I would just like to remind everyone that Lester Holt is a registered Republican and has been since 2003..............
Trump campaign says he didn't know debate moderator Lester Holt was a registered Republican
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump didn't know moderator Lester Holt's political affiliation before labeling him a Democrat earlier this month, Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said Monday.
Bloomberg Politics' co-managing editor Mark Halperin repeatedly pressed Conway on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Monday, questioning why Trump called the NBC anchor a Democrat if he didn't know. Holt has registered as a Republican in New York since 2003.
"I don't think he knew what Lester Holt's registration was," Conway said. "A lie would mean he knew the man's party registration."
Conway also told the panel that the campaign got to object to certain moderators.
The Commission on Presidential Debates does not consult the campaigns when selecting debate moderators, according to its website.
The debate is scheduled for 6 p.m. Pacific time at Hofstra University in New York.
so instead of...i dunno, FREAKING GOOGLING IT, he just assumed homey was a democrat.
k.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
"I don't think he knew what Lester Holt's registration was," Conway said. "A lie would mean he knew the man's party registration."
So spouting off based on an assumption, without doing an ounce of research.. is better than lying then.
This is exactly my biggest gripe with Hillary... "I don't know..." "I don't recall..." "I'm not sure..." "That's not EXACTLY what I said..." Those are her responses to everything when she's cornered on something important and it's sad...
I've joked, Hillary has commercials about how scary it is if Donald had the nuclear suitcase because he might use it... My other fear is that one day we might need it and Hillary won't remember where it is.
I love how you managed to spin that on to Hillary.
You and Arch are Gods when it comes to that.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I love how you managed to spin that on to Hillary.
You and Arch are Gods when it comes to that.
Well, I'm blushing.. never considered myself a "god" at anything...
I was just pointing out that it is one of my biggest gripes with Hillary.. I want the republicans to be better than that, they are not. They do the same crap, which is what makes it hard for me to support them.
I'm sorry if it came across incorrectly but I was trying to point out that I'm TRYING to not be hypocritical and call out Hillary for things then excuse Republicans for the same thing... because the Trump staffer's response is pathetic.
All I know is I don't want to hear a bunch of "I don't know" or "I don't recall" from any of those two tonight.
I really view this as maybe the most important debate of the..two/three?
BOTH of them better not embarrass our nation tonight. Had enough of that throughout this election so far.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Ed boards scramble to undercut Trump ahead of debate, as polls show dead heat
The New York Times and Washington Post editorial boards unleashed a broadside Monday against Donald Trump ahead of the first presidential debate, scrambling to make their case for why the Republican nominee should not be president as he gains on Hillary Clinton in the polls.
The Times, after endorsing Clinton over the weekend, went a step further with a new editorial titled, “Why He Should Not Be President.”
The 1,400-word essay sought to systematically knock down Trump’s own claims about his assets as a leader, describing him as a “man far more consumed with himself than with the nation's well-being.”
The Times wrote: “Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions.”
"I don't think he knew what Lester Holt's registration was," Conway said. "A lie would mean he knew the man's party registration."
So spouting off based on an assumption, without doing an ounce of research.. is better than lying then.
This is exactly my biggest gripe with Hillary... "I don't know..." "I don't recall..." "I'm not sure..." "That's not EXACTLY what I said..." Those are her responses to everything when she's cornered on something important and it's sad...
I've joked, Hillary has commercials about how scary it is if Donald had the nuclear suitcase because he might use it... My other fear is that one day we might need it and Hillary won't remember where it is.
Or she could be passed out/recovering from fainting. It happened only two weeks ago.
It wouldn't be shocking for something similar to happen during one of the debates; she will surely be hopped up on medications to prevent her various ailments (coughing fits, seizure-like episodes) but being hopped up on meds has its own set of problems. Her doctors better get it right but there's the wildcard thrown in regarding how she will respond to 90 straight minutes of a highly-stressful situation. And make no mistake about it, debating Donald Trump has to be very stressful. He brings the heat like few others can.
All I know is I don't want to hear a bunch of "I don't know" or "I don't recall" from any of those two tonight.
I really view this as maybe the most important debate of the..two/three?
BOTH of them better not embarrass our nation tonight. Had enough of that throughout this election so far.
agreed that this debate is the most important. Most people don't follow this stuff as closely as we do and this is the best time for the candidates to make a good impression on those people.
The next debate (after tonight) is between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, then there are two more after that between Trump and Hillary.
Well she seemed to do fine in an 11 hour Congressional hearing.
