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the united states kept up its breakneck pace of hiring in january, adding 257,000 jobs as workers received wage increases unseen since the financial crisis, according to government data released friday morning. the unemployment rate ticked up by one-tenth of a point, to 5.7 percent, largely because so many people <u+2014> nearly 1.1 million <u+2014> entered the workforce, some coming off the sidelines after years of discouragement. the latest data indicates a fully firing labor market that has become the engine for the american recovery. the united states has added jobs over the last year at its steadiest pace in two decades, and january offered fresh evidence that employers are now willing to raise wages and compete for workers. <u+201c>we<u+2019>re finally getting to that point where a self-sustaining recovery is going on,<u+201d> said jeremy lawson, chief economist at standard life investments, an asset management firm. the u.s. labor market has expanded quickly enough in the last year that president obama recently called 2014 a <u+201c>breakthrough year in america.<u+201d> and as it turns out, 2014 just got even better. as part of the latest data from the department of labor, net jobs growth figures from november and december were significantly revised upward. november<u+2019>s net jobs gain now stands at a whopping 423,000, up from the previous 353,000, the biggest one-month gain since 2010. the november through january stretch qualifies as the nation<u+2019>s best three-month stretch of jobs growth in 17 years. the monthly jobs data can be volatile, particularly in january, when government economists try to calculate seasonally adjusted hiring growth amid the layoffs of holiday workers. u.s. stocks were up and the dollar strengthened friday morning on the jobs news, which slightly exceeded market expectations. perhaps the best sign in the jobs report wasn't the net payroll gain <u+2014> the figure has topped 200,000 for 11 months in a row <u+2014> but rather the nascent sign of rising salaries. the average hourly worker saw a 12-cent-per-hour raise in january, the best one-month increase since 2007. since the great recession, real wages have remained stagnant, but this is slowly beginning to change. over the last year, wages have risen 2.2 percent. meantime, consumer prices are seeing inflation below 1 percent, largely because cheaper oil has caused gasoline prices to plummet. "when i look at this report, i see a confident economy," department of labor secretary thomas e. perez said friday in an interview. "companies that are bullish. new job-seekers who are more optimistic. and when you factor low gas prices and wage growth, that adds up to money in people<u+2019>s pockets, a greater hop in their step." the january wage numbers were being closely watched, because wages had taken a slight step backward in december. real wages are an important indicator for labor market health, as they rise when more workers leave the sideline and companies feel pressure to compete for employees. some economists caution about reading too much into one month<u+2019>s salary data and say only sustained wage growth will help the country fill one of the missing pieces of the recovery. <u+201c>earnings are increasing, but the rates of real wage growth suggest that more must be done to ensure that all families can feel the strengthening recovery in their own lives,<u+201d> jason furman, chairman of the white house<u+2019>s council of economic advisers, said in a statement. for the federal reserve, this report offered perhaps the strongest evidence yet encouraging a short-term rate hike in the middle of this year <u+2014> even as inflation falls below the central bank<u+2019>s target. <u+201c>the pick-up in average hourly earnings gains was a belated christmas present,<u+201d> scott anderson, chief economist at bank of the west, said in an e-mail. <u+201c>it should help the fed look past a temporary drop in inflation this year and keep their eye on gradually normalizing interest rates.<u+201d> in january, jobs growth was broad-based. the health-care and retail sectors were again strong, as they<u+2019>ve been throughout the recovery. but so, too, were construction (with 39,000 jobs added) and professional and technical services (33,000 jobs added). for months now, the u.s. economy has looked like the strongest in the developed world. but the recovery here came with a mystery: some prime-aged workers were sitting on the sideline, unmoved to again begin actively seeking work. that meant they weren<u+2019>t counted as unemployed. it also left the u.s. economy below its full potential. january<u+2019>s data showed at least some evidence that these workers are again looking for work. the labor force participation rate <u+2014> which tracks the proportion of americans holding or seeking a job <u+2014> nudged up from 62.7 to 62.9 percent. that number looks small, but it was caused by a wave of new entrants <u+2014> some 1.05 million, roughly the population of rhode island. the labor force participation rate is still at its lowest point since the 1970s, but some of that decline is demographic, the result of a retiring wave of baby boomers. the key for the labor force, economists say, is encouraging frustrated middle-aged potential employees to resume their job searches, even if it requires new training or skills. <u+201c>there is this drumbeat <u+2014> we<u+2019>re seeing more and more jobs in a wide range of different occupations and industries,<u+201d> said tara sinclair, chief economist at indeed.com, a job search web site. <u+201c>hopefully that will attract these people to get the necessary skills and jobs.<u+201d>

u.s. added 257k jobs in january; unemployment ticks up to 5.7 percent

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

69.0

8.0

5479.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

331.0

0.0

95.0

0.0

23.0

6.0

16.0

2.0

9.0

13.0

6.0

23.0

22.0

38.0

334.0

95.0

23.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

during the 1864 presidential race between abraham lincoln and george mcclellan, the new york times published an article that contained this sentence: "we have had many important elections, but never one so important as that now approaching." though there may have been some truth in this claim, three years into the civil war means the times was probably one election too late. in any event, every candidate or publication that's made comparable declarations since that time regarding the presidential contest being the "most important" election of their "lifetime" or their "generation" or "in history" or "ever" is completely full of it. that goes for gerald ford, who in a debate against jimmy carter claimed that the 1976 election was "one of the most vital in the history of america." as it turns out, that was a contest between an accidental president and a highly ineffectual future president. and it wasn't even the most important election carter would participate in. it also goes for walter mondale, who in 1984 told a crowd, "this is the most important election of our lives." (ronald reagan lost a single state to mondale, and the outcome was never really in doubt.) it goes for john kerry, who in 2004 said, "my fellow americans, this is the most important election of our lifetime." it goes for joe biden and barack obama, both of whom claimed that 2008 was "the most important election in my lifetime." it goes for newt gingrich, who said it in 2012. it goes also for the media that acted as if what they said were true. it certainly goes for hillary clinton and donald trump, neither of whom possess the requisite talent, vision or charisma needed to destroy this country in a mere four years. yet on tuesday in dade city, florida, clinton finally stated what many in her party (from the president to students to 96-year-old roger angell) have been saying for months: "i believe this may be the most important election of our lifetimes." for her, yes. for the rest of us, not so much. judging from the histrionic rhetoric we hear daily, most people believe this is the most important election ever. did you see the meltdown leftist media had after clinton's ethical tribulations again threatened her chances at the white house? you'd think attacking clinton were tantamount to attacking the very foundations of "democracy." partisans always seem to believe that everything that happens to them right now, at this very moment, is the most important thing that has ever happened or will ever happen to humanity. yes, government's increasing involvement in the economic and moral lives of citizens has made political stakes high. it's true that 2016 features the two suckiest candidates probably ever. it's also true that our collective vision of the american project has frayed, perhaps beyond repair. with the intense scrutiny of contemporary political coverage, more people are invested in the daily grind of elections, which intensifies the sting of losing. this anger compounds every cycle (although winning brings its own disappointment with its unfulfilled promises). that's not to say our constitutional republic isn't slowly dying. it probably is. this condition isn't contingent on an election's outcome but on widespread problems with our institutions, politics and voters. whatever you believe the future of governance should look like, one election is not going make or break it. in fact, when it comes to policy, it's far more likely that very little will change over the next four years<u+2014>perhaps even less than changed with the election of obama, who had two years of one-party rule before republicans took back congress. last year, bloomberg businessweek ran a column headlined "why 2016 may be the most important election of our lifetime." like many other similar pieces, it argues that as our politics become more polarized our elections become correspondingly more significant. but our growing divide might be exactly why 2016 turns out to be one of the least important elections in our lifetime. if providence (or dumb luck) takes mercy on the constitution, washington d.c.'s gridlock<u+2014>an organic reflection of the nation's disposition<u+2014>will remain the status quo. actually, what am i talking about? that's exactly what the constitution was built to do in a divided nation. the situation will render the next president weaker than most and somewhat contain his or her authoritarianism and poor judgment. this kind of frustrating environment is likely to cause more recrimination and, unfortunately, abuses of power that are meant to circumvent the congestion. still, overall, it's better than partisan unilateralism. the situation will not change until we find competent people to put into the white house or politicians with ideas that have some crossover appeal. that time is not now. of course, none of this is to completely diminish the importance of the presidential election. obviously, voters are making a decision about the future of governance. judges are at stake. foreign policy is made. there are consequences. but if the republic can't survive a bad executive, then it's already dead.

this is the least important election of our lifetimes

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

5140.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

419.0

2.0

0.0

83.0

0.0

53.0

12.0

15.0

11.0

9.0

14.0

10.0

23.0

26.0

36.0

427.0

85.0

53.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

bill o<u+2019>reilly responded to a mother jones story accusing him of making false claims about his reporting on the falklands war by calling its author a liar. the fox news host told me in an interview that he has always accurately described what happened during that period and that david corn, washington bureau chief of the left-wing magazine, <u+201c>is a liar, a smear merchant, and will do anything he can to injure me and the network. everybody knows that. everything i<u+2019>ve reported about my journalistic career is true.<u+201d> corn, who is also an msnbc contributor, said last night that he had tried repeatedly, through e-mails and voice mails, to obtain comment from o<u+2019>reilly or fox. <u+201c>i<u+2019>d never speak to him,<u+201d> o<u+2019>reilly said. the crux of the story involves o<u+2019>reilly<u+2019>s role as a cbs correspondent in the 1982 shooting war between britain and argentina over the disputed islands. referring to the press corps, o<u+2019>reilly told me: <u+201c>nobody was on the falklands and i never said i was on the island, ever.<u+201d> corn was a fox news contributor, from 2001 to 2008, whose contract was not renewed. the adversarial tone of the story he co-authored is telegraphed in the headline: <u+201c>bill o<u+2019>reilly has his own brian williams problem.<u+201d> that clearly accuses o<u+2019>reilly of telling lies on par with the false tale that prompted nbc to impose a six-month suspension on williams, who had to apologize for claiming that he was on a helicopter hit by a rocket-propelled grenade over iraq in 2003. and yet the mother jones piece appears to turn on semantics, not some specific story that o<u+2019>reilly told about being in the falklands. among the examples cited: --in a 2001 book, o<u+2019>reilly said: <u+201c>i've reported on the ground in active war zones from el salvador to the falklands." --in a washington panel discussion, o<u+2019>reilly said: <u+201c>i've covered wars, okay? i've been there. the falklands, northern ireland, the middle east. i've almost been killed three times, okay.<u+201d> --in a 2004 column, o<u+2019>reilly wrote: <u+201c>having survived a combat situation in argentina during the falklands war, i know that life-and-death decisions are made in a flash." but that reference<u+2014>o<u+2019>reilly saying he was <u+201c>in argentina<u+201d>--undercuts the thrust of the story, that he claimed to have covered the falklands combat. the same phrase, <u+201c>in argentina,<u+201d> also appears in some 2013 comments by o<u+2019>reilly cited by corn: <u+201c>i was in a situation one time, in a war zone in argentina, in the falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. and the army was chasing us. i had to make a decision. and i dragged him off<u+2026><u+201d> in the interview, o<u+2019>reilly described the scene in buenos aires in the aftermath of the hostilities in the falklands: <u+201c>thousands took to the streets. hundreds of troops surrounded the presidential palace. i was in the middle of that. a reporter was shot in the legs. people were throwing rocks, bricks, some had guns.<u+201d> so the dispute comes down to o<u+2019>reilly<u+2019>s shorthand use of the falklands and the term <u+201c>war zone.<u+201d> corn, who gained public attention when he obtained the mitt romney <u+201c>47 percent<u+201d> tape during the 2012 campaign, defended his focus on o<u+2019>reilly<u+2019>s language. <u+201c>he covered a protest,<u+201d> corn said. <u+201c>it might be a minor point, but the war was over. if mr. o<u+2019>reilly wanted to make that case, he certainly could have. i would have gladly put it in the story. instead of responding to the substance, he<u+2019>s out there just calling names.<u+201d> but corn<u+2019>s own piece largely backs up o<u+2019>reilly<u+2019>s account of the dangerous situation, except for o'reilly's recollection that there were fatalities: <u+201c>dispatches on the protest filed by reporters from the<u+00a0>new york times, the<u+00a0>miami herald, and upi note that thousands did take to the street, setting fires, breaking store windows, and that riot police did battle with protesters who threw rocks and sticks. they say tear gas was deployed; police clubbed people with nightsticks and fired rubber bullets; reporters were assaulted by demonstrators and by police; and a photojournalist was wounded in the legs by gunfire.<u+201d> that<u+2019>s a far cry from a bogus claim of having been shot down in a helicopter, the explicit comparison made by the headline. o<u+2019>reilly said the material he gathered for cbs led dan rather<u+2019>s newscast and he received internal praise for his reporting. he called the mother jones story <u+201c>total bull--.<u+201d> <u+201c>there is not any way anyone on earth could say i said i was on the falkland islands,<u+201d> o<u+2019>reilly said. 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.

