Datasets:

---

marcov

/

hyperpartisan_news_detection_byarticle_promptsource

like 1

<p>Money ( <a href="https://farm8.static.flickr.com/7020/6551534889_9c8ae52997.jpg" type="external">Image</a> by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/people/68751915@N05/" type="external">401(K) 2013</a>) <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/" type="external">Permission</a> <a type="internal">Details</a> <a type="internal">DMCA</a></p> No Pill Can Stop Tinnitus, But This 1 Weird Trick Can <p>The walls are closing in on Congress.</p> <p>Terrifying walls of water from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which, when the damage is totaled, could rise to a half trillion dollars. The Walls of War: The multi-trillion dollar ongoing cost of Afghanistan, Iraq and other interventions. The crumbling walls of the U.S. infrastructure, which need at least $3 trillion to be repaired or replaced. A wall of 11 million undocumented immigrants, whose deportation could easily cost $200 billion. The planned wall at the Mexican border, which some estimates place at $67 billion. Then there is the Wall of All, the $20 trillion national debt. The walls of debt are closing in.</p> <p>At moments of crisis in our nation, in addition to invoking the assistance of Higher powers, we can call upon the Constitution for guidance.</p> <p>Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution contains a long-forgotten provision, "the coinage clause," which empowered Congress "to coin (create) Money." The ability to create money to meet the needs of the nation is a sovereign power, which enables a nation to have control of its own destiny.</p> <p>The same article indicates the Founders anticipated having to borrow money on the full faith and credit of the United States. Enter the Funding Act of 1790, which assumed and paid off the debt of the colonies and retired the financial obligations of the newly created states now united. This was a powerful, object lesson in debt retirement, relevant today.</p> <p>It is abundantly clear from a plain reading of the coinage clause that the Founders never intended that the only way the government was to be funded was to borrow money.</p> <p>The needs of the nation were to come from a system of not borrowing wherein money was a neutral value of exchange connecting resources, people and needs, without debt attached.</p> <p>In 1913, the passage of the Federal Reserve Act ceded the constitutional power to create money (and control of our national destiny), to the Federal Reserve, a quasi-private central bank. At this fateful point, the only way money could be brought into being was to borrow it, whereby money became equated with debt. The money system transited from public control to private control, and there it has remained.</p> <p>Instead of following the path set forth by the Founders to create money directly, our government became obliged to borrow from private banks, which assumed the sovereign power to create money from nothing and then loan it to the government, turning on its head the intention of the Founders.</p> <p>As a member of Congress, I came to the conclusion that while the debate over taxation was interesting, it was wholly insufficient. One must first study how money is created, before one can sensibly have a discussion of how it is to be taxed.</p> <p>With the help of staff, I spent a full five years working with legislative counsel to come up with a way to realign with the founding principles, to reclaim and to re-establish for our nation the sovereign power to create money.</p> <p>The vehicle was H.R. 2990, the National Emergency Employment Defense (NEED Act), which articulates why the current debate over the debt ceiling should lead directly to a debate about monetary policy, and the origins of the debt-based economic system.</p> How To Easily Kill All Indoor Odor, Mold, And Bacteria &#8212; Without Lifting A Finger No More Tinnitus (Ear Ringing) If You Do This Immediately <p>In our work on the NEED Act, we propound that the present monetary system has led to a concentration of wealth, expansion of national debt, excessive reliance on taxation, devaluation of the currency, increases in the cost of public infrastructure, unemployment and underemployment and the erosion of the ability of Congress to meet the needs of the American people.</p> <p>This system has been a source of financial instability where the banks' ability to create money out of nothing has become a financial liability for the American taxpayers. When banks engaged in speculative lending, turning the financial system into a casino, they were bailed out while millions of Americans lost their homes. No surprise that today we are told there is not enough money for creating jobs, rebuilding America, health care, education and retirement security. But there is always money to bail out the banks.</p> <p>Let us take the opportunity afforded in the debate over the debt ceiling to regain control of our sovereignty and our national destiny. We can have a future of abundance instead of poverty, but we must first take down the wall which separates us from our true sovereignty, the power to coin and create money.</p> <p>Let us return to first principles, and reclaim the constitutional power to coin and create United States money and spend it into circulation to meet the needs of the nation and reduce taxes.</p> <p>Two hundred and thirty years ago this month, delegates from 13 states gathered in a constitutional convention, which set the stage for ratification. Let us summon that same revolutionary spirit and its wisdom to guide us in the days ahead.</p> Seniors Can't Get Enough of This Sweet Treat That Has Shown to Turn Back the Clock on Alzheimer's From flickr.com: Money {MID-161793} <p>Money ( <a href="https://farm8.static.flickr.com/7020/6551534889_9c8ae52997.jpg" type="external">Image</a> by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/people/68751915@N05/" type="external">401(K) 2013</a>) <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/" type="external">Permission</a> <a type="internal">Details</a> <a type="internal">DMCA</a></p> <p>The walls are closing in on Congress.</p> <p>Terrifying walls of water from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which, when the damage is totaled, could rise to a half trillion dollars. The Walls of War: The multi-trillion dollar ongoing cost of Afghanistan, Iraq and other interventions. The crumbling walls of the U.S. infrastructure, which need at least $3 trillion to be repaired or replaced. A wall of 11 million undocumented immigrants, whose deportation could easily cost $200 billion. The planned wall at the Mexican border, which some estimates place at $67 billion. Then there is the Wall of All, the $20 trillion national debt. The walls of debt are closing in.</p> <p>At moments of crisis in our nation, in addition to invoking the assistance of Higher powers, we can call upon the Constitution for guidance.</p> <p>Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution contains a long-forgotten provision, "the coinage clause," which empowered Congress "to coin (create) Money." The ability to create money to meet the needs of the nation is a sovereign power, which enables a nation to have control of its own destiny.</p> <p>The same article indicates the Founders anticipated having to borrow money on the full faith and credit of the United States. Enter the Funding Act of 1790, which assumed and paid off the debt of the colonies and retired the financial obligations of the newly created states now united. This was a powerful, object lesson in debt retirement, relevant today.</p> <p>It is abundantly clear from a plain reading of the coinage clause that the Founders never intended that the only way the government was to be funded was to borrow money.</p> <p>The needs of the nation were to come from a system of not borrowing wherein money was a neutral value of exchange connecting resources, people and needs, without debt attached.</p> <p>In 1913, the passage of the Federal Reserve Act ceded the constitutional power to create money (and control of our national destiny), to the Federal Reserve, a quasi-private central bank. At this fateful point, the only way money could be brought into being was to borrow it, whereby money became equated with debt. The money system transited from public control to private control, and there it has remained.</p> <p>Instead of following the path set forth by the Founders to create money directly, our government became obliged to borrow from private banks, which assumed the sovereign power to create money from nothing and then loan it to the government, turning on its head the intention of the Founders.</p> <p>As a member of Congress, I came to the conclusion that while the debate over taxation was interesting, it was wholly insufficient. One must first study how money is created, before one can sensibly have a discussion of how it is to be taxed.</p> <p>With the help of staff, I spent a full five years working with legislative counsel to come up with a way to realign with the founding principles, to reclaim and to re-establish for our nation the sovereign power to create money.</p> <p>The vehicle was H.R. 2990, the National Emergency Employment Defense (NEED Act), which articulates why the current debate over the debt ceiling should lead directly to a debate about monetary policy, and the origins of the debt-based economic system.</p> How To Easily Kill All Indoor Odor, Mold, And Bacteria &#8212; Without Lifting A Finger Trump to End the Dollar as We Know It by November 8, 2018?

Kucinich: Reclaiming the money power

https://www.opednews.com/articles/Kucinich-Reclaiming-the-m-by-Dennis-Kucinich-Banks_Debt_Funding_Money-170910-112.html

2017-09-10

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>Money ( <a href="https://farm8.static.flickr.com/7020/6551534889_9c8ae52997.jpg" type="external">Image</a> by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/people/68751915@N05/" type="external">401(K) 2013</a>) <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/" type="external">Permission</a> <a type="internal">Details</a> <a type="internal">DMCA</a></p> No Pill Can Stop Tinnitus, But This 1 Weird Trick Can <p>The walls are closing in on Congress.</p> <p>Terrifying walls of water from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which, when the damage is totaled, could rise to a half trillion dollars. The Walls of War: The multi-trillion dollar ongoing cost of Afghanistan, Iraq and other interventions. The crumbling walls of the U.S. infrastructure, which need at least $3 trillion to be repaired or replaced. A wall of 11 million undocumented immigrants, whose deportation could easily cost $200 billion. The planned wall at the Mexican border, which some estimates place at $67 billion. Then there is the Wall of All, the $20 trillion national debt. The walls of debt are closing in.</p> <p>At moments of crisis in our nation, in addition to invoking the assistance of Higher powers, we can call upon the Constitution for guidance.</p> <p>Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution contains a long-forgotten provision, "the coinage clause," which empowered Congress "to coin (create) Money." The ability to create money to meet the needs of the nation is a sovereign power, which enables a nation to have control of its own destiny.</p> <p>The same article indicates the Founders anticipated having to borrow money on the full faith and credit of the United States. Enter the Funding Act of 1790, which assumed and paid off the debt of the colonies and retired the financial obligations of the newly created states now united. This was a powerful, object lesson in debt retirement, relevant today.</p> <p>It is abundantly clear from a plain reading of the coinage clause that the Founders never intended that the only way the government was to be funded was to borrow money.</p> <p>The needs of the nation were to come from a system of not borrowing wherein money was a neutral value of exchange connecting resources, people and needs, without debt attached.</p> <p>In 1913, the passage of the Federal Reserve Act ceded the constitutional power to create money (and control of our national destiny), to the Federal Reserve, a quasi-private central bank. At this fateful point, the only way money could be brought into being was to borrow it, whereby money became equated with debt. The money system transited from public control to private control, and there it has remained.</p> <p>Instead of following the path set forth by the Founders to create money directly, our government became obliged to borrow from private banks, which assumed the sovereign power to create money from nothing and then loan it to the government, turning on its head the intention of the Founders.</p> <p>As a member of Congress, I came to the conclusion that while the debate over taxation was interesting, it was wholly insufficient. One must first study how money is created, before one can sensibly have a discussion of how it is to be taxed.</p> <p>With the help of staff, I spent a full five years working with legislative counsel to come up with a way to realign with the founding principles, to reclaim and to re-establish for our nation the sovereign power to create money.</p> <p>The vehicle was H.R. 2990, the National Emergency Employment Defense (NEED Act), which articulates why the current debate over the debt ceiling should lead directly to a debate about monetary policy, and the origins of the debt-based economic system.</p> How To Easily Kill All Indoor Odor, Mold, And Bacteria &#8212; Without Lifting A Finger No More Tinnitus (Ear Ringing) If You Do This Immediately <p>In our work on the NEED Act, we propound that the present monetary system has led to a concentration of wealth, expansion of national debt, excessive reliance on taxation, devaluation of the currency, increases in the cost of public infrastructure, unemployment and underemployment and the erosion of the ability of Congress to meet the needs of the American people.</p> <p>This system has been a source of financial instability where the banks' ability to create money out of nothing has become a financial liability for the American taxpayers. When banks engaged in speculative lending, turning the financial system into a casino, they were bailed out while millions of Americans lost their homes. No surprise that today we are told there is not enough money for creating jobs, rebuilding America, health care, education and retirement security. But there is always money to bail out the banks.</p> <p>Let us take the opportunity afforded in the debate over the debt ceiling to regain control of our sovereignty and our national destiny. We can have a future of abundance instead of poverty, but we must first take down the wall which separates us from our true sovereignty, the power to coin and create money.</p> <p>Let us return to first principles, and reclaim the constitutional power to coin and create United States money and spend it into circulation to meet the needs of the nation and reduce taxes.</p> <p>Two hundred and thirty years ago this month, delegates from 13 states gathered in a constitutional convention, which set the stage for ratification. Let us summon that same revolutionary spirit and its wisdom to guide us in the days ahead.</p> Seniors Can't Get Enough of This Sweet Treat That Has Shown to Turn Back the Clock on Alzheimer's From flickr.com: Money {MID-161793} <p>Money ( <a href="https://farm8.static.flickr.com/7020/6551534889_9c8ae52997.jpg" type="external">Image</a> by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/people/68751915@N05/" type="external">401(K) 2013</a>) <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/" type="external">Permission</a> <a type="internal">Details</a> <a type="internal">DMCA</a></p> <p>The walls are closing in on Congress.</p> <p>Terrifying walls of water from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which, when the damage is totaled, could rise to a half trillion dollars. The Walls of War: The multi-trillion dollar ongoing cost of Afghanistan, Iraq and other interventions. The crumbling walls of the U.S. infrastructure, which need at least $3 trillion to be repaired or replaced. A wall of 11 million undocumented immigrants, whose deportation could easily cost $200 billion. The planned wall at the Mexican border, which some estimates place at $67 billion. Then there is the Wall of All, the $20 trillion national debt. The walls of debt are closing in.</p> <p>At moments of crisis in our nation, in addition to invoking the assistance of Higher powers, we can call upon the Constitution for guidance.</p> <p>Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution contains a long-forgotten provision, "the coinage clause," which empowered Congress "to coin (create) Money." The ability to create money to meet the needs of the nation is a sovereign power, which enables a nation to have control of its own destiny.</p> <p>The same article indicates the Founders anticipated having to borrow money on the full faith and credit of the United States. Enter the Funding Act of 1790, which assumed and paid off the debt of the colonies and retired the financial obligations of the newly created states now united. This was a powerful, object lesson in debt retirement, relevant today.</p> <p>It is abundantly clear from a plain reading of the coinage clause that the Founders never intended that the only way the government was to be funded was to borrow money.</p> <p>The needs of the nation were to come from a system of not borrowing wherein money was a neutral value of exchange connecting resources, people and needs, without debt attached.</p> <p>In 1913, the passage of the Federal Reserve Act ceded the constitutional power to create money (and control of our national destiny), to the Federal Reserve, a quasi-private central bank. At this fateful point, the only way money could be brought into being was to borrow it, whereby money became equated with debt. The money system transited from public control to private control, and there it has remained.</p> <p>Instead of following the path set forth by the Founders to create money directly, our government became obliged to borrow from private banks, which assumed the sovereign power to create money from nothing and then loan it to the government, turning on its head the intention of the Founders.</p> <p>As a member of Congress, I came to the conclusion that while the debate over taxation was interesting, it was wholly insufficient. One must first study how money is created, before one can sensibly have a discussion of how it is to be taxed.</p> <p>With the help of staff, I spent a full five years working with legislative counsel to come up with a way to realign with the founding principles, to reclaim and to re-establish for our nation the sovereign power to create money.</p> <p>The vehicle was H.R. 2990, the National Emergency Employment Defense (NEED Act), which articulates why the current debate over the debt ceiling should lead directly to a debate about monetary policy, and the origins of the debt-based economic system.</p> How To Easily Kill All Indoor Odor, Mold, And Bacteria &#8212; Without Lifting A Finger Trump to End the Dollar as We Know It by November 8, 2018?" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

True

<p>Donald Trump ran on many braggadocios and largely unrealistic campaign promises. One of <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politics/trump-infrastructure/index.html" type="external">those promises</a> was to be the best, the hugest, the most competent infrastructure president the United States has ever seen. Trump was going to fix every infrastructure problem in the country and Make America Great Again in the process.</p> <p>That is, unless you&#8217;re a brown American. In that case, you&#8217;re on your own, even after a massive natural disaster like Hurricane Maria.</p> <p>Puerto Rico&#8217;s debt, which the Puerto Rican citizens not in government would have no responsibility for, has nothing to do with using federal emergency disaster funds to save the lives of American citizens there. The infrastructure is certainly a mess at this point after a Category 5 hurricane ripped through the island, and <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/16-percent-puerto-rico-power-weeks-hurricane-maria/story?id=50417366" type="external">84 percent</a> of Puerto Rican people are currently without electricity.</p> <p>Emergency efforts after Hurricanes Irma and Harvey reportedly went very well and Trump praised himself as well and even saw his disastrous approval ratings tick up slightly as a result. However, the insufficient response in Puerto Rico has nothing to do with Trump, in his mind, and can only be blamed on the people there who do not live in a red state and have no electoral college votes to offer the new president for 2020.</p> <p>They&#8217;re on their own.</p> <p>Twitter responded with sheer incredulity at Trump&#8217;s vicious attack on an already suffering people.</p> Featured image screengrab via <p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4pMxaH5oxs&amp;t=57s" type="external">YouTube</a></p>

Trump Just Woke Up & Viciously Attacked Puerto Ricans On Twitter Like A Cruel Old Man

http://bipartisanreport.com/2017/10/12/trump-just-woke-up-viciously-attacked-puerto-ricans-on-twitter-like-a-cruel-old-man/

2017-10-12

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>Donald Trump ran on many braggadocios and largely unrealistic campaign promises. One of <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politics/trump-infrastructure/index.html" type="external">those promises</a> was to be the best, the hugest, the most competent infrastructure president the United States has ever seen. Trump was going to fix every infrastructure problem in the country and Make America Great Again in the process.</p> <p>That is, unless you&#8217;re a brown American. In that case, you&#8217;re on your own, even after a massive natural disaster like Hurricane Maria.</p> <p>Puerto Rico&#8217;s debt, which the Puerto Rican citizens not in government would have no responsibility for, has nothing to do with using federal emergency disaster funds to save the lives of American citizens there. The infrastructure is certainly a mess at this point after a Category 5 hurricane ripped through the island, and <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/16-percent-puerto-rico-power-weeks-hurricane-maria/story?id=50417366" type="external">84 percent</a> of Puerto Rican people are currently without electricity.</p> <p>Emergency efforts after Hurricanes Irma and Harvey reportedly went very well and Trump praised himself as well and even saw his disastrous approval ratings tick up slightly as a result. However, the insufficient response in Puerto Rico has nothing to do with Trump, in his mind, and can only be blamed on the people there who do not live in a red state and have no electoral college votes to offer the new president for 2020.</p> <p>They&#8217;re on their own.</p> <p>Twitter responded with sheer incredulity at Trump&#8217;s vicious attack on an already suffering people.</p> Featured image screengrab via <p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4pMxaH5oxs&amp;t=57s" type="external">YouTube</a></p>" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

True

<p>In response to Joyce Newman&#8217;s recent letter about a conversation about guns: According to the National Right to Life Organization, approximately 600,000 babies are murdered every year by Planned Parenthood with more than 52 million murdered since Roe v. Wade. This makes Planned Parenthood the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world. Is she willing to have a serious conversation about that? Where is her outrage over that?</p> <p>More people die every year from overdoses or auto accidents then from guns. More people die every year from obesity then from guns. Where is her outrage over those issues?</p> <p>The left&#8217;s obsession with gun &#8220;control&#8221; is just that, control. It has always been about Democrats wanting to control every aspect of your life. They support Planned Parenthood but go ballistic when a gun is used to kill someone. It&#8217;s the old game of &#8220;don&#8217;t pay any attention to what&#8217;s going on over there, but look what&#8217;s happening here.&#8221;</p>

Liberals wailing about gun control, but what about abortion?