This is true. She very well might get through these fine, but that doesn't really win her very much. On the flip side, a major health issue flaring up during a debate would be horrible for her campaign. That's one of the reasons I've said that she has more more to lose in these debates and more chances for a disastrous performance. It's not just the health thing, it's also what she says. Despite all the controversial things Donald Trump has said, that has been directed at media, citizens of other countries, and his political opponents. He has been consistently supportive of American citizens of all types.
Hillary turned the heat on tens of millions of Americans. That is something that motivates the right-wing base. I wouldn't put it past her to do something like that again. I'm not sure if she even knows any better.
As far as the health thing goes, my opinion is that she is very unwell and the Clinton Camp has gone to great lengths in the past year to limit her appearances as much as possible and to have her appear in highly controlled settings (think short, scripted speeches in friendly atmospheres). That she got through a grueling 11 hour interview a year ago is nice, but I'm not sure it tells us too much. Even sick people have good days and bad days. Maybe that was a good day? Maybe I'm just very wrong about her health issues and I'm speculating about it too much? I don't know.
So if she makes it through, doesn't mean much. The slightest bit of health concerns, it's a problem?
So what you're saying is it really doesn't what happens. You're mind is already made up on the topic.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So if she makes it through, doesn't mean much. The slightest bit of health concerns, it's a problem?
So what you're saying is it really doesn't what happens. You're mind is already made up on the topic.
Put it this way. If she is truly healthy, then she should have absolutely no problem getting through three 90 minute debates without a major health issue.
Note the words 'major health issue'. I did not say 'slightest bit of health concerns'. Some sniffles and a cough or two are a lot different than fainting, passing out and having a concussion, seizure-like episodes, or even going on a coughing fit that leaves her unable to speak for minutes at a time and yes all of those things have happened to her at one point or another.
If she is unwell, she may or may not get through the debates without issue. Obviously her medical team knows her situation far better than any of us do and I'm sure they're very good at what they do. Even if she is very sick (and this is just a hypothetical for now, I'm not saying this is a fact), there's still a good chance they will manage her closely and she will make it through 90 minutes just fine. In this regard, I think she has much more to lose than she has to gain.
I've not seen Trump "sincerely support" many segments of America.
You haven't seen him speak out on the importance of bringing blue-collar jobs back to the United States (as impractical as some of that actually is, given advancements in technology)?
You didn't see him give his unequivocal support to the LGBT community, which drew a loud, standing ovation at the... wait for it... Republican National Convention?
You didn't see him reach out to members of that predominantly black community at a church in Detroit, pledging to bring back jobs, improve the infrastructure, and give all Americans a fairer shot at life?
You didn't see him support members of the LE and military communities who have been taken a beating in recent years from some groups?
Lots more examples. I'm not sure whether or not you think these outreaches are 'sincere' or if he hasn't done enough of this kind of thing but they are definitely out there. However, they tend to get buried in the media in favor of the latest controversial thing he said (and in fairness, he has said a lot of controversial things).
everybody has also not seen him practiced what he preaches. that's the problem.
Last edited by Swish; 09/26/1605:38 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
All I know is I don't want to hear a bunch of "I don't know" or "I don't recall" from any of those two tonight.
I really view this as maybe the most important debate of the..two/three?
BOTH of them better not embarrass our nation tonight. Had enough of that throughout this election so far.
My thoughts are that Trump can't win the election tonight, but he can lose it. If he comes across as irrational, overly sarcastic, childish, or in any way very unPresidential.. he could be done. And the second two debates won't matter.
I think Hillary, who is a lot more polished, doesn't run nearly as big a risk.
I look for them to try to pin Donald down on some actual specifics of his plans and he is going to need to have answers.
Like I said, I don't think Donald can win the election based on tonight but a solid showing could mean this race is close until the end, a bad showing and it could get ugly.
Just a little pin stick there will be no more AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, but you may feel a little sick.
There is no pain you are receding A distant ship's smoke on the horizon You are only coming through in waves Your lips move But I can't hear what you're saying
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I still think Trump is going to shine tonight and a lot of people are going to feel really good about voting for him when they go to bed tonight.
Another prediction that probably won't reveal itself for weeks: Hillary will go on record with something that we later find out is a major lie. October surprise perhaps?
Sort of like how trump also said he could shoot somebody and people will still vote for him?
He has plenty of great one liners.
Last edited by Swish; 09/26/1606:26 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
And Haus, don't go anywhere cause we doing this like game day chat.
Eve and Ted already know.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
If Trump could actually bring those jobs back, he'd win this election in a landslide. That issue, the wall, and jacking up our military budget are why I can't support him.