o<u+2019>reilly denounces mother jones story on his war reporting

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

4706.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

305.0

2.0

0.0

109.0

0.0

19.0

14.0

9.0

5.0

18.0

4.0

11.0

2.0

14.0

25.0

21.0

308.0

111.0

19.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

a verdict in 2017 could have sweeping consequences for tech startups.

activists bristle at clinton fundraising

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

69.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

9.0

0.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

a lot of people i speak to who aren't deeply involved in american politics are a little confused about what, exactly, is up with the house republicans these days. why did kevin mccarthy remove himself from the running for speaker without even having a vote? and if the problem with mccarthy is that he wasn't conservative enough, why are people talking about paul ryan <u+2014> who isn't any more conservative than mccarthy <u+2014> as possibly being able to step into the breach? what, in other words, is actually going on? it's awkward for the media because a key element of the story is a wild allegation for which nobody in journalism seems to have any evidence. but it's clear at this point that the rumors <u+2014> whether or not they are true <u+2014> have started to play an important role in big-picture american politics. so here goes. people are saying that mccarthy, who is married, is (or was in the past) having an affair with renee ellmers, a married republican member of congress from north carolina. mccarthy's opponents on the right helped shove him out of the race by threatening to elevate this rumor from capitol hill gossip to national news. this explains why he bowed out without insisting on a vote, and it also explains why people think a person with mccarthy-like views might be able to squeak in. i have no idea, and nobody else seems to either. it's obviously in neither party's interest to admit it if it is true, but it's also not the kind of thing they would easily be able to disprove if it weren't true. but politico's team of congressional correspondents reports that ellmers has thanked colleagues for their "prayers and support," and earlier this week her lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter to gotnews, the website that originally published the rumors, calling them defamatory. nobody thinks the alleged affair is the actual reason<u+00a0>mccarthy faced opposition in his quest for the speaker's gavel. rather, the affair seems to be a tool that his enemies inside the caucus and in the larger movement used against him. it's a tool that works on two levels: the affair allegations matter, in other words, because they raise the possibility that the freedom caucus doesn't actually have the votes necessary to block an establishment-friendly choice for speaker from obtaining the 218 votes needed to take over. it's possible that the affair allegations were a crucial difference maker <u+2014> either in driving a few votes away from mccarthy or in driving him from the field even though he had 218 supporters <u+2014> and that paul ryan or some other figure could unite the party without saying or doing anything substantively different from what mccarthy has done.

the affair allegations that derailed kevin mccarthy's quest for the speakership, explained

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

90.0

8.0

2664.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

183.0

2.0

0.0

59.0

0.0

35.0

10.0

6.0

4.0

3.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

11.0

14.0

13.0

189.0

61.0

35.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

but 25 days before the election, trump's path to the 270 electoral votes needed to capture the presidency is looking more and more impossible by the day, as states he once said he'd flip from blue to red increasingly slip out of his reach. meanwhile, reliably red states threaten to turn purple. trump's odds of a win were spiraling downward days before the 2005 "access hollywood" recording that surfaced last week and depicted him bragging about his ability to grope women as a perk of his celebrity. since then, his support has collapsed -- particularly among women. a new nbc/wall street journal poll showed clinton with a 9-point lead and a new national fox poll released thursday night that had clinton at 45% and trump at 38% in a four-way race. in the most stunning development of the week, trump and clinton were tied at 26% in ruby-red utah, with virtually unknown independent candidate evan mcmullin closing in on third place with 22%, according to a survey from y2 analytics. "he's at a point where he's trying to draw an inside straight now by campaigning primarily in florida, pennsylvania, ohio and north carolina," said veteran gop pollster whit ayres. "he is well behind in pennsylvania; he appears according to the latest polls to be effectively tied in north carolina and ohio; and he's behind in florida." "donald trump said he would put new states in play," ayres said, but he noted wryly that he never thought they would be the red states of utah, arizona and georgia. clinton's campaign has already invested resources in arizona and is marshaling forces in georgia as they eye ways to expand the map for down-ballot races. and this is before allegations this week from a growing number of women who have accused him of unwanted sexual advances. trump has vehemently denied those accusations, and there is no data yet to gauge whether he will suffer further fallout in the polls, but it's another issue that has knocked trump off-message with time running down before election day. "the map looked strong for clinton at the start of this race and it's looking even stronger for her toward the end of it," ayres said. "if a landslide is winning in the electoral college by more than 100 votes, clinton is on track to do that now." because of democrats' advantage in the electoral college, trump's path to the white house relied not only on keeping all the states that mitt romney won in 2012, but also seizing democratic turf in states like pennsylvania. clinton held a 9-point lead in pennsylvania, according to a new bloomberg politics poll released thursday. most striking was her lead in the philadelphia suburbs -- the place where many strategists believe this race will be won or lost. a startling 56% of suburban philadelphia voters said they were supporting clinton, compared to 28% for trump. what female voters in philly suburbs really think even if trump were to win the mighty battleground states of north carolina (where clinton currently has a 4-point lead), ohio, nevada and florida, he would still fall short of the 270 electoral votes that he needs to win. that means he would have to make up ground in pennsylvania, michigan or wisconsin -- all states where he is trailing far behind her, according to new polls. democrats have long been confident about their ability to win colorado, where both trump and clinton visited recently and they are increasingly bullish about their chances in nevada, another state clinton hit this week. in another blow to trump's campaign on thursday, republican sources confirmed that trump was pulling his resources from virginia, a state that has seen a huge influx in the number of foreign-born citizens and large growth among asians, who have increasingly tilted toward democrats in recent years. because of demographic changes in arizona and georgia, those two states appear to be closer this year than in 2012 when romney won them comfortably. democrats had already made inroads with the large african-american population in georgia, and been buoyed by the growing hispanic population in that state. but clinton has also shown particular strength this cycle among college-educated white women voters in the suburbs of atlanta. while campaigning in colorado this week, clinton urged her supporters to get their friends out to vote in utah and arizona. "we are competing everywhere, and the polls are tightening because i think americans want a turnout in as big a number as possible to reject the dark and divisive and hateful campaign that is being run by my opponent." many republican strategists still expect trump to hold on in utah and arizona, even if he loses the race. but democrats believe they are laying the groundwork for 2020 and beyond. "in the same way president obama helped build up registration in the african american community and among millennials, donald trump is offering new opportunities for democrats to make gains," said bill burton, a former obama adviser. burton noted that in california, for example, registration among latinos has grown exponentially, "and you're seeing that trend across the country. it's opening doors that wouldn't otherwise be open.... donald trump is inspiring a whole new generation of voters to go out and get registered, and get engaged, it's really helping democrats build up our network."

donald trump is running out of ways to win

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

5325.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

343.0

0.0

98.0

0.0

32.0

12.0

16.0

5.0

10.0

8.0

11.0

8.0

19.0

20.0

31.0

346.0

98.0

32.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

"they're getting more and more desperate. they need to relax a little bit. you know, it's just an election, a campaign. it's like they're freaking out. calm down, bush people. it's not that serious," he told cnn's john berman and kate bolduan tuesday on cnn's "at this hour." kasich, who has staked his hopes a good finish in tuesday's new hampshire primary, said millions have been spent against him by supporters of his opponents, including bush. but the ohio governor said he is confident that he will do well in the granite state despite the recent negative ad blitz. "it's a shame when you see people take the low road to the highest office in the land. but i've decided not to do it," he said. "we feel the momentum. and we'll see what happens. and we'll live with the results. but there will be no regrets in the kasich campaign for all the work we've put in, the positivity of all of it." kasich said he plans on heading to south carolina following tuesday's results. "we're going to be changing some snowshoes for some flip-flops and we're going to go from fried clams to jambalaya," he said.

kasich: bush's campaign is 'freaking out'

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

41.0

8.0

1105.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

76.0

0.0

28.0

0.0

17.0

0.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

6.0

8.0

81.0

28.0

17.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

americans love to complain about their polarized politics. and why not? it<u+2019>s the root of congressional stalemates that keep us from dealing with all the important issues of our time, from illegal immigration to bankrupt entitlement programs and government debt <u+2014> not to mention the waves of hot air that blow over us from cable news talk programs. but is polarization really such a bad thing? political polarization impedes steps necessary to solve mounting national problems. these problems include rising levels of government debt; illegal immigration; spending on entitlement programs; the deterioration of america<u+2019>s roads, bridges, railways and airports; the impending failure of employee pension systems; and lackluster economic growth, not to mention various pressing international issues. if the two parties cannot compromise to address these issues, then they will gradually grow to a point of crisis, at which point it may be too late to do very much about them. political polarization between the two parties has grown to a point that americans have not seen since the 1890s, and perhaps not since the 1850s when the nation was in the process of coming apart over the slavery issue. scholars have found that republican voters and officeholders have become much more conservative since the 1970s while democrats have grown increasingly liberal. from the late 1930s into the 1960s, roughly half the members of the house and senate were <u+201c>moderates<u+201d> as measured by their voting records. the parties had not yet separated into rival ideological camps. today less than 10 percent of the members of congress can be called moderates on a liberal-conservative scale. by the same process, the ideological distance between democrats and republicans has increased year by year. students of public opinion have observed a similar pattern among voters: they are now sharply polarized, express strong dislike for the opposing party and its voters, and do not trust the government to enact policies in the public interest. there was a time in america when parents feared that a son or daughter might marry someone of a different religious faith; today, they tend to worry more that a child might marry someone of a different political faith. in addition, the various states in the union have moved in opposite political directions, some becoming havens for democrats and others for republicans. it would be easy to point to other measures of increased polarization. a polarized and distrustful political system will never yield the compromises needed to address the serious problems the country is now facing. it is true that president barack obama achieved some victories in this polarized environment, but at a high cost to his popularity and the democratic party<u+2019>s standing in congress. in addition, some of his signal achievements <u+2014> such as his health care bill and the nuclear treaty with iran <u+2014> will be reversed as soon as a republican president is elected. it is hard to know exactly what has caused political polarization. to some extent, people <u+201c>vote with their feet<u+201d> and gradually separate into different jurisdictions based upon political views and lifestyle preferences. this process is aided by technology that allows citizens to communicate only to those already in agreement. over time in any political system the rival <u+201c>teams<u+201d> will accumulate grievances against one another to the point where they lose any interest in communicating across party lines. this happened in the 1850s: we know what happened as a consequence of that development. things are not going to get that bad in america this time around, but they could get plenty bad if and when we have another serious recession or the stock market loses 30 percent or 40 percent of its value. sadly, it appears that as a nation we are no longer capable of making preparations for such events. james piereson is a senior fellow at the manhattan institute. he wrote this for insidesources.com. reach him at [email protected]. three weeks before halloween in 2002, the chambers of congress considered house joint resolution 114. if it passed, that meant then-president george w. bush would be permitted to <u+201c>use the armed forces of the united states as he determines and appropriate<u+201d> against iraq. a total of 296 members of the house of representatives voted for the resolution; 77 members of the senate voted yes. that meant 68 percent of the house voted for a u.s. war against iraq, and 77 percent of the senate voted likewise. the vote also meant hillary clinton and chuck schumer, new york senators, had much in common with mitch mcconnell, a senator from kentucky, and social conservative rick santorum, then a senator from pennsylvania. two liberal democrats: clinton and schumer. two conservative republicans: mcconnell and santorum. however on oct. 10 and 11, 2002, that foursome all voted the same. they answered <u+201c>aye<u+201d> in support of bush<u+2019>s war to eradicate saddam hussein<u+2019>s supposed stash of <u+201c>weapons of mass destruction.<u+201d> however, suppose that fearsome foursome and other rivals didn<u+2019>t jump into the same bed. then, perhaps the u.s. wouldn<u+2019>t have launched a complicated and protracted war that ultimately became a widely unpopular conflict in a foreign land. a vietnam 2.0, in retrospect. perhaps, instead of congressional bipartisanship (i.e. legislative kumbaya), political polarization was needed to prevent the loss of 4,486 u.s. soldiers in iraq, 2,345 in afghanistan, with 1 million wounded, all at a cost of potentially $6 trillion. history has shown us that political polarization can be a positive tool when influencing and assessing the well-being of americans. said stanford university political science professor david w. brady: <u+201c>the u.s. congress was polarized in the civil war era and in the new deal era and it was via polarized voting that got the 13, 14 and 15 amendments passed. ... in the new deal era, it was polarized voting that passed all of the legislation that makes up the modern welfare state <u+2014> social security, wpa (works progress administration), unemployment compensation. if you believe this was good legislation, then you believe that sometimes polarized voting does good things.<u+201d> the 13th amendment abolished slavery, the 14th amendment granted citizenship to <u+201c>all persons born or naturalized in the united states,<u+201d> which included former slaves recently freed, and the 15th amendment prohibits federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen<u+2019>s <u+201c>race, color or previous condition of servitude.<u+201d> most of us assuredly support the positive ramifications of social security and unemployment compensation legislation. just ask anyone who is retired and/or unemployed. political polarization also is a surefire way to induce passion among the voting ranks. just examine the fan fervor that follows every step taken by bernie sanders and donald trump and hillary clinton and ben carson. that fervor likely will translate into huge numbers at the primaries and polls come 2016. we see a clear line of demarcation among our republican and democratic and independent presidential candidates, as well as their supporters. no ambiguity. no indifference. no waffling. but we do see heightened passion and intense debate. that<u+2019>s political polarization at its best. not its worst. gregory clay is a washington columnist and a former editor for mcclatchy-tribune news service. he wrote this for insidesources.com. follow him on twitter at @gregory_clay.