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/letters/liberals-wailing-about-gun-control-but-what-about-abortion/

2017-10-11

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>In response to Joyce Newman&#8217;s recent letter about a conversation about guns: According to the National Right to Life Organization, approximately 600,000 babies are murdered every year by Planned Parenthood with more than 52 million murdered since Roe v. Wade. This makes Planned Parenthood the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world. Is she willing to have a serious conversation about that? Where is her outrage over that?</p> <p>More people die every year from overdoses or auto accidents then from guns. More people die every year from obesity then from guns. Where is her outrage over those issues?</p> <p>The left&#8217;s obsession with gun &#8220;control&#8221; is just that, control. It has always been about Democrats wanting to control every aspect of your life. They support Planned Parenthood but go ballistic when a gun is used to kill someone. It&#8217;s the old game of &#8220;don&#8217;t pay any attention to what&#8217;s going on over there, but look what&#8217;s happening here.&#8221;</p>" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

True

<p>After Colin Kaepernick rightly chose to kneel during the national anthem before NFL games, many racists and idiots came out with critical response to what was a peaceful, important statement against police brutality and systemic American racism. That&#8217;s what Kap&#8217;s protest is about. Brutality and racism. Violence against people of color, unimpugned state violence at that.</p> <p>Kap&#8217;s protest is strictly against racism, which is what this country was built on. On the backs of African slaves shipped here catch-style to do white people&#8217;s work.</p> <p>Kap&#8217;s protest is decidedly not against the American flag. Anyone &#8212; including our moron President &#8212; that tries to argue otherwise is themselves a moron. &#8220;But the troops!&#8221; you might scream. The troops are a manifold and variegated thing. <a href="https://twitter.com/UncleChaps/status/911927134351970309" type="external">Here&#8217;s a former Marine saying</a>that Kap&#8217;s protest is nececcesary. Chaps is good. Many of them fight for Kaepernick&#8217;s right to stand down during the national anthem. You want to shit on those troops too?</p> <p>Here&#8217;s a picture of <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/players/207989/laremy-tunsil" type="external">Laremy Tunsil</a>, a wonderful and beautiful left tackle, kneeling out of solidarity with fellow Americans before Sunday&#8217;s game against the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/new-york-jets" type="external">New York Jets</a>, which the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/miami-dolphins" type="external">Dolphins</a> lost, 20-6. That doesn&#8217;t matter at all, though.</p> <p>He kneels at left.</p> <p>Hat off to Tunsil for this action. &#8220;Respecting the flag&#8221; and &#8220;respecting the anthem&#8221; before football games are perhaps the dumbest notions floated among sports fans. Sporting events are not flag-worthy at all. Nobody else in the world does this. Further, THESE ATHLETES ARE HUMAN PEOPLE. <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/players/270408/laremy-tunsil" type="external">Laremy Tunsil</a> is a real person with real political beliefs, and his political beliefs include &#8220;black people shouldn&#8217;t be killed by the police with impunity.&#8221; That&#8217;s a pertinent thing to assert.</p> <p>Tunsil&#8217;s politicism is important.</p>

Laremy Tunsil joins NFL players in kneeling during national anthem

https://www.redcuprebellion.com/2017/9/24/16358776/laremy-tunsil-national-anthem-kneeling-protest-donald-trump

2017-09-24

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>After Colin Kaepernick rightly chose to kneel during the national anthem before NFL games, many racists and idiots came out with critical response to what was a peaceful, important statement against police brutality and systemic American racism. That&#8217;s what Kap&#8217;s protest is about. Brutality and racism. Violence against people of color, unimpugned state violence at that.</p> <p>Kap&#8217;s protest is strictly against racism, which is what this country was built on. On the backs of African slaves shipped here catch-style to do white people&#8217;s work.</p> <p>Kap&#8217;s protest is decidedly not against the American flag. Anyone &#8212; including our moron President &#8212; that tries to argue otherwise is themselves a moron. &#8220;But the troops!&#8221; you might scream. The troops are a manifold and variegated thing. <a href="https://twitter.com/UncleChaps/status/911927134351970309" type="external">Here&#8217;s a former Marine saying</a>that Kap&#8217;s protest is nececcesary. Chaps is good. Many of them fight for Kaepernick&#8217;s right to stand down during the national anthem. You want to shit on those troops too?</p> <p>Here&#8217;s a picture of <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/players/207989/laremy-tunsil" type="external">Laremy Tunsil</a>, a wonderful and beautiful left tackle, kneeling out of solidarity with fellow Americans before Sunday&#8217;s game against the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/new-york-jets" type="external">New York Jets</a>, which the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/miami-dolphins" type="external">Dolphins</a> lost, 20-6. That doesn&#8217;t matter at all, though.</p> <p>He kneels at left.</p> <p>Hat off to Tunsil for this action. &#8220;Respecting the flag&#8221; and &#8220;respecting the anthem&#8221; before football games are perhaps the dumbest notions floated among sports fans. Sporting events are not flag-worthy at all. Nobody else in the world does this. Further, THESE ATHLETES ARE HUMAN PEOPLE. <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/players/270408/laremy-tunsil" type="external">Laremy Tunsil</a> is a real person with real political beliefs, and his political beliefs include &#8220;black people shouldn&#8217;t be killed by the police with impunity.&#8221; That&#8217;s a pertinent thing to assert.</p> <p>Tunsil&#8217;s politicism is important.</p>" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

True

<p>Almost a half-century ago, in 1968, the United States seemed to be falling apart.</p> <p>The Vietnam War, a bitter and close presidential election, antiwar protests, racial riots, political assassinations, terrorism and a recession looming on the horizon left the country divided between a loud radical minority and a silent conservative majority.</p> <p>The United States avoided a civil war. But America suffered a collective psychological depression, civil unrest, defeat in Vietnam and assorted disasters for the next decade -- until the election of a once-polarizing Ronald Reagan ushered in five consecutive presidential terms of relative bipartisan calm and prosperity from 1981 to 2001.</p> <p>It appears as if 2017 might be another 1968. Recent traumatic hurricanes seem to reflect the country's human turmoil.</p> <p>After the polarizing Obama presidency and the contested election of Donald Trump, the country is once again split in two.</p> <p>But this time the divide is far deeper, both ideologically and geographically -- and more 50/50, with the two liberal coasts pitted against red-state America in between.</p> <p>Century-old mute stone statues are torn down in the dead of night, apparently on the theory that by attacking the Confederate dead, the lives of the living might improve.</p> <p>All the old standbys of American life seem to be eroding. The National Football League is imploding as it devolves into a political circus. Multimillionaire players refuse to stand for the national anthem, turning off millions of fans whose former loyalties paid their salaries.</p> <p>Politics -- or rather a progressive hatred of the provocative Donald Trump -- permeates almost every nook and cranny of popular culture.</p> <p>The new allegiance of the media, late-night television, stand-up comedy, Hollywood, professional sports and universities is committed to liberal sermonizing. Politically correct obscenity and vulgarity among celebrities and entertainers is a substitute for talent, even as Hollywood is wracked by sexual harassment scandals and other perversities.</p> <p>The smears "racist," "fascist," "white privilege" and "Nazi" -- like "commie" of the 1950s -- are so overused as to become meaningless. There is now less free speech on campus than during the McCarthy era of the early 1950s.</p> <p>As was the case in 1968, the world abroad is also falling apart.</p> <p>The European Union, model of the future, is unraveling. The EU has been paralyzed by the exit of Great Britain, the divide between Spain and Catalonia, the bankruptcy of Mediterranean nation members, insidious terrorist attacks in major European cities and the onslaught of millions of immigrants -- mostly young, male and Muslim -- from the war-torn Middle East. Germany is once again becoming imperious, but this time insidiously by means other than arms.</p> <p>The failed state of North Korea claims that it has nuclear-tipped missiles capable of reaching America's West Coast -- and apparently wants some sort of bribe not to launch them.</p> <p>Iran is likely to follow the North Korea nuclear trajectory. In the meantime, its new Shiite hegemony in the Middle East is feeding on the carcasses of Syria and Iraq.</p> <p>Is the chaos of 2017 a catharsis -- a necessary and long overdue purge of dangerous and neglected pathologies? Will the bedlam within the United States descend into more nihilism, or offer a remedy to the status quo that had divided and nearly bankrupted the country?</p> <p>Is the problem too much democracy, as the volatile and fickle mob runs roughshod over establishment experts and experienced bureaucrats? Or is the crisis too little democracy, as populists strive to dethrone a scandal-plagued, anti-democratic, incompetent and overrated entrenched elite?</p> <p>Neither traditional political party has any answers.</p> <p>Democrats are being overwhelmed by the identity politics and socialism of progressives. Republicans are torn asunder between upstart populist nationalists and the calcified establishment status quo.</p> <p>Yet for all the social instability and media hysteria, life in the United States quietly seems to be getting better.</p> <p>The economy is growing. Unemployment and inflation remain low. The stock market and middle-class incomes are up.</p> <p>Business and consumer confidence are high. Corporate profits are up. Energy production has expanded. The border with Mexico is being enforced.</p> <p>Is the instability less a symptom that America is falling apart and more a sign that the loud conventional wisdom of the past -- about the benefits of a globalized economy, the insignificance of national borders and the importance of identity politics -- is drawing to a close, along with the careers of those who profited from it?</p> <p>In the past, any crisis that did not destroy the United States ended up making it stronger. But for now, the fight grows over which is more toxic -- the chronic statist malady that was eating away the country, or the new populist medicine deemed necessary to cure it.</p> <p>(C) 2017 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.</p> <p>Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His latest book is <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=%20160819163X" type="external">The Savior Generals</a> from BloomsburyBooks. You can reach him by e-mailing [email protected].</p> Stunning Video Will Make Any Atheist's Jaw Drop

It's 1968 All Over Again

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/10/12/its_1968_all_over_again_135238.html

2017-10-12

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>Almost a half-century ago, in 1968, the United States seemed to be falling apart.</p> <p>The Vietnam War, a bitter and close presidential election, antiwar protests, racial riots, political assassinations, terrorism and a recession looming on the horizon left the country divided between a loud radical minority and a silent conservative majority.</p> <p>The United States avoided a civil war. But America suffered a collective psychological depression, civil unrest, defeat in Vietnam and assorted disasters for the next decade -- until the election of a once-polarizing Ronald Reagan ushered in five consecutive presidential terms of relative bipartisan calm and prosperity from 1981 to 2001.</p> <p>It appears as if 2017 might be another 1968. Recent traumatic hurricanes seem to reflect the country's human turmoil.</p> <p>After the polarizing Obama presidency and the contested election of Donald Trump, the country is once again split in two.</p> <p>But this time the divide is far deeper, both ideologically and geographically -- and more 50/50, with the two liberal coasts pitted against red-state America in between.</p> <p>Century-old mute stone statues are torn down in the dead of night, apparently on the theory that by attacking the Confederate dead, the lives of the living might improve.</p> <p>All the old standbys of American life seem to be eroding. The National Football League is imploding as it devolves into a political circus. Multimillionaire players refuse to stand for the national anthem, turning off millions of fans whose former loyalties paid their salaries.</p> <p>Politics -- or rather a progressive hatred of the provocative Donald Trump -- permeates almost every nook and cranny of popular culture.</p> <p>The new allegiance of the media, late-night television, stand-up comedy, Hollywood, professional sports and universities is committed to liberal sermonizing. Politically correct obscenity and vulgarity among celebrities and entertainers is a substitute for talent, even as Hollywood is wracked by sexual harassment scandals and other perversities.</p> <p>The smears "racist," "fascist," "white privilege" and "Nazi" -- like "commie" of the 1950s -- are so overused as to become meaningless. There is now less free speech on campus than during the McCarthy era of the early 1950s.</p> <p>As was the case in 1968, the world abroad is also falling apart.</p> <p>The European Union, model of the future, is unraveling. The EU has been paralyzed by the exit of Great Britain, the divide between Spain and Catalonia, the bankruptcy of Mediterranean nation members, insidious terrorist attacks in major European cities and the onslaught of millions of immigrants -- mostly young, male and Muslim -- from the war-torn Middle East. Germany is once again becoming imperious, but this time insidiously by means other than arms.</p> <p>The failed state of North Korea claims that it has nuclear-tipped missiles capable of reaching America's West Coast -- and apparently wants some sort of bribe not to launch them.</p> <p>Iran is likely to follow the North Korea nuclear trajectory. In the meantime, its new Shiite hegemony in the Middle East is feeding on the carcasses of Syria and Iraq.</p> <p>Is the chaos of 2017 a catharsis -- a necessary and long overdue purge of dangerous and neglected pathologies? Will the bedlam within the United States descend into more nihilism, or offer a remedy to the status quo that had divided and nearly bankrupted the country?</p> <p>Is the problem too much democracy, as the volatile and fickle mob runs roughshod over establishment experts and experienced bureaucrats? Or is the crisis too little democracy, as populists strive to dethrone a scandal-plagued, anti-democratic, incompetent and overrated entrenched elite?</p> <p>Neither traditional political party has any answers.</p> <p>Democrats are being overwhelmed by the identity politics and socialism of progressives. Republicans are torn asunder between upstart populist nationalists and the calcified establishment status quo.</p> <p>Yet for all the social instability and media hysteria, life in the United States quietly seems to be getting better.</p> <p>The economy is growing. Unemployment and inflation remain low. The stock market and middle-class incomes are up.</p> <p>Business and consumer confidence are high. Corporate profits are up. Energy production has expanded. The border with Mexico is being enforced.</p> <p>Is the instability less a symptom that America is falling apart and more a sign that the loud conventional wisdom of the past -- about the benefits of a globalized economy, the insignificance of national borders and the importance of identity politics -- is drawing to a close, along with the careers of those who profited from it?</p> <p>In the past, any crisis that did not destroy the United States ended up making it stronger. But for now, the fight grows over which is more toxic -- the chronic statist malady that was eating away the country, or the new populist medicine deemed necessary to cure it.</p> <p>(C) 2017 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.</p> <p>Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His latest book is <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=%20160819163X" type="external">The Savior Generals</a> from BloomsburyBooks. You can reach him by e-mailing [email protected].</p> Stunning Video Will Make Any Atheist's Jaw Drop" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