I still think Trump is going to shine tonight and a lot of people are going to feel really good about voting for him when they go to bed tonight.
Another prediction that probably won't reveal itself for weeks: Hillary will go on record with something that we later find out is a major lie. October surprise perhaps?
I go to bed happy every night because I know I am doing my part to make America great again. Every Single Night
My children have me look under the bed for Hillary before they will sleep.
Has anyone seen the movie "idiocracy"? That is my prediction for this debate. Terry Crews will be playing Trump, And the wicked witch of the West will play Hilary
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
I still think Trump is going to shine tonight and a lot of people are going to feel really good about voting for him when they go to bed tonight.
Another prediction that probably won't reveal itself for weeks: Hillary will go on record with something that we later find out is a major lie. October surprise perhaps?
I go to bed happy every night because I know I am doing my part to make America great again. Every Single Night
My children have me look under the bed for Hillary before they will sleep.
Trump
That is pretty funny
The official TrumpDawgs party is scheduled for November 8th-9th.
A bipartisan group of House lawmakers are asking the Drug Enforcement Administration to reconsider its decision to place the herbal supplement kratom into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, a move that could take effect as early as the end of the week.
In a letter on Monday, 45 representatives ― including 17 Republicans ― called on acting DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenberg to delay the impending ban in order to “engage consumers, researchers, and other stakeholders, in keeping with well-established protocol for such matters.”
See the full letter and list of signatories below.
“This significant regulatory action was done without any opportunity for public comment from researchers, consumers, and other stakeholders,” reads the letter, drafted by Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Matt Salmon (R-Ariz). “This hasty decision could have serious effects on consumer access and choice of an internationally recognized herbal supplement.”
Pocan’s office provided a copy of the letter to The Huffington Post. The lawmakers also sent a separate letter to Shaun Donovan, director of the Office of Management and Budget, asking him to halt the DEA’s scheduling process to give authorities more time to determine if kratom truly belongs in Schedule I, alongside heroin and LSD. Drugs in this category are considered to have no known medical benefit and a high potential for abuse.
TAMMY ALENDER A jar of kratom powder, made from the leaves of leaves of Mitragyna speciosa, along with a mug of kratom tea. In a notice published in the Federal Register at the end of August, the DEA claimed that kratom, an herb made from the leaves of Mitragyna speciosa, a Southeast Asian tree related to coffee, poses an “imminent hazard to the public safety.” Kratom contains two alkaloids, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, which appear to activate opioid receptors in the brain and reduce pain. Though most opioids have sedative qualities, kratom is a mild stimulant in low to moderate doses.
As an herbal supplement, kratom remains largely unregulated at the federal level, though law enforcement agencies have recently begun seizing shipments of kratom products, citing health concerns. Over the past few years, state lawmakers have worked ― often with the cooperation of pro-kratom organizations ― to consider age restrictions and labeling requirements, among other regulatory measures. A federal ban would put an end to such nuanced efforts.
Kratom groups estimate millions of Americans currently use kratom to treat a variety of ailments, including chronic pain anxiety, depression and opioid addiction. But because kratom hasn’t been subjected to large-scale clinical trials under federal guidelines, the DEA says the herb has “no currently accepted medical use” and is therefore moving to make criminals out of the people who currently use it. The agency also raises concerns about kratom’s potential for addiction and abuse.
The DEA did not give an opportunity for public comment ahead of last month’s announcement, and kratom advocates and lawmakers say they weren’t aware of the agency’s intent until after it published the notice.
Kratom users and scientists have since aggressively opposed the DEA’s move to wage war on another plant. Critics claim the agency dismissed promising anecdotal reports and emerging scientific evidence suggesting kratom may have medical benefits ― or at the very least, a low-risk profile and minimal potential for recreational abuse.
Researchers at Columbia University recently published a study on the alkaloids in kratom and found that the herb activates opioid receptors in a way that doesn’t trigger respiratory depression, a potentially lethal side effect of most narcotic painkillers. The scientists concluded that kratom could help lead to the development of safer pain medications that could help address a nationwide opioid epidemic fueled by prescription painkillers. At least one pharmaceutical company is currently working to develop a medication that targets pain in much the same way as kratom.
The DEA’s decision ... will put a halt on federally funded research and innovation surrounding the treatment of individuals suffering from opioid and other addictions. House lawmakers’ letter to the DEA Kratom advocates and drug policy reformers have said the move to ban kratom makes a mockery of the federal government’s purported concern about the opioid epidemic. The White House and members of Congress have encouraged doctors to prescribe fewer narcotic painkillers, but the DEA has now moved to criminalize a natural herb that could help with that very effort ― presumably, much to the pleasure of pharmaceutical companies that would benefit from the demise of an affordable competitor.