point-counterpoint: is political polarization really such a bad thing? | commentary

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

83.0

8.0

7537.0

0.0

9.0

0.0

558.0

0.0

115.0

1.0

0.0

72.0

20.0

18.0

13.0

22.0

17.0

20.0

8.0

26.0

34.0

45.0

567.0

115.0

73.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

if there<u+2019>s one message the republican presidential candidates not named donald trump aimed to get across at the final debate before iowa<u+2019>s caucuses, it was this: 50 states still have to vote, and a lot could change when they do. <u+201c>we're just starting. the first vote hasn't been counted. why don't we let the process work?<u+201d> jeb bush said in des moines. the gop contenders are barnstorming the hawkeye state friday on the heels of the fox news/google debate, where trump<u+2019>s absence put a spotlight on candidates like ted cruz and marco rubio <u+2013> but also gave the race<u+2019>s underdogs a chance to engage on the issues, and even capture airtime that eluded them when the front-runner was onstage. bush and kentucky sen. rand paul, in particular, were getting high marks friday from analysts. the former florida governor was seen as having one of his best debate performances of the campaign -- including pointed criticism of his former prot<u+00e9>g<u+00e9> rubio -- perhaps benefiting from not having to worry about trump belittling his every comment. and paul, after missing the cut in the last debate, returned to the main stage with a firm critique of his rivals<u+2019> alleged inconsistencies on immigration, surveillance and more. in iowa, those candidates may simply be too far behind in the polls for a strong debate showing to make much difference. but the night helped show that few candidates are conceding anything to front-runner trump, or the other two top-polling candidates, cruz and rubio. asked friday if he changed any minds at the debate, bush said, <u+201c>i hope so.<u+201d> new jersey gov. chris christie, too, played the role thursday of disenchanted washington outsider, scolding the florida and texas senators after an immigration spat and quipping that he needed a washington <u+201c>dictionary<u+201d> to decipher what they were saying. "this is why you need to send someone outside of washington to washington," christie said. "stop the washington bull and let's get things done." with trump out of the picture <u+2013> boycotting the debate over complaints about fox news, instead hosting a veterans event nearby <u+2013> cruz absorbed much of the criticism from the other gop candidates. he and rubio tangled the most, as rubio tries to make up ground against cruz in both iowa and new hampshire. in their most heated exchange, rubio accused cruz of falsely describing himself as the most conservative candidate, and changing his position on immigration. <u+201c>this is the lie that ted<u+2019>s campaign is built on,<u+201d> the florida senator said. <u+201c>throughout this campaign, you<u+2019>ve been willing to say and do anything in order to get votes.<u+201d> he said cruz used to talk about bringing immigrants out of the shadows, and, <u+201c>now, you want to trump trump on immigration.<u+201d> the texas senator flipped the allegation, saying it is rubio who vowed to fight against <u+201c>amnesty<u+201d> and then reversed course for political expediency. <u+201c>i like marco, he<u+2019>s very charming, he<u+2019>s very smooth,<u+201d> cruz said, before accusing him of siding with donors in the immigration debate. bush later sparred as well with rubio on immigration. bush said rubio sponsored the <u+201c>gang of eight<u+201d> bill that allowed for legalization, but <u+201c>then he cut and run<u+201d> because it wasn<u+2019>t popular with conservatives. the debate marked a particular opportunity for paul <u+2013> who did not qualify for the recent fox business network debate but returned to the prime-time stage thursday after making the cut this time. "it's great to be back," paul said thursday. paul, despite struggling with low poll numbers, seemed to have plenty of supporters in the audience, as his responses drew applause from the crowd several times. he also took shots at both cruz and rubio on their records. echoing cruz' criticism, he said rubio made a deal with democrats on immigration and suggested he was weak on border security. at the same time, paul suggested cruz was being disingenuous by claiming he was never for "amnesty." he said cruz has an "authenticity problem." the debate thursday, with 12.5 million viewers, was the second-highest rated telecast in fox news<u+2019> history. also on stage thursday night were retired neurosurgeon ben carson and ohio gov. john kasich. carson<u+2019>s standout moment seemed to come at the end of the debate, when he used his closing statement to recite the preamble to the u.s. constitution. <u+201c>please think of our founding fathers as you listen,<u+201d> carson asked. after reading aloud the preamble -- including its call for a <u+201c>more perfect union<u+201d> <u+2013> he said, <u+201c>folks, it<u+2019>s not too late. enough said.<u+201d> the polls in the hawkeye state show essentially a two-man race for first between trump and cruz in the final stretch. rubio has been holding steady in third position, while carson<u+2019>s numbers have been on a downward course in recent weeks. after iowa, the candidates head to new hampshire, where trump also leads but several other candidates are jockeying for position behind him.

republicans barnstorm iowa after debate, as underdogs show new 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

2.0

67.0

8.0

4892.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

332.0

0.0

108.0

0.0

35.0

10.0

11.0

3.0

12.0

7.0

8.0

16.0

21.0

26.0

335.0

108.0

35.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the latest version of adobe flash player is required to watch this video. please click on the link below to download the latest version. thanks! washington -- on tuesday, the u.s. supreme court hears obergefell vs. hodges, a combination of four cases concerning the matter of same-sex marriage. the high court is dedicating two-and-a-half-hours to this monumental case, not the usual one hour. "the only thing before the supreme court is will they force all states to have same-sex marriage?" regent university law professor brad jacob told cbn news. the stakes couldn't be higher, with the high court possibly determining the very nature of marriage. cbn news' paul strand shows us the sometimes unique sights one sees when thousands of same-sex marriage advocates and traditional marriage advocates fill the supreme court plaza at the same time. watch below: jacob said gays and their allies see marriage as an institution that brings with it certain, exclusive benefits. "and they look at that and say, 'it's just discrimination to not allow a couple that consist of two men or two women to have that same privilege of having that kind of relationship,'" jacob explained. "the judges who say, 'this is just about admitting everybody to a relationship that already exists,' they're going to say, 'yes, the states cannot deny that to people just because they're gay,'" he said. to hear audio of the arguments on same-sex marriage before the supreme court today click here. the case is obergefell v. hodges, questions one and two. <u+00a0> traditional marriage advocates see it as the ages-old sanctioning and blessing of men and women uniting, producing children and giving them a mother and a father. ryan anderson is a leading traditional marriage advocate with the heritage foundation said. "the state's in the marriage business because the union of a man and a woman can produce a child. and a child deserves a mother and a father," he said. "marriage is not just two people making a commitment to love one another," jacob said as he described the beliefs of traditional marriage advocates. "it's an institution that's been around for millennia that involves a husband and a wife in a complementary way that can lead to the procreation of children and the core family unit as the building block for all of our society," he explained. on the other hand, anderson suggested, "same-sex marriage sends a signal that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, and therefore mothers and fathers are replaceable.<u+00a0> it'll be very hard to say that fathers are essential if the law has redefined marriage to say fathers are optional." do the people rule or judges? another huge issue: should citizens and the states decide this most fundamental matter or federal courts? "the supreme court case is going to determine whether or not citizens or judges get to define what marriage is in the 50 states," anderson explained. jacob stated, "traditionally, family law including marriage has been state law. it's been primarily something that states controlled in their sovereignty." cathy ruse, of the family research council, added, "and the law in this case is clear: states have always had authority to make marriage policy decisions. so the question before the justices is, 'do we now take that away from states?'" "so this is a really big constitutional question concerning the powers of the federal government and the state government," jacob explained. anderson stated, "historically, the citizens and our elected representatives got to make marriage policy. now we have the chance that nine unelected judges are going to redefine marriage for the entire country." but one thing this case is not about is the supreme court banning gay marriage.<u+00a0> even if the court rules it should be left up to the states, it's already legal in 37 of them - in some cases because judges ordered it. "there's no outcome of this case that would make gay marriage go away," jacob said. and if the justices rule the states should decide on same-sex marriage themselves, he added, "states will continue to consider it.<u+00a0> some states will adopt it.<u+00a0> at least for the present, some states won't." 'let the labs of democracy do their work' "the supreme court shouldn't cut it short," anderson advocated.<u+00a0> "we should let the discussion continue, let the laboratories of democracy do their work.<u+00a0> we don't need the supreme court settling it 'once and for all' for all 50 states." that's what the court thought it did with roe v wade. but 42 years later, abortion still fiercely divides the nation. ruse suggested, "it will, just like roe, be a social experiment conducted - really untested, unresearched - on the entire country.<u+00a0> the social implications of this case are so reminiscent of roe v wade." "the supreme court said they were going to solve the abortion issue 42 years ago in roe v wade.<u+00a0> there is no issue less settled in american public life than abortion," anderson suggested. "and every four years at election time, we have a giant culture war over this," he continued.<u+00a0> look at europe:<u+00a0> europe has much more commonsense, compromise positions on abortion because they solve it democratically." "our court cut short the democratic process on abortion, and that's why our politics are so polarized. why would they want to do it again on the marriage issue?" anderson asked. critics of same-sex marriage warn that legalizing it means that one harmful effect will be on religious liberty, something that's already been seen with government bludgeoning believers at businesses that refuse to back gay marriages. "as society redefines marriage, it then starts to violate religious liberty rights," anderson explained. "christian-run adoption agencies have been shut down because they wanted to find homes for orphans with married moms and dads, and the government said 'that's discrimination,' he continued. "we've seen bakers, florists and photographers who have no problem serving gay and lesbian customers, who only object to helping to celebrate a same-sex wedding - they've been harassed by the government;<u+00a0> they've been penalized by the government, coerced by the government," anderson said. rarely does a country come to a moment like this where the course of a nation, a society, a culture is all hanging on two-and-a-half-hours in a courtroom.

court could force same-sex marriage on every state - us - cbn news - christian news 24-7 - cbn.com

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

3.0

0.0

3.0

98.0

8.0

6355.0

0.0

1.0

6.0

0.0

451.0

0.0

134.0

0.0

64.0

10.0

20.0

5.0

16.0

11.0

8.0

6.0

28.0

17.0

40.0

457.0

134.0

64.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the national security agency's massive data collection program has prompted lawsuits, internal reviews and a fierce congressional debate over whether to scrap it. but director of national intelligence james clapper apparently forgot the program even existed during a key hearing two years ago. robert litt, the dni's general counsel, revealed the major memory lapse during a panel discussion friday hosted by the advisory committee on transparency. he was offering an explanation as to why, in a now-infamous exchange several months before ed snowden-leaked materials surfaced on the nsa program, clapper told a senate committee that the government does not "wittingly" sweep up information on millions of americans. he wasn't lying, litt said. rather, "it was perfectly clear that he had absolutely forgotten the existence of the 215 program." the claim may be startling for the lawmakers, civil liberties advocates and transparency groups who have debated the program intensely since it was revealed in a series of media reports in mid-2013. the 215 program allows the nsa to collect so-called "metadata" on phone calls -- including the number called and the date and time of the call -- then stores it in a database that it queries using phone numbers associated with terrorists overseas. officials say they don't use the information for any other purpose, and that the legal powers that enable the program are essential to the hunt for terrorists. opponents say the seizure and search of telephone company records violates americans' expectations of privacy under the fourth amendment. clapper's early 2013 testimony created a congressional controversy after the snowden revelations showed the nsa was gathering data on americans. at the hearing, oregon democratic sen. ron wyden asked clapper whether the nsa "collects any type of data at all" on millions of americans. clapper told wyden: "no sir, it does not." asked for clarification, he said "not wittingly." clapper later apologized, sending a letter to the senate intelligence committee admitting his answer was "clearly erroneous." he said that he "simply didn't think" of section 215 of the patriot act, and was thinking of a different provision of a different law. litt offered more details on friday of what happened behind the scenes of that hearing. he said they were only notified the day before that wyden would ask that question. "the dni did not get a chance to review it," litt said. "he was hit unaware by the question." litt, whose comments were first reported in the hill, said it was not "an untruth or a falsehood" on clapper's part. "this was just a mistake on his part. we all make mistakes," he said. he said he realized clapper forgot after personally telling him he had been wrong. he said clapper was thinking about a separate program used to sweep up internet information on foreigners. litt said he should have corrected the mistake right away. litt's explanation comes as the courts and congress debate the program anew. a federal appeals court ruled thursday that the bulk collection of americans' phone records is illegal. the court all but pleaded for congress to sharpen the boundaries between security and privacy rights. meanwhile, lawmakers are weighing the renewal of the usa patriot act, including data collection provisions. the house is slated to vote next week on a bill to reauthorize the law while also ending the government's dragnet collection of records. but senate leaders, including majority leader mitch mcconnell, r-ky., and sen. richard burr, r-n.c., the chairman of the intelligence committee, have spoken forcefully for a competing measure to reauthorize the law as-is. across congress, the political divisions cut along complex lines. libertarian-leaning republicans like sen. ted. cruz and sen. rand paul are aligned with many liberal democrats, insisting that a secret intelligence agency should not be storing the records of every american phone call. but other democrats and republicans say the program is needed now more than ever given the islamic state group's determination to inspire terrorist attacks on american soil. the associated press contributed to this report.

