[PJ] Bill Whittle did an Afterburner on this very subject for PJTV. This was the episode description:
Hillary Clinton breaks the law, gets people who work for her killed, lies to the American people...and she's still a media darling? How is that possible???
Don't miss the pithy comments.
#3
There are at least four systems of law in this country: the law of the jungle (street law), the law for the little people such as you and I, the law for the elites such as HRC and BHO, and Sharia Law which is gnawing away at our system.
[American Lookout] Have you noticed that leftists who bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims never extend the same courtesy to Christians or Jews?
After Chelsea Bombing, NYC Launches Efforts To Silence "Negative Rhetoric" About Islam
Less than two weeks after the terrorist bombings in New Jersey and New York City's Chelsea neighborhood, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration is launching a new campaign against the "negative rhetoric targeting Muslim communities" that the city says gets worse after "terrorist incidents."
A press release from the city on Monday explained the reasoning for the new anti-anti-Islam efforts: "Across the country, hateful speech has made Muslim residents the target of misguided attacks and threats, especially in the aftermath of terrorist incidents," states a press release from the city.
The city is targeting Muslims for community outreach efforts, "including issuing a new multilingual fact sheet explaining protections against religious discrimination with a focus on Muslim communities and a new multilingual brochure on religious protections under NYC Human Rights Law with practical examples to identify discrimination in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations."
That whole free speech thing was nice while we had it, wasn't it?
What’s next, safe spaces and laws against microaggressions?
#2
Have you noticed that leftists who bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims never extend the same courtesy to Christians or Jews?
Of course. Muslims are the Parasite Party's newest "Officially Recognized Poor Helpless Victims of White Male Bigotry and Oppression," and hands out rights and privileges to its favored "victim" groups like so much Halloween candy in exchange for votes.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/30/2016 5:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio
If NYC voters don't rise up to to prevent his reelection -- as I recall, he was elected on a really low voter turnout -- they deserve what happens to them. Perhaps they can persuade Rudy Guiliani to come back.
#4
This mayor has got to be the biggest idiot of the decade. Rahm running a close second. Surely, they can find someone out of 8 or more million people who is better than this guy--how bout that wino laying over there by building--anybody, anybody?
#5
So how's that positive outreach been paying off? Found any self-professed Muslims to wage jihad on Islamic jihadists yet? Uh...yeah...didn't think so.
#6
Muslim numbers are increasing and Democrats want to ingratiate themselves with this horde of new voters even if it means eventually losing other groups (Gays and practicing Jews).
[BaltimoreSun] Self-defense is the most widely accepted basis for gun ownership rights. When the Supreme Court asserted a constitutional right to private gun ownership in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), it referred to "traditionally lawful purposes" and offered a single example: self-defense in the home. Those who assert moral (or human) rights to gun ownership also invoke self-defense as a foundation. So it is also in the Bible, not just the courts.
Or the philosophers. But if the difference between freedom and slavery is the ownership of oneself, surely the right to self-protection follows.
There is one problem, however, which everyone seems to miss: There is no absolute right to self-defense; the right is qualified or limited. When the limits to this right are in view, the ground beneath gun ownership rights appears shakier. The relationship of the individual to the state and its actors is a passive one for the individual, not an active one. You rarely hear an argument for gun control that doesn't involve the government, nor do you see an argument against gun control that doesn't involve the other active element of the state, its criminal class.
Suppose I live in a country with useless law enforcement and know that an assassin is trying to kill me. Surely I, an innocent person, may defend myself. But if the only effective means is by blowing up a crowded building, killing not only the assassin but dozens of innocent people, I may not proceed. My act of self-defense would be disproportionately harmful to innocent others and would violate their rights. My right to self-defense is limited by the means I may take in exercising it. Your act of self defense is lawful, regardless of the harm caused to "others". And in a national entity in which your self defense means are limited, you'll always have the criminal as a go-to source for firearms.
Perhaps, then, people have a right to take effective means to defend themselves so long as these measures don't wrongly harm or violate the rights of others. Yet this isn't quite right either. The professor set up an absurd straw man and knocked it down easily. Let's see if he can come up with something a little more substantive.
