[brid video=”33979″ player=”2077″ title=””CROOKED HILLARY!” Trump vs Clinton will be the biggest voter turnout in US Election History”]
Donald Trump revealed the long-awaited nickname for his presumed Democratic rival in Watertown, New York, on Saturday–“Crooked Hillary.” Mr. Trump has put his branding skills to work on his Republican rivals: “Lyin’ Ted” for Ted Cruz, “Little Marco” for Marco Rubio, and “Low Energy Jeb” for Jeb Bush.
“And then of course we have Crooked Hillary folks,” Mr. Trump said at his rally. “She’s been crooked from the beginning and to think she has a shot at winning, we can’t have it folks. Crooked Hillary.”
The name might shaken Mrs. Clinton up already. In an interview on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” Mrs. Clinton hoped to brush off the nickname that strikes at the heart of her unfavorable and trustworthy ratings in the polls.
“He can say whatever he wants to say about me, I really could care less,” Clinton said. “I don’t respond to Donald Trump and his string of insults about me.”
Of course, Mrs. Clinton misspoke. The correct response would have been “I really couldn’t care less.” Nevertheless, the Republican frontrunner has begun to tweet out his new nickname ahead of the New York primary on Tuesday, representing a shift away from his GOP rivals.
Crooked Hillary Clinton is spending a fortune on ads against me. I am the one person she doesn't want to run against. Will be such fun!
Maybe future events will require a reassessment, but right now the biggest danger to the western world isn’t terrorism. Nor is it climate change. Or Zika. Or even Donald Trump.
The real threat is demographic change.
America’s population profile already has changed, but the future shift will be even more dramatic.
But demographics changes are neither good nor bad. The real problem, as I pointed out last month, is when you combine an aging population with poorly designed entitlement programs.
…even a small welfare state becomes a problem when a nation has a population cylinder. Simply stated, there aren’t enough people to pull the wagon and there are too many people riding in the wagon.
Here are some sobering details from a story in Business Insider.
The world is about to see a mind-blowing demographic situation that will be a first in human history: There are about to be more elderly people than young children. …And these two age groups will continue to grow in opposite directions: The proportion of the population ages 65 and up will continue to increase, while the proportion of the population ages 5 and under will continue decreasing. In fact, according to the Census Bureau, by 2050 those ages 65 and up will make up an estimated 15.6% of the global population — more than double that of children ages 5 and under, who will make up an estimated 7.2%. “This unique demographic phenomenon of the ‘crossing’ is unprecedented,” the report’s authors said.
Here’s the chart that accompanied the story.
And as you look at the numbers, keep in mind that entitlement programs mean that a growing population of old people means more spending, while a shrinking number of children means fewer future taxpayers to finance that spending.
Let’s now look at a nation that is the “canary in the coal mine” for why changing demographics is a recipe for fiscal crisis.
A story from The Week highlights the grim demographic outlook for Japan.
Japan is us, and we’re Japan. …Japan has a…serious problem on its hands: The country is literally dying. According to current projections, by 2060 the country will have shrunk by a third, and people over 65 years old will account for 40 percent of the population. Already, the country is selling more adult diapers than infant diapers. To say this is unsustainable is a euphemism. The country is quite simply dying. …Demography is not destiny, exactly, but it is close to it. …the impending collapse can no longer be denied, as is the case in Japan and Germany. …The extinction of a people and culture is always a global tragedy. It’s time for Japan — and the West — to wake up.
A wake-up call is needed. It’s not just Japan. The entire developed world faces a demographic problem.
The good news is that there is an understanding that something needs to change.
The not-so-good news is that many of the responses are misguided. Cheered on by the OECD, Japan has been boosting the value-added tax in hopes of financing an ever-expanding burden of government spending.
That won’t end well.
And I’m not overly enthralled by some of the other proposals.