False

<p>Briefly: In our opinion, full (150% of the regular full position) speculative short positions in gold, silver and mining stocks are justified from the risk/reward perspective at the moment of publishing this alert.</p> <p>Gold moved back and forth on Friday and the accompanying volume was high, but that&#8217;s not the only important thing that we can discuss today. The week is over and we have weekly changes and weekly volume levels to analyze and we saw major moves in the important ratios. Additionally, we discovered a self-similar pattern in gold that has critical and volatile implications going forward.</p> <p>Let&#8217;s start with Friday&#8217;s session and the changes in the gold market (chart courtesy of <a href="http://stockcharts.com/" type="external">http://stockcharts.com</a>).</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/1_BNTrL7o.png" type="external" /> <p>Gold moved sharply back and forth as both positive and negative data was released and ultimately it ended the session a few dollars higher (based on kitco&#8217;s prices, the closing price was $1,279.60). Why was the reaction so significant? The reason could be technical &#8211; the apex of the triangle was likely to be accompanied by a turnaround and since we just saw a more visible top a couple of days ago and apparently gold doesn&#8217;t want to form a bottom here, then the only remaining outcome is a local daily top that doesn&#8217;t change much &#8211; which is what we saw.</p> <p>Why do we think that gold doesn&#8217;t want to bottom here? Because if it did, it would have ended Friday&#8217;s session much higher.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/2_I8jpobb.png" type="external" /> The USD Index moved lower, so gold had a good reason to close the session visibly higher, especially that it moved quite high on an intraday basis. Yet, it declined before the session was over and closed only insignificantly higher. <p>If gold doesn&#8217;t want to move higher, then silver must really hate that &#8220;thought&#8221;.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/3_jgYU95t.png" type="external" /> <p>The white metal declined once again and even though gold closed a bit higher, it managed to close lower. The move lower by itself is already bearish as it took place on visible volume, but it&#8217;s very bearish once we take into account Thursday&#8217;s breakdown. We previously commented on it in the following way:</p> <p>Silver declined and it reversed before the end of the session, which appears to be a reversal. But does this reversal really have bullish implications? It doesn&#8217;t seem to be the case. The volume wasn&#8217;t huge enough to confirm the reversal and it was not low enough to invalidate the bearish implications of the decline either.</p> <p>The key thing to the proper analysis of the silver price swing is the awareness of what the USD and S&amp;amp;P 500 did. The former declined a bit, while stocks truly soared, which created perfect circumstances for a silver rally. Yet, instead of a rally, we saw a decline and a move below the rising support line based on the August and October lows. Consequently, silver&#8217;s action was very bearish as it showed great weakness in this market.</p> <p>Moreover, the mentioned support line could be viewed as a neck level of a head and shoulders pattern (with a rather long right shoulder, similar to the one that we saw in the euro), which serves as an additional bearish indication (it&#8217;s only a small addition to the bearish implications of the breakdown as such, as its implications are bearish regardless of the H&amp;amp;S formation being in place or not).</p> <p>On Friday, the general stock market declined significantly but almost the entire decline was reversed before the end of the session. If we consider Thursday and Friday together, the S&amp;amp;P 500 index still rallied considerably, but silver declined and was unable to invalidate its breakdown. The implications are strongly bearish.</p> <p>Let&#8217;s move back to gold for a few minutes.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/4_eIzPfWr.png" type="external" /> In Friday&#8217;s alert, we wrote the following regarding the above chart featuring gold priced in the euro: <p>In terms of the euro, the bearish signals are much more profound. Gold has just broken below the rising, medium-term support line and the most recent local top was formed approximately at the apex of the triangle pattern (in terms of time). The latter makes it considerably more likely that an important top was just formed and thus that the breakdown that we just saw will be confirmed.</p> <p>As far as the apex of the triangle is concerned, it&#8217;s actually a combination of two such patterns &#8211; they are based on the same tops and bottoms, but in one case (red lines) they are based on the intraday extremes and in the other case (black lines) they are based on the daily closing prices. The most recent top took place right between the apexes created based on both patterns.</p> <p>The mentioned breakdown is almost confirmed. Almost, because we would prefer to see three consecutive closing prices below the support line to see it as strong resistance, but we have already seen two of them, a weekly close and also a failed attempt to move back above the line. The breakdown is very close to being fully confirmed and the bearishness of the implications increased significantly based on Friday&#8217;s session.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/5_YvNSaHt.png" type="external" /> <p>Speaking of breakdowns, we saw one in the gold to S&amp;amp;P 500 ratio, which&#8230; is nothing new, but still quite exciting and important. Why? Because due to several failed attempts to break below this level, we had to be skeptical toward the breakdown this time. The question was: &#8221;Would this time be any different?&#8221; It turned out that this time was different as the ratio moved back to the previously broken level, verified it as support and then continued to move lower on huge volume (precisely, the ratio itself doesn&#8217;t have volume, so what we mean is the ratio of volumes).</p> <p>Why would the above be a big deal? Because this ratio moves in tune with gold when it comes to major price moves and &#8211; more importantly &#8211; there was only one similar case in the past 15 years when we saw a similar breakdown and it was in the early stages of the 2012 &#8211; 2013 decline. Back then, it was a warning sign that practically nobody noticed. You&#8217;ll probably not see it anywhere (except for this publication) this time either.</p> <p>Naturally, the implications are strongly bearish as the breakdown now appears believable.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/6_ASZRCIr.png" type="external" /> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/7.png" type="external" /> Mining stocks, just like gold moved back and forth and ended the session higher, however, the move was too tiny in terms of daily closing prices to be viewed as bullish. It&#8217;s more of a big-volume reversal and the implications thereof are bearish. <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/8.png" type="external" /> <p>From the weekly point of view, we see that mining stocks declined and broke below the rising support lines based on the 2016 and 2017 lows and that the breakdown took place on big volume. All that happened after two weeks of low-volume upswings that we commented on in <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/end-of-usd-rally/" type="external">last Monday&#8217;s alert</a>:</p> <p>Finally, the weekly volume levels in the GDX ETF paint a very bearish picture for the following weeks. The GDX ETF is after 2 small, weekly rallies that were accompanied by very low volume when compared with the previous weeks. The last week had less trading days, but that doesn&#8217;t explain the previous week&#8217;s low volume reading. Moreover, we didn&#8217;t see similarly low volume readings in the past Novembers, which suggests that we are correct to view the low volume levels as something important and meaningful.</p> <p>The only comparable situation from the recent past took place in mid-2014 (marked with a black arrow). In the following weeks, the GDX price was cut by a third.</p> <p>The bearish implications of the above just became more bearish as back in 2014, the first big-volume weekly decline meant that the big slide had just begun.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/9.png" type="external" /> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/10.png" type="external" /> <p>The breakdown can also be seen in the case of the HUI to S&amp;amp;P 500 index ratio. In other words, by looking at <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/investment-tools/best-gold-stocks/" type="external">gold stocks</a>&#8217; performance relative to <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/stock-trading/" type="external">other stocks</a>. The breakdown is clear and confirmed by both weekly and monthly closing prices. The implications are bearish.</p> <p>All in all, the medium-term outlook is clearly bearish based on the above and based on the factors that we discussed previously and it seems that we&#8217;ve been correct to be holding the short positions in metals and miners (especially in silver and miners). Still, it seems that the vast majority of the potential that these positions have is still to be realized.</p> <p>This is particularly the case given the similarities between what we&#8217;re seeing now and what we saw before the previous slides. We already discussed some of those similarities above, but there&#8217;s also something else that is likely in play right now.</p> <p>In early October, we described the analogy in performance between 2008 and the current period (at the moment) in gold stocks. It was almost two months ago, so even if you read it at that time, it might be worth <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same/" type="external">reading it once again today</a> (by the way, we are making that alert available publicly, so if you know someone who&#8217;s interested in precious metals, but has doubts about using technical analysis to analyze it, please send them the link to that alert &#8211; they might change their minds - <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same/" type="external">https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same/</a>) &#8211; it&#8217;s truly amazing how the similarity continued almost to the letter even though the two cases are almost a decade apart. Even the initial retracement of the HUI Index (38.2%) was identical.</p> <p>However, today we are not going to repeat the October analysis &#8211; we are going to discuss something alike&#8230; in gold.</p> <p>That&#8217;s right, the gold market features similarities to its performance back in 2008.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/11.png" type="external" /> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/12.png" type="external" /> <p>Before moving to details, let&#8217;s state that the analogy is far from perfect. That&#8217;s probably why we didn&#8217;t discover it earlier. However, it&#8217;s not the point to be picky about a technique, but rather to see if there is anything that it can give us and make us particularly aware of things that could come. With regard to the latter goal in mind, it seems that we have something very valuable.</p> <p>In both cases, we have a sharp rally that preceded a top, then we saw some kind of consolidation and another attempt to move higher, which failed (mid-2008 and second half of 2012) and started a decline. The decline was more or less twice the size of the decline from the key (March 2008 and late 2011) top. In 2008, we saw a corrective upswing that was followed by a move to almost the final bottom and from mid-2013 to early 2015 we saw several such corrective upswings. After the initial bottom (September 2008 and the final part of 2015) gold soared sharply. The sizes of the upswings differ on a relative basis, but it&#8217;s understandable as back in 2008 the moves took place in a very short time, so the levels of emotionality among market participants were much higher.</p> <p>After the sharp rally, gold consolidated a bit (late September 2008 and mid-2016), then declined and moved close to the previous highs once again (October 2008 and September 2017).</p> <p>The decline that started thereafter in 2008 was the biggest and sharpest decline in many years. Naturally, this does not bode well for the near-term gold outlook. Conversely, it seems that we can expect the most important part of the decline to be just around the corner.</p> <p>The above implication is not the only interesting thing about the analogy, though. The detail that could be important going forward is the moment when the decline took a breather. At this time, the moves take more time, so the pauses could be longer and more visible as well and if we get enough bullish confirmations once gold moves to certain price levels, we might even adjust the trading position temporarily.</p> <p>In 2008, the first interim pause was at the most recent important low and the second pause was approximately the level from which the sharpest part of the previous huge rally started, which was strengthened by another support level (the previous low).</p> <p>We don&#8217;t have price levels that would be 100% analogous, but we can see which levels are most similar. In our view, the most recent important lows would be close to the $1,200 level (March, May, and July 2017 bottoms) and the next strong support will be provided by the $1,120 - $1,130 area. That&#8217;s approximately from where gold soared most sharply in early 2016 and this level is strengthened by the December 2016 low.</p> <p>These levels are most likely to generate support strong enough to trigger at least corrective rallies based on the analogy to what we saw in 2008 and based on their own strength as support. Naturally, that&#8217;s what appears likely based on the data that we have today and the likely scenario could change as new developments unfold.</p> <p>There&#8217;s one more thing that we left for the analytical dessert. Namely, back in 2008 the previous key low (September 2008 low, which is analogous to the late 2015 bottom) didn&#8217;t trigger even a small rally. Consequently, even though a bottom or at least a correction will be widely expected once gold moves below $1,100, gold may continue to move lower and slide through $1,050 like a hot knife through butter.</p> <p>Finally, there&#8217;s one more thing that makes the current situation in gold similar to 2008 &#8211; the overall increase in the volume levels. We already discussed, why <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/just-a-blip/" type="external">the yearly volume levels at record highs should not be viewed as bullish</a> (final part of the November 14 alert that we&#8217;re linking to) and today we would like to add the observation that back in 2008 the volume levels also broke to new highs and stayed there for a long time.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/13.png" type="external" /> <p>Yes, the volume has been growing almost constantly, but the 2008 and 2017 buildups in volume still stand out. The growth is much sharper than in other years and no other period is comparable to those years. Since the 2008 volume buildup was followed by a sharp decline in the precious metals sector, it seems that we might see something similar also this and/or the next year.</p> <p>Summing up, there are multiple bearish signals in the gold market and in the rest of the precious metals sector and the analogies to previous major declines further support the bearish outlook. The big decline in PMs appears to be underway as the previously discussed long-term signals remain in place: <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/extreme-monthly-volume-in-gold/" type="external">gold&#8217;s huge monthly volume</a>, the <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same/" type="external">analogy in the HUI Index</a>, the <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/rate-hikes-usd-gold/" type="external">analogy between the two most recent series of interest rate hikes</a>, and the <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/miners-screaming-signal/" type="external">RSI signal from gold priced in the Japanese yen</a>.</p> <p>To summarize:</p> <p>Trading capital (supplementary part of the <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/key-insights/gold-portfolio/" type="external">portfolio</a>; our opinion): Short positions (150% of the full position) in gold, silver and mining stocks are justified from the risk/reward perspective with the following stop-loss orders and exit price levels / profit-take orders:</p> Gold: exit price: $1,218; stop-loss: $1,366; exit price for the DGLD ETN: $51.98; stop-loss for the DGLD ETN $38.74 Silver: exit price: $15.82; stop-loss: $19.22; exit price for the DSLV ETN: $28.88; stop-loss for the DSLV ETN $17.93 Mining stocks (price levels for the GDX ETF): exit price: $21.23; stop-loss: $26.34; exit price for the DUST ETF: $29.97; stop-loss for the DUST ETF $21.37 <p>In case one wants to bet on junior mining stocks' prices (we do not suggest doing so &#8211; we think senior mining stocks are more predictable in the case of short-term trades &#8211; if one wants to do it anyway, we provide the details), here are the stop-loss details and exit prices:</p> GDXJ ETF: exit price: $30.28; stop-loss: $45.31 JDST ETF: exit price: $66.27; stop-loss: $43.12 <p>Long-term capital (core part of the <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/key-insights/gold-portfolio/" type="external">portfolio</a>; our opinion): No positions (in other words: cash)</p> <p>Insurance capital (core part of the <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/key-insights/gold-portfolio/" type="external">portfolio</a>; our opinion): Full position</p> Important Details for New Subscribers <p>Whether you already subscribed or not, we encourage you to find out <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading-beginners-guide/" type="external">how to make the most of our alerts</a> and read our replies to the most common alert-and-gold-trading-related-questions.</p> <p>Please note that the in the trading section we describe the situation for the day that the alert is posted. In other words, it we are writing about a speculative position, it means that it is up-to-date on the day it was posted. We are also featuring the initial target prices, so that you can decide whether keeping a position on a given day is something that is in tune with your approach (some moves are too small for medium-term traders and some might appear too big for day-traders).</p> <p>Plus, you might want to read <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/help/faq/#127" type="external">why our stop-loss orders are usually relatively far from the current price</a>.</p> <p>Please note that a full position doesn&#8217;t mean using all of the capital for a given trade. You will find details on our thoughts on <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/key-insights/portfolio/" type="external">gold portfolio structuring</a> in the <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/key-insights/" type="external">Key Insights</a> section on our website.</p> <p>As a reminder &#8211; &#8220;initial target price&#8221; means exactly that &#8211; an &#8220;initial&#8221; one, it&#8217;s not a price level at which we suggest closing positions. If this becomes the case (like it did in the previous trade) we will refer to these levels as levels of exit orders (exactly as we&#8217;ve done previously). Stop-loss levels, however, are naturally not &#8220;initial&#8221;, but something that, in our opinion, might be entered as an order.</p> <p>Since it is impossible to synchronize target prices and stop-loss levels for all the ETFs and ETNs with the main markets that we provide these levels for (gold, silver and mining stocks &#8211; the GDX ETF), the stop-loss levels and target prices for other ETNs and ETF (among other: UGLD, DGLD, USLV, DSLV, NUGT, DUST, JNUG, JDST) are provided as supplementary, and not as &#8220;final&#8221;. This means that if a stop-loss or a target level is reached for any of the &#8220;additional instruments&#8221; (DGLD for instance), but not for the &#8220;main instrument&#8221; (gold in this case), we will view positions in both gold and DGLD as still open and the stop-loss for DGLD would have to be moved lower. On the other hand, if gold moves to a stop-loss level but DGLD doesn&#8217;t, then we will view both positions (in gold and DGLD) as closed. In other words, since it&#8217;s not possible to be 100% certain that each related instrument moves to a given level when the underlying instrument does, we can&#8217;t provide levels that would be binding. The levels that we do provide are our best estimate of the levels that will correspond to the levels in the underlying assets, but it will be the underlying assets that one will need to focus on regarding the signs pointing to closing a given position or keeping it open. We might adjust the levels in the &#8220;additional instruments&#8221; without adjusting the levels in the &#8220;main instruments&#8221;, which will simply mean that we have improved our estimation of these levels, not that we changed our outlook on the markets. We are already working on a tool that would update these levels on a daily basis for the most popular ETFs, ETNs and individual mining stocks.</p> <p>Our preferred ways to invest in and to trade gold along with the reasoning can be found in the <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/how-to-buy/" type="external">how to buy gold</a> section. Additionally, our preferred ETFs and ETNs can be found in our <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/etf/" type="external">Gold &amp;amp; Silver ETF Ranking</a>.</p> <p>As a reminder, Gold &amp;amp; Silver Trading Alerts are posted before or on each trading day (we usually post them before the opening bell, but we don't promise doing that each day). If there's anything urgent, we will send you an additional small alert before posting the main one.</p> <p>=====</p> <p>Latest Free Trading Alerts:</p> <p>On Wednesday, Trump nominated Goodfriend to the Fed&#8217;s Board of Governors. What does it mean for the gold market?</p> <p>S&amp;amp;P 500 index lost 0.2% on Friday, following volatile trading session and a bounce off support level at 2,600 mark. Is this a topping pattern or just another consolidation within medium-term uptrend?</p> <p>=====</p> <p>Hand-picked precious-metals-related links:</p> <p>=====</p> <p>In other news:</p> <p>=====</p> <p>Thank you.</p>

Gold Price in December 2017 - Myriads of Signals and Analogies

https://www.insidefutures.com/articles/out.php?a=2094272&u=https%3A//www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/gold-price-december-2017/