intel chief <u+2018>absolutely<u+2019> forgot about nsa data sweep program, attorney says

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

7.0

75.0

8.0

4207.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

266.0

0.0

86.0

0.0

33.0

11.0

7.0

12.0

4.0

5.0

4.0

27.0

20.0

27.0

268.0

86.0

33.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington (cnn) part of the aggressive outreach to convince democrats to support the deal with iran included a briefing thursday for 15 american jewish members of the house of representatives in the situation room at the white house. the meeting was the latest in a series of briefings for these members at the white house. "people felt that the administration is intent on very seriously addressing the concerns of the jewish members, which many of them centered around israel and the security of israel," rep. jan schakowsky (d-illinois) said after the session. schakowsky told reporters she believed there were enough democrats supporting the deal to help the white house overcome republican opposition to the agreement. "i haven't heard anyone say 'oh i learned something that has made it impossible for me now to sustain a presidential veto,'" schakowsky said. rep. steve israel (d-new york) told reporters on capitol hill he was still undecided and planned to take the full 60 days allowed for congress to review the deal to make up his mind on it. the new york congressman, a member of the democratic leadership, said house minority leader nancy pelosi's endorsement of the deal was "very influential -- there's no question. leader pelosi is the most influential member of our caucus." on the back-to-back presentations from vice president joe biden and hillary clinton to house democrats, israel said "that's a pretty damn good one two punch." new york democratic rep jerry nadler told cnn he remains undecided on the agreement, but he said the meeting with rhodes helped provide additional information as he reviews the details. nadler said one democrat expressed concerns in the session about the future capability, in roughly 15 years, for iran to potentially develop a nuclear weapon. rhodes pointed to restrictions in several areas of deal that would expose any efforts to do this and provide penalties. asked about a pledge by the administration to provide weapons to israel to address concerns about a military threat from iran, schakowsky said there was no detailed briefing on any arms, but "the assurances were that the united states was definitely prepared to assure the security of israel and do what was necessary to make that happen." one member who requested anonymity told cnn the session was "very helpful" in clarifying various questions, including ones about sanctions relief, access by the international atomic energy agency for inspections and why the u.s. ended up supporting an eventual relaxation in the embargo on the ability of iran to buy conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. the administration officials emphasized there was going to be 24-7 monitoring at known nuclear facilities and the different process for others. "some of the concerns that people had were addressed, but there are still lots of questions," said the member. rhodes, according to nadler, told the group there would be american officials dispatched to israel and other arab allies in the region to discuss what military capabilities they might need after reviewing the deal. defense secretary ash carter leaves for israel and other countries in the region this weekend. both schakowsky and israel told cnn so far their offices have not gotten a large number of calls from jewish constituents urging them to block the deal. as part of its aggressive outreach to build support for the iran deal, several key administration officials earlier this week held a conference call with american jewish leaders. two participants told cnn there were some pointed questions in the call but said was not hostile. among the officials on the call were deputy secretary of state tony blinken and u.s. ambassador to israel dan shapiro. among the areas participants pushed the administration on during the call were whether there were holes in the access for inspections, concerns iran would use money from sanctions relief for de-stabilizing activities and is iran really going to be forced to divulge information about its past activities according to one of the participants who is deeply concerned about the agreement. the source said the officials defended the amount of access for inspections and told the leaders iran will face pressure to use the money from sanctions relief for internal needs. during the call the administration officials said israel will not be more in danger and emphasized how carter will be going there next week and will talk to the government about ways to bolster it. several major american jewish organizations oppose the deal, including the influential american israeli public affairs committee which said the "proposed deal with iran fails to verifiably eliminate every iranian pathway to a nuclear weapons. on thursday it posted a petition online urging its members to weigh in: "unfortunately, the proposed agreement is fundamentally flawed...urge your senators and representatives to oppose the agreement." the union of orthodox jewish congregations of american and the rabbinical council of america are among a number of groups organizing a rally next week in new york against the deal. "the inspections regime is insufficient to ensure iran cannot cheat and surreptitiously develop nuclear weapons, despite president obama's promise that the deal would be subject to the toughest verification and inspections in the world," they said in a statement outlining of their key reasons for coming out against it. the white house got a more supportive response from the left-leaning j street group. "following our own review of the agreement, we expect to call on congress to support the deal as the best -- if not only -- means of ensuring that iran does not develop nuclear weapons."

white house brings lawmakers into situation room on iran

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

56.0

8.0

5737.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

420.0

0.0

120.0

2.0

0.0

46.0

10.0

20.0

5.0

13.0

9.0

4.0

5.0

35.0

23.0

40.0

427.0

120.0

48.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the reclusive leader of the taliban hasn't been seen in public for more than a decade. the group is engaged in peace talks with the afghan government. syed zafar hashemi, a deputy spokesman for afghanistan president mohammad ashraf ghani, speaks during a news conference in kabul, afghanistan, july 29, 2015. the afghan government is investigating reports that mullah omar, leader of the afghan taliban, may be dead, a spokesman for the president's office said on wednesday. mullah omar of afghanistan's taliban regime is shown in this undated photo. afghan officials are working to confirm reports that the taliban leader may be dead. afghan officials are working to confirm reports that taliban leader mullah omar is dead, just ahead of a new round of peace talks in pakistan between the afghan government and the taliban. at a last-minute press conference,<u+00a0>zafar hashemi, a deputy spokesman<u+00a0>for the president,<u+00a0>said that they were <u+201c>aware of the reports of the passing of mullah omar, the taliban leader. we are still in the process of checking those reports,<u+201d> according to the associated press. the bbc says that "top sources within the afghan administration and intelligence agency" had made the claims. the taliban haven't yet commented on the reports. mullah omar hasn<u+2019>t been seen in public for years, and rumors of his death periodically crop up. an afghan official told the wall street journal that<u+00a0>kabul was informed of his death by pakistan two years ago. a pakistani official told ap that this latest report is <u+201c>'speculation' designed to disrupt peace talks.<u+201d> the taliban reportedly are divided over the talks, with some wanting to continue the insurgency they have been waging since the us came in 2001. "whether he is dead or alive is important because he is the collective figure for the taliban," said a western diplomat with connections to the taliban leadership. "if he is dead, it would be much more difficult to get negotiations with the taliban because there would be no collective figure to rally around and take collective responsibility for entering peace talks." the peace talks come as the taliban are struggling to hold on to their fighters, some of whom are attracted to the high-profile success of the so-called islamic state. the taliban have staged a series of <u+201c>audacious attacks<u+201d> to try and stave off defections, the christian science monitor<u+00a0>reported last month<u+00a0>after a suicide attack in kabul. with its new activity, the taliban is out to show restless commanders and fighters, as well as the afghan people, that it remains a force to be reckoned with. <u+2026> <u+201c>isis is now seen as the winning horse in the race. it has imposed itself as the most powerful subversive islamist movement <u+2013> one that has been tremendously successful at accomplishing what it set out to do <u+2013> and that is posing a serious challenge to other militant islamist organizations from the taliban to hamas,<u+201d> says fawaz gerges, a professor of contemporary middle eastern studies at the london school of economics and political science. last month mullah omar supposedly wrote a message backing the peace talks, but because the text posted on the taliban website did not include any audio or video, it<u+00a0>fueled rumors of his death, according to the bbc. the assumption that he is dead helped drive several taliban leaders to defect to is, according to the bbc. and any confirmation of his death could spur more defections,<u+00a0>particularly among those opposed to peace talks with the afghan government. mullah omar came to power after the taliban emerged as the strongest force in the civil war that followed the pullout of soviet forces.<u+00a0>he later allied with osama bin laden, which put the taliban in the crosshairs of the us after the 9/11 attacks. he has barely been heard from since then and has a $10 million bounty on his head. the taliban are not the only organization struggling to prove their continued relevance. the surging power and influence of is has also sidelined al qaeda, which is trying to stem a wave of defections.

afghan officials say mullah omar, taliban leader, may be dead

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

4037.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

262.0

0.0

90.0

0.0

26.0

9.0

13.0

4.0

13.0

10.0

4.0

26.0

15.0

27.0

265.0

90.0

26.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington -- house republicans are hoping they can bring deficit hawks and defense hawks together this week to support a budget -- and avoid an embarrassment if the conference fails to present a unified front on its priorities for the country. they expect to pull off getting a budget through, thanks to an unusual move to vote on two plans and reluctant promises from some fiscal conservatives to support a budget that would increase spending by adding money for defense. "it doesn't do any good to be financially responsible if you're dead, so i'm going to vote for it and protect national security," rep. mo brooks (r-ala.) told reporters tuesday after a house gop conference meeting. the house is set to vote wednesday on budgets for the government that would significantly cut domestic spending through measures such as ending obamacare and slashing welfare programs. budgets are more a partisan statement of priorities than legislation to appropriate funding, so being unable to cobble together the number of republicans needed to pass one would be yet another hurdle in a string of difficulties getting the various factions of the conference to agree. at odds are defense hawks, who say the budget must provide more funding for the military, and fiscal conservatives, who consider deficit cuts to be the top priority. to resolve the problem, the house will hold votes on two bills: the budget that passed through the budget committee last week from chairman tom price (r-ga.), which some conservatives said did not provide enough military funding, and one that adds even more funding to the overseas contingency operation fund. adding defense money through this fund allows the gop to avoid violating spending caps created in 2011, although some deficit hawks consider it a gimmick. "it's going to be a very important moment for our conference. ... i think you're going to see a very unified house republican conference on the floor wednesday," majority whip steve scalise (r-la.) said at a press conference. some fiscal conservatives may be willing to support the budget, even with additional defense spending that it has offset, because it would bring them closer to a vote to end obamacare through a process called reconciliation. that would allow republicans to pass a bill that could actually get to the president, rather than being blocked by democrats in the senate. "i campaigned when i came back here with my heart and soul to get rid of obamacare, and it's the one shot that we've got to get something on his desk," rep. matt salmon (r-ariz.) told reporters. that's not to say everyone is supportive of the bill with extra overseas contingency operations funds. rep. mick mulvaney (r-s.c.) said he is against the version that further boosts military funding, but thinks it will pass because of the overwhelming support from defense hawks. "if the oco number ends up on his desk, the president is most likely going to look at it and say, 'well, that<u+2019>s great, but where<u+2019>s my money, where<u+2019>s my money for the stuff i want and don<u+2019>t bother me about paying for it, republicans, because you didn<u+2019>t pay for the stuff you want so i don<u+2019>t have to pay for the stuff i want.' and we are to end right back up in this deficit cycle." the senate is moving on the budget this week as well, and faces a similar conflict over whether more defense funding is needed. the budget committee voted last week to increase funding for the military, but it could be difficult for the extra funding defense hawks have demanded to get past a procedural hurdle on the senate floor.