Why not just pay people to have children? …If you lower the price of something, you will get more of it. Over the past two decades, Japan has spent trillions of dollars on mostly wasteful pork-barrel spending projects. It seems to me that the country would be better off today if that money had been spent on bonuses for second and third children instead.
But I’m not confident that child subsidies are an effective or desirable long-run solution to the nation’s demographic situation.
The one option that would work is to reform entitlement programs. Hong Kong’s demographic outlook is even more challenging than Japan’s, yet it is in much better long-run shape because it has a more sensible approach to entitlements, including a private Social Security system.
P.S. Every so often, a celebrity from the entertainment world has an epiphany about greedy and corrupt government. It definitely happened for Jon Lovitz, Will Smith, and Rob Schneider. And it might be happening for George Lopez.
In a recent radio interview for BigBoyTV, comedian George Lopez let us all know that he’s endorsing Senator Bernie Sanders, while paradoxically, making it known he doesn’t want to pay any more taxes.
Here’s what he specifically said.
I endorsed Bernie Sanders. But really just to… I mean it’s cool. I can’t pay any more taxes, it’s ridiculous. But, so, we’ll figure it out.
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff told business leaders that the depreciation of the dollar impairs emerging countries’ growth following a 2012 meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House. (Photo: SHFWire/Robin Siteneski)
The lower house in Brazil voted late Sunday to impeach President Dilma Rousseff, a major blow to the left-wing leader of Latin America’s largest nation. Rousseff, a key ideological ally of U.S. President Barack Obama, repeatedly stated there were no scandals in her administration and argued that the push against her was a “coup.”
Brazilian lawmakers accused her of using budgetary tricks to manage federal budget, cover up debt to maintain excessive government spending and shore up political support. After more than 40 hours of debate, she failed to secure the support of at least 342 of 513 deputies and the needed two-thirds of lawmakers in the Chamber of Deputies voted to oust her.
While Brazil is also the most powerful economy in Latin America, it has suffered under the leadership of President Rousseff. In the end, her support in the government coalition fell away.
“It was a herd effect, and many (legislators) betrayed us. It was a double defeat,” said Brazilian Communist Party legislator Orlando Silva, a supporter of Rousseff.
Luiz Carlos Hauly, who serves as a deputy in the Social Democratic Party, the main opposition party, said Rousseff had to be impeached for the government to move forward.
“In Europe they change their government when it doesn’t have the majority,” he said. “This administration has no majority. It doesn’t have the means to govern.”
However, the nation’s future leadership is still anything but certain. The measure now goes to the Senate where, if by a simple majority the lawmakers vote to take it up and put the president on trial, President Rousseff will be suspended and the top job taken by Vice President Michel Temer.
Eduardo Cunha, the house speaker leading the push for impeachment, is second in line to replace Rousseff in the event she is fully ousted. He is facing various charges including money laundering and allegedly accepting roughly $5 million in kickbacks in connection with the Petrobras scheme. Mr. Cunha could also be stripped of office over allegations he lied when he told a congressional committee he didn’t hold any foreign bank accounts.
Documents later emerged linking him and his family to Swiss bank accounts, but as is the case with most other leftwing regimes, Brazilian legislators and other top politicians are afforded “special legal status,” meaning they must be tried by the Supreme Court for crimes and are largely protected from prosecutions.
PHOENIX, AZ – MARCH 18: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks during a campaign rally, Friday, March 18, 2016, in Phoenix. (Photo: AP/Rick Scuteri/The Associated Press)
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on Saturday was awarded all 14 delegates at the Wyoming GOP convention, where the party essentially chooses the delegates to support a candidate. However, while Wyoming is the second contest in a row where backing from the party and a superior ground game has shut out Donald J. Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, the frontrunner’s closest rival is likely to have a terrible month in April.
“We are likely to have a battle in Cleveland to decide who is the nominee,” Cruz told party members before they picked the delegates. “If you don’t want to see Donald Trump as the nominee, … then I ask you to please vote for the men and women on this slate.”