2017-12-04

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>Briefly: In our opinion, full (150% of the regular full position) speculative short positions in gold, silver and mining stocks are justified from the risk/reward perspective at the moment of publishing this alert.</p> <p>Gold moved back and forth on Friday and the accompanying volume was high, but that&#8217;s not the only important thing that we can discuss today. The week is over and we have weekly changes and weekly volume levels to analyze and we saw major moves in the important ratios. Additionally, we discovered a self-similar pattern in gold that has critical and volatile implications going forward.</p> <p>Let&#8217;s start with Friday&#8217;s session and the changes in the gold market (chart courtesy of <a href="http://stockcharts.com/" type="external">http://stockcharts.com</a>).</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/1_BNTrL7o.png" type="external" /> <p>Gold moved sharply back and forth as both positive and negative data was released and ultimately it ended the session a few dollars higher (based on kitco&#8217;s prices, the closing price was $1,279.60). Why was the reaction so significant? The reason could be technical &#8211; the apex of the triangle was likely to be accompanied by a turnaround and since we just saw a more visible top a couple of days ago and apparently gold doesn&#8217;t want to form a bottom here, then the only remaining outcome is a local daily top that doesn&#8217;t change much &#8211; which is what we saw.</p> <p>Why do we think that gold doesn&#8217;t want to bottom here? Because if it did, it would have ended Friday&#8217;s session much higher.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/2_I8jpobb.png" type="external" /> The USD Index moved lower, so gold had a good reason to close the session visibly higher, especially that it moved quite high on an intraday basis. Yet, it declined before the session was over and closed only insignificantly higher. <p>If gold doesn&#8217;t want to move higher, then silver must really hate that &#8220;thought&#8221;.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/3_jgYU95t.png" type="external" /> <p>The white metal declined once again and even though gold closed a bit higher, it managed to close lower. The move lower by itself is already bearish as it took place on visible volume, but it&#8217;s very bearish once we take into account Thursday&#8217;s breakdown. We previously commented on it in the following way:</p> <p>Silver declined and it reversed before the end of the session, which appears to be a reversal. But does this reversal really have bullish implications? It doesn&#8217;t seem to be the case. The volume wasn&#8217;t huge enough to confirm the reversal and it was not low enough to invalidate the bearish implications of the decline either.</p> <p>The key thing to the proper analysis of the silver price swing is the awareness of what the USD and S&amp;amp;P 500 did. The former declined a bit, while stocks truly soared, which created perfect circumstances for a silver rally. Yet, instead of a rally, we saw a decline and a move below the rising support line based on the August and October lows. Consequently, silver&#8217;s action was very bearish as it showed great weakness in this market.</p> <p>Moreover, the mentioned support line could be viewed as a neck level of a head and shoulders pattern (with a rather long right shoulder, similar to the one that we saw in the euro), which serves as an additional bearish indication (it&#8217;s only a small addition to the bearish implications of the breakdown as such, as its implications are bearish regardless of the H&amp;amp;S formation being in place or not).</p> <p>On Friday, the general stock market declined significantly but almost the entire decline was reversed before the end of the session. If we consider Thursday and Friday together, the S&amp;amp;P 500 index still rallied considerably, but silver declined and was unable to invalidate its breakdown. The implications are strongly bearish.</p> <p>Let&#8217;s move back to gold for a few minutes.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/4_eIzPfWr.png" type="external" /> In Friday&#8217;s alert, we wrote the following regarding the above chart featuring gold priced in the euro: <p>In terms of the euro, the bearish signals are much more profound. Gold has just broken below the rising, medium-term support line and the most recent local top was formed approximately at the apex of the triangle pattern (in terms of time). The latter makes it considerably more likely that an important top was just formed and thus that the breakdown that we just saw will be confirmed.</p> <p>As far as the apex of the triangle is concerned, it&#8217;s actually a combination of two such patterns &#8211; they are based on the same tops and bottoms, but in one case (red lines) they are based on the intraday extremes and in the other case (black lines) they are based on the daily closing prices. The most recent top took place right between the apexes created based on both patterns.</p> <p>The mentioned breakdown is almost confirmed. Almost, because we would prefer to see three consecutive closing prices below the support line to see it as strong resistance, but we have already seen two of them, a weekly close and also a failed attempt to move back above the line. The breakdown is very close to being fully confirmed and the bearishness of the implications increased significantly based on Friday&#8217;s session.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/5_YvNSaHt.png" type="external" /> <p>Speaking of breakdowns, we saw one in the gold to S&amp;amp;P 500 ratio, which&#8230; is nothing new, but still quite exciting and important. Why? Because due to several failed attempts to break below this level, we had to be skeptical toward the breakdown this time. The question was: &#8221;Would this time be any different?&#8221; It turned out that this time was different as the ratio moved back to the previously broken level, verified it as support and then continued to move lower on huge volume (precisely, the ratio itself doesn&#8217;t have volume, so what we mean is the ratio of volumes).</p> <p>Why would the above be a big deal? Because this ratio moves in tune with gold when it comes to major price moves and &#8211; more importantly &#8211; there was only one similar case in the past 15 years when we saw a similar breakdown and it was in the early stages of the 2012 &#8211; 2013 decline. Back then, it was a warning sign that practically nobody noticed. You&#8217;ll probably not see it anywhere (except for this publication) this time either.</p> <p>Naturally, the implications are strongly bearish as the breakdown now appears believable.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/6_ASZRCIr.png" type="external" /> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/7.png" type="external" /> Mining stocks, just like gold moved back and forth and ended the session higher, however, the move was too tiny in terms of daily closing prices to be viewed as bullish. It&#8217;s more of a big-volume reversal and the implications thereof are bearish. <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/8.png" type="external" /> <p>From the weekly point of view, we see that mining stocks declined and broke below the rising support lines based on the 2016 and 2017 lows and that the breakdown took place on big volume. All that happened after two weeks of low-volume upswings that we commented on in <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/end-of-usd-rally/" type="external">last Monday&#8217;s alert</a>:</p> <p>Finally, the weekly volume levels in the GDX ETF paint a very bearish picture for the following weeks. The GDX ETF is after 2 small, weekly rallies that were accompanied by very low volume when compared with the previous weeks. The last week had less trading days, but that doesn&#8217;t explain the previous week&#8217;s low volume reading. Moreover, we didn&#8217;t see similarly low volume readings in the past Novembers, which suggests that we are correct to view the low volume levels as something important and meaningful.</p> <p>The only comparable situation from the recent past took place in mid-2014 (marked with a black arrow). In the following weeks, the GDX price was cut by a third.</p> <p>The bearish implications of the above just became more bearish as back in 2014, the first big-volume weekly decline meant that the big slide had just begun.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/9.png" type="external" /> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/10.png" type="external" /> <p>The breakdown can also be seen in the case of the HUI to S&amp;amp;P 500 index ratio. In other words, by looking at <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/investment-tools/best-gold-stocks/" type="external">gold stocks</a>&#8217; performance relative to <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/stock-trading/" type="external">other stocks</a>. The breakdown is clear and confirmed by both weekly and monthly closing prices. The implications are bearish.</p> <p>All in all, the medium-term outlook is clearly bearish based on the above and based on the factors that we discussed previously and it seems that we&#8217;ve been correct to be holding the short positions in metals and miners (especially in silver and miners). Still, it seems that the vast majority of the potential that these positions have is still to be realized.</p> <p>This is particularly the case given the similarities between what we&#8217;re seeing now and what we saw before the previous slides. We already discussed some of those similarities above, but there&#8217;s also something else that is likely in play right now.</p> <p>In early October, we described the analogy in performance between 2008 and the current period (at the moment) in gold stocks. It was almost two months ago, so even if you read it at that time, it might be worth <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same/" type="external">reading it once again today</a> (by the way, we are making that alert available publicly, so if you know someone who&#8217;s interested in precious metals, but has doubts about using technical analysis to analyze it, please send them the link to that alert &#8211; they might change their minds - <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same/" type="external">https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same/</a>) &#8211; it&#8217;s truly amazing how the similarity continued almost to the letter even though the two cases are almost a decade apart. Even the initial retracement of the HUI Index (38.2%) was identical.</p> <p>However, today we are not going to repeat the October analysis &#8211; we are going to discuss something alike&#8230; in gold.</p> <p>That&#8217;s right, the gold market features similarities to its performance back in 2008.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/11.png" type="external" /> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/12.png" type="external" /> <p>Before moving to details, let&#8217;s state that the analogy is far from perfect. That&#8217;s probably why we didn&#8217;t discover it earlier. However, it&#8217;s not the point to be picky about a technique, but rather to see if there is anything that it can give us and make us particularly aware of things that could come. With regard to the latter goal in mind, it seems that we have something very valuable.</p> <p>In both cases, we have a sharp rally that preceded a top, then we saw some kind of consolidation and another attempt to move higher, which failed (mid-2008 and second half of 2012) and started a decline. The decline was more or less twice the size of the decline from the key (March 2008 and late 2011) top. In 2008, we saw a corrective upswing that was followed by a move to almost the final bottom and from mid-2013 to early 2015 we saw several such corrective upswings. After the initial bottom (September 2008 and the final part of 2015) gold soared sharply. The sizes of the upswings differ on a relative basis, but it&#8217;s understandable as back in 2008 the moves took place in a very short time, so the levels of emotionality among market participants were much higher.</p> <p>After the sharp rally, gold consolidated a bit (late September 2008 and mid-2016), then declined and moved close to the previous highs once again (October 2008 and September 2017).</p> <p>The decline that started thereafter in 2008 was the biggest and sharpest decline in many years. Naturally, this does not bode well for the near-term gold outlook. Conversely, it seems that we can expect the most important part of the decline to be just around the corner.</p> <p>The above implication is not the only interesting thing about the analogy, though. The detail that could be important going forward is the moment when the decline took a breather. At this time, the moves take more time, so the pauses could be longer and more visible as well and if we get enough bullish confirmations once gold moves to certain price levels, we might even adjust the trading position temporarily.</p> <p>In 2008, the first interim pause was at the most recent important low and the second pause was approximately the level from which the sharpest part of the previous huge rally started, which was strengthened by another support level (the previous low).</p> <p>We don&#8217;t have price levels that would be 100% analogous, but we can see which levels are most similar. In our view, the most recent important lows would be close to the $1,200 level (March, May, and July 2017 bottoms) and the next strong support will be provided by the $1,120 - $1,130 area. That&#8217;s approximately from where gold soared most sharply in early 2016 and this level is strengthened by the December 2016 low.</p> <p>These levels are most likely to generate support strong enough to trigger at least corrective rallies based on the analogy to what we saw in 2008 and based on their own strength as support. Naturally, that&#8217;s what appears likely based on the data that we have today and the likely scenario could change as new developments unfold.</p> <p>There&#8217;s one more thing that we left for the analytical dessert. Namely, back in 2008 the previous key low (September 2008 low, which is analogous to the late 2015 bottom) didn&#8217;t trigger even a small rally. Consequently, even though a bottom or at least a correction will be widely expected once gold moves below $1,100, gold may continue to move lower and slide through $1,050 like a hot knife through butter.</p> <p>Finally, there&#8217;s one more thing that makes the current situation in gold similar to 2008 &#8211; the overall increase in the volume levels. We already discussed, why <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/just-a-blip/" type="external">the yearly volume levels at record highs should not be viewed as bullish</a> (final part of the November 14 alert that we&#8217;re linking to) and today we would like to add the observation that back in 2008 the volume levels also broke to new highs and stayed there for a long time.</p> <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/media/cms_page_media/2017/12/4/13.png" type="external" /> <p>Yes, the volume has been growing almost constantly, but the 2008 and 2017 buildups in volume still stand out. The growth is much sharper than in other years and no other period is comparable to those years. Since the 2008 volume buildup was followed by a sharp decline in the precious metals sector, it seems that we might see something similar also this and/or the next year.</p> <p>Summing up, there are multiple bearish signals in the gold market and in the rest of the precious metals sector and the analogies to previous major declines further support the bearish outlook. The big decline in PMs appears to be underway as the previously discussed long-term signals remain in place: <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/extreme-monthly-volume-in-gold/" type="external">gold&#8217;s huge monthly volume</a>, the <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same/" type="external">analogy in the HUI Index</a>, the <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/rate-hikes-usd-gold/" type="external">analogy between the two most recent series of interest rate hikes</a>, and the <a href="https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/miners-screaming-signal/" type="external">RSI signal from gold priced in the Japanese yen</a>.</p> <p>To summarize:</p> <p>Trading capital (supplementary part of the <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/key-insights/gold-portfolio/" type="external">portfolio</a>; our opinion): Short positions (150% of the full position) in gold, silver and mining stocks are justified from the risk/reward perspective with the following stop-loss orders and exit price levels / profit-take orders:</p> Gold: exit price: $1,218; stop-loss: $1,366; exit price for the DGLD ETN: $51.98; stop-loss for the DGLD ETN $38.74 Silver: exit price: $15.82; stop-loss: $19.22; exit price for the DSLV ETN: $28.88; stop-loss for the DSLV ETN $17.93 Mining stocks (price levels for the GDX ETF): exit price: $21.23; stop-loss: $26.34; exit price for the DUST ETF: $29.97; stop-loss for the DUST ETF $21.37 <p>In case one wants to bet on junior mining stocks' prices (we do not suggest doing so &#8211; we think senior mining stocks are more predictable in the case of short-term trades &#8211; if one wants to do it anyway, we provide the details), here are the stop-loss details and exit prices:</p> GDXJ ETF: exit price: $30.28; stop-loss: $45.31 JDST ETF: exit price: $66.27; stop-loss: $43.12 <p>Long-term capital (core part of the <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/key-insights/gold-portfolio/" type="external">portfolio</a>; our opinion): No positions (in other words: cash)</p> <p>Insurance capital (core part of the <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/key-insights/gold-portfolio/" type="external">portfolio</a>; our opinion): Full position</p> Important Details for New Subscribers <p>Whether you already subscribed or not, we encourage you to find out <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading-beginners-guide/" type="external">how to make the most of our alerts</a> and read our replies to the most common alert-and-gold-trading-related-questions.</p> <p>Please note that the in the trading section we describe the situation for the day that the alert is posted. In other words, it we are writing about a speculative position, it means that it is up-to-date on the day it was posted. We are also featuring the initial target prices, so that you can decide whether keeping a position on a given day is something that is in tune with your approach (some moves are too small for medium-term traders and some might appear too big for day-traders).</p> <p>Plus, you might want to read <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/help/faq/#127" type="external">why our stop-loss orders are usually relatively far from the current price</a>.</p> <p>Please note that a full position doesn&#8217;t mean using all of the capital for a given trade. You will find details on our thoughts on <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/key-insights/portfolio/" type="external">gold portfolio structuring</a> in the <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/key-insights/" type="external">Key Insights</a> section on our website.</p> <p>As a reminder &#8211; &#8220;initial target price&#8221; means exactly that &#8211; an &#8220;initial&#8221; one, it&#8217;s not a price level at which we suggest closing positions. If this becomes the case (like it did in the previous trade) we will refer to these levels as levels of exit orders (exactly as we&#8217;ve done previously). Stop-loss levels, however, are naturally not &#8220;initial&#8221;, but something that, in our opinion, might be entered as an order.</p> <p>Since it is impossible to synchronize target prices and stop-loss levels for all the ETFs and ETNs with the main markets that we provide these levels for (gold, silver and mining stocks &#8211; the GDX ETF), the stop-loss levels and target prices for other ETNs and ETF (among other: UGLD, DGLD, USLV, DSLV, NUGT, DUST, JNUG, JDST) are provided as supplementary, and not as &#8220;final&#8221;. This means that if a stop-loss or a target level is reached for any of the &#8220;additional instruments&#8221; (DGLD for instance), but not for the &#8220;main instrument&#8221; (gold in this case), we will view positions in both gold and DGLD as still open and the stop-loss for DGLD would have to be moved lower. On the other hand, if gold moves to a stop-loss level but DGLD doesn&#8217;t, then we will view both positions (in gold and DGLD) as closed. In other words, since it&#8217;s not possible to be 100% certain that each related instrument moves to a given level when the underlying instrument does, we can&#8217;t provide levels that would be binding. The levels that we do provide are our best estimate of the levels that will correspond to the levels in the underlying assets, but it will be the underlying assets that one will need to focus on regarding the signs pointing to closing a given position or keeping it open. We might adjust the levels in the &#8220;additional instruments&#8221; without adjusting the levels in the &#8220;main instruments&#8221;, which will simply mean that we have improved our estimation of these levels, not that we changed our outlook on the markets. We are already working on a tool that would update these levels on a daily basis for the most popular ETFs, ETNs and individual mining stocks.</p> <p>Our preferred ways to invest in and to trade gold along with the reasoning can be found in the <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/how-to-buy/" type="external">how to buy gold</a> section. Additionally, our preferred ETFs and ETNs can be found in our <a href="http://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/etf/" type="external">Gold &amp;amp; Silver ETF Ranking</a>.</p> <p>As a reminder, Gold &amp;amp; Silver Trading Alerts are posted before or on each trading day (we usually post them before the opening bell, but we don't promise doing that each day). If there's anything urgent, we will send you an additional small alert before posting the main one.</p> <p>=====</p> <p>Latest Free Trading Alerts:</p> <p>On Wednesday, Trump nominated Goodfriend to the Fed&#8217;s Board of Governors. What does it mean for the gold market?</p> <p>S&amp;amp;P 500 index lost 0.2% on Friday, following volatile trading session and a bounce off support level at 2,600 mark. Is this a topping pattern or just another consolidation within medium-term uptrend?</p> <p>=====</p> <p>Hand-picked precious-metals-related links:</p> <p>=====</p> <p>In other news:</p> <p>=====</p> <p>Thank you.</p>" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

True

<p>When the Graham-Cassidy bill failed to reach the Senate floor last week, the media wanted to put a stake in the heart of the administration&#8217;s agenda, declaring all Obamacare repeal efforts to be dead. For the millions of Americans struggling under the Affordable Care Act regime, however, the fight to make lemonade out of lemons must continue this fall.</p> <p>Luckily, conservatives in Congress who want to see the end of Obamacare and understand the perils of inaction are not giving up.</p> <p>Earlier this week, America Rising Squared, a conservative policy organization which I lead, issued a <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/360054557/Five-Proactive-Steps-That-Congress-Can-Take-ToCurtail-The-Obamacare-Disaster-in-2017" type="external">path forward</a>. We outline five popular conservative actions Congress and the president can take by the end of the year to protect taxpayers and those disproportionately harmed by the ACA while the larger repeal effort remains delayed until next year.</p> <p>The first step is to protect them from new Obamacare taxes coming in January.</p> <p>Americans should be encouraged to know that conservatives in the Senate have <a href="https://www.gardner.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/gardner-authors-proposal-to-delay-costly-health-insurance-tax" type="external">introduced legislation</a> to stop the health insurance tax and the medical device tax. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and 10 fellow conservative senators, including Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), introduced legislation last week to stop the insurance tax. In the House, a bipartisan effort is underway to do the same, led by Republican Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.</p> <p>These members of Congress understand that Obamacare taxes will harm Americans of all walks of life, and will disproportionately harm seniors and small businesses. In all, if Congress fails to act, the health insurance tax would amount to a new annual <a href="http://www.stopthehit.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Oliver-Wyman-2018-HIT-Analysis%E2%80%8E-August-8-2017.pdf" type="external">$14.3 billion tax increase</a>. Republicans don&#8217;t want to see a tax hike go into effect on their watch, and Democrats don&#8217;t want to put more of a burden on vulnerable Americans, so action is required now.</p> <p>Second, there should be no bailouts for Obamacare. While bipartisanship is a key to success in getting legislation passed, the president and conservatives in Congress ought to fight back against all efforts to bail out this law. When House Republicans sued President Obama in 2014 over the health-care act's cost-sharing subsidies, a federal judge sided with the plaintiffs, deeming these bailouts unconstitutional. The Obama administration appealed, so today President Trump can easily drop that appeal and end unconstitutional Obamacare cronyism. Liberals in the Senate want new bailouts, but conservatives such as Cruz have <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/353086-cruz-warns-against-obamacare-bailout" type="external">warned</a> colleagues that they must oppose any such efforts.</p> <p>The third step needed to cripple the health care law and protect Americans is for President Trump to direct the IRS to weaken the individual mandate and expand the hardship exemptions. The individual mandate has forced many Americans to purchase coverage they do not want and cannot afford, and even candidate Obama <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/23/AR2008022302026.html" type="external">admitted</a> in 2008 that under Massachusetts' plan, &#8220;there are people who are paying &#64257;nes and still can&#8217;t afford [health insurance], so now they&#8217;re worse off than they were.&#8221; He was right, and President Trump can give these Americans relief from fines easily by directing the IRS to ease the mandate.</p> <p>The two final steps the president and Republicans in Congress can take before the end of the year is to fully implement 90 percent cuts to Obamacare marketing, which would save the federal government some $90 million, and fully protect American seniors from new taxes on Medicare plans. Among the taxes going into effect next year, those enrolled in Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D will see taxes increased nearly $3,000 each over the next decade if Congress fails to act.</p> <p>Time is running out, and President Trump and Republicans in Congress must act now to stop new Obamacare taxes, end the cronyism of bailouts, free Americans from burdensome federal mandates, cut wasteful ACA marketing, and protect America&#8217;s seniors.</p> <p>President Trump and conservatives have it within their power today to stop the most harmful aspects of the health care law, but time is short; the time to act is now.</p> Want to protect your brain and revitalize your memory? You NEED this Super Coffee!