house gop faces test on budget priorities

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

41.0

8.0

3579.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

224.0

0.0

59.0

1.0

0.0

34.0

6.0

10.0

0.0

11.0

7.0

21.0

14.0

24.0

228.0

59.0

35.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

shred the political playbook. the 2016 campaign will be remembered as the year in which the conventional wisdom was anything but wise. most political pundits have been wrong. and almost every assumption about presidential campaigns since the birth of modern politics in 1960, with the first televised debate and widespread use of tv advertising, has been debunked. our political catechism has been upended. consider the following: when the supreme court ruled in the 2010 citizens united case that corporations were people and therefore could spend unlimited amounts of money <u+2013> without disclosure, in some instances <u+2013> on political campaigns, democrats and other critics warned that democracy was now for sale and that the candidate who raised the most money would invariably prevail over less well-funded contenders. enter jeb bush, the republican party<u+2019>s <u+201c>inevitable<u+201d> nominee, who raised over $130 million for his campaign and super pac even before he formally declared. eight months later, exit jeb!, the <u+201c>low-energy<u+201d> candidate who, having spent the vast majority of the money he had raised, quit the race, dragging his exclamation point behind him. donald trump, by contrast, may be wealthy <u+2013> just how rich remains in dispute <u+2013> but he has spent less overall than any other candidate and, because of the nonstop coverage his slurs and antics have received, virtually nothing on tv advertising. ted cruz was supposed to win all the early gop contests because of his heavy investment in his <u+201c>ground game.<u+201d> but, with the exception of iowa <u+2013> which he first visited in 2008, only months after being elected a first-term senator from texas <u+2013> organization, like money, has meant little this year. cruz won iowa thanks to a large evangelical turnout after trump skipped what turned out to be a critical debate days before the nation<u+2019>s first caucus, but he has steadily faded ever since. polls suggest that trump won in nevada, new hampshire and south carolina with the most modest of campaign ground organizations because of his powerful slogan of american revitalization; because he is seen as a consummate political outsider, a blunt businessman who says what ordinary people think, a problem-solver and anti-politician; and because of his celebrity status and tempestuous rallies, complete with the by now almost ritualistic ejection of a protester. while trump has repeatedly flown to primary states in his private jet, he rarely spends a night outside his baronial residence on fifth avenue. apparently not this year. almost no establishment politician endorsed trump during the first two primaries. the only other celebrity politician who rallied to trump<u+2019>s side was sarah palin, whose rambling, incoherent 45-minute endorsement prior to the iowa caucus, if anything, may have cost him votes there. marco rubio, the candidate who has garnered the most endorsements, has yet to win a primary and is unlikely to do so, despite his growing support from a still reeling republican <u+201c>establishment.<u+201d> 4. you can<u+2019>t run against the media. trump has mocked this political platitude, repeatedly. if anything, one of the bumptious billionaire<u+2019>s most reliable applause lines is his frequent declaration that the media are <u+201c>terrible,<u+201d> <u+201c>among the most dishonest groups of people<u+201d> he<u+2019>s ever met. apparently his rivals have gotten the message. during the debate in houston last thursday, every candidate except john kasich, who is running a poor fifth except in his home state of ohio, attacked the press. quite the contrary. in 2016, given america<u+2019>s deep political polarization, no candidate seems able to win without high negatives. the nation<u+2019>s bitter frustration seems to require candidates to make increasingly stark, even extreme, appeals. the gop field has no shortage of candidates with high positive ratings, especially ben carson and marco rubio, neither of whom has carried a single state primary or caucus. on the democratic side, bernie sanders has far higher favorability ratings than hillary clinton, who in poll after poll is widely viewed by potential voters of most ages, ethnicities and genders as <u+201c>untrustworthy<u+201d> and perhaps even <u+201c>dishonest.<u+201d> yet clinton got 73.5 percent of the democratic vote in south carolina on saturday. many trump critics continue to assert that he will ultimately stumble, because no candidate can win his party<u+2019>s nomination or be elected to the nation<u+2019>s highest office without substantial <u+00a0>political experience. while the 2008 election of a junior senator from illinois whose resume featured only a brief stint as a community organizer began to challenge that political bromide, the crucial primaries on march 1 and march 15 will be the ultimate referee. given the pundits<u+2019> predictive record so far, a degree of humility is in order. trump, once the <u+201c>unthinkable,<u+201d> may soon become <u+201c>inevitable.<u+201d> for better or worse, the 2016 race is anything but politics as usual. judith miller, a fox news contributor, is an award-winning writer and author, and an adjunct fellow at the manhattan institute. the author of several books, her latest is "the story: a reporter's journey" (simon & schuster, april 7, 2015) now available in paperback. follow her on twitter @jmfreespeech. douglas e. schoen has served as a pollster for president bill clinton. he has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. he is also a fox news contributor and co-host of "fox news insiders" sundays on fox news channel at 7 pm et. he is the author of 13 books. his latest is "putin's master plan" (encounter books, september 27, 2016). follow doug on twitter @douglaseschoen.

2016: the year conventional political wisdom was turned upside down

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

67.0

8.0

5610.0

0.0

1.0

5.0

0.0

409.0

1.0

0.0

96.0

1.0

0.0

57.0

14.0

17.0

9.0

17.0

13.0

10.0

31.0

26.0

47.0

414.0

97.0

58.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

washington<u+00a0><u+2014> president obama signed an order sunday directing his administration to begin issuing waivers to iran nuclear sanctions<u+00a0><u+2014> but the waivers will only go into effect once iran meets its obligations under the agreement limiting its nuclear program. the<u+00a0>presidential memorandum marks what's being called "adoption<u+00a0>day" for the international agreement intended to roll back iran's nuclear program. the milestone, four<u+00a0>administration officials said,<u+00a0>is a mere formality, driven more by the calendar<u+00a0>than by any action by iran. "today marks an important milestone toward preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and ensuring its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful going forward," obama said in a white house statement released sunday afternoon. obama directed secretary of state john kerry to issue the waivers and to "take all appropriate additional measures to ensure the prompt and effective implementation of the u.s. commitments" in the agreement. sunday marks<u+00a0>90 days since the united nations security council approved the agreement.<u+00a0>"so adoption day is a calendar-driven event and it<u+2019>s the day at which all the parties begin to take the steps they need to make sure they take to get to implementation day," said<u+00a0>state department spokesman john kirby. "and we<u+2019>re not at implementation day; that<u+2019>s a whole different purpose." no date is set for implementation day.<u+00a0>under the agreement, formally known as the joint comprehensive plan of action, implementation will come only when the international atomic energy agency certifies that iran has lived up to its obligations to reduce its stockpiles of enriched uranium, dismantle<u+00a0>two-thirds of its centrifuges, and halt construction of new nuclear facilities. western officials have said they expect that to take four to six months. iran is motivated to act quickly,<u+00a0>said one of the four<u+00a0>senior administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the state department. the agreement, signed by the united states, the united kingdom, france, russia, china, germany and iran,<u+00a0>requires obama and the european union to direct the issuance of waivers on adoption day. even though they won't go into effect for months, the arrangement allows businesses to know what sanctions are being waived, another senior administration official said. "these next steps will allow us to reach the objectives we set out to achieve over the course of nearly two years of tough, principled diplomacy and will result in cutting off all four pathways iran could use to develop enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon," obama said. "i am confident in the extraordinary benefits to our national security and the peace and security of the world that come with the successful implementation of the (plan of action)." most of the sanctions being lifted apply only to non-u.s. citizens and companies doing business with iran. most sanctions will still apply to<u+00a0>u.s. citizens under separate sanctions imposed on iran for its support of terrorism and human rights violations. but sales of civilian passenger aircraft and handicrafts<u+00a0><u+2014> most notably carpets<u+00a0><u+2014> will be allowed. the sanctions against iran are authorized by congress but implemented via executive order. obama can waive those executive orders after democrats in the senate filibustered a resolution that would have<u+00a0>blocked<u+00a0>the agreement last month. but the the adoption day comes amid renewed tensions with iran over its involvement in syria's<u+00a0>civil war and its oct. 10 test launch of a ballistic missile<u+00a0><u+2014> reportedly capably of carrying a nuclear warhead. but as he has throughout the negotiation,<u+00a0>obama maintained friday that those issues are separate from the more urgent need to ensure iran does not develop a nuclear weapon. "this is something that i made very clear during the debate around the iran nuclear deal:<u+00a0>the iran nuclear deal solves a specific problem, which is making sure that they don't possess a nuclear weapon," he said after meeting with the south korean president to discuss, among other things, north korea's nuclear ambitions. "it does not fully resolve the wide range of issues where we<u+2019>ve got a big difference.<u+00a0>and so we are going to have to continue to put pressure on them through the international community and, where we have bilateral channels, through bilateral channels to indicate to them that there are costs to bad behavior in the region and around the world," obama said. in munich on saturday, a top iranian military official said iran was eager to cooperate with the international inspectors and would implement the agreement with "utmost prudence." "it will be the gateway to iran's taking next steps and will demonstrate the level of sincerity in the settlement of the problems which were created unjustly by others,"<u+00a0>the secretary of the supreme national security council,<u+00a0>ali shamkhani, told iran's state news agency.

treasury will begin issuing iran sanctions waivers under obama order

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

68.0

8.0

4915.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

374.0

0.0

79.0

0.0

47.0

4.0

19.0

5.0

8.0

9.0

5.0

29.0

10.0

37.0

381.0

79.0

47.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the department of defense notified lawmakers friday that teams will visit two military installations in the united states <u+2014> fort leavenworth in kansas and the naval brig in charleston, s.c. <u+2014> to conduct <u+201c>site surveys<u+201d> looking into transferring a <u+201c>limited number<u+201d> of guantanamo detainees, pentagon and capitol hill sources told fox news. the move, coming on the same day secretary of state john kerry marked the re-opening of the u.s. embassy in cuba, has already triggered a backlash on capitol hill. but, despite existing congressional restrictions on moving the detainees to u.s. soil, the notice itself suggests officials are wasting no time exploring transfer options for those at the controversial cuba prison camp. one capitol hill source, reading from the notification, said the first defense department survey team was due to visit fort leavenworth <u+201c>starting today [friday].<u+201d> the naval brig in charleston will be visited in the <u+201c>next several weeks,<u+201d> said another source, reading from the same notification, which went out friday morning. legally, the administration is still barred from transferring guantanamo detainees to the united states, according to laws passed by congress starting in 2010. building or modifying facilities to house gitmo inmates is also prohibited in the united states. <u+201c>perhaps dod does not think this is part of that <u+2018>build or modify<u+2019> section,<u+201d> one source told fox news, questioning dod<u+2019>s funding of the site survey teams visiting the two military installations. after learning of the survey teams, lawmakers representing kansas vowed to fight any proposed transfers to their state. sen. pat roberts, r-kan., said in a statement that the move "reflects another egregious overstep by this administration." "congress has consistently stopped obama by law from moving a single detainee to the u.s.," he said. "not on my watch will any terrorist be placed in kansas." "terrorists should not be living down the road from ft. leavenworth <u+2013> home to thousands of army soldiers and their families, as well as military personnel from across the globe who study at the intellectual center of the army," sen. jerry moran, r-kan., said in a statement. "this administration<u+2019>s last-ditch effort to carry out president obama<u+2019>s reckless national security decision before he leaves office is disingenuous and flawed." kansas rep. lynn jenkins also fired off a letter to defense secretary ash carter demanding he abandon any such plans. "at a time when we face relentless threats from the islamic state, and have yet to hear a strategy to defeat isil, it is absurd to hear that the department of defense has personnel on the ground at fort leavenworth conducting site surveys to advance the president's proposal that could ultimately result in the transfer of these terrorist to kansas," she said in a statement. she also said moving detainees stateside would violate federal law. "it is irresponsible, reckless, and to overstep the law to do so is a dangerous precedent," the congresswoman said. despite the congressional restrictions, president obama still wants to fulfill his pledge to shutter the cuba prison camp. he hasn<u+2019>t yet provided a plan for achieving this to congress. a total of 116 detainees remain at guantanamo, 52 of whom have been approved for transfer. the pentagon confirmed to fox news that dod personnel will survey the two military sites, <u+201c>as part of our broader and ongoing effort to identify locations within the united states that can [possibly] facilitate military commissions and can possibly hold detainees currently at guantanamo bay.<u+201d> defense department spokesman cmdr. gary ross said in a statement that security and humane treatment are <u+201c>primary concerns<u+201d> but cost is also a factor. he said the costs of providing medical care at guantanamo, for instance, are rising as the population ages. he added: <u+201c>only those locations that can hold detainees at a maximum security level will be considered. dod personnel will consider surveying a variety of military and civilian sites to determine their candidacy for holding law of war detainees in a humane and secure manner. there is a broad list of facilities that will be potentially considered. this list is informed by past assessment efforts." whether the administration can reach an agreement with congress to approve transfers to the u.s. remains to be seen. the notice sent out friday -- first reported by voice of america -- said the teams will look at logistical issues: <u+201c>the assessment team will meet with facility staff to discuss engineering, force protection, troop housing, security, transportation, information security, contracting and other operational issues.<u+201d> <u+201c>no facilities have been selected,<u+201d> the notification added. lucas tomlinson is the pentagon and state department producer for fox news channel. you can follow him on twitter: @lucasfoxnews

dod teams surveying us military sites for potential gitmo transfers, lawmakers vow fight