Mr. Trump, who did not actively campaign in either state convention contest, is at or above the 50-percent threshold in the next four contests, and recent polls have shown him just under a majority in California. The Golden State, which votes on the very last day of the primary season, will be pivotal in deciding whether the Republican Party’s nominee will have to be decided at a contested convention.
Lyin' Ted Cruz can't get votes (I am millions ahead of him) so he has to get his delegates from the Republican bosses. It won't work!
“Candidates that have allies that are party insiders have advantages in states that have a pyramid process of selecting their delegates,” Alan Cobb, senior Trump advisor said about Colorado and Wyoming. “These folks have worked this process for years.”
The New York Republican Primary will be held on Tuesday, where polls suggest Mr. Trump is poised to potentially sweep all of the Empire State’s 95 delegates. If he wins over 50% of the vote, he’ll be the first Republican presidential candidate to do so in his own home state.
I recently wrote about gun control, noting how there’s less murder in demographically similar U.S. states than there is in matching Canadian provinces.
But let’s see how the rest of the world is faring on this issue.
Let’s start with a story from Switzerland, a nation that has a very strong tradition of gun rights.
Switzerland is becoming safer. Police recently flagged up that crime rates fell by 7% in 2015, reaching a seven-year low. In 2014, homicide was actually at its lowest level in 30 years. …A survey by swissinfo.ch shows gun permit applications were up almost everywhere in Switzerland in 2015.
Hmmm…, more guns and less crime. The person who slapped the headline on the story seems to think it’s a mystery why that relationship exists.
But anybody capable of passing my IQ test for criminals and liberals understands that the title should be changed to “Lower crime because Swiss have more guns” or something like that.
The article also includes a section on Switzerland’s gun culture.
Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world because of its militia army. The defence ministry estimates that some two million guns are in private hands in a population of 8.3 million. An estimated 750,000 of those guns have been recorded in a local register. Under the militia system soldiers keep their army-issue weapons at home. Voters in recent years have rejected tighter gun controls. In 2011, voters rejected a proposal to restrict access to guns by banning the purchase of automatic weapons and introducing a licensing system for the use of firearms.
Ah, those sensible Swiss voters. Not only are they against tax hikes and regulatory intervention, but they also reject licensing and support the right to purchase automatic weapons.
Now let’s travel Down Under and see what happens when a government takes the wrong approach to guns.
Hillary Clinton says “Australia is a good example”… The man Clinton wants to succeed, Barack Obama, noted, “Australia … imposed very severe, tough gun laws. And they haven’t had a mass shooting since.” …Maybe it’s time to tell the president and his likely successor that the policies they so admire have been largely flouted… Clinton and Obama tout a 1996 “gun buyback” that was actually a compensated confiscation of self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns, and pump-action shotguns in response to the Port Arthur mass shooting. The seizure took around 650,000 firearms out of civilian hands and tightened the rules on legal acquisition and ownership of weapons going forward. …What the law couldn’t do—what prohibitions can never accomplish—was eliminate demand for what was forbidden. …The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia estimates compliance with the “buyback” at 19 percent. Other researchers agree. In a white paper on the results of gun control efforts around the world, Franz Csaszar, a professor of criminology at the University of Vienna, Austria, gives examples of large-scale non-compliance with the ban. He points out, “In Australia it is estimated that only about 20% of all banned self-loading rifles have been given up to the authorities.”
There is one group benefiting from the attempted gun ban. Criminal gangs are big winners.
“Australians may be more at risk from gun crime than ever before with the country’s underground market for firearms ballooning in the past decade,” the report added. “[T]he national ban on semi-automatic weapons following the Port Arthur massacre had spawned criminal demand for handguns.” …Once you enable organized crime, there are no boundaries. Australia’s criminal gangs supply not just pistols, but weapons up to and including rocket launchers—some of which may have ended up in terrorist hands. …like American bootleggers who supplemented smuggled booze with bathtub gin, Australia’s organized criminal outfits have learned the joy of DIY production. …Australia will have to live with the rise in organized crime for years to come.