Conservatives & Trump Can Still Stop the Worst of Obamacare

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/10/05/conservatives__trump_can_still_stop_the_worst_of_obamacare_135186.html

2017-10-05

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>When the Graham-Cassidy bill failed to reach the Senate floor last week, the media wanted to put a stake in the heart of the administration&#8217;s agenda, declaring all Obamacare repeal efforts to be dead. For the millions of Americans struggling under the Affordable Care Act regime, however, the fight to make lemonade out of lemons must continue this fall.</p> <p>Luckily, conservatives in Congress who want to see the end of Obamacare and understand the perils of inaction are not giving up.</p> <p>Earlier this week, America Rising Squared, a conservative policy organization which I lead, issued a <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/360054557/Five-Proactive-Steps-That-Congress-Can-Take-ToCurtail-The-Obamacare-Disaster-in-2017" type="external">path forward</a>. We outline five popular conservative actions Congress and the president can take by the end of the year to protect taxpayers and those disproportionately harmed by the ACA while the larger repeal effort remains delayed until next year.</p> <p>The first step is to protect them from new Obamacare taxes coming in January.</p> <p>Americans should be encouraged to know that conservatives in the Senate have <a href="https://www.gardner.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/gardner-authors-proposal-to-delay-costly-health-insurance-tax" type="external">introduced legislation</a> to stop the health insurance tax and the medical device tax. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and 10 fellow conservative senators, including Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), introduced legislation last week to stop the insurance tax. In the House, a bipartisan effort is underway to do the same, led by Republican Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.</p> <p>These members of Congress understand that Obamacare taxes will harm Americans of all walks of life, and will disproportionately harm seniors and small businesses. In all, if Congress fails to act, the health insurance tax would amount to a new annual <a href="http://www.stopthehit.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Oliver-Wyman-2018-HIT-Analysis%E2%80%8E-August-8-2017.pdf" type="external">$14.3 billion tax increase</a>. Republicans don&#8217;t want to see a tax hike go into effect on their watch, and Democrats don&#8217;t want to put more of a burden on vulnerable Americans, so action is required now.</p> <p>Second, there should be no bailouts for Obamacare. While bipartisanship is a key to success in getting legislation passed, the president and conservatives in Congress ought to fight back against all efforts to bail out this law. When House Republicans sued President Obama in 2014 over the health-care act's cost-sharing subsidies, a federal judge sided with the plaintiffs, deeming these bailouts unconstitutional. The Obama administration appealed, so today President Trump can easily drop that appeal and end unconstitutional Obamacare cronyism. Liberals in the Senate want new bailouts, but conservatives such as Cruz have <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/353086-cruz-warns-against-obamacare-bailout" type="external">warned</a> colleagues that they must oppose any such efforts.</p> <p>The third step needed to cripple the health care law and protect Americans is for President Trump to direct the IRS to weaken the individual mandate and expand the hardship exemptions. The individual mandate has forced many Americans to purchase coverage they do not want and cannot afford, and even candidate Obama <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/23/AR2008022302026.html" type="external">admitted</a> in 2008 that under Massachusetts' plan, &#8220;there are people who are paying &#64257;nes and still can&#8217;t afford [health insurance], so now they&#8217;re worse off than they were.&#8221; He was right, and President Trump can give these Americans relief from fines easily by directing the IRS to ease the mandate.</p> <p>The two final steps the president and Republicans in Congress can take before the end of the year is to fully implement 90 percent cuts to Obamacare marketing, which would save the federal government some $90 million, and fully protect American seniors from new taxes on Medicare plans. Among the taxes going into effect next year, those enrolled in Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D will see taxes increased nearly $3,000 each over the next decade if Congress fails to act.</p> <p>Time is running out, and President Trump and Republicans in Congress must act now to stop new Obamacare taxes, end the cronyism of bailouts, free Americans from burdensome federal mandates, cut wasteful ACA marketing, and protect America&#8217;s seniors.</p> <p>President Trump and conservatives have it within their power today to stop the most harmful aspects of the health care law, but time is short; the time to act is now.</p> Want to protect your brain and revitalize your memory? You NEED this Super Coffee!" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

True

<p>In recent months, late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel has taken to scaremongering his audience with well-worn Democratic Party talking points regarding health care insurance policy. Between yuks, he occasionally accuses Republicans of being would-be baby killers, which is treated as an important political development because, well, Jimmy Kimmel is famous.</p> <p>This week, the comedian was back to explain why the new Graham-Cassidy Republican "repeal" bill is bad news. There were only two things wrong with his monologue: Almost everything he said was either completely untrue or highly misleading, and his simplistic emotional appeal was completely disconnected from the real world.</p> <p>The comedian's interest in policy was sparked by the harrowing experience of having a newborn son who suffered from a rare health condition. Thankfully, his boy is OK. "If your baby is going to die and it doesn't have to, it shouldn't matter how much money you make," said an emotional Kimmel in May. "I think that's something that, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat or something else, we all agree on that, right?"</p> <p>Yes, everyone agrees. As far as I know, there isn't a single politician in America who has ever supported allowing babies to die because they are born with birth defects, even if the parents can't pay. Not pre-Obamacare, and not post-Obamacare.</p> <p>In any event, after Kimmel's May rant, Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy showed up on his show to explain his position. These types of culture encounters shouldn't be dismissed, because the fact is most viewers are unaware of specific policies and have a notional understanding that's prejudiced by the establishment media's coverage. Cassidy came up with something he called the "Jimmy Kimmel Test," a test that no "family should be denied medical care, emergency or otherwise, because they can't afford it."</p> <p>Kimmel claims that the new bill doesn't meet this threshold. "This guy, Bill Cassidy, just lied right to my face," the talk-show host said on Tuesday night during an extended political rant. He went on to say, "And by the way, before you post a nasty Facebook message saying I'm politicizing my son's health problems, I want you to know: I am politicizing my son's health problems." OK.</p> <p>He explained: "Coverage for all? No. Fact, it will kick about 30 million Americans off insurance."</p> <p>Not a single person would be "kicked off" his or her insurance. Rather, the Congressional Budget Office review of the AHCA found that of the 24 million Americans who would no longer have health insurance after an Obamacare repeal, 14 million would choose not to buy insurance in 2018 in the absence of a penalty. And if Obamacare were not repealed, the CBO projects another 6 million people would voluntarily leave the Obamacare markets. Now, if you don't believe Americans should be afforded the choice to leave or not buy insurance, just say that. No one is being kicked off.</p> <p>Moreover, if Kimmel supports the individual mandate, Graham-Cassidy allows California to institute it -- as I am sure it would.</p> <p>Kimmel says: "Pre-existing conditions? Nope. If the bill passes, individual states can let insurance companies charge more if you have a pre-existing condition."</p> <p>States would be allowed to apply for waivers to change what qualifies as an essential health benefit as long as they still preserve "adequate and affordable health insurance coverage" for people with pre-existing conditions. You may prefer price fixing to allowing states flexibility to try and fix these problems, but Graham-Cassidy does not break the "Jimmy Kimmel Test." Kimmel might not be aware that there is no plan in place that has government cutting checks after every surgery.</p> <p>Kimmel then implored his audience to call Cassidy to stop the imaginary bill he had just described. It's a shame that Kimmel didn't provide a number to call for the tens of millions of Americans who have seen their premiums and out-of-pocket costs skyrocket under Obamacare's strictures. Is there no number available for those who are sick of being in exchanges that coerce them to buy plans they don't need that are sold by companies they don't like in fabricated, noncompetitive "markets" with dwindling choices?</p> <p>Anyway, so went a monologue that could have been written by any liberal activist. Which is to say it was all about cheap zero-sum emotionalism. Kimmel doesn't believe Americans deserve the chance to reduce the cost of health care with market-based reforms on the state level, or in giving states any flexibility in catering their plans to their own citizens. Kimmel believes California and New York should spend more per capita and smaller states should suffer. Kimmel doesn't believe that individuals and families should be allowed to contribute to health savings accounts or use them to help pay ever-growing insurance premiums. Kimmel wants average Americans to suffer.</p> <p>You see? Anyone can play this game.</p> <p>COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM</p> Stunning Video Will Make Any Atheist's Jaw Drop

Don't Fall for Jimmy Kimmel's Cheap Zero-Sum Emotionalism

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/09/22/dont_fall_for_jimmy_kimmels_cheap_zero-sum_emotionalism_135073.html

2017-09-22

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>In recent months, late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel has taken to scaremongering his audience with well-worn Democratic Party talking points regarding health care insurance policy. Between yuks, he occasionally accuses Republicans of being would-be baby killers, which is treated as an important political development because, well, Jimmy Kimmel is famous.</p> <p>This week, the comedian was back to explain why the new Graham-Cassidy Republican "repeal" bill is bad news. There were only two things wrong with his monologue: Almost everything he said was either completely untrue or highly misleading, and his simplistic emotional appeal was completely disconnected from the real world.</p> <p>The comedian's interest in policy was sparked by the harrowing experience of having a newborn son who suffered from a rare health condition. Thankfully, his boy is OK. "If your baby is going to die and it doesn't have to, it shouldn't matter how much money you make," said an emotional Kimmel in May. "I think that's something that, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat or something else, we all agree on that, right?"</p> <p>Yes, everyone agrees. As far as I know, there isn't a single politician in America who has ever supported allowing babies to die because they are born with birth defects, even if the parents can't pay. Not pre-Obamacare, and not post-Obamacare.</p> <p>In any event, after Kimmel's May rant, Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy showed up on his show to explain his position. These types of culture encounters shouldn't be dismissed, because the fact is most viewers are unaware of specific policies and have a notional understanding that's prejudiced by the establishment media's coverage. Cassidy came up with something he called the "Jimmy Kimmel Test," a test that no "family should be denied medical care, emergency or otherwise, because they can't afford it."</p> <p>Kimmel claims that the new bill doesn't meet this threshold. "This guy, Bill Cassidy, just lied right to my face," the talk-show host said on Tuesday night during an extended political rant. He went on to say, "And by the way, before you post a nasty Facebook message saying I'm politicizing my son's health problems, I want you to know: I am politicizing my son's health problems." OK.</p> <p>He explained: "Coverage for all? No. Fact, it will kick about 30 million Americans off insurance."</p> <p>Not a single person would be "kicked off" his or her insurance. Rather, the Congressional Budget Office review of the AHCA found that of the 24 million Americans who would no longer have health insurance after an Obamacare repeal, 14 million would choose not to buy insurance in 2018 in the absence of a penalty. And if Obamacare were not repealed, the CBO projects another 6 million people would voluntarily leave the Obamacare markets. Now, if you don't believe Americans should be afforded the choice to leave or not buy insurance, just say that. No one is being kicked off.</p> <p>Moreover, if Kimmel supports the individual mandate, Graham-Cassidy allows California to institute it -- as I am sure it would.</p> <p>Kimmel says: "Pre-existing conditions? Nope. If the bill passes, individual states can let insurance companies charge more if you have a pre-existing condition."</p> <p>States would be allowed to apply for waivers to change what qualifies as an essential health benefit as long as they still preserve "adequate and affordable health insurance coverage" for people with pre-existing conditions. You may prefer price fixing to allowing states flexibility to try and fix these problems, but Graham-Cassidy does not break the "Jimmy Kimmel Test." Kimmel might not be aware that there is no plan in place that has government cutting checks after every surgery.</p> <p>Kimmel then implored his audience to call Cassidy to stop the imaginary bill he had just described. It's a shame that Kimmel didn't provide a number to call for the tens of millions of Americans who have seen their premiums and out-of-pocket costs skyrocket under Obamacare's strictures. Is there no number available for those who are sick of being in exchanges that coerce them to buy plans they don't need that are sold by companies they don't like in fabricated, noncompetitive "markets" with dwindling choices?</p> <p>Anyway, so went a monologue that could have been written by any liberal activist. Which is to say it was all about cheap zero-sum emotionalism. Kimmel doesn't believe Americans deserve the chance to reduce the cost of health care with market-based reforms on the state level, or in giving states any flexibility in catering their plans to their own citizens. Kimmel believes California and New York should spend more per capita and smaller states should suffer. Kimmel doesn't believe that individuals and families should be allowed to contribute to health savings accounts or use them to help pay ever-growing insurance premiums. Kimmel wants average Americans to suffer.</p> <p>You see? Anyone can play this game.</p> <p>COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM</p> Stunning Video Will Make Any Atheist's Jaw Drop" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

True

<p>Days after Steven Bannon&#8217;s blustery, accusatory interview on &#8220;60 Minutes,&#8221; in which he warned the apostates blocking President Trump&#8217;s agenda that he&#8217;s coming after them, Trump confirmed it -- there is no such thing as Trumpism. In recent weeks he&#8217;s assured Democrats he backs legalizing the Dreamers, affirmed a commitment to foreign aid in front of the United Nations, and said he&#8217;s adding troops in Afghanistan. Will Trump now accept &#8220;better&#8221; terms he wants in the Paris climate accord?</p> <p>Too bad for Bannon, because none of this is remotely the fault of his favorite punching bags, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, just Trump himself.</p> <p>Bannon&#8217;s new self-described role as &#8220;wingman&#8221; growling from outside instead of inside the White House -- where as chief strategist he fought openly against the &#8220;globalist&#8221; forces he believed included Trump&#8217;s family members -- isn&#8217;t going very well. Trump keeps screwing things up for the Breitbart News commander. After getting fired last month he lamented to the Weekly Standard that &#8220;the Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over.&#8221; But upon reflection, Bannon realized that lame duck talk diminishes his own power, so he&#8217;s in overdrive fighting for scraps of a policy vision the president embraces spasmodically.</p> <p>Bannon says he&#8217;s enjoying having &#8220;my hands back on my weapons,&#8221; but he&#8217;s outside looking in at a West Wing filled with elites from Goldman Sachs -- the very definition of &#8220;the swamp&#8221; that Bannon is always frothing about. There, a president is spending political donations on legal fees while his staffers go deep in debt with mounting lawyer bills, visitor logs are kept secret so voters have no idea who is permitted into the Oval Office to influence the president, and a kleptocracy thrives where Trump and his children continue to be enriched by business connected to foreign governments, including the Chinese. Cabinet secretaries are using government planes for private use and private planes for government work -- violations that would have sparked endless Breitbart bonfires under President Obama.</p> <p>In reality, however, there was little left of Trumpism to trumpet even before Bannon was fired. He&#8217;s got the travel ban (or at least a modified version of it), and maybe the promised withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement; Bannon will claim credit if Trump pulls out of the Iran nuclear deal -- but that&#8217;s about it. On trade and immigration, the president has retreated from Bannon&#8217;s barricade-crashing proposals and has not withdrawn from NAFTA, not imposed tariffs on Chinese steel imports, has three times backed off threats over funding for a border wall and now come out in favor of what Bannon calls &#8220;amnesty.&#8221;</p> <p>Yet Bannon has declared war, promising to take out incumbent Republican senators who aren&#8217;t sufficiently loyal to the president. Targets are guilty of insufficient fealty to Trump himself, not to an agenda once thought of as Trumpism. With the backing of loyal mega-donor Robert Mercer, the Bannon forces are targeting Sen. Jeff Flake, and potentially Sens. Bob Corker and Roger Wicker as well. GOP leaders are incensed over the millions more they will spend protecting those lawmakers, money that could be spent trying to knock off Democrats. Currently Bannon is working to elect Roy Moore to replace sitting Sen. Luther Strange in the Alabama Senate race. Trump has endorsed Strange, also backed by McConnell. Bannon is backing the more Trumpian candidate and, well, Trump is not.</p> <p>Bannon, ironically, purports to be interested in protecting GOP majorities in Congress. Before he could imagine Trump giving away the store on DACA to Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, Bannon declared in his &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; interview that preserving President Obama&#8217;s executive order would cause a GOP civil war. He expects Dreamers to run out their permits and &#8220;self-deport,&#8221; because &#8220;amnesty is non-negotiable.&#8221; He also said, &#8220;I&#8217;m worried about losing the House now because of this,&#8221; adding that his fear is &#8220;in February and March it will be a civil war inside the Republican Party.&#8221;</p> <p>But if civil war in the GOP isn&#8217;t Bannon&#8217;s aim, it's hard to know what is. He blames everything on Ryan and McConnell. &#8220;They do not want Donald Trump&#8217;s populist economic agenda to be implemented. It&#8217;s very obvious. It&#8217;s obvious as night follows day,&#8221; he told Charlie Rose.</p> <p>In the name of Trumpism, Bannon swallows heavy doses of denial. After all, when Trump threatened to withdraw from NAFTA, the president&#8217;s kids and other aides made calls to the Canadian government and arranged for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to call Trump and talk him off the ledge. It wasn&#8217;t Ryan or McConnell. Trump&#8217;s approval ratings remain low, Bannon said, &#8220;because he hasn&#8217;t -- we haven&#8217;t gotten the wall built.&#8221; Earth to Steve: Trump has signaled to Congress the wall is a joke.</p> <p>In the wake of the DACA debacle, Breitbart called the president &#8220;Amnesty Don,&#8221; yet Bannon himself has stayed sheepishly silent. Ann Coulter, author of &#8220;In Trump We Trust,&#8221; tweeted: &#8220;Looks like Bannon got it wrong. That shadowy force trying to nullify the 2016 election ... is <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump" type="external">@realDonaldTrump</a>.&#8221; Rep. Steve King told the Associated Press the president was destroying his support by betraying his campaign promise, and that his base is &#8220;irreparable, disillusioned beyond repair.&#8221; King added, &#8220;No promise is credible.&#8221;</p> <p>Sam Nunberg, a close Bannonite, conceded: &#8220;The reality is sinking in that the Trump administration is on the precipice of turning into an establishment presidency.&#8221;</p> <p>But Bannon isn&#8217;t just breaking plates at Breitbart, he&#8217;s building his own brand. Last week, like any other dime-a-dozen elitist, Bannon attended an investor conference in Hong Kong. He told the exclusive gathering he speaks to Trump every two-to-three days, despite White House denials that the president has spoken more than once with Bannon since he left. Before Trump disappointed him on DACA, Nunberg had hailed Bannon&#8217;s increased influence with Trump. &#8220;I think Steve leaves and a week later he [Trump] pardons Arpaio and they suspend DACA. I don&#8217;t think there was any coincidence there,&#8221; Nunberg told BuzzFeed.</p> <p>Bannon remains fixated on the threat China poses to the United States, has grimly predicted we will be at war with that nation within five-to-10 years over its buildup of military installations in the South China Sea, and said we&#8217;re already &#8220;at economic war&#8221; with China. Yet his domestic bark in this regard doesn&#8217;t seem to be the same as his overseas-investor-conference bite. Once there, the New York Times described Bannon as &#8220;more subdued about the purported Chinese threat.&#8221; The Wall Street Journal reported he described Trump&#8217;s great respect for President Xi and prospects for trade, but that &#8220;the U.S. needs to play a stronger role in changing the system in China, an attendee recalled.&#8221; It&#8217;s a far cry from a trade war on steel.</p> <p>Perhaps over time, Bannonism will go the way of Trumpism.</p> <p>A.B. Stoddard is associate editor of RealClearPolitics and a columnist. She is also host of "No Labels Radio" on Sirius XM's POTUS Channel.</p> Secret Message from God Found in Human DNA (See What It Says)

Tell Us, Mr. Bannon -- Just What Is Trumpism?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/09/20/tell_us_mr_bannon_--_just_what_is_trumpism_135053.html