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

88.0

8.0

4880.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

354.0

0.0

76.0

3.0

0.0

48.0

12.0

17.0

9.0

19.0

7.0

6.0

4.0

20.0

25.0

36.0

362.0

76.0

51.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

by failing to disclose his donations to the clinton foundation, george stephanopoulos has damaged his credibility and tarnished his network. but you know something? he<u+2019>s got plenty of company. what an awful couple of years it<u+2019>s been for the news business, even by our already-tattered standards. while abc<u+2019>s chief anchor has landed himself in a heap of trouble, this comes at a time when nbc<u+2019>s chief anchor, brian williams, is serving a six-month suspension for fabricating an iraq war tale and possibly embellishing other reporting exploits. and it comes weeks after rolling stone had to retract its horrifyingly irresponsible tale of a gang rape at the university of virginia. when these episodes erupt, critics carp about how this or that organization has suffered a grievous blow. what<u+2019>s often missed is that all of us who practice journalism suffer as well, that it reinforces public doubts about whether the business is riddled with bias and conflicts of interest. this was true back when janet cooke committed her fraud at the washington post. it was true when stephen glass was making up a bunch of articles at the new republic. it was true when i exposed the serial fabrications of jayson blair at the new york times and jack kelley at usa today. it was true when cbs had to retract lara logan<u+2019>s <u+201c>60 minutes<u+201d> story on benghazi. and it<u+2019>s true every time there<u+2019>s a new instance of plagiarism. we all make mistakes, myself included, and how you handle those mistakes is crucial. stephanopoulos didn<u+2019>t realize he couldn<u+2019>t be giving money to the family foundation of the guy he used to work for, whose wife is running for president, especially when he was covering the uproar over its tangled finances. but he also misjudged the negative reaction, and his initial statement apologized only for the lack of disclosure. a day later, he realized he had to apologize on camera, and for making the $75,000 donations as well. the former white house official also bowed out of abc<u+2019>s republican presidential debate (although his hand may have been forced by gop demands to yank the debate from the network). when williams was found to have invented the story of being shot at in a helicopter over iraq, he issued a botched apology and said he<u+2019>d be taking a few days off. only later did nbc launch an investigation and remove him from "nightly news" for six months. some of this gets caught up in the ideological wars, as liberals would surely include mother jones<u+2019> account of exaggerated talk about reporting by bill o<u+2019>reilly, who has vehemently denied the allegations and denounced the accusers. the crux of stephanopoulos<u+2019> problem is that he<u+2019>s never fully been able to shake his partisan past as a clinton democrat<u+2014>and deepened that wound by giving money to the one charity that should have been off-limits to him. of course, the cable networks have hired plenty of political operatives (david axelrod, robert gibbs, jay carney, karl rove), but they<u+2019>re in the commentary business. and of course some people have made the transition from politics to straight news. tim russert, who worked for mario cuomo and pat moynihan, did it, but he was an nbc executive before taking over <u+201c>meet the press<u+201d> and was famously tough on both sides. tony snow had been a speechwriter for george h.w. bush before eventually taking over <u+201c>fox news sunday<u+201d><u+2014>and, of course, leaving to become bush 43<u+2019>s press secretary. as someone who started interviewing stephanopoulos in 1992, i can say that it takes a long time for a former political adviser to win the audience<u+2019>s trust as a journalist<u+2014>and just a short time to lose it. viewers will have to judge in the future whether george is being as unbiased as possible, but they<u+2019>ve already rendered their verdict on the mainstream media. 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.

george stephanopoulos, brian williams and the media<u+2019>s sinking reputation

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

72.0

8.0

4033.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

278.0

1.0

0.0

85.0

0.0

30.0

16.0

4.0

15.0

7.0

14.0

6.0

20.0

33.0

37.0

286.0

86.0

30.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

(cnn) hillary clinton forced donald trump onto defense over his temperament, refusal to release his taxes and his past comments about race and women during a fiery debut presidential debate monday -- a potentially pivotal moment in a tight election campaign. clinton, who has seen her dominance of the presidential race fade in the weeks since the democratic convention, delivered a strong performance in which she demonstrated a command of policy and a sense of humor, smiling through some of trump's strongest attacks. she delivered the best zinger of the night in response to criticism from trump for staying off the campaign trail recently. "i think donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate," she said. "and yes, i did. and you know what else i prepared for? i prepared to be president. and that is a good thing." trump came out swinging at the beginning of the debate, and made some effective points on the economy and jobs -- some of the aspects of his outsider presidential campaign that have struck a chord with many americans. but the debate highlighted trump's tendency to make false claims as he made inaccurate statements on everything from laws regarding policing, his support for the iraq war and his contention that clinton was behind the so-called birther conspiracy. appearing in the "spin room" after the debate to talk to journalists, trump said he was happy with his performance. "it went better than i ever thought," he told cnn's dana bash. a cnn/orc poll of debate watchers released after the event found 62% felt clinton won compared to 27% for trump. the poll suggests the debate audience was a bit more democratic than the public as a whole, about on par with the democratic tilt in the audience that watched the first debate in 2008 between obama and john mccain. one of the most powerful moments of the debate came when the conversation focused on the so-called birther debate following trump's recent acknowledgment that president barack obama was born in the us -- a fact that has been evident for years. with trump standing just a few feet from her, clinton blasted him for perpetuating a "racist lie." "he has a long record of engaging in racist behavior," clinton said as trump shook his head. trump hit back, noting clinton's tough critiques of obama during their bitter 2008 primary battle. "you treated him with terrible disrespect and i watch the way you talk now about how lovely everything is ... it doesn't work that way," he said. "when you try to act holier than thou, it really doesn't work." as the debate ended, clinton hammered trump over his treatment of women. "this is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs," clinton said. she accused trump of calling a latina contestant in a beauty contest "miss piggy" and a housekeeper because of her ethnicity, seemingly throwing trump off as he twice asked "where did you find this?" clinton repeatedly sought to correct trump's statements -- going so far as referring viewers to fact checks on her website -- as she aimed to portray him as out of touch with the complexities of the american economy. "i know you live in your own reality," she told trump. clinton and trump opened the debate on a positive note by shaking hands before stationing themselves behind their podiums at hofstra university on new york's long island. their spouses, former president bill clinton and melania trump, also greeted each other before taking their seats in the debate hall. from there, the drama quickly unfolded. an increasingly angry trump slammed clinton for putting her plans to fight isis on her website -- and thereby tipping off america's enemy. "well, at least i have a plan to fight isis," clinton responded, referring to his previous statements that he has a "secret" plan to destroy the terrorist group. clinton also hit trump over his refusal to release his tax returns. "why won't he release his tax returns?" clinton asked. "maybe he is not as rich as he says he is," she went on. "maybe he is not as charitable as he claims to be," "maybe he doesn't want the american people to know that he has paid nothing in federal taxes." clinton pressed trump on the issue, saying "there is something he is hiding." trump replied that he would release his taxes when clinton made public 33,000 emails that were deleted from her private email server. when clinton said that trump had paid no federal income tax in some years, trump replied "that makes me smart." clinton also set about trump's business record, pointing out that he had called himself "the king of debt" and accusing him of "stiffing" thousand of contractors who did work for his business. when the debate turned to racial issues and crime, clinton said that it was important for police to work together with local communities to restore trust. trump accused clinton of refusing to say the phrase "law and order" and bemoaned the state of inner cities. he said that african-americans and hispanics were "living in hell." "you walk down the street, you get shot," trump said. clinton rebuked trump for painting "such a dire picture" of black communities. trump and clinton are facing off with the campaign at a critical point, as the race is a dead heat just 43 days before election day. the former secretary of state is relying on both states to help pave her way to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the white house. the rivals spent the day preparing for their big battle. clinton participated in mock debates with her tart-tongued former aide philippe reines playing trump. in one practice debate, reines assumed the character of the unpredictable nominee by praising clinton for her role as a pioneer for women, campaign sources said. reines even wore the kind of signature red tie that trump favors and adopted his characteristic hand gestures in a bid to fully prepare clinton for her unpredictable foe. the republican nominee has watched videos of clinton, but his preparation has been less intense than his opponent's, in keeping with his more freewheeling style. he did not hold mock debates, for instance, with someone standing in for clinton.

clinton puts trump on defense at first 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

7.0

45.0

8.0

6161.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

435.0

0.0

147.0

0.0

41.0

21.0

19.0

11.0

23.0

13.0

9.0

26.0

33.0

36.0

437.0

147.0

41.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

(cnn) isis has claimed responsibility for the attack outside a prophet mohammed cartoon contest in texas -- and warned of more attacks to come. in a broadcast on its official radio channel tuesday, the group said two al khilafa soldiers opened fire outside the event in garland, a dallas suburb. al khilafa is how isis refers to its soldiers. cnn cannot confirm the claim, and isis offered no evidence the gunmen were affiliated with the terror organization. the gunmen, elton simpson and nadir soofi , wounded a security guard before police shot and killed them. nadir soofi, left, and elton simpson were the two gunmen in the garland, texas, shooting. the isis radio announcer also referred to simpson and soofi as the terror group's "brothers." the announcement ended with this warning: "we say to the defenders of the cross, the u.s., that future attacks are going to be harsher and worse. the islamic state soldiers will inflict harm on you with the grace of god. the future is just around the corner." while isis claimed responsibility two days after the attack, there was no immediate indication that the terror group in iraq and syria had contact with simpson or soofi, who both lived in phoenix. "they may not have had formal contact (with isis). they may have had email communication or read communications from isis, but i don't think they were directed by isis," clemente said. "i think it's the other way around -- they were kind of applying for membership into isis. and so they were doing this act, sent out the tweet in advance because if they know there's a possibility they're not going to make it out of this, then they can't give recognition to what they were trying to do after the fact." on tuesday, white house spokesman josh earnest described what happened as "an attempted terrorist act (that) was foiled." u.s. authorities, meanwhile, are still looking into what links -- if any -- sunday's shooters had to international terrorism. but there are clues that one of the gunmen was an isis sympathizer. moments before the attack, simpson posted a tweet with the hashtag #texasattack: "may allah accept us as mujahideen." the tweet also said he and his fellow attacker had pledged allegiance to "amirul mu'mineen," which means "the leader of the faithful." cnn terrorism analyst paul cruickshank said that likely refers to isis leader abu bakr al-baghdadi. earlier, simpson had asked his followers on twitter to follow an isis propagandist. after the shooting, the propagandist tweeted: "allahu akbar!!!! 2 of our brothers just opened fire." both twitter accounts have been deactivated. one u.s. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the shooting was "certainly more than just inspiration" by isis, but that assessment does not mean the terror group gave the gunmen specific instructions. a law enforcement official told cnn the attack does not appear to be a clear-cut case of a lone wolf, nor a pure case of someone directed by others to act. rather, the official said, it appears to be something in between the two extremes. the attack fits a well-known pattern of isis recruitment and incitement: encouraging sympathizers via a sophisticated social media campaign to join the fight in syria, or, if they cannot, to carry out terror attacks on their own at home, u.s. officials said tuesday. in 2011, simpson was convicted of making a false statement involving international and domestic terrorism. prosecutors said he told fbi agents he had not discussed traveling to somalia to engage in "violent jihad" -- when, in fact, he had, according to an indictment. simpson was sentenced to three years of probation, court records show. soofi, on the other hand, was relatively unknown to federal investigators, a law enforcement official told cnn. authorities knew of no indication the pair planned to launch sunday's attack, another law enforcement official said. two law enforcement officials say that it's believed simpson and soofie drove from phoenix, arizona, to garland, but officials did not specify the exact timeline of when the trip was made. a separate law enforcement source said the two long guns and four handguns found in their car were bought legally. the fbi searched the apartment simpson and soofie shared and found it to be relatively barren, one of the law enforcement officials said. authorities retrieved a hard drive, which is being analyzed, the official said. investigators are trying to ascertain whether the two gunmen had any associates in phoenix, or across the united states, who share their ideology. the fbi is scrubbing the deceased attackers' electronics and interviewing friends in a bid to draw possible connections. the two assailants drove up to the center and started shooting, striking a security guard in the ankle. but garland police returned fire, killing the gunmen before they were able to enter the building. police "faced death head-on and, with incredible skill and bravery, were able to save a lot of people," said zach horn, an attorney for the officers. the shooting stirred memories of other attacks this year in france and denmark. in january, gunmen attacked the offices of charlie hebdo, a french satirical magazine that has a controversial history of depicting mohammed, and killed 12 people. in february, a gunman attacked a free speech forum in copenhagen, denmark, featuring artist lars vilks, who infuriated al qaeda with his depictions of mohammed.