When others threaten your security or rights, certain measures may be necessary to protect you. But it doesn't follow that you may take those measures if another party has assumed responsibility for taking them on your behalf. As Thomas Hobbes argued centuries ago, when we leave a "state of nature" and enter civil society — which features the rule of law rather than anarchy and vigilantism — we transfer some rights to a government whose job description includes protecting us from various common threats. For example, the police, an arm of the government, are permitted to pursue criminals, forcibly apprehend them and bring them to justice. As private citizens, we generally lack the authority to perform these actions. Criminals are also citizens, which is a point the professor misses. They may be criminals, and they may have been denied by the state the right to vote, but they are still members of a civil society. As we know from previous court rulings, governmental employees are in no way obliged to provide protection to the individual. The relationship of police and the law to its citizens is custodial.
So it is questionable whether we have not only a right to forceful protective measures but also a right to take those measures ourselves. If the right to do so has been delegated to the police and, in case of foreign invasion, to the military, then our right to self-defense is further qualified. We have, in fact, partly delegated the job of protecting our security to the police and military in the interest of a well-ordered society. So the qualified right to self-defense comes to this: a right to defend oneself when doing so (1) does not wrongly harm others or violate their rights and (2) is necessary to protect one's security and/or rights because such protection isn't otherwise forthcoming. The right to self defense exists outside the penumbra of governments and their regulators. That the law limits and regulates the basis for enacting self defense is a reflection of the defectivity of the state, not the citizen's duty for self defense. So, there is no "qualification" for the right to defense, in the sense that there is no basis for self defense. There is only the duty for self defense, and that includes self defense against an overreaching, overbearing government.
Does the qualified right of self-defense support gun ownership? Presumably, this right concerns the freedom to use effective means to defend oneself — subject to the two qualifications just stated. So, it must be asked: Are guns effective means? Are they necessary for one's protection? And does gun ownership steer clear of harming others and violating their rights?
These questions raise complicated issues in the social sciences, political philosophy and ethics. In this short space, I can only offer a few brief notes of skepticism. Hint: His answer would be no.
First, in our current American milieu of minimal gun control, gun ownership is associated with an increased likelihood that someone in the household will die a violent death. Assuming the spirit of "self-defense in the home" includes defending not only oneself but other household members, this evidence-based generalization suggests that gun ownership, on average, is not an effective means to personal security; rather, it tends to be self-defeating. Guns are dangerous, and even more so for those who are untrained or who are careless in their handling, which are not mutually exclusive. That guns are mishandled or are used for criminal acts in no way invalidates the duty to oneself and one's own family for self defense.
Second, is gun ownership necessary in the event of an attempted break-in? That is uncertain. Some evidence suggests that calling the police and hiding are more frequently sufficient for a good outcome than is brandishing or using a gun. Very well then. Cowering seems to be a measure of self defense for the professor, presumably sans firearm, which is fine for his purposes. As a personal preference, a 5.45mm fits my personal requirement.
"Some evidence"? What about the other evidence, where horrible things were done to the insufficiently hidden occupant before the police arrived?
Third, does gun ownership avoid wrongly harming others or violating their rights? Not if, as I believe evidence suggests, gun ownership more often leads to injuring or killing innocent persons than to appropriate defensive use.
Self-defense is therefore a shaky basis for gun ownership rights. No wonder so few developed nations have acknowledged them. English-speaking developed nations have similar notions to ours about firearms. The Australian example, which has been a massive failure is more a testament to the known fact that gun control doesn't work. David DeGrazia (ddd@gwu.edu) is professor of philosophy at George Washington University. His seven books include "Debating Gun Control," co-authored by Lester Hunt and published this month by Oxford University Press.
#1
Why do you keep posting these things? We know the self appointed "intellectual elites" are not just crazy as a bat but dumb as shit as well (except when it comes to feathering their own nests).