2017-09-20

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>Days after Steven Bannon&#8217;s blustery, accusatory interview on &#8220;60 Minutes,&#8221; in which he warned the apostates blocking President Trump&#8217;s agenda that he&#8217;s coming after them, Trump confirmed it -- there is no such thing as Trumpism. In recent weeks he&#8217;s assured Democrats he backs legalizing the Dreamers, affirmed a commitment to foreign aid in front of the United Nations, and said he&#8217;s adding troops in Afghanistan. Will Trump now accept &#8220;better&#8221; terms he wants in the Paris climate accord?</p> <p>Too bad for Bannon, because none of this is remotely the fault of his favorite punching bags, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, just Trump himself.</p> <p>Bannon&#8217;s new self-described role as &#8220;wingman&#8221; growling from outside instead of inside the White House -- where as chief strategist he fought openly against the &#8220;globalist&#8221; forces he believed included Trump&#8217;s family members -- isn&#8217;t going very well. Trump keeps screwing things up for the Breitbart News commander. After getting fired last month he lamented to the Weekly Standard that &#8220;the Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over.&#8221; But upon reflection, Bannon realized that lame duck talk diminishes his own power, so he&#8217;s in overdrive fighting for scraps of a policy vision the president embraces spasmodically.</p> <p>Bannon says he&#8217;s enjoying having &#8220;my hands back on my weapons,&#8221; but he&#8217;s outside looking in at a West Wing filled with elites from Goldman Sachs -- the very definition of &#8220;the swamp&#8221; that Bannon is always frothing about. There, a president is spending political donations on legal fees while his staffers go deep in debt with mounting lawyer bills, visitor logs are kept secret so voters have no idea who is permitted into the Oval Office to influence the president, and a kleptocracy thrives where Trump and his children continue to be enriched by business connected to foreign governments, including the Chinese. Cabinet secretaries are using government planes for private use and private planes for government work -- violations that would have sparked endless Breitbart bonfires under President Obama.</p> <p>In reality, however, there was little left of Trumpism to trumpet even before Bannon was fired. He&#8217;s got the travel ban (or at least a modified version of it), and maybe the promised withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement; Bannon will claim credit if Trump pulls out of the Iran nuclear deal -- but that&#8217;s about it. On trade and immigration, the president has retreated from Bannon&#8217;s barricade-crashing proposals and has not withdrawn from NAFTA, not imposed tariffs on Chinese steel imports, has three times backed off threats over funding for a border wall and now come out in favor of what Bannon calls &#8220;amnesty.&#8221;</p> <p>Yet Bannon has declared war, promising to take out incumbent Republican senators who aren&#8217;t sufficiently loyal to the president. Targets are guilty of insufficient fealty to Trump himself, not to an agenda once thought of as Trumpism. With the backing of loyal mega-donor Robert Mercer, the Bannon forces are targeting Sen. Jeff Flake, and potentially Sens. Bob Corker and Roger Wicker as well. GOP leaders are incensed over the millions more they will spend protecting those lawmakers, money that could be spent trying to knock off Democrats. Currently Bannon is working to elect Roy Moore to replace sitting Sen. Luther Strange in the Alabama Senate race. Trump has endorsed Strange, also backed by McConnell. Bannon is backing the more Trumpian candidate and, well, Trump is not.</p> <p>Bannon, ironically, purports to be interested in protecting GOP majorities in Congress. Before he could imagine Trump giving away the store on DACA to Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, Bannon declared in his &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; interview that preserving President Obama&#8217;s executive order would cause a GOP civil war. He expects Dreamers to run out their permits and &#8220;self-deport,&#8221; because &#8220;amnesty is non-negotiable.&#8221; He also said, &#8220;I&#8217;m worried about losing the House now because of this,&#8221; adding that his fear is &#8220;in February and March it will be a civil war inside the Republican Party.&#8221;</p> <p>But if civil war in the GOP isn&#8217;t Bannon&#8217;s aim, it's hard to know what is. He blames everything on Ryan and McConnell. &#8220;They do not want Donald Trump&#8217;s populist economic agenda to be implemented. It&#8217;s very obvious. It&#8217;s obvious as night follows day,&#8221; he told Charlie Rose.</p> <p>In the name of Trumpism, Bannon swallows heavy doses of denial. After all, when Trump threatened to withdraw from NAFTA, the president&#8217;s kids and other aides made calls to the Canadian government and arranged for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to call Trump and talk him off the ledge. It wasn&#8217;t Ryan or McConnell. Trump&#8217;s approval ratings remain low, Bannon said, &#8220;because he hasn&#8217;t -- we haven&#8217;t gotten the wall built.&#8221; Earth to Steve: Trump has signaled to Congress the wall is a joke.</p> <p>In the wake of the DACA debacle, Breitbart called the president &#8220;Amnesty Don,&#8221; yet Bannon himself has stayed sheepishly silent. Ann Coulter, author of &#8220;In Trump We Trust,&#8221; tweeted: &#8220;Looks like Bannon got it wrong. That shadowy force trying to nullify the 2016 election ... is <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump" type="external">@realDonaldTrump</a>.&#8221; Rep. Steve King told the Associated Press the president was destroying his support by betraying his campaign promise, and that his base is &#8220;irreparable, disillusioned beyond repair.&#8221; King added, &#8220;No promise is credible.&#8221;</p> <p>Sam Nunberg, a close Bannonite, conceded: &#8220;The reality is sinking in that the Trump administration is on the precipice of turning into an establishment presidency.&#8221;</p> <p>But Bannon isn&#8217;t just breaking plates at Breitbart, he&#8217;s building his own brand. Last week, like any other dime-a-dozen elitist, Bannon attended an investor conference in Hong Kong. He told the exclusive gathering he speaks to Trump every two-to-three days, despite White House denials that the president has spoken more than once with Bannon since he left. Before Trump disappointed him on DACA, Nunberg had hailed Bannon&#8217;s increased influence with Trump. &#8220;I think Steve leaves and a week later he [Trump] pardons Arpaio and they suspend DACA. I don&#8217;t think there was any coincidence there,&#8221; Nunberg told BuzzFeed.</p> <p>Bannon remains fixated on the threat China poses to the United States, has grimly predicted we will be at war with that nation within five-to-10 years over its buildup of military installations in the South China Sea, and said we&#8217;re already &#8220;at economic war&#8221; with China. Yet his domestic bark in this regard doesn&#8217;t seem to be the same as his overseas-investor-conference bite. Once there, the New York Times described Bannon as &#8220;more subdued about the purported Chinese threat.&#8221; The Wall Street Journal reported he described Trump&#8217;s great respect for President Xi and prospects for trade, but that &#8220;the U.S. needs to play a stronger role in changing the system in China, an attendee recalled.&#8221; It&#8217;s a far cry from a trade war on steel.</p> <p>Perhaps over time, Bannonism will go the way of Trumpism.</p> <p>A.B. Stoddard is associate editor of RealClearPolitics and a columnist. She is also host of "No Labels Radio" on Sirius XM's POTUS Channel.</p> Secret Message from God Found in Human DNA (See What It Says)" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

True

<p>During the campaign, Donald J. Trump made lots of promises -- he'd be the greatest jobs president God ever created, he'd cut taxes, he'd balance the budget, he'd give all Americans fantastic health care, he'd renegotiate NAFTA, he'd scotch the Iran deal and so on.</p> <p>But there was one central promise without which he wouldn't have been elected: He said he'd build a wall.</p> <p>Either Trump understood the urgency of our border crisis, as his every campaign speech suggested, or it was just meaningless boilerplate to get himself elected. If it was the latter, then our search continues for one politician who won't lie to us.</p> <p>It was precisely the Nietzschean Eternal Recurrence of politicians promising to get tough on immigration, but never, ever doing it, that caused voters to cling to Trump like a life vest in a tidal wave.</p> <p>If Trump actually believed what he claimed to believe, he would treat the building of a wall as a far more urgent priority than sending FEMA after a hurricane.</p> <p>Taking nothing away from the fine people who lost their lives in the recent hurricanes, since the 2005 hurricane season, about 200 Americans have died in hurricanes, plus 82 in Hurricane Harvey and 50 in Hurricane Irma.</p> <p>That's 332 deaths from hurricanes in the past 12 years.</p> <p>Even a federal government determined not to tell Americans how many illegal immigrants are committing crimes admits that -- at a minimum -- there are <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1621572676/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=1621572676&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=anncoulter-20&amp;linkId=8d8735d5d2478f80fae5907946273bc7" type="external">350,000 illegal immigrants</a> incarcerated in state prisons and jails, and 3,500 are in for murder.</p> <p>Considering that the average time served for murder in America is six years, that means that, in the last 12 years, hurricanes have killed 332 Americans, and illegal immigrants have killed 7,000 Americans.</p> <p>Throw in the more than 30,000 Americans who die every year from heroin and fentanyl brought in by Mexicans, and illegal immigration is a problem at least 100 times more urgent than Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and every other hurricane since 2005, combined.</p> <p>(If we're including U.S. territories and Hurricane Maria ends up killing another 100 people -- current estimates are zero dead -- illegal immigration is still 80 times worse than the last 12 years of deadly hurricanes. Of course, if we're including territories, then we also must note that illegal immigration is especially disastrous for Puerto Ricans living in the U.S., in terms of crime and diminishing job prospects.)</p> <p>There is no question but that illegal immigration dwarfs any other issue, not only in dead Americans, but also in welfare expenditures, taxes, lost jobs, police and prison expenditures, declining neighborhoods, ruined schools, overwhelmed hospitals, facial reconstruction surgeries and rape counseling services, to name a few costs.</p> <p>We thought Trump understood this. We were counting on him to fight for us on the border -- not with rallies, not with hats, not with tweets, but by building a wall.</p> <p>And yet, as of Wednesday this week, Trump will have been in office 243 days without having begun the wall. Imagine if Hurricanes Harvey and Irma had hit 243 days ago and all we'd gotten from the president were assurances that FEMA would be coming any day now -- just as soon as he got the go-ahead from Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan! (Or worse, from Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.)</p> <p>The more accurate analogy would be if Trump responded to the recent hurricanes not only by sending zero federal aid, but also by demanding that we dismantle FEMA and the National Hurricane Center. That's exactly what he's doing by proposing we respond to the crisis of 40 million illegal aliens in our country with an amnesty that will lure another 40 million across the border.</p> <p>We hoped we wouldn't have to spell it out. We thought Trump understood that this was an emergency. We believed he was capable of getting the job done.</p> <p>If he did understand, then 243 days ago, he would have sent the Navy Seabees and Army Corps of Engineers to start building the wall.</p> <p>For most of the nation's history, the primary job of the military -- of which President Trump is the commander in chief -- was building walls and fortresses on our borders. That's why we have an Army Corps of Engineers. It may not seem like it from recent history, but the job of our military is to protect America's borders -- not Ukraine's borders, not Jordan's borders.</p> <p>This is our one and only chance to get this done, and we're losing the fight. While Trump dallies, last week California became a sanctuary state. Sixteen-year-old girls are taking lessons to learn to be safe drivers, but when they're smashed into by drunk-driving illegal aliens, the state won't tell ICE, and taxpayers will spend $40 million to pay for their defense.</p> <p>The wall has to get built, and nothing else matters.</p> <p>Trump will not be able to tweet his way out of not building the wall. He will not be able to change the subject by attacking the media or Crooked Hillary. He will not be able to get away with blaming Republicans in Congress.</p> <p>Obviously, it suits the rest of the traitorous GOP -- which ferociously opposed him -- to pretend that Trump's election had nothing to do with immigration.</p> <p>I don't know about a lot of things. I don't know which part of their bodies women will let you grab if you're a rich celebrity. I don't know how to play a wind instrument. But when everyone else said Trump was a joke, I said, nope, he's going to be our next president. If anyone is telling Trump that a "virtual wall," drones, a conga line or a "Don't Cross!" sign are as good as a wall, he can get his stock tips from them, but not his political advice.</p> <p>If Trump doesn't get that wall built, and fast, his base will be done with him and feed him to Robert Mueller.</p> <p>COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION</p>

THEY DON’T CALL IT ‘THE GREAT TWEET OF CHINA’

http://bit.ly/2w7utkE

2017-09-20

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>During the campaign, Donald J. Trump made lots of promises -- he'd be the greatest jobs president God ever created, he'd cut taxes, he'd balance the budget, he'd give all Americans fantastic health care, he'd renegotiate NAFTA, he'd scotch the Iran deal and so on.</p> <p>But there was one central promise without which he wouldn't have been elected: He said he'd build a wall.</p> <p>Either Trump understood the urgency of our border crisis, as his every campaign speech suggested, or it was just meaningless boilerplate to get himself elected. If it was the latter, then our search continues for one politician who won't lie to us.</p> <p>It was precisely the Nietzschean Eternal Recurrence of politicians promising to get tough on immigration, but never, ever doing it, that caused voters to cling to Trump like a life vest in a tidal wave.</p> <p>If Trump actually believed what he claimed to believe, he would treat the building of a wall as a far more urgent priority than sending FEMA after a hurricane.</p> <p>Taking nothing away from the fine people who lost their lives in the recent hurricanes, since the 2005 hurricane season, about 200 Americans have died in hurricanes, plus 82 in Hurricane Harvey and 50 in Hurricane Irma.</p> <p>That's 332 deaths from hurricanes in the past 12 years.</p> <p>Even a federal government determined not to tell Americans how many illegal immigrants are committing crimes admits that -- at a minimum -- there are <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1621572676/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=1621572676&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=anncoulter-20&amp;linkId=8d8735d5d2478f80fae5907946273bc7" type="external">350,000 illegal immigrants</a> incarcerated in state prisons and jails, and 3,500 are in for murder.</p> <p>Considering that the average time served for murder in America is six years, that means that, in the last 12 years, hurricanes have killed 332 Americans, and illegal immigrants have killed 7,000 Americans.</p> <p>Throw in the more than 30,000 Americans who die every year from heroin and fentanyl brought in by Mexicans, and illegal immigration is a problem at least 100 times more urgent than Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and every other hurricane since 2005, combined.</p> <p>(If we're including U.S. territories and Hurricane Maria ends up killing another 100 people -- current estimates are zero dead -- illegal immigration is still 80 times worse than the last 12 years of deadly hurricanes. Of course, if we're including territories, then we also must note that illegal immigration is especially disastrous for Puerto Ricans living in the U.S., in terms of crime and diminishing job prospects.)</p> <p>There is no question but that illegal immigration dwarfs any other issue, not only in dead Americans, but also in welfare expenditures, taxes, lost jobs, police and prison expenditures, declining neighborhoods, ruined schools, overwhelmed hospitals, facial reconstruction surgeries and rape counseling services, to name a few costs.</p> <p>We thought Trump understood this. We were counting on him to fight for us on the border -- not with rallies, not with hats, not with tweets, but by building a wall.</p> <p>And yet, as of Wednesday this week, Trump will have been in office 243 days without having begun the wall. Imagine if Hurricanes Harvey and Irma had hit 243 days ago and all we'd gotten from the president were assurances that FEMA would be coming any day now -- just as soon as he got the go-ahead from Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan! (Or worse, from Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.)</p> <p>The more accurate analogy would be if Trump responded to the recent hurricanes not only by sending zero federal aid, but also by demanding that we dismantle FEMA and the National Hurricane Center. That's exactly what he's doing by proposing we respond to the crisis of 40 million illegal aliens in our country with an amnesty that will lure another 40 million across the border.</p> <p>We hoped we wouldn't have to spell it out. We thought Trump understood that this was an emergency. We believed he was capable of getting the job done.</p> <p>If he did understand, then 243 days ago, he would have sent the Navy Seabees and Army Corps of Engineers to start building the wall.</p> <p>For most of the nation's history, the primary job of the military -- of which President Trump is the commander in chief -- was building walls and fortresses on our borders. That's why we have an Army Corps of Engineers. It may not seem like it from recent history, but the job of our military is to protect America's borders -- not Ukraine's borders, not Jordan's borders.</p> <p>This is our one and only chance to get this done, and we're losing the fight. While Trump dallies, last week California became a sanctuary state. Sixteen-year-old girls are taking lessons to learn to be safe drivers, but when they're smashed into by drunk-driving illegal aliens, the state won't tell ICE, and taxpayers will spend $40 million to pay for their defense.</p> <p>The wall has to get built, and nothing else matters.</p> <p>Trump will not be able to tweet his way out of not building the wall. He will not be able to change the subject by attacking the media or Crooked Hillary. He will not be able to get away with blaming Republicans in Congress.</p> <p>Obviously, it suits the rest of the traitorous GOP -- which ferociously opposed him -- to pretend that Trump's election had nothing to do with immigration.</p> <p>I don't know about a lot of things. I don't know which part of their bodies women will let you grab if you're a rich celebrity. I don't know how to play a wind instrument. But when everyone else said Trump was a joke, I said, nope, he's going to be our next president. If anyone is telling Trump that a "virtual wall," drones, a conga line or a "Don't Cross!" sign are as good as a wall, he can get his stock tips from them, but not his political advice.</p> <p>If Trump doesn't get that wall built, and fast, his base will be done with him and feed him to Robert Mueller.</p> <p>COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION</p>" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

True

<p>During the 1950s &#8220;Red Scare,&#8221; innocent Americans were smeared and sometimes blacklisted for being supposed Communists. Real subversives existed, including Alger Hiss, a traitor and Soviet spy whom liberals &#8211; to their misfortune &#8211; made into a poster boy of McCarthyism. But the actual number of Communists was tiny and utterly not commensurate with the fervent public witch hunt led by right-wingers.</p> <p>Today&#8217;s group hysteria comes from the left, as a fanatic political mob sees racists behind every door. Their paranoia is not harmless, as they use the racist bogeyman to intimidate political adversaries &#8211; and sometimes erstwhile friends &#8211; while seeking to silence political dialogue. As with the Red Scare, there&#8217;s some reason for vigilance regarding actual racists, as Charlottesville reminded us. But as with the hunt for Communists under every bed, the scare tactics far outweigh the actual problem.</p> <p>The New McCarthyism revealed its full absurdity this week via the ACLU&#8217;s Twitter stream, which had the temerity to post a picture of an adorable young toddler holding an American flag and a doll with the tag line &#8220;This is the future that ACLU members want.&#8221; Because the girl (TRIGGER WARNING: I assume it&#8217;s a girl, given the doll) happens to be blonde and Caucasian, the ACLU was promptly attacked &#8211; the ACLU!</p> <p>Immediately the politically correct rage mob commenced a digital protest led by credentialed injustice professionals such as Professor Nyasha Junior of Temple University who posted, &#8220;A white kid with a flag?!&#8221; Yes, Professor. In much of America outside of your faculty lounge, young American children waving Old Glory warms the heart and makes us smile rather than prompt thoughts of white supremacy lurking under the sheets.</p> <p>Did the ACLU, a group once known for taking brave and unpopular stands, hold its ground or, better yet, simply ignore the online rabble? Sadly, no. The organization shortly responded with a Kermit the Frog image saying &#8220;That&#8217;s a very good point&#8221; and the post &#8220;When your followers keep you in check and remind you that white supremacy is everywhere.&#8221;</p> <p>Come again? This lovely young kid holding a flag equals &#8220;white supremacy&#8221;? Who even thinks of such things? Answer: the diversity hustlers. Shame on the ACLU, which apparently should have posted a picture of a gender-fluid dark-skinned child, holding a rainbow flag, perhaps with a COEXIST sticker on [gender-neutral pronoun] wheelchair.</p> <p>This is not merely social-media silliness. It&#8217;s not even lunacy, although it certainly seems insane. This is a weapon used cynically and viciously -- little girls are apparently acceptable collateral damage -- by the left to isolate and demonize opponents, and particularly President Trump and his supporters. As MSNBC&#8217;s Donny Deutsch said of Trump: &#8220;He is a racist -- can we just say it once and for all?&#8221; Such accusations are not rare. If I had a dollar for every time the mainstream media accused Trump and his voters of racism, I&#8217;d be about as rich as the recent Powerball winner.</p> <p>As a Hispanic, I believe that people of color, for far too long, have been taken for granted by the Democratic Party. I also believe that the Trump movement represents real policy solutions for the woes of poverty and violence that burden too many African-American and Latino citizens. But the digital rage mob holds people like me in particular contempt, as I saw during the 2016 campaign in the form of a constant stream of online slurs. Yes, today&#8217;s liberals are quick to use racism&#8217;s terms when it suits their purposes, calling me a &#8220;coconut&#8221; (brown on the outside, white on the inside) and &#8220;Tio Tomas&#8221; (Uncle Tom in Spanish).</p> <p>One of the main reasons America has succeeded as a country lies is our rejection of the tribalism that afflicts and paralyzes so much of the world. America is an idea, and one open to all who embrace it, regardless of skin color, heritage, or religion. To be sure, America must own the racist sins of our history. Thankfully, such systemic racism is just that, history &#8211; as evidenced by electing twice to our highest office an African-American man with a decidedly un-European name.</p> <p>Instead of allowing a new scourge, this Racist Scare, to corrode our discourse, we must embrace our common American identity, rooted in our best traditions and elucidated in our founding documents. We should be difficult to offend and slow to accuse others of the disease of prejudice. As the incumbent president of the United States explained in his inaugural address seven months ago: &#8220;When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for bigotry.&#8221;</p> <p>Amen.</p> <p>Steve Cortes, a contributor to RealClearPolitics and Fox News, is the national spokesman for the Hispanic 100, an organization that promotes Latino leadership by advancing free enterprise principles. His Twitter handle is @CortesSteve.</p> Secret Message from God Found in Human DNA (See What It Says)