isis claims responsibility for garland, texas, shooting

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

55.0

8.0

5481.0

0.0

4.0

7.0

0.0

416.0

0.0

111.0

1.0

0.0

49.0

16.0

18.0

4.0

28.0

9.0

13.0

9.0

29.0

26.0

34.0

423.0

111.0

50.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

it was inevitable that liberals would end up being<u+00a0>condemned<u+00a0>for the horrific attacks on the french<u+00a0>satirical magazine charlie hedbo in which 12 people were killed by what appear to have been muslim extremists. yes, i know it seems strange on the face of it that anyone would think liberals would be responsible for the actions of ultra-conservative religious fanatics, but this is nothing new. it goes all the way back to the capture of john walker lind, the <u+201c>american taliban,<u+201d> when conservative wags such as ann coulter<u+00a0>declared<u+00a0>that he naturally became a member of that violent, conservative religious sect because he was raised in marin county, california, and was thus a liberal role model: conservative writer andrew sullivan famously issued<u+00a0>this indictment, just five days after 9/11: it never struck these people as odd that liberals <u+2014> the coalition that includes feminists, gays and promotes religious pluralism, including atheism <u+2014> would throw in with conservative fundamentalists, but there it is. sullivan later apologized for his remarks. i<u+2019>m sure you<u+2019>ll be shocked to learn that coulter did not. this idea never really went away, however. it<u+2019>s as if some people cannot conceptualize the idea that their enemies might not be in cahoots with one another. even gay-loving atheists and jihadis, which has to be one of the oddest alliances of all time. it took on a slightly different cast when<u+00a0>the danish cartoon controversy erupted back in 2006. at that time, the right was very critical of the left for allegedly failing to throw the blasphemous and insulting cartoons in the jihadists<u+2019> faces and show proper regard for western notions of free speech by telling muslims everywhere in no uncertain terms what they could do with their prohibition on images of the prophet mohammed. william kristol of the weekly standard<u+00a0>put it this way: he was including that liberal squish george w. bush in his criticism, by the way. his state department had issued a statement<u+00a0>condemning<u+00a0>the cartoons as being <u+201c>unacceptable.<u+201d> fast forward to the horrific events of this week in paris and we<u+2019>ll see the same refrain. liberals are once again at least partially responsible for the terrible acts of what appear to be ultra-conservative fanatics because they have failed to properly defend free speech. yesterday, jonathan chait in new york magazine<u+00a0>quoted<u+00a0>the time magazine paris bureau chief bruce crumley in the wake of the earlier firebombing of charlie hebdo in 2010, angrily condemning what he called <u+201c><u+2018>majority sections<u+2019> of western nations to bait muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that <u+2018>they<u+2019> aren<u+2019>t going to tell <u+2018>us<u+2019> what can and can<u+2019>t be done in free societies?<u+201d> he was obviously talking about the attitudes and practices of islamophobes throughout europe, but did take the magazine to task for its overall offensiveness as well. chait sarcastically says, <u+201c>crumley carefully noted, terrorism is bad, too. but his primary villain was the satirical magazine that provoked the attacks.<u+201d> oddly, later in the piece he quotes crumley saying that societies cannot give in to the hysterical demands of extremists and that violence and intimidation cannot be condoned, but his point seems to be that beyond that<u+00a0>any<u+00a0>discussion or disagreement with the substance of the free speech in question is off limits. he<u+2019>s not speaking of liberalism in the parochial american sense, obviously, but the criticism hits the same people. he goes on to quote jay carney, obama<u+2019>s former press secretary, who very mildly pointed out at the time that insulting depictions of the prophet mohammed are entirely legal but that publishing them showed questionable judgment and concludes: the muslim radical argues that the ban on blasphemy is morally right and should be followed; the western liberal insists it is morally wrong but should be followed. theoretical distinctions aside, both positions yield an identical outcome. the right to blaspheme religion is one of the most elemental exercises of political liberalism. one cannot defend the right without defending the practice. so much for that old american trope about freedom of speech: <u+201c>i may not agree with what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it.<u+201d> by defending the <u+201c>practice,<u+201d> he apparently means we are also obligated to refrain from objecting to<u+00a0>what<u+00a0>people say as well, which is a very different proposition. this essentially says that in defending freedom of speech you must give up your own right to free speech lest you help the terrorists <u+2014> which is a bit strange. and it<u+2019>s a concept over which<u+00a0>the great right-wing defenders of american values<u+00a0>are going to find themselves in conflict. after all, the shoe was on their religious feet not that long ago: new york,<u+00a0>sept. 23<u+2014>he<u+2019>s particularly outraged, mayor rudolph giuliani has said, by a collage of the virgin mary dotted with elephant dung. he isn<u+2019>t impressed by the pickled pig carcasses, either. and he<u+2019>s taken dead aim at the brooklyn museum of art: it will lose $7 million in city funds, he warns, unless it cancels a <u+201c>sick<u+201d> exhibit of british works scheduled to open next week. rome<u+2019>s catholic, muslim and jewish leaders have united to condemn pop star madonna<u+2019>s decision to stage a mock-crucifixion when she performs in the italian capital<u+00a0>on sunday<u+00a0>a stone<u+2019>s throw away from vatican city. the lapsed-catholic diva<u+2019>s latest irreverent performance sees her wearing a fake crown of thorns and descending on a suspended, glittery cross as part of her worldwide <u+201c>confessions tour<u+201d>. having already been criticised in the united states, catholics priests from across the eternal city have gone one further saying the act is blasphemy. cardinal ersilio tonino, speaking with the approval of pope benedict xvi said: <u+201c>this time the limits have really been pushed too far. <u+201c>this concert is a blashphemous challenge to the faith and a profanation of the cross. she should be excommunicated.<u+201d> in an unusual show of religious solidarity, muslim and jewish leaders added their condemnation of the self-styled queen of pop, famous for peppering her concerts and videos with controversial religious and sexual imagery. <u+201c>i think her idea is in the worst taste and she<u+2019>d do better to go home,<u+201d> mario scialoja, head of italy<u+2019>s muslim league said. people get upset about things people say and often condemn them for saying it because it<u+2019>s offensive to them or others. it<u+2019>s certainly not an exclusively liberal thing unless you think that fundamentalist islam is liberal or that conservative catholics like rudy giuliani and pope benedict are left-wingers. (but it must be noted that in all the situations outlined here, the only person to use the power of the state to try to shut anyone up was rudy giuliani.) arthur goldhammer wrote<u+00a0>a very insightful piece<u+00a0>about this latest horror in al jazeera. he pointed out that charlie hedbo was more than just a satirical magazine. it followed a certain unique french tradition that was <u+201c>an equal opportunity offender, and it reveled in its freedom to vex, irritate and derange.<u+201d> it<u+2019>s doubtful many people would feel it necessary to defend the substance of everything in its pages <u+2014> how could they without having their heads explode? no, what we must defend is the principle under which they were allowed to say what they said, period. that is inviolable. and that principle also allows people to condemn islam or charlie hedbo <u+00a0><u+2014> or both in the very same breath. once you start policing what people say in the name of free speech you<u+2019>ve already lost the argument. and yes, under that principle, we must also defend<u+00a0>william donohue<u+2019>s right to say the cretinous, idiotic things he says.<u+00a0>and we can certainly also feel free to condemn him for saying it. in doing so, we are not advocating that he be silenced. we are using<u+00a0>our<u+00a0>right of free speech to say we think he<u+2019>s a cretinous idiot and we wish he would stop being one.

the <u+201c>blame the left<u+201d> crew: what the right<u+2019>s new hebdo attack is really about

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

76.0

8.0

7897.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

608.0

4.0

0.0

159.0

0.0

90.0

34.0

12.0

23.0

26.0

6.0

24.0

11.0

17.0

57.0

45.0

611.0

163.0

90.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

silver of fivethirtyeight.com has laid out four possible outcomes to the race at this point, with all but one featuring a clinton win: a trump win, including cases where he loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college. a narrow clinton win, wherein she wins the electoral college, but wins the popular vote by 3 percentage points or less. (or wins the electoral college and loses the popular vote.) a clinton win in the <u+201c>obama zone,<u+201d> wherein she wins the popular vote by 4 to 7 percentage points <u+2014> the margins by which president obama won the elections in 2012 and 2008, respectively. clinton is all but certain to win the electoral college if she wins the popular vote by this amount. finally, a clinton blowout, wherein she wins the popular vote by 8 points or more, which would almost certainly also yield a dominant performance in the electoral college. fivethirtyeight<u+2019>s model, which averages polls, shows that clinton has an 85 percent probability of winning and is currently ahead by 6.6 points. for its part, the new york times upshot has a 92 percent probability of a clinton win and shows<u+00a0>see side-by-side comparisons of all the predictions. they all have clinton with 85 percent or higher. using its customary metaphor, the upshot compares the chances of clinton losing <u+201c>to the probability that an nfl kicker misses a 29-yard field goal.<u+201d> that indeed happens (in fact, it happened on sunday night) so democrats should not get complacent. and for down ballot races? well, there always has been a decent possibility that the democrats would win the senate if they retain the white house, simply because this is a cycle when republicans are defending more seats. still, that outcome is anything but assured, and some analysts are insisting (without evidence) that this year will feature lots of ticket splitting (that is, people who vote for clinton but also vote for a republican incumbent senator, for example). still, this cycle is nothing if not unpredictable, so who knows? democrats had written off the<u+00a0>house<u+00a0>from the beginning:<u+00a0>gop gerrymandering all over the country makes it nearly impossible for democrats to win a majority in the house until another round of redistricting after the 2020 census. still, the possibility, however remote, is starting to be discussed. sam wang from the princeton election consortium said: i estimate that democrats must win the national popular vote by 8% to have any chance at taking control of the house. this large margin is driven by two major factors in equal measure: gerrymandering to pack democrats into districts, and population patterns which they pack themselves. therefore the magic number for house democrats is a clinton win by 8%. in national polls clinton is currently ahead by 5% (7 polls starting on october 10th or later), and obama outperformed his 2012 polls by 3%, so it<u+2019>s not crazy to imagine. i<u+2019>d give the house democrats a 1 in 5 chance of making it over this bar. a long shot . . . but not a crazy long shot. so what<u+2019>s happening to make this dramatic shift in october? clinton had been leading throughout the summer, but on sept. 26, the day of the first debate, fivethirtyeight<u+00a0>had donald trump with a 51 percent chance of winning. the candidates were tied nationally at 45 percent, and the trend was moving in his favor. the obvious answer is that trump blew it when he made a fool of himself in the aftermath of the first debate with his 3 a.m. tweets about the former miss universe. since then he has been accused by a dozen women of groping and assaulting them against their will. that <u+201c>access hollywood<u+201d> tape was a shocker. most observers see the huge and growing gender gap as a result of all that grossness. but something else happened as well. for about a month before that first debate the right-wing media and people in or around the trump campaign had been spreading spurious rumors that clinton had brain damage or parkinson<u+2019>s disease. this was barely covered in the mainstream media, but everyone in the media pays attention to matt drudge, who had been relentless with the story, so they were very much aware of such rumors. when clinton had her fainting spell at the 9/11 ceremony in new york, the press spent days feigning anger about her failure to keep them properly informed about the details of her doctor<u+2019>s appointments and diagnosis. (that<u+2019>s despite campaign professionals saying they would never inform the press of anything like that, mainly because such illnesses are so common on the trail.) unfortunately for clinton, the combined effect of the right<u+2019>s relentless smears about some kind of disqualifying terminal illness and the press fulminating for days over her pneumonia advanced the idea that she lacked the <u+201c>strength and stamina<u+201d> required for the job. coincidentally or otherwise, this was the very charge that trump had been making for months. by the time of the first debate in late september clinton had been off the trail for quite a bit, first recovering from her pneumonia and then doing debate prep, with trump nipping at her heels. when she showed up looking very healthy, sharp and aggressive, it changed the narrative overnight. indeed, her ability to bait him into misbehavior had her dominating that debate from beginning to end, when she hit him with the alicia machado story that had him reeling for days afterward. so it<u+2019>s true that trump<u+2019>s poll numbers have been cratering for a month now, pointing to what may be a catastrophic loss for the republicans. much of that happened because of revelations about trump<u+2019>s horrifying misogyny and his ongoing inability to behave with any discipline. but it<u+2019>s a mistake to discount the huge effect of the debates, well beyond trump<u+2019>s predictably ridiculous performance. these were the first occasions since the benghazi hearings for people to see what clinton is made of, and it reminded them of the characteristics that make her a formidable leader. when she stood<u+00a0>there, face-to-face with trump, it was clear that one of them was a president. and it wasn<u+2019>t him.

donald trump<u+2019>s collapse was caused by one big factor: 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