In his discussion of the new, Soviet, "intelligentsia" in Archipelago Gulag, Solzhenitsyn states "If the fact that a circle has 360 degrees impacted these people's well-being, they'd make calculations in anything but radians, a felony." Well, the current western "new class" would do one better - they would make the word 'circle' a hate speech.
#2
This twit of a professor needs to confine himself to asking his students about treees falling in forests
Posted by: John Frum ||
09/30/2016 6:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Self-defense is the most widely accepted basis for gun ownership rights.
Straw man argument. The 2d Amendment clearly shows for the militia, to which the founders put trust in rather than a standing army to guarantee their rights. Having just rid themselves of the Kings army and decedents of the rule of Cromwell, they knew exactly what they were doing.
#5
I believe there was a Supreme Court decision some years ago that stated you do not have an expectation of protection by the police. Some guy got mugged and sued the police. He lost.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
09/30/2016 8:15 Comments ||
Top||
#7
These questions raise complicated issues in the social sciences, political philosophy and ethics.
Get back with me after I'm done defending myself when the police are not around. As well as self-defense, the purpose of the 2nd is to defend against a tyrannical government. We can sort out the intellectual arguments after the shooting stops. As it is said better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
#10
...gun ownership is associated with an increased likelihood that someone in the household will die a violent death.
This is an absolute favorite logical falicie arguments amongst gun control advocates. And it's even more absurd in the context of self defense. A large portion of this raw data includes illegally possessed firearms. Furthermore, it conflates possession with action. Even if one was to make an ipso facto argument regarding degree (domestic violence with a gun vs blunt object) it offers only a reaction to a symptom without a solution to the primary affliction. Burning candles in the home may increase the likelihood of an accidental fire but doesn't increase the likelihood of arson.
A hoplite was responsible for purchasing his own weapons and armor. The government expected its citizens to do so.
No absolute right to self defense is the damn tardest thing I have ever heard, and I mean that. How far removed from reality does a person need to be to even think that, never mind sharing it as some grande epiphany.
Zombie flicks - do the main characters just sit there and wait their turn to be eaten? Sports - do football players and boxers just let themselves get hit or do they try to protect themselves? Do people not swat mosquitos? Do we not shoo flys from our food?
Do we not get inoculated as a defense against disease? Do we not recoil from fire so not to get burned?
Thank you, I will take my advise from Xenophon, who would laugh at this guy's silk stockings.
#13
DepotGuy, reminds me of the stats on children killed by guns. Children of course includes 18-19 year old gang-bangers. When you remove them from the stats the number of children killed by guns is very low. But they want the image of a toddler to really push the emotional message when they know logic doesn't serve them.
#14
they always include suicides in the "deaths in the home" count to have a much higher toll
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/30/2016 15:03 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Has the good professor noticed that gun free zones are the favorite spots for mass murderers?
Criminals have a tendency to avoid attacking places where they have a good chance of being killed. Guns in the hands of law abiding people deters crime.
Home invasions are far more common, for example, in Britain than here.
Facts do not bother this guy.
Anyway the standard sequence is
crime occurs
police investigate
with luck a perpetrator is arrested
a trial
police do not protect individuals
defense of individuals is not a part of this process.
the government is not a substitute for self defense.
example: the dead marathon bomber was reported by Russian intelligence to the FBI; he was interviewed and apparently cleared.
another recent terrorist was reported to the FBI by his father, with no intervention.
Great government protection!
[Breitbart] The New York Times, the so-called "paper of record," has declared that the all-important swing state of Ohio is no longer an important battleground in the presidential election -- now that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is winning it.
Trump pulled ahead of Clinton in the Buckeye State in the RealClearPolitics poll average on Sep. 13, and has never looked back. The latest average, as of Sep. 24 -- prior to the first presidential debate on Sep. 26 -- has Trump ahead of Clinton by 2%.
Earlier in September, the Times was declaring Ohio "an essential swing state," where Governor John Kasich threatened to destroy Trump’s presidential hopes by withholding his endorsement and denying Trump his turnout operation. The Times added: "No candidate since 1960 has made it to the White House without winning Ohio. And while Mrs. Clinton could afford to lose there given her advantage in other battlegrounds like Virginia and Colorado, Ohio is a must-win for Mr. Trump."