Racist Scare: The New McCarthyism

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/27/racist_scare_the_new_mccarthyism_134848.html

2017-08-27

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>During the 1950s &#8220;Red Scare,&#8221; innocent Americans were smeared and sometimes blacklisted for being supposed Communists. Real subversives existed, including Alger Hiss, a traitor and Soviet spy whom liberals &#8211; to their misfortune &#8211; made into a poster boy of McCarthyism. But the actual number of Communists was tiny and utterly not commensurate with the fervent public witch hunt led by right-wingers.</p> <p>Today&#8217;s group hysteria comes from the left, as a fanatic political mob sees racists behind every door. Their paranoia is not harmless, as they use the racist bogeyman to intimidate political adversaries &#8211; and sometimes erstwhile friends &#8211; while seeking to silence political dialogue. As with the Red Scare, there&#8217;s some reason for vigilance regarding actual racists, as Charlottesville reminded us. But as with the hunt for Communists under every bed, the scare tactics far outweigh the actual problem.</p> <p>The New McCarthyism revealed its full absurdity this week via the ACLU&#8217;s Twitter stream, which had the temerity to post a picture of an adorable young toddler holding an American flag and a doll with the tag line &#8220;This is the future that ACLU members want.&#8221; Because the girl (TRIGGER WARNING: I assume it&#8217;s a girl, given the doll) happens to be blonde and Caucasian, the ACLU was promptly attacked &#8211; the ACLU!</p> <p>Immediately the politically correct rage mob commenced a digital protest led by credentialed injustice professionals such as Professor Nyasha Junior of Temple University who posted, &#8220;A white kid with a flag?!&#8221; Yes, Professor. In much of America outside of your faculty lounge, young American children waving Old Glory warms the heart and makes us smile rather than prompt thoughts of white supremacy lurking under the sheets.</p> <p>Did the ACLU, a group once known for taking brave and unpopular stands, hold its ground or, better yet, simply ignore the online rabble? Sadly, no. The organization shortly responded with a Kermit the Frog image saying &#8220;That&#8217;s a very good point&#8221; and the post &#8220;When your followers keep you in check and remind you that white supremacy is everywhere.&#8221;</p> <p>Come again? This lovely young kid holding a flag equals &#8220;white supremacy&#8221;? Who even thinks of such things? Answer: the diversity hustlers. Shame on the ACLU, which apparently should have posted a picture of a gender-fluid dark-skinned child, holding a rainbow flag, perhaps with a COEXIST sticker on [gender-neutral pronoun] wheelchair.</p> <p>This is not merely social-media silliness. It&#8217;s not even lunacy, although it certainly seems insane. This is a weapon used cynically and viciously -- little girls are apparently acceptable collateral damage -- by the left to isolate and demonize opponents, and particularly President Trump and his supporters. As MSNBC&#8217;s Donny Deutsch said of Trump: &#8220;He is a racist -- can we just say it once and for all?&#8221; Such accusations are not rare. If I had a dollar for every time the mainstream media accused Trump and his voters of racism, I&#8217;d be about as rich as the recent Powerball winner.</p> <p>As a Hispanic, I believe that people of color, for far too long, have been taken for granted by the Democratic Party. I also believe that the Trump movement represents real policy solutions for the woes of poverty and violence that burden too many African-American and Latino citizens. But the digital rage mob holds people like me in particular contempt, as I saw during the 2016 campaign in the form of a constant stream of online slurs. Yes, today&#8217;s liberals are quick to use racism&#8217;s terms when it suits their purposes, calling me a &#8220;coconut&#8221; (brown on the outside, white on the inside) and &#8220;Tio Tomas&#8221; (Uncle Tom in Spanish).</p> <p>One of the main reasons America has succeeded as a country lies is our rejection of the tribalism that afflicts and paralyzes so much of the world. America is an idea, and one open to all who embrace it, regardless of skin color, heritage, or religion. To be sure, America must own the racist sins of our history. Thankfully, such systemic racism is just that, history &#8211; as evidenced by electing twice to our highest office an African-American man with a decidedly un-European name.</p> <p>Instead of allowing a new scourge, this Racist Scare, to corrode our discourse, we must embrace our common American identity, rooted in our best traditions and elucidated in our founding documents. We should be difficult to offend and slow to accuse others of the disease of prejudice. As the incumbent president of the United States explained in his inaugural address seven months ago: &#8220;When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for bigotry.&#8221;</p> <p>Amen.</p> <p>Steve Cortes, a contributor to RealClearPolitics and Fox News, is the national spokesman for the Hispanic 100, an organization that promotes Latino leadership by advancing free enterprise principles. His Twitter handle is @CortesSteve.</p> Secret Message from God Found in Human DNA (See What It Says)" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

True

<p>The <a type="internal">infamous Access Hollywood tape</a> in which <a type="internal">Donald Trump</a> brags about his ability to &#8220;grab&#8221; women with impunity because he&#8217;s famous is real, Access Hollywood&#8216;s hosts asserted on Monday&#8212;just in case the president had any doubts.</p> <p>In response to a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/us/politics/trump-roy-moore-mcconnell-alabama-senate.html?_r=0" type="external">report</a> that Trump was questioning the authenticity of the 2005 hot-mic recording, which captured the former reality TV star saying he could &#8220;grab [women] by the pussy,&#8221; Access Hollywood host Natalie Morales said on Monday&#8217;s show that the tap is, in fact, &#8220;very real.&#8221;</p> <p>&#8220;We wanted to clear something up that has been reported across the media landscape. Let us make this perfectly clear: The tape is very real,&#8221; Morales said. &#8220;Remember his excuse at the time was &#8216;locker room talk.&#8217; He said every one of those words.&#8221;</p> <q> <p>TRUMP: The "Access Hollywood" tape might be fake</p> </q> <p>After the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?postshare=3561475870579757&amp;tid=ss_tw" type="external">Washington Post</a> revealed the tape ahead of the 2016 presidential election, Trump apologized and at no time stated that the tape was faked. When CNN&#8217;s Anderson Cooper pressed Trump on whether he &#8220;understood&#8221; that what he said was an admission of sexual assault, Trump pushed back, dismissing his comments as &#8220;locker room talk.&#8221;</p> <p>&#8220;I don&#8217;t think you understand what was said,&#8221; Trump <a type="internal">responded to Cooper during an October 2016 presidential debate</a>. &#8220;This was locker room talk. I&#8217;m not proud of it. I apologized to my family, I apologized to the American people. Certainly, I&#8217;m not proud of it, but this was locker room talk.&#8221;</p> <p>Following publication of the tape, at least 16 women came forward to <a type="internal">say Trump sexually harassed or assaulted them</a>.</p> <p>test</p> <p>test</p> <p>News that Trump reportedly questioned the tape&#8217;s veracity&#8212;once to a senator and, more recently, once to an adviser, according to the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/us/politics/trump-roy-moore-mcconnell-alabama-senate.html?_r=0" type="external">New York Times</a>&#8212;brought the tape back to the surface amid an outpouring of allegations against high-profile men across entertainment, politics, and media.</p> <p>During Monday&#8217;s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders refused to address Trump&#8217;s reported skepticism of the tape&#8217;s legitimacy and characterized the tape as unimportant because Trump won the election.</p> <p>&#8220;The president addressed this, this was litigated and certainly answered during the election by the overwhelming support for the president and the fact he&#8217;s sitting here in the Oval Office today,&#8221; she <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/362007-wh-dodges-on-whether-trump-questions-the-legitimacy-of-access" type="external">said</a>.</p>

‘Access Hollywood’ to Trump: The tape is ‘very real’

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-access-hollywood-tape-real/

2017-11-28

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>The <a type="internal">infamous Access Hollywood tape</a> in which <a type="internal">Donald Trump</a> brags about his ability to &#8220;grab&#8221; women with impunity because he&#8217;s famous is real, Access Hollywood&#8216;s hosts asserted on Monday&#8212;just in case the president had any doubts.</p> <p>In response to a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/us/politics/trump-roy-moore-mcconnell-alabama-senate.html?_r=0" type="external">report</a> that Trump was questioning the authenticity of the 2005 hot-mic recording, which captured the former reality TV star saying he could &#8220;grab [women] by the pussy,&#8221; Access Hollywood host Natalie Morales said on Monday&#8217;s show that the tap is, in fact, &#8220;very real.&#8221;</p> <p>&#8220;We wanted to clear something up that has been reported across the media landscape. Let us make this perfectly clear: The tape is very real,&#8221; Morales said. &#8220;Remember his excuse at the time was &#8216;locker room talk.&#8217; He said every one of those words.&#8221;</p> <q> <p>TRUMP: The "Access Hollywood" tape might be fake</p> </q> <p>After the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?postshare=3561475870579757&amp;tid=ss_tw" type="external">Washington Post</a> revealed the tape ahead of the 2016 presidential election, Trump apologized and at no time stated that the tape was faked. When CNN&#8217;s Anderson Cooper pressed Trump on whether he &#8220;understood&#8221; that what he said was an admission of sexual assault, Trump pushed back, dismissing his comments as &#8220;locker room talk.&#8221;</p> <p>&#8220;I don&#8217;t think you understand what was said,&#8221; Trump <a type="internal">responded to Cooper during an October 2016 presidential debate</a>. &#8220;This was locker room talk. I&#8217;m not proud of it. I apologized to my family, I apologized to the American people. Certainly, I&#8217;m not proud of it, but this was locker room talk.&#8221;</p> <p>Following publication of the tape, at least 16 women came forward to <a type="internal">say Trump sexually harassed or assaulted them</a>.</p> <p>test</p> <p>test</p> <p>News that Trump reportedly questioned the tape&#8217;s veracity&#8212;once to a senator and, more recently, once to an adviser, according to the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/us/politics/trump-roy-moore-mcconnell-alabama-senate.html?_r=0" type="external">New York Times</a>&#8212;brought the tape back to the surface amid an outpouring of allegations against high-profile men across entertainment, politics, and media.</p> <p>During Monday&#8217;s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders refused to address Trump&#8217;s reported skepticism of the tape&#8217;s legitimacy and characterized the tape as unimportant because Trump won the election.</p> <p>&#8220;The president addressed this, this was litigated and certainly answered during the election by the overwhelming support for the president and the fact he&#8217;s sitting here in the Oval Office today,&#8221; she <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/362007-wh-dodges-on-whether-trump-questions-the-legitimacy-of-access" type="external">said</a>.</p>" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

True

<p>On Monday ESPN suspended <a href="http://www.tmz.com/2017/10/09/jemele-hill-suspended-by-espn-over-jerry-jones-tweets/" type="external">Jemele Hill</a>for 2 weeks in response to her tweets encouraging NFL fans to boycott anyone who sponsors Dallas Cowboys owner, Jerry Jones.</p> <p>Hill's tweet was in response to Jones comments that any player who disrespected the flag would be cut from his team.</p> <p>In a statement ESPN said,</p> <p>"Jemele Hill has been suspended for two weeks for a second violation of our social media guidelines. She previously acknowledged letting her colleagues and company down with an impulsive tweet. In the aftermath, all employees were reminded of how individual tweets may reflect negatively on ESPN and that such actions would have consequences. Hence this decision."</p> <p>ESPN says that it has accepted the apology of Jemele Hill for tweeting that President Trump and his followers are "white supremacists."</p> <p>Earlier this week, the co-host of ESPN's &#8220;SC6 with Michael and Jemele" fired off a series of tweets calling the President a "bigot" and "white supremacist."</p> <p>Hill apologized for her tweets on Wednesday.</p> <p>"My comments on Twitter expressed my personal beliefs." She wrote on Twitter. "My regret is that my comments and the public way I made them painted ESPN in an unfair light."</p> <p>The network issued a followup statement after her apology and said that Hill has a right to her personal beliefs, but said that they are not reflective of the company's opinions or beliefs.</p> <p>"She has acknowledged that her tweets crossed that line and has apologized for doing so. We accept her apology," they wrote.</p> <p>ESPN has been under intense scrutiny after they pulled their broadcaster Robert Lee off air &#8220;as the tragic events in Charlottesville were unfolding" in August.</p> <p>The Associated Press contributed to this report.</p> <p>White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders is calling for the termination of an ESPN anchor after she called President Donald Trump a white supremacist on Twitter.</p> <p>&#8220;That is one of the more outrageous comments that anybody could make and certainly is something that is a fireable offense by ESPN,&#8221; Sanders said on Wednesday.</p> <p>This comes after Jemele Hill, who co-hosts a ESPN show called &#8220;SC6 with Michael and Jemele," fired off a series of Tweets denouncing Trump and calling his supporters white supremacists.</p> <p>EPSN soon issued a statement in response to Smith's remarks.</p> <p>&#8220;The comments on Twitter from Jemele Hill regarding the president do not represent the position of ESPN,&#8221; the network said. &#8220;We have addressed this with Jemele and she recognizes her actions were inappropriate.&#8221;</p> <p>ESPN on Tuesday distanced itself from anchor Jemele Hill&#8217;s tweets calling President Trump &#8220;a bigot&#8221; and &#8220;a white supremacist.&#8221;</p> <p>&#8220;The comments on Twitter from Jemele Hill regarding the president do not represent the position of ESPN,&#8221; the network tweeted from its public relation&#8217;s department&#8217;s account.</p> <p>&#8220;We have addressed this with Jemele and she recognizes her actions were inappropriate,&#8221; ESPN added of Hill, a co-host on the 6 p.m. broadcast of the network&#8217;s &#8220;SportsCenter&#8221; program.</p> <p>Hill on Monday had a series of Twitter exchanges with other users that involved her harshly criticizing Trump.</p> <p>&#8220;Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/other white supremacists,&#8221; she said in one tweet.</p> <p>&#8220;Trump is the most ignorant, offensive president of my lifetime,&#8221; Hill added in another post. &#8220;His rise is a direct result of white supremacy. Period.&#8221;</p> <p>Hill added in a third tweet that &#8220;Donald Trump is a bigot&#8221; before going on to deride the president&#8217;s supporters.</p> <p>&#8220;The height of white privilege is being able to ignore his white supremacy, because it&#8217;s of no threat to you,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Well, it&#8217;s a threat to me.&#8221;</p> <p>Some Twitter users on Wednesday praised Hill for singling out Trump, while others lambasted her decision instead.</p> <p>ESPN is owned by Disney, and neither company elaborated on a possible punishment for Hill, who was on Tuesday night&#8217;s broadcast of &#8220;SportsCenter&#8221; like normal.</p> <p>Former National Football League (NFL) quarterback Colin Kaepernick, meanwhile, on Tuesday voiced support for Hill on Twitter.</p> <p>Kaepernick remains unsigned after playing with the San Francisco 49ers from 2011 to 2016 in a situation that remains controversial in the football world.</p> <p>The professional athlete began kneeling during the National Anthem last year to protest police brutality and racial injustice.</p> <p>Supporters say Kaepernick is making a legitimate stand for social justice, while critics charge he is acting unpatriotic instead.</p> <p>These celebrities ended up deleting their Twitter accounts.</p> <p>Let's get started!</p>

ESPN accepted 'SportsCenter' anchor Jemele Hill's apology for her anti-Trump tweets

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/09/13/action-sports/jemele-hill-trump-tweets-espn-distances-itself-from-sportscenter-anchors-comments

2017-10-09

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>On Monday ESPN suspended <a href="http://www.tmz.com/2017/10/09/jemele-hill-suspended-by-espn-over-jerry-jones-tweets/" type="external">Jemele Hill</a>for 2 weeks in response to her tweets encouraging NFL fans to boycott anyone who sponsors Dallas Cowboys owner, Jerry Jones.</p> <p>Hill's tweet was in response to Jones comments that any player who disrespected the flag would be cut from his team.</p> <p>In a statement ESPN said,</p> <p>"Jemele Hill has been suspended for two weeks for a second violation of our social media guidelines. She previously acknowledged letting her colleagues and company down with an impulsive tweet. In the aftermath, all employees were reminded of how individual tweets may reflect negatively on ESPN and that such actions would have consequences. Hence this decision."</p> <p>ESPN says that it has accepted the apology of Jemele Hill for tweeting that President Trump and his followers are "white supremacists."</p> <p>Earlier this week, the co-host of ESPN's &#8220;SC6 with Michael and Jemele" fired off a series of tweets calling the President a "bigot" and "white supremacist."</p> <p>Hill apologized for her tweets on Wednesday.</p> <p>"My comments on Twitter expressed my personal beliefs." She wrote on Twitter. "My regret is that my comments and the public way I made them painted ESPN in an unfair light."</p> <p>The network issued a followup statement after her apology and said that Hill has a right to her personal beliefs, but said that they are not reflective of the company's opinions or beliefs.</p> <p>"She has acknowledged that her tweets crossed that line and has apologized for doing so. We accept her apology," they wrote.</p> <p>ESPN has been under intense scrutiny after they pulled their broadcaster Robert Lee off air &#8220;as the tragic events in Charlottesville were unfolding" in August.</p> <p>The Associated Press contributed to this report.</p> <p>White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders is calling for the termination of an ESPN anchor after she called President Donald Trump a white supremacist on Twitter.</p> <p>&#8220;That is one of the more outrageous comments that anybody could make and certainly is something that is a fireable offense by ESPN,&#8221; Sanders said on Wednesday.</p> <p>This comes after Jemele Hill, who co-hosts a ESPN show called &#8220;SC6 with Michael and Jemele," fired off a series of Tweets denouncing Trump and calling his supporters white supremacists.</p> <p>EPSN soon issued a statement in response to Smith's remarks.</p> <p>&#8220;The comments on Twitter from Jemele Hill regarding the president do not represent the position of ESPN,&#8221; the network said. &#8220;We have addressed this with Jemele and she recognizes her actions were inappropriate.&#8221;</p> <p>ESPN on Tuesday distanced itself from anchor Jemele Hill&#8217;s tweets calling President Trump &#8220;a bigot&#8221; and &#8220;a white supremacist.&#8221;</p> <p>&#8220;The comments on Twitter from Jemele Hill regarding the president do not represent the position of ESPN,&#8221; the network tweeted from its public relation&#8217;s department&#8217;s account.</p> <p>&#8220;We have addressed this with Jemele and she recognizes her actions were inappropriate,&#8221; ESPN added of Hill, a co-host on the 6 p.m. broadcast of the network&#8217;s &#8220;SportsCenter&#8221; program.</p> <p>Hill on Monday had a series of Twitter exchanges with other users that involved her harshly criticizing Trump.</p> <p>&#8220;Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/other white supremacists,&#8221; she said in one tweet.</p> <p>&#8220;Trump is the most ignorant, offensive president of my lifetime,&#8221; Hill added in another post. &#8220;His rise is a direct result of white supremacy. Period.&#8221;</p> <p>Hill added in a third tweet that &#8220;Donald Trump is a bigot&#8221; before going on to deride the president&#8217;s supporters.</p> <p>&#8220;The height of white privilege is being able to ignore his white supremacy, because it&#8217;s of no threat to you,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Well, it&#8217;s a threat to me.&#8221;</p> <p>Some Twitter users on Wednesday praised Hill for singling out Trump, while others lambasted her decision instead.</p> <p>ESPN is owned by Disney, and neither company elaborated on a possible punishment for Hill, who was on Tuesday night&#8217;s broadcast of &#8220;SportsCenter&#8221; like normal.</p> <p>Former National Football League (NFL) quarterback Colin Kaepernick, meanwhile, on Tuesday voiced support for Hill on Twitter.</p> <p>Kaepernick remains unsigned after playing with the San Francisco 49ers from 2011 to 2016 in a situation that remains controversial in the football world.</p> <p>The professional athlete began kneeling during the National Anthem last year to protest police brutality and racial injustice.</p> <p>Supporters say Kaepernick is making a legitimate stand for social justice, while critics charge he is acting unpatriotic instead.</p> <p>These celebrities ended up deleting their Twitter accounts.</p> <p>Let's get started!</p>" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