69.0

8.0

6046.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

403.0

0.0

146.0

0.0

50.0

14.0

12.0

19.0

8.0

21.0

11.0

24.0

37.0

33.0

407.0

146.0

50.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

the state department told the republican national committee that it could not find any emails to or from hillary clinton's former it specialist, who managed her private email server during her tenure as secretary of state before going on to work for the agency, according to a court filing made public monday. the government's revelation in u.s. district court in washington came in answer to a lawsuit by the republican national committee. the rnc had sued over its public records request for all work-related emails sent to or received by clinton's former aide, bryan pagliano, between 2009 and 2013, the years of clinton's tenure as america's top diplomat. the lawsuit also pressed for other state department records from the clinton era. the rnc's filing said lawyers for the agency had informed them in discussions that "the state department has represented that no responsive records exist" for any pagliano emails. pagliano was hired at the agency after reportedly setting up clinton's server in 2009, but the lack of any official state department emails raises the question whether he limited his email traffic using a private account, much like clinton did during her four years as secretary, or whether his government emails were deleted. a state department official said monday that the agency possessed emails from pagliano from the period after clinton's term had ended, when he continued to work as a technology contractor. agency spokeswoman elizabeth trudeau then added monday evening that some pagliano emails dating from clinton's tenure had been recovered from agency officials' files and turned over to other organizations, including senate investigators. "we have previously produced through foia and to congress emails sent and received by mr. pagliano during secretary clinton's tenure," trudeau said in a public statement. at least one email, which was sent in november 2012 to clinton from pagliano -- but possibly from his private email address -- was released as part of 30,000 clinton emails made public by the agency over the past year. a spokesman for the rnc said the organization stood by its description of the discussions with lawyers for the state department. the group said in its filing that "the state department has represented that no responsive records exist." raj shah, the rnc spokesman, added, "it's hard to believe that an it staffer who set up hillary clinton's reckless email server never sent or received a single work-related email in the four years he worked at the state department." clinton's campaign officials declined to comment in response to questions from the associated press. trudeau said the state department is working with congress and several public records requesters to provide relevant material. she also said agency officials continue to search for "mr. pagliano's emails, which the department may have otherwise retained." trudeau also said the department would respond further to the rnc in court. state department officials told senate investigators last year they could not find a file containing pagliano's work emails during clinton's tenure, an assertion first reported by politico. fox news reported in march that pagliano has revealed several details about clinton's personal email system to investigators, including<u+00a0>who had access to it<u+2013> as well as when and what devices were used. an intelligence source close to the case told fox news that pagliano has been a "devastating witness" to clinton. the one email sent by pagliano that surfaced among clinton's 30,000 emails was sent to clinton was a november 2012 birthday greeting. he wished her "happy birthday madam secretary. to many more!" pagliano's email address was censored, unlike numerous official state department addresses that are listed in clinton's emails -- suggesting he may have sent the message from a private address. clinton did not reply directly to pagliano. instead, she sent a copy of an email to an aide with the instruction "pls respond." the associated press contributed to this report.

state department says it can't find emails from clinton it specialist

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

8.0

69.0

8.0

4076.0

0.0

1.0

8.0

0.0

276.0

0.0

67.0

2.0

0.0

20.0

6.0

9.0

4.0

8.0

4.0

23.0

9.0

21.0

284.0

67.0

22.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

addis ababa, ethiopia <u+2014>president obama convened a meeting with the leaders of several east african nations and the african union on monday in an effort to address the worsening situation in south sudan, even as he met with ethiopia<u+2019>s prime minister to discuss how to strengthen human rights and democratic institutions here. with no resolution in sight for the ongoing conflict in south sudan, obama brought together top officials from ethiopia, uganda, kenya, sudan and the a.u. to chart out a strategy in the event that the latest round of peace talks fail. african nations, led by ethiopia, have been trying to broker a peace in south sudan through the intergovernmental authority on development (igad), a regional body, and are almost ready to present a possible compromise to the warring parties. the two sides will have until aug. 17 to respond to the proposal, but administration officials have little expectation that they will accept it. on monday, obama praised the regional leaders for showing <u+201c>extraordinary leadership in trying to address the continuing situation in south sudan.<u+201d> the group included ethiopian prime minister hailemariam desalegn, ugandan president yoweri museveni, kenyan president uhuru kenyatta, african union chairperson dlamini zuma and sudan<u+2019>s minister of foreign affairs, ibrahim ghandour. <u+201c>this gives me and the u.s. delegation an opportunity to learn from them what progress has been made, where there appears to be continued roadblocks and how we can partner with them to make progress,<u+201d> obama said. <u+201c>our hope is that we can actually bring about the kind of peace that the people of south sudan so desperately need.<u+201d> the question of south sudan <u+2014> a nation that the united states helped bring into existence in 2011 after years of effort by both the george w. bush and obama administrations <u+2014> has vexed american policymakers for years. in december 2013, south sudan president salva kiir accused riek machar, who had served as his vice president, of attempting a coup d<u+2019>etat. the two had been longtime political rivals from different ethnic groups <u+2014> kiir is dinka, machar is a nuer <u+2014> who had come together to form a government when the country was first created. while tribal differences have helped fuel the conflict, the war has been largely focused on control of the nation<u+2019>s oil fields, south sudan<u+2019>s primary source of revenue. princeton lyman, u.s. special envoy for sudan and south sudan from 2011 to 2013, noted that when he first took over as envoy, the united states had spent $10 billion on peacekeeping and other assistance for the two nations, <u+201c>and that was four years ago<u+2026> this is a big investment,<u+201d> he added. at this point, more than 2.5 million people are facing food shortages, while roughly 1.5 million are displaced from their homes. an additional 520,000 south sudanese have fled across the border into neighboring countries, including ethiopia. the conflict also poses a major economic problem for kenya, which had major investments in south sudan before the fighting broke out. the lapsset corridor project was aimed at transporting oil from south sudan to the kenyan port of lamu, and according to e.j. hogendoorn, deputy program director for africa at the international crisis group, the planned transportation and infrastructure development could have been an <u+201c>engine of development" for many parts of east africa. "unfortunately, of course, that<u+2019>s on hold because of the war,<u+201d> he said. while obama spent part of the afternoon addressing a regional conflict in africa, he devoted the rest of the day to strengthening ties with ethiopia, whose alliance with the united states dates back more than a century. but the current government has come under sharp criticism for its treatment of political opponents and journalists. obama is the first sitting u.s. president to visit ethiopia. in a news conference monday afternoon, both obama and hailemariam said they had a frank discussion about ethiopia's human rights practices and the need for improvement. ethiopia is africa<u+2019>s number two jailer of journalists, according to the committee to protect journalists, and its ruling party won 100 percent of the seats in may<u+2019>s parliamentary elections. white house national security adviser susan rice, asked last week whether she considered ethiopia a democracy, replied, with irony: <u+201c>one hundred percent.<u+201d> but during the news conference obama twice referred to the ethiopian government as <u+201c>democratically elected.<u+201d> <u+201c>i don<u+2019>t bite my tongue,<u+201d> obama said of raising concerns on these issues with ethiopia. <u+201c>but i do so from a position of respect.<u+201d> hailemariam, for his part, said, <u+201c>our commitment to democracy is real, not skin deep.<u+201d> but he added later that people could not expect sweeping reforms given the fact that military rule ended just a couple of decades ago. <u+201c>something has to be understood: this is a fledgling democracy.<u+201d> the two leaders also discussed their collaboration on counterterrorism, an area in which ethiopia has been an active leader. the white house announced monday it will <u+201c>work with congress to provide approximately $465 million<u+201d> this year in new training, equipment and capacity-building aid to its african allies. the administration also said it would provide at least $40 million in assistance this fiscal year to combat violent extremism in east africa. the money is intended to foster collaboration among security forces, law enforcement, government officials, community leaders and members of civil society, officials said. obama praised ethiopia<u+2019>s work to curb extremist activity but noted that its government had labeled some opposition groups as posing a greater threat than u.s. intelligence would indicate. <u+201c>our intelligence indicates while they may oppose the government, they have not tipped into terrorism,<u+201d> he said. the united states provides more than $600 million in<u+00a0>assistance to ethiopia annually. the vast bulk of that <u+2014> $490 million <u+2014> comes from the u.s. agency for international development, while the rest is largely security-related. last fiscal year, nearly $200 million went to health programs, while $163 million went to humanitarian aid. obama said ethiopia <u+201c>has proven itself a global leader<u+201d> on development and over the past 15 years <u+201c>has lifted millions of people out of poverty.<u+201d> <u+201c>to many people around the world, their image of ethiopia remains stuck in the past, remembering drought and famine,<u+201d> he said. the two leaders appeared to have a friendly rapport throughout the news conference. hailemariam described his country as scoring a series of firsts: along with being <u+201c>the cradle of mankind,<u+201d> he said, <u+201c>ethiopia is the birthplace of coffee.<u+201d> that elicited a smile from obama. obama said he was impressed by the ethiopian<u+2019>s unusual pets. <u+201c>i had a chance to see the famous lions that live on the grounds," he said. "i<u+2019>m considering getting some for the white house.<u+201d> but he conceded that before he did that, <u+201c>i<u+2019>ll have to make sure my dogs are safe.<u+201d>

in ethiopia, obama seeks progress on peace, security in east africa

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

67.0

8.0

6991.0

0.0

6.0

0.0

525.0

0.0

116.0

1.0

0.0

60.0

14.0

19.0

6.0

17.0

21.0

9.0

42.0

26.0

62.0

531.0

116.0

61.0

na

true

ti_cnn

real

na

train

na

jeb bush is suddenly attacking trump. here's why that matters jeb bush isn't pulling punches anymore when it comes to donald trump. the former florida governor has delicately danced around the billionaire businessman in the 2016 presidential primary so far. but the gloves came off this week when bush called out trump as a closet democrat. he was trying to stunt trump's rise while attempting to recover his own political mojo. "what jeb is desperately trying to do is find his swagger right now," gop strategist ford o'connell said. "the knock against jeb is that he's low voltage and not willing to fight. the best way to shake those perceptions it to engage against the person who is in the media on a 24/7 loop." it's a change from bush's approach to this point. he hasn't lobbed many direct attacks at trump other than delicately condemning his criticism of arizona sen. john mccain's war service and his attacks against fox news' megyn kelly. even in this month's first debate, bush swatted down a story that he had allegedly called trump a "buffoon" and a "clown," saying only that trump's language had been "divisive." trump called bush "a true gentleman." the detente ended this week. so far, most of the top-tier candidates have avoided directly attacking trump, treating him with kid gloves so as not to anger the part of the gop base to which trump appeals. in other words, the very voters they need when, they hope, trump fades. in split-screen new hampshire town halls this week, bush and trump volleyed attacks on each other. bush took his most pointed jabs at the current front-runner, underscoring trump's past history as a democrat and the liberal positions he used to hold. "mr. trump doesn't have a proven conservative record," bush said, according to the washington post. "he was a democrat longer in the last decade than he was a republican. he has given more money to democrats than he's given to republicans." bush went on to attack trump over his hard-line immigration proposal, arguing it was not just "vitriolic" but would have a massive price tag. "hundreds of billions of dollars of costs to implement his plans is not a conservative plan," bush said. "this is going to be my pitch: let's support someone who you don't have to guess where he stands because he's consistent, because he's been governor, he's consistently had the views that he has." over the next few days, bush continued the hits on social media. but trump, never one to miss a moment to retaliate, didn't pull his punches, either. at his own town hall wednesday, trump blasted bush as an unelectable "low-energy person." "you know what's happening to jeb's crowd just down the street? they're sleeping!" trump said to applause. since then, trump has also ramped up his attacks against bush on twitter. the move to more hot rhetoric may have tripped bush up, though. consider his use of the phrase "anchor babies." while immigration reform is something bush is passionate about <u+2014> and has even written a book about <u+2014> he's often criticized within the gop as too liberal on the issue. instead, a more combative bush appeared to use the loaded phrase for the first time. he was left struggling to defend his use of it. it may have been a signal that the attack-dog crouch he's taking is still one that isn't completely comfortable to bush, who earlier said he wanted to campaign "joyfully." other candidates have embraced hitting trump. kentucky sen. rand paul went after him forcefully in the debate, though his punch <u+2014> that trump was hedging his bets to support hillary clinton if she wins the presidency <u+2014> didn't appear to land. other candidates like ohio gov. john kasich demurred. in the earlier gop debate that night, former texas gov. rick perry and businesswoman carly fiorina also jabbed at trump. bush, though, needs to close the floodgates. he's dropped in national polls as trump has risen. and, in new hampshire, where bush once led, trump and even newcomer kasich have seen surges. cullen, a former new hampshire gop chairman, said the change in tone and tactics was a smart move for bush, one that could help him in the granite state. "i think it's good politics for jeb," said fergus cullen, a former new hampshire republican party chairman. "there's 25 percent of the republicans who are entertained by donald trump. but there's 60 percent of the party who say they won't vote for him under any circumstances. those aren't jeb bush's people to begin with. he's trying to appeal to the other 60 percent by being the adult in the room and trying to govern." o'connell agreed. he pointed out that even if this new approach is one that's uncomfortable for bush, it's necessary. "in a lot of elections, being the studious one would have worked," he said, "but trump has flipped the script."

jeb bush is suddenly attacking trump. here's why that matters

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

61.0

8.0

4818.0

0.0

1.0

3.0

0.0

298.0

1.0

0.0

115.0

0.0

29.0

14.0

11.0

3.0

12.0

9.0

5.0

15.0

17.0

16.0

25.0

301.0

116.0

29.0

na