#3
The voters gave the Pubs the House in 2010 and then the Senate in 2014 in an effort to block the Dems and the Obama administration. The voters seem to be turning the volume up even more in 2016 as it seems the Pubs haven't been listening much.
#6
Someone should come up with a list of Republicans that are worth a damned. As JohnQC said, they haven't listened much. And revelations that the Saudi's had folks involved in Sept 11 and the George W. Bush team knew and did nothing but fly them out of the country (none even resigned quietly over the choice) leads very few I could be proud of right now.
Perhaps Trey Gowdy and Darryl Isa although they do both seem to take a long, long, time during these hearings.
#7
...I am hearing from friends and family back home that OH may be going more and more strongly for Trump every day, and this article seems to back it up. TRANSLATION: "The hell with the public polls, the INTERNALS are a freaking disaster for Malificent. Let's have the Times say it doesn't matter any more and see if we can pull it out somewhere else."
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
09/30/2016 17:20 Comments ||
Top||
#8
So Ohio was a bellweather when it looked like Hillary was going to get Ohio, but now that Trump seems likely to take Ohio it is not?
A cynical person might deduce that the Times is a tad biased.
[RealClearPolitics] But the press is the most blameworthy. White House press conferences now resemble those in the Kremlin, with journalists tossing Putin softball questions about his latest fishing or hunting trip.
One reason Americans are scared about the next president is that they should be.
In 2017, a President Trump or President Clinton will be able to do almost anything he or she wishes without much oversight -- thanks to the precedent of Obama's overreach, abetted by a lapdog press that forgot that the ends never justify the means.
Partially true: the press would continue flying cover for President Clinton; President Trump will be fact-checked even on what he said he had for breakfast, and whether it really is boxers or briefs.
#1
Of course, being unable to look beyond the next moment, the media doesn't grasp that in a one party dominated government there is no need for more than one media outlet. There are only so many Rotary Club and local high school events to cover.
#2
The Senate used to ratify treaties. In the past, a president could not unilaterally approve the Treaty of Versailles, enroll the United States in the League of Nations, fight in Vietnam or Iraq without congressional authorization, change existing laws by non-enforcement, or rewrite bankruptcy laws. Not now. Obama set a precedent that he did not need Senate ratification to make a landmark treaty with Iran on nuclear enrichment.
Reads like treason and high crimes and misdemeanors to me.
#3
In fact so-called fact checkers would declare that Trump had Pancakes for breakfast even if he is right there eating Wheaties and milk for breakfast.
And too large of a percentage of the voters would believe what the media tells them over their own lying eyes.
[Politico] Hillary Clinton trolled two White House opponents with a single response, dinging Gary Johnson and Donald Trump by naming Angela Merkel as her favorite world leader.
The Democratic presidential nominee on Thursday joined the discussion about politicians’ favorite world leaders, a topic that went viral when Johnson, the Libertarian nominee, drew a blank when asked Wednesday to name a world leader he looks up to and respects.
"Oh, let me think. Look, I like a lot of the world leaders," Clinton said, bursting into laughter initially when asked about her favorite world leader during a gaggle with reporters aboard her campaign plane in Chicago. "One of my favorites is Angela Merkel because I think she’s been an extraordinary, strong leader during difficult times in Europe, which has obvious implications for the rest of the world and, most particularly, our country."
Clinton praised the German chancellor’s "leadership and steadiness on the Euro crisis," while adding that "her bravery in the face of the refugee crisis is something that I am impressed by."
#1
I'd say "this should give a second thought even to most ardent lefties" - but of course, these are "people" who mustered the art of never questioning certain certainties.
#2
Angela Merkel???? Good grief... May God have mercy on us if we send HRC to the White House...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/30/2016 5:45 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's nor like she's spoilt for choice, after all. The only other female is Theresa May, who is Conservative and therefore uninteresting to our possible future beloved leader; the only strong male leaders that come to mind are Bibi Netanyahu (Israel and President Obama's least fave person) and Vladimir Putin (who she keeps trying to tie around Mr. Trump's neck).