In their letter, lawmakers accuse the DEA of mounting a hypocritical campaign against kratom.
“The DEA’s decision to place kratom as a Schedule I substance will put a halt on federally funded research and innovation surrounding the treatment of individuals suffering from opioid and other addictions — a significant public health threat,” they write.
FRANK600 VIA GETTY IMAGES The leaves of a Mitragyna speciosa tree. Farmers typically dry the leaves and crush them into a fine powder to make kratom. Opponents of the DEA’s decision are also questioning kratom’s supposed health risks. The DEA relied heavily on a single report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found that U.S. poison centers received 660 kratom-related calls between January 2010 and December 2015. It also found evidence of 555 positive drug test results for kratom from December 2014 through March 2016.
The DEA claims that a sharp upward trend over this period shows “growing abuse and popularity of these substances,” but the incidents make up just a tiny portion of the more than 3 million annual calls to poison centers and the millions of drug tests the CDC surveyed over that period. For comparison, poison centers gets tens of thousands of calls each year regarding exposure to laundry detergent packets, glow sticks and other plant matter. In 2014, about 57 percent of all poison center cases involved pharmaceuticals.
The DEA also claims there have been “numerous deaths associated with kratom,” but critics point out that the agency hasn’t been able to provide an example in which the herb was found to be the only contributor. Most deaths associated with kratom have involved people who reportedly tested positive for numerous substances or were suffering from pre-existing medical conditions. Users frequently report that consuming too much kratom will only lead to nausea and vomiting.
Meanwhile, around 25,000 people died of prescription drug overdoses in the United States in 2014, the highest number ever recorded.
The DEA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter from Congress.
Although lawmakers didn’t exactly rush to challenge the DEA’s decision, the letter shows that they are willing to take a vocal, proactive stand against bad policy, said Jag Davies, director of communications strategy at the Drug Policy Alliance, a nonprofit that advocates for progressive reform of drug laws.
“It’s about time the DEA took heed of the remarkable, bipartisan support in Congress for drug policy reform,” said Davies in a statement. “There’s no good reason for people who use kratom to be treated as criminals, especially considering prohibition’s disproportionate impact on people of color and other marginalized communities.”
Congress Letter to DEA on Kratom by Nick Wing on Scribd The following lawmakers signed on to the letter:
Mark Pocan - (D-Wis.)
Matt Salmon - (R-Ariz.)
John Conyers - (D-Mich.)
Hank Johnson - (D-Ga.)
Tim Ryan - (D-Ohio)
Jared Polis - (D-Colo.)
Adam Smith - (D-Wash.)
Dana Rohrabacher - (R-Calif.)
Joe Heck - (R-Nev.)
John Yarmuth - (D-Ky.)
Steve Cohen - (D-Tenn.)
Dan Benishek - (R-Mich.)
Mark Sanford - (R-S.C.)
Mick Mulvaney - (R-S.C.)
Keith Ellison - (D-Minn.)
Steve Israel - (D-N.Y.)
Ted Poe - (R-Texas)
Gerald E. Connolly - (D-Va.)
Betty McCollum – (D-Minn.)
Earl Blumenauer - (D-Ore.)
Tulsi Gabbard - (D-Hawaii)
Gwen Moore - (D-Wis.)
Brad Wenstrup - (R-Ohio)
Tom Graves - (R-Ga.)
Justin Amash - (R-Mich.)
Michael M. Honda - (D-Calif.)
Barbara Lee - (D-Calif.)
Raúl Labrador - (R-Idaho)
Peter DeFazio - (D-Ore.)
Scott Tipton - (R-Colo.)
Julia Brownley - (D-Calif.)
Morgan Griffith - (R-Va.)
Jim Costa - (D-Calif.)
Suzan K. DelBene - (D-Wash.)
Denny Heck - (D-Wash.)
Zoe Lofgren - (D-Calif.)
Dave Brat - (R-Va.)
Scott Peters - (D-Calif.)
Tom Emmer - (R-Minn.)
Paul Gosar - (R-Ariz.)
Suzanne Bonamici - (D-Ore.)
Michael Capuano - (D-Mass.)
Leonard Lance - (R-N.J.)
Frank LoBiondo - (R-N.J.)
Robert C. “Bobby” Scott - (D-Va.)
Last edited by Swish; 09/26/1607:50 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