Such a disappointment that Australia, which is a role model on some issues, is so anti-civil rights when it comes to guns.
Now let’s travel to France, where there are at least one person doesn’t think it’s a good idea to let terrorists be the only ones with guns.
The leader of the rock band playing the Bataclan in Paris the night ISIS terrorists killed 90 in the concert hall three months ago ripped French gun control laws and urged “everybody” to get a gun. “I can’t let the bad guys win,” said Jesse Hughes of Eagles of Death Metal. …Speaking in a sometimes tearful interview to iTele, Hughes added, “Did your French gun control stop a single fu—– person from dying at the Bataclan? And if anyone can answer yes, I’d like to hear it, because I don’t think so.”
Amen. It’s downright bizarre that European politicians think it’s a good idea for citizens to be disarmed while crazies get to stock up on weapons.
A New Jersey actor faces 10 years in prison for firing a prop pellet gun while filming an independent film. Carlo Goias, who uses the stage name Carlo Bellario, was charged with firing the fake gun without a state gun permit as part of the Garden State’s insanely strict gun laws. In New Jersey, all guns require a state permit, even non-lethal airsoft guns like the one Goias was using. …just seeing Goias pretending to fire from a car window prompted neighborhood residents to call the police. “I pretended to shoot out the window; they were going to dub in the sound later,” Goias told the Associated Press. “We get back, and within a couple of minutes we’re surrounded by cop cars.” …being sent away for 10 years over a fake gun is a reminder of just how absurd New Jersey’s gun laws still are.
Speaking of gun control, here’s radio shock jock Howard Stern making mostly sensible comments on the right to keep and bear arms.
[brid video=”33764″ player=”2077″ title=”Howard Stern Defends the Second Amendment “The Great Equalizer””]
It’s a bit disappointing that he supports a national gun registry, but I assume that’s because he doesn’t realize that the left supports registration primarily as a predicate for gun confiscation.
But he atones for that error by mocking leftists who have personal (and well-armed) security guards. Gee, I wonder if we might have an example of such a person.
And it’s also good that Howard mentions that most cops support gun rights, something that we see in the polling data.
The Survey of Consumers on Friday said their closely-watched gauge of consumer sentiment from the University of Michigan slipped to 89.7 in April, down from a March reading of 91.0.
The results missed the median forecast, as economists polled by Reuters anticipated a rise to 92.0 for the month.
“Consumer confidence continued its slow overall decline in early April, marking the fourth consecutive monthly decline,” said Surveys of Consumers chief economist, Richard Curtin. “To be sure, the sizes of the recent losses have been quite small, with the Sentiment Index falling just 2.9 Index-points since December 2015, although it was down 6.2 Index-points from a year ago and 8.4 points below the peak in January 2015. None of these declines indicate an impending recession, although concerns have risen about the resilience of consumers in the months ahead.”
Preliminary Consumer Sentiment Results for April 2016
Apr
Mar
Apr
M-M
Y-Y
2016
2016
2015
Change
Change
Index of Consumer Sentiment
89.7
91.0
95.9
-1.4%
-6.5%
Current Economic Conditions
105.4
105.6
107.0
-0.2%
-1.5%
Index of Consumer Expectations
79.6
81.5
88.8
-2.3%
-10.4%
“Consumers reported a slowdown in expected wage gains, weakening inflation-adjusted income expectations, and growing concerns that slowing economic growth would reduce the pace of job creation,” Mr. Curtin added. “These apprehensions should ease as the economy rebounds from its dismal start in the first quarter of 2016. Overall, the data now indicate that inflation-adjusted personal consumption expenditures will grow by 2.5% in 2016.”