#7
Playing the Muslim illegal immigrant and woman card? Singing Merkel's praises is not going to get HRC any votes. Just don't think the German citizens are too thrilled with Merkel.
#8
I'm gonna give Johnson a pass on this one. The list of current world leaders worthy of admiration is mighty short. And for Libertarian candidate it's almost nonexistent.
[National Interest] Speaking at a press conference in New York on September 19, President Obama stood at the dais with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, and said that the battle for Mosul was ready “to move forward fairly rapidly” and that “we are prepared to help provide rapid humanitarian assistance.” The President and Prime Minister, I believe, are underestimating the challenges and difficulties that will result from the exodus of hundreds of thousands new refugees once the military operation to clear Mosul begins.
As mentioned in this post on September 19, I visited northern Iraq in late August and interviewed the Minister of Foreign Relations for the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), the Peshmerga general in charge of overlooking the Mosul front, and visited two refugee camps, including the newest called Debaga.
My original intent had been to assess the military preparations for the recapture of Mosul. But I was struck with how much these two men emphasized the humanitarian element of the battle. Minister Falah Mustafa Bakir said that at the moment in northern Iraq there was a “humanitarian crisis,” but if actions aren’t taken by the international community quickly, it would become “a humanitarian catastrophe” once the battle begins. General Bahram Yassim, commander of the Peshmerga 7th Brigade, said he was concerned because he had yet to see anywhere near enough actual preparations on the ground.
It is understandable that the Iraqi government wants to wrest control of Mosul from the Islamic State, but it is important that they not be impatient. If the operations begin before UN and local authorities are ready to receive and care for that many displaced persons, Mr. Mustafa’s worries of a humanitarian catastrophe could be realized.
If the Iraqi government eventually succeeds in repelling ISIS from Mosul yet cause severe hardship or even loss of life because they launched the attack before they were ready to safeguard the inhabitants – most of whom are Sunni Muslims – the Shia government of Iraq might have trouble after the battle in gaining the support of the population. Governing post-ISIS Mosul is going to be difficult under any circumstances. Baghdad must do all in its power to earn the trust of the people so that a new Sunni insurrection doesn’t form among angry residents later.
While I understand Colonel Davis' concerns, it's not a matter of "could happen."
A catastrophe will happen. Iran exerts a great amount of influence in Iraq; it controls and provides IRGC support to the Shiite militias upon which the Iraqi Army depends, especially for any assault on Mosul. Iran's and its Shiite clientele's objectives are not the same as the Kurds, the White House, the UN, or the good Colonel's objectives.
Baghdad lacks the authority and control over the Shiite militias. Muqtada al-Sadr and his Sadrist movement will likely ensure that any control Baghdad tries to exert will be muted.
There's already a preview from Fallujah. Thousands of refugees headed for the KRG and western Iraq. Sunni villagers executed in Diyala. Tikrit looted and put to the torch. Fallujah's males missing and probably in a hole somewhere. POW's hanged. It'll be worse. Much worse.
Meanwhile, the White House continues to send in troops (partly to burnish Mr. Obama's legacy.) Too few to be a significant factor or influence when things get out of hand.
It will be ugly.
Daniel L. Davis is a retired U.S. Army colonel who served multiple tours in Afghanistan. He is a senior fellow with Defense Priorities.
#4
Iranexerts a great amount of influence in Iraq; it controls and provides IRGC support to the Shiite militias upon which the Iraqi Army depends, especially for any assault on Mosul. Iran's and its Shiite clientele's objectives are not the same as the Kurds, the White House, the UN, or the good Colonel's objectives.
not sure why you slipped the WH in there. As far as I can tell, Iranian hegemony IS a WH obsession/preference. At least the current group of traitors (ValJar)
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/30/2016 7:46 Comments ||
Top||
#5
US air cover for Iranian militas you say...what could go wrong? (Actually,a little miscommunication over coordinates might not be a totally bad thing.)
