Down to the wire, too close to call: Democrat Hillary Clinton, who in the past year has gone from inevitability to vulnerability at the hands of the popular Bernie Sanders to surprising weakness against the bombastic, divisive, unforced-error machine Donald Trump is