Next data release: April 29, 2016 for Final April data at 10am ET
Surveys gauging manufacturing growth or contraction in Empire State. (REUTERS)
The Empire State Manufacturing Survey, the New York Federal Reserve’s gauge of manufacturing activity in the region, rose to 9.56 in April. The gauge is up from just 0.62 in January, which was the first time .
The results beat the median forecast, as economists had anticipated an increase to only 2.21. The general business conditions index rose to a reading slightly above zero last month, the first time in seven months activity climbed out of contraction. Readings above 0 point to expansion, while those below indicate contraction.
Thirty-one percent of respondents reported that conditions had improved over the month, while more than a fifth (22%) still reported that conditions had worsened.
The new orders and shipments indexes registered an increase in both orders and shipments, and inventories were slightly lower than last month. The prices paid index climbed sixteen points to 19.2, pointing to a pickup in input price increases, while the prices received index rose above zero, a sign that selling prices increased. Employment levels and the average workweek were little changed from March. The six-month outlook continued to improve, with the index for future business conditions rising for a third straight month.
[brid video=”33618″ player=”2077″ title=”Clinton This is an attack on me and President Obama”]
At the CNN Democratic Presidential Primary Debate on Thursday, Hillary Clinton defended her ties to Wall Street by comparing herself to President Barack Obama.
“Make no mistake about it, this is not just an attack on me,” she said about Bernie Sanders’ accusation that she is controlled by her donors. “It’s an attack on President Obama.”
The crowd, which often sounded more like a stadium of sports fans, didn’t respond well to the answer.
“Let me tell you why,” she said as the crowd booed her. “Let me tell you why, you may not like the answer but I’ll tell you why. President Obama had a Super PAC when he ran. President Obama took tens of millions of dollars from contributors. And President Obama was not at all influenced when he made the decision to pass and sign Dodd-Frank, the toughest regulations on Wall Street in many years. This is a phony attack that is designed to raise questions when there is no evidence of support to undergird the accusations he is putting forward in these attacks.”
Former first lady and secretary of state Hillary R. Clinton and Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders argue during the CNN Democratic Presidential Primary Debate on Thursday April 14 in New York City. There were fireworks during the debate ahead of the New York primary to be held April 19. (Photo: Getty Images)
NEW YORK CITY, N.Y. — With only a few days before the pivotal New York Primary, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders engaged in a two-hour shouting match at the Democratic debate hosted by CNN. Mrs. Clinton, who remains the frontrunner in the delegate count despite losing the last eight states, is hoping for a big win in her home state where polls have tightened considerably.
There were fireworks between the candidates over influence from Wall Street, gun control, race relations and the minimum wage. The tone of the campaign has grown more personal and intense over the last few weeks, as the election calendar approached the point the party and the frontrunner believes the nomination contest would be effectively over.
“Does Secretary Clinton have the experience and intelligence to be president? Of course she does, but I do question, I do question her judgment. I question a judgment that voted for the war in Iraq,” the senator said in response to a question from CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer.
Sen. Sanders said last week that Clinton was “unqualified.” Heading into Pennsylvania after New York, he also highlighted her votes in support of globalist trade deals and the her use of super PACs largely funded by big banks.
“I don’t believe that that is the kind of judgment we need to be the kind of president we need,” he said.
Mrs. Clinton fired back at Sen. Sanders’ populist attack by invoking President Barack Obama, who remains popular among Democratic primary voters in the state and the nation as a whole.
“Well, it is true that now that the spotlight is pretty bright in New York some things have been said, and Senator Sanders did call me unqualified. I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, that was a first,” the former secretary of state said. “Then he did say that he had to question my judgment. Well, the people of New York voted for me twice to be their Senator from New York, and President Obama trusted my judgment enough to ask me to be secretary of state for the United States.”