#2
I think I agree, but only because by the time we've developed the technologies required to do so, we'll realise that hunkering down on the thin skin of planets makes a lot less sense than mining the moon and disassembling asteroids in order to build O'Neill cylinders with thousands of times their surface area. With one exception - we do want to put lots of matter between at least one human colony and any possible ultralong gamma ray burst, which means at minimum 3 colonies equally spaced around Mercury.
#3
Actually making giant hollow living shells out of asteroid ring material and the Ort cloud's is quite doable. Maybe nuke or fusion required but it will take big rockets like Musk's to start it out. Seriously.
Think about it. Iridium went bankrupt 2 time before it became a going operation. The Chunnel once. ....
#5
I'm not a cold weather person but there those who thrive up north, plus not a hot and humid fan neither, so his arguments are fallacious because I say so. Oh, don't forget there are people who love to do things that "experts" like this guy say are impossible.
#7
Most of us will never drive a battery powered car either, or if we do, it won't be a tesla. All the same, musk's cult is well on its way to being as vicious and unscientific as scientology.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
09/30/2016 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I do think we should be colonizing the Moon first, and building up the space infrastructure that would open up options. The moon is much easier because of the distance. The low gravity is a challenge but you might find a ton of elderly volunteers willing to take the risk in order to spend their final years in the increased mobility the low gravity offers them.
But it's less glamorous so I can see why Musk is shooting for Mars. Unfortunately NASA got caught up in that mindset for awhile as well.
#11
We've already been to Everest and yet people still go. In fact they've built up base camps and infrastructure to make things a bit safer and easier for folks since Hilary went up.
I wish Sheila Jackson Lee and her weave could return to Mars. We'd all be happier.
#14
Well, the 'Red' planet should be an ideal safe place for our Millennial snowflakes. They can avoid all that pre-established infrastructure, physical and social, created by the deplorables.
[Free Beacon] Senior Homeland Security official León Rodríguez admitted Thursday that some refugees are allowed into the United States based solely on their testimony to authorities.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) grilled Rodríguez on the Obama administration’s refugee resettlement program during a Senate Judiciary immigration subcommittee hearing. Cruz and other lawmakers highlighted issues with the current refugee vetting process.
Cruz began his questioning by reading part of a DHS memorandum on the vetting process for refugees, Townhall reported. The memorandum states that the "refugee program is particularly vulnerable of fraud due to loose evidentiary requirements where at times the testimony of an applicant alone is sufficient for approval."
When Cruz finished reading, Rodríguez, director of Citizenship and Immigration Services at DHS, fired back against the memorandum, arguing the document was written by an individual who lacked knowledge of the vetting process.
"What I am telling you is that I would not give that document a whole lot of credit because whoever that person was did not do the homework to learn about our process," Rodríguez said.
Cruz then pushed Rodríguez on whether it was true or false that testimony of the applicant can solely be sufficient for approval into the United States.
"It depends on the case. Usually we do have extensive documentation. Syrians in particular present with extensive documentation passports, military records, so there is documentation that we review," Rodríguez said.
Rodríguez went into further detail before Cruz cut him off, saying he asked a simple question and wanted a simple answer but his time had expired.
"There are cases where the testimony is not necessarily corroborated by documents, but it is always tested against country conditions and other information. That is why it doesn’t lend itself in the way that you’re asking the question, senator," Rodríguez said.
"Are you saying it’s true, or are you saying it’s false?" Cruz asked. "I’m just trying to understand."
"I am acknowledging that, yes, testimony can be the basis for the grant of a refugee, but it needs to be tested against other information that we know‐about the country conditions, at a minimum," Rodríguez said.
Following Cruz’s questioning, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) lambasted Rodríguez for taking so long to answer Cruz’s question.
"This is the Congress of the United States. We have a right to ask questions. We expect unbiased objective answers and [Cruz] took too long to get you to acknowledge that answer and I do not appreciate it," Sessions said.
FBI Director James Comey also admitted Wednesday that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct background checks on 10,000 Syrian refugees coming to the United States.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Breitbart] The New York Times, the so-called "paper of record," has declared that the all-important swing state of Ohio is no longer an important battleground in the presidential election -- now that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is winning it.