True

<p>Trump just decertified the Iran deal, and, oh well, it was nice thinking about peace while we had the chance. True, Trump hasn&#8217;t actually repealed the deal. He announced new sanctions, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-takes-hard-line-iran-obama-deal-place/story?id=50442196" type="external">according</a> to ABC News, &#8220;but didn&#8217;t do anything that would alter the Obama-era deal that he has denounced since his presidential campaign.&#8221; Decertification is Trump to a T: you don&#8217;t accomplish anything, but you manage to create the shittiest possible situation regardless. It&#8217;s a real gift.</p> <p>The deal, Trump said, is no longer in the national security interest of the United States. This decision, which has been referred as &#8220;decertification,&#8221; is a shift in official position. It is a significant declaration that leaves the nuclear agreement in place, but puts Congress in charge of whether or not to follow up with action &#8212; triggering a 60-day window for lawmakers to re-impose sanctions against Iran that were suspended in 2015 as part of the agreement.</p> <p>Trump decertified the Iran deal just &#8216;cause, why not, since you&#8217;re gutting Obamacare and deciding to let Puerto Rico dehydrate; Trump decided to decertify the Iran deal because you&#8217;re well on your way to becoming the Worst President of Every Timeline, yeah baby, and why not light another <a type="internal">Roman candle</a> on the fast roller coaster down to geohell? Maybe Congress will rescue the deal, maybe not. The important thing is that this takes the best hope we have with Iran and wades back into David Frum&#8217;s &#8220;Let&#8217;s Invent, and then Invade, the Axis of Evil,&#8221; which gave us the tragedy of Iraq. That worked so well, why not repeat it again?</p> <p>The President said:</p> <p>&#8220;As I have said many times, the Iran Deal was one of the worst and one sided transactions the United States has ever entered into&#8221;</p> <p>What does he think we can get instead? The President thinks that Iran has sponsored terrorism (and the Saudis haven&#8217;t) and that the Iranian regime &#8220;has committed multiple violations of the agreement&#8221; (there are mechanisms to deal with these). Trump called on the intelligence community to look at Iran&#8217;s help to the North Korean nuclear program.</p> <p>Oh! I can help with that one! There&#8217;s a base right south of Camp Fantasy, in the northernmost region of the Your Brain is No Longer Functioning Mountain Region. The President says Iran loves the chants &#8220;Death to America&#8221; and &#8220;Death to Israel,&#8221; because the President and his team of wannabe-Iranian bombers don&#8217;t see Iran or its eighty million people&#8212;they see whatever Islamophobic, racist-ass caricatures get cooked up on Fox News, where Khomeini is still somehow alive in the year 2017. Trump decertified the deal, because nothing, not even human life or world peace, is more important than repudiating every bit of Obama&#8217;s legacy.</p> <p>The major powers and American struck a deal with Iran in July 2015. It eased sanctions and got real monitoring of Iran&#8217;s nuclear program. Trump&#8217;s own Defense Secretary said Iran has complied. The agreement got everything we needed from the regime, and now Trump wants out, because the movie in his head tells him being the leading asshole of the world is definitely, assuredly the best way to go.</p> <p>Trump decertified the Iran deal because he thinks he can get a better one, this man who can&#8217;t pass a single piece of legislation and can&#8217;t manage to avoid staring at an eclipse. Trump decertified the Iran deal because he doesn&#8217;t care. Trump decertified the Iran deal because it doesn&#8217;t matter who the Commander-in-Chief is; there is a National Security blob in Washington that no single President can ever fight, and it consumes money and spits out drones and missiles.</p> <p>Trump is incompetent in a million unusual ways, but he&#8217;s particularly, peculiarly incompetent in resisting the mechanisms of institutional influence. In other words, Trump will believe whatever the good people of the military-industrial concept whisper in his ear. That community kicked it around, and decided it was best that we threaten Iran again. After all, the NatSec blob has never forgotten or forgiven Iran for rejecting Western hegemony&#8212;and anyway, none of their own sons or daughters got shot in Iraq, so yes, why not set the stage for an eventual war with Iran? Trump decertified the deal, and the people of the world were not surprised at all. The man is barely part of reality. What did we expect?</p>

Trump Decertified the Iranian Deal, Just 'Cause

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/10/trump-decertified-the-iranian-deal-just-cause.html

2017-10-13

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>Trump just decertified the Iran deal, and, oh well, it was nice thinking about peace while we had the chance. True, Trump hasn&#8217;t actually repealed the deal. He announced new sanctions, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-takes-hard-line-iran-obama-deal-place/story?id=50442196" type="external">according</a> to ABC News, &#8220;but didn&#8217;t do anything that would alter the Obama-era deal that he has denounced since his presidential campaign.&#8221; Decertification is Trump to a T: you don&#8217;t accomplish anything, but you manage to create the shittiest possible situation regardless. It&#8217;s a real gift.</p> <p>The deal, Trump said, is no longer in the national security interest of the United States. This decision, which has been referred as &#8220;decertification,&#8221; is a shift in official position. It is a significant declaration that leaves the nuclear agreement in place, but puts Congress in charge of whether or not to follow up with action &#8212; triggering a 60-day window for lawmakers to re-impose sanctions against Iran that were suspended in 2015 as part of the agreement.</p> <p>Trump decertified the Iran deal just &#8216;cause, why not, since you&#8217;re gutting Obamacare and deciding to let Puerto Rico dehydrate; Trump decided to decertify the Iran deal because you&#8217;re well on your way to becoming the Worst President of Every Timeline, yeah baby, and why not light another <a type="internal">Roman candle</a> on the fast roller coaster down to geohell? Maybe Congress will rescue the deal, maybe not. The important thing is that this takes the best hope we have with Iran and wades back into David Frum&#8217;s &#8220;Let&#8217;s Invent, and then Invade, the Axis of Evil,&#8221; which gave us the tragedy of Iraq. That worked so well, why not repeat it again?</p> <p>The President said:</p> <p>&#8220;As I have said many times, the Iran Deal was one of the worst and one sided transactions the United States has ever entered into&#8221;</p> <p>What does he think we can get instead? The President thinks that Iran has sponsored terrorism (and the Saudis haven&#8217;t) and that the Iranian regime &#8220;has committed multiple violations of the agreement&#8221; (there are mechanisms to deal with these). Trump called on the intelligence community to look at Iran&#8217;s help to the North Korean nuclear program.</p> <p>Oh! I can help with that one! There&#8217;s a base right south of Camp Fantasy, in the northernmost region of the Your Brain is No Longer Functioning Mountain Region. The President says Iran loves the chants &#8220;Death to America&#8221; and &#8220;Death to Israel,&#8221; because the President and his team of wannabe-Iranian bombers don&#8217;t see Iran or its eighty million people&#8212;they see whatever Islamophobic, racist-ass caricatures get cooked up on Fox News, where Khomeini is still somehow alive in the year 2017. Trump decertified the deal, because nothing, not even human life or world peace, is more important than repudiating every bit of Obama&#8217;s legacy.</p> <p>The major powers and American struck a deal with Iran in July 2015. It eased sanctions and got real monitoring of Iran&#8217;s nuclear program. Trump&#8217;s own Defense Secretary said Iran has complied. The agreement got everything we needed from the regime, and now Trump wants out, because the movie in his head tells him being the leading asshole of the world is definitely, assuredly the best way to go.</p> <p>Trump decertified the Iran deal because he thinks he can get a better one, this man who can&#8217;t pass a single piece of legislation and can&#8217;t manage to avoid staring at an eclipse. Trump decertified the Iran deal because he doesn&#8217;t care. Trump decertified the Iran deal because it doesn&#8217;t matter who the Commander-in-Chief is; there is a National Security blob in Washington that no single President can ever fight, and it consumes money and spits out drones and missiles.</p> <p>Trump is incompetent in a million unusual ways, but he&#8217;s particularly, peculiarly incompetent in resisting the mechanisms of institutional influence. In other words, Trump will believe whatever the good people of the military-industrial concept whisper in his ear. That community kicked it around, and decided it was best that we threaten Iran again. After all, the NatSec blob has never forgotten or forgiven Iran for rejecting Western hegemony&#8212;and anyway, none of their own sons or daughters got shot in Iraq, so yes, why not set the stage for an eventual war with Iran? Trump decertified the deal, and the people of the world were not surprised at all. The man is barely part of reality. What did we expect?</p>" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

True

<p>President Donald Trump once left his son, Donald Trump Jr., stranded on a tarmac after he was five minutes late for a flight, the president's first wife Ivana Trump wrote in her new book "Raising Trump."</p> <p>Ivana referenced the anecdote when describing a key feature of Donald and the rest of the Trump family that she learned when she and the future president first began dating.</p> <p>"The entire Trump clan arrived exactly on time," she wrote. "I learned early on that they were punctual to an extreme. For them, 'on time' meant five minutes early."</p> <p>"When Donald arrived in a boardroom, or took his seat on an airplane and the door closed, that was that," she continued. "If you weren't on the inside, the meeting or the flight would start without you. Donald once left Don Jr. standing on the tarmac for being five minutes late to the airport."</p> <p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/ivana-trump-donald-jr-airplane-tarmac-flight-2017-10?utm_source=hearst&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=allverticals#comments" type="external">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> <p>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/roger-stone-donald-trump-richard-nixon-2017-2?utm_source=hearst&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=allverticals" type="external">Roger Stone explains what Trump has in common with Richard Nixon</a></p> <p>See Also:</p> <p>SEE ALSO: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-blue-slips-trump-judicial-nominees-2017-10?utm_source=hearst&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=allverticals" type="external">McConnell gives strongest hint yet that GOP should gut the biggest weapon Democrats have to halt Trump's judicial nominees</a></p>

Ivana Trump said Donald once abandoned Donald Jr. on a tarmac because he was 5 minutes late for a flight

http://m.mysanantonio.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Ivana-Trump-said-Donald-once-abandoned-Donald-Jr-12273453.php

2017-10-12

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>President Donald Trump once left his son, Donald Trump Jr., stranded on a tarmac after he was five minutes late for a flight, the president's first wife Ivana Trump wrote in her new book "Raising Trump."</p> <p>Ivana referenced the anecdote when describing a key feature of Donald and the rest of the Trump family that she learned when she and the future president first began dating.</p> <p>"The entire Trump clan arrived exactly on time," she wrote. "I learned early on that they were punctual to an extreme. For them, 'on time' meant five minutes early."</p> <p>"When Donald arrived in a boardroom, or took his seat on an airplane and the door closed, that was that," she continued. "If you weren't on the inside, the meeting or the flight would start without you. Donald once left Don Jr. standing on the tarmac for being five minutes late to the airport."</p> <p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/ivana-trump-donald-jr-airplane-tarmac-flight-2017-10?utm_source=hearst&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=allverticals#comments" type="external">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> <p>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/roger-stone-donald-trump-richard-nixon-2017-2?utm_source=hearst&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=allverticals" type="external">Roger Stone explains what Trump has in common with Richard Nixon</a></p> <p>See Also:</p> <p>SEE ALSO: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-blue-slips-trump-judicial-nominees-2017-10?utm_source=hearst&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=allverticals" type="external">McConnell gives strongest hint yet that GOP should gut the biggest weapon Democrats have to halt Trump's judicial nominees</a></p>" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

False

<p>President Trump holds a joint press conference with Sheikh Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah of Kuwait.</p> Trump holds joint press conference with Kuwait's leader, Amir ... <p>Trump on Thursday also seemingly touted his administration's success against ISIS compared with his predecessor, former President Obama.</p> <p>"What we do is kill ISIS," Trump said of America's involvement in Syria. "We have done better in eight months in my presidency that was accomplished during the last eight years. ISIS is disappearing rapidly."</p> <p>President Trump on Thursday said it would be a "very sad day" for North Korea if the U.S. military needed to use force against it.</p> <p>"Military action would certainly be an option," he said during a press conference. "Nothing is inevitable. I would prefer not going the route of the military, but it could certainly happen."</p> <p>"Our military is stronger now," Trump added. "Each day new and beautiful equipment is delivered, by far the best in the world. Hopefully we don't use it on North Korea. But if we do use it on North Korea, it will be a very sad day for North Korea. I will tell you that North Korea is behaving very badly and it's gotta stop."</p> <p>President Trump on Thursday praised Kuwait for its contributions to defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorist groups.</p> <p>"The United States is proud to have contributed to the liberation of Kuwait and the friendship we have built together in the years since," he said, referencing the First Gulf War from 1990 to 1991.</p> <p>"We also thank Kuwait for its humanitarian leadership and its partnership in the fight to destroy ISIS," Trump added in a joint press conference with Kuwaiti leader Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah.</p> <p>President Trump and Sheikh Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah, the leader of Kuwait, on Thursday are appearing together in a joint press conference after meeting in Washington, D.C.</p> <p>Thursday's meeting comes as Kuwait tries mediating an ongoing diplomatic crisis between Qatar and its Arab neighbors in the Middle East.</p> <p>Trump initially seemed to side with Saudi Arabia on the disagreement, but he then instructed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to back the Kuwaiti mediation initiative.</p> <p>Tillerson and other U.S. diplomats have since traveled through the region to boost Kuwait's efforts, but the dispute has dragged on despite their efforts.</p> <p>Trump was also expected to discuss global efforts to isolate North Korea by halting employment of its guest workers during his talks with Al Sabah.</p> <p>Kuwait has about 6,000 North Korean guest works within its borders as worldwide tensions rise over the Asian nation's pursuit of nuclear weapons.</p> <p><a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-09-07/qatar-north-korea-on-agenda-for-trumps-kuwait-meeting" type="external">The Associated Press</a> contributed to this report.</p>

Trump said it would be a 'very sad day' for North Korea if the US had to use force

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/09/07/politics/trump-kuwait-leader-sheikh-sabah-al-ahmad-al-sabah-hold-joint-press-conference

2017-09-07

consider_does_it_follow_a_hyperpartisan_argumentation

Consider this news article text: "{{text}}" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "{{answer_choices[0]}}" or "{{answer_choices[1]}}"? ||| {{answer_choices[0] if hyperpartisan else answer_choices[1]}}

Consider this news article text: "<p>President Trump holds a joint press conference with Sheikh Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah of Kuwait.</p> Trump holds joint press conference with Kuwait's leader, Amir ... <p>Trump on Thursday also seemingly touted his administration's success against ISIS compared with his predecessor, former President Obama.</p> <p>"What we do is kill ISIS," Trump said of America's involvement in Syria. "We have done better in eight months in my presidency that was accomplished during the last eight years. ISIS is disappearing rapidly."</p> <p>President Trump on Thursday said it would be a "very sad day" for North Korea if the U.S. military needed to use force against it.</p> <p>"Military action would certainly be an option," he said during a press conference. "Nothing is inevitable. I would prefer not going the route of the military, but it could certainly happen."</p> <p>"Our military is stronger now," Trump added. "Each day new and beautiful equipment is delivered, by far the best in the world. Hopefully we don't use it on North Korea. But if we do use it on North Korea, it will be a very sad day for North Korea. I will tell you that North Korea is behaving very badly and it's gotta stop."</p> <p>President Trump on Thursday praised Kuwait for its contributions to defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorist groups.</p> <p>"The United States is proud to have contributed to the liberation of Kuwait and the friendship we have built together in the years since," he said, referencing the First Gulf War from 1990 to 1991.</p> <p>"We also thank Kuwait for its humanitarian leadership and its partnership in the fight to destroy ISIS," Trump added in a joint press conference with Kuwaiti leader Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah.</p> <p>President Trump and Sheikh Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah, the leader of Kuwait, on Thursday are appearing together in a joint press conference after meeting in Washington, D.C.</p> <p>Thursday's meeting comes as Kuwait tries mediating an ongoing diplomatic crisis between Qatar and its Arab neighbors in the Middle East.</p> <p>Trump initially seemed to side with Saudi Arabia on the disagreement, but he then instructed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to back the Kuwaiti mediation initiative.</p> <p>Tillerson and other U.S. diplomats have since traveled through the region to boost Kuwait's efforts, but the dispute has dragged on despite their efforts.</p> <p>Trump was also expected to discuss global efforts to isolate North Korea by halting employment of its guest workers during his talks with Al Sabah.</p> <p>Kuwait has about 6,000 North Korean guest works within its borders as worldwide tensions rise over the Asian nation's pursuit of nuclear weapons.</p> <p><a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-09-07/qatar-north-korea-on-agenda-for-trumps-kuwait-meeting" type="external">The Associated Press</a> contributed to this report.</p>" Does it follow a hyperpartisan argumentation? "True" or "False"?

True