Clinton, who clearly tailored her message to New York with her opening statement and throughout the night, defended her ties to Wall Street by comparing herself to Obama. In classic Sanders fashion, the senator held to his national populist message by repeating his oft-cited criticisms, including her paid speeches to big banks and super PAC-funding.
“Make no mistake about it, this is not just an attack on me,” she said about Bernie Sanders’ accusation that she is controlled by her donors. “It’s an attack on President Obama.
The former secretary of state leapt at the chance to hit Sen. Sanders with the widely-circulated transcript of his interview with the New York Daily News editorial board earlier this month. The senator came across as shallow on foreign policy and even an issue central to his campaign–Wall Street greed. He couldn’t answer how he would break up the “too big to fail” banks. The paper this week endorsed Mrs. Clinton and essentially characterized Sen. Sanders as ill-equipped and unfit for the job.
“When asked, he could not explain how that would be done,” Mrs. Clinton said of the flub. “When asked, he could not explain how that would be done, and when asked about a number of foreign policy issues, he could not answer about Afghanistan, about Israel, about counter-terrorism, except to say if he had some paper in front of him, maybe he could. I think you need to have the judgment on Day One to be both president and commander in chief.”
Still, Sen. Sanders landed a damaging blow after Mrs. Clinton said she called the banks out during a speech in her time in the Senate. The crowd, which was seemingly out-of-control at times, went wild at his response.
“Secretary Clinton called them out,” Sen. Sanders said sarcastically. “Oh my goodness, they must have been really crushed by this. And was that before or after you received huge sums of money by giving speaking engagements? They must have been very, very upset by what you did.”
In response, Mrs. Clinton repeated that she would release the transcripts of her paid speeches when both her Democratic and Republican opponents do, and asked why Sen. Sanders hasn’t released his own tax returns.
“They are very boring tax returns,” he said. “No big money from speeches, no major investments. Unfortunately – unfortunately I remain one of the poorer members of the United States senate.”
Sen. Sanders also insisted that they are prepared by his wife Jane and promised to release his 2014 return on Friday.
The two Democratic rivals had previously cast themselves and the campaign dialogue as polar opposites to their Republican rivals. However, both engaged in personal and vicious attacks on the debate stage Thursday. Sen. Sanders at one point accused Mrs. Clinton of using a “racist” term, while she accused him of making big promises and using big talk without having the ability to deliver.
As she has done in the past, Mrs. Clinton attempted to land some blows on the issue of gun control, adding that his own Vermont has the highest per-capita number of guns that end up in New York crimes. The criticism, which she began to level earlier this week, is patently false and solicited laughter from the senator.
“It’s not a laughing matter,” she said in response to the chuckle.
Clinton then pivoted to Sanders’ support for a bill supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that would restrict liability for gun manufacturers, something gun rights advocates and legal experts say is crucial to the preservation of the Second Amendment. The CNN moderators–Dana Bash and Mr. Blitzer–actually asked the senator on whether he owed the families of victims of the Sandy Hook massacre an apology. The daughter of the school’s principal said as much, but Sen. Sanders held his ground.
“No, I don’t think I owe them an apology,” he said when pressed a second time. “They are in court today, and actually they won a preliminary decision. They have the right to sue, and I support them and anyone else who wants the right to sue.”
And when the two candidates waded into the question of raising the minimum wage to $15, the tension ratcheted up further — with Sanders questioning Clinton’s commitment to the movement and both talking over each other until Wolf Blitzer calmed them down: “If you’re both screaming at each other, the viewers won’t be able to hear either of you, so please don’t talk over each other.”
“Secretary Clinton said let’s raise it to 12. There’s a difference. By the way, what has happened is history has outpaced secretary Clinton, because all over this country people are standing up and they’re saying 12 is not good enough, we need $15 an hour,” said Sanders, before Clinton responded that she supported the effort but wants the efforts to be done locally.
“I think the secretary has confused a lot of people,” said an angry Sanders.
291 Delegates: Proportional (April 19, 2016)
291 total delegates include 163 district, 54 at large, 30 Pledged PLEOs and 44 Unpledged PLEOs.
While Hillary Clinton was elected senator twice in The Empire State, Sen. Sanders feels he has a good chance to pull off an upset in the state where he grew up. The former secretary of state still holds a double-digit lead on the PPD average of New York Democratic Primary polls, but Sen. Sanders has closed the gap significantly. He sought to downplay expectations while at the same time has made remarks that appear he was predicting victory.
Worth noting, Sen. Sanders won his own adopted home state of Vermont with more than 84% of the vote.
[brid video=”33613″ player=”2077″ title=”Bernie Sanders on Clinton 'I do question her judgme…”]
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said during the CNN Democratic Presidential Primary Debate on Thursday that Hillary Clinton is experienced, but he question’s her judgement. Sen. Sanders, a self-described socialist, made the remarks in response to CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer reciting previous comments suggesting that Hillary does not have the judgment to be a good president.
Transcript, via CNN:
BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary.
We are going to deal with many of the issues both of you just raised. I want to begin with a question that goes right to the heart of which one of you should be the Democratic presidential nominee.
Senator Sanders, in the last week, you’ve raised questions about Secretary Clinton’s qualifications to be president. You said that something is clearly lacking in terms of her judgment and you accused her of having a credibility gap.
So let me ask you, do you believe that Secretary Clinton has the judgment to be president?
SANDERS: Well, I’ve known Secretary Clinton, how long, 25 years?
We worked together in the Senate. And I said that in response to the kind of attacks we were getting from the Clinton, uh, campaign. “Washington Post” headline says “Clinton Campaign says Sanders is Unqualified” and that’s what the surrogates were saying.
Does Secretary Clinton have the experience and the intelligence to be a president?
Of course she does.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: But I do question…
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: — but I do question her judgment. I question a judgment which voted for the war in Iraq…
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: — the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country, voted for virtually every disastrous trade agreement which cost us millions of decent-paying jobs. And I question her judgment about running super PACs which are collecting tens of millions of dollars from special interests, including $15 million from Wall Street.
I don’t believe that that is…
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: — the kind of judgment we need to be the kind of president we need.
BLITZER: Secretary Clinton?
HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, it is true that now that the spotlight is pretty bright here in New York, some things have been said and Senator Sanders did call me unqualified. I’ve been called a lot of things in my life. That was a first.
(LAUGHTER)
CLINTON: And then he did say that…
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: — he had to question my judgment. Well, the people of New York voted for me twice to be their senator from New York and…
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: — and…
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: — and President Obama trusted my judgment enough to ask me to be secretary of State for the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: So, look, we have disagreements on policy. There’s no doubt about it. But if you go and read, which I hope all of you will before Tuesday, Senator Sanders’ long interview with the “New York Daily News,” talk about judgment and talk about the kinds of problems he had answering questions about even his core issue, breaking up the banks.
When asked, he could not explain how…
(LAUGHTER)
CLINTON: — that would be done and…
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: — when asked…
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: — when asked about a number of foreign policy issues, he could not answer about Afghanistan, about Israel, about counterterrorism, except to say if he’d had some paper in front of him, maybe he could.
I think you need to have the judgment on day one to be both president and commander-in-chief.
BLITZER: Senator…
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: And let’s talk about judgment.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes!
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: And let us talk about the worst foreign policy blunder in the modern history of this country…
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: I led the opposition to that war. Secretary Clinton voted for that. Well, let’s talk about judgment. Let’s talk about super PACs and 501(c)(4)s, money which is completely undisclosed. Where does the money come from?
Do we really feel confident about a candidate saying that she’s going to bring change in America when she is so dependent on big money interests? I don’t think so.
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
In 2014, homicide was actually at its lowest level in 30 years. …A survey by swissinfo.ch shows gun permit applications were up almost everywhere in Switzerland in 2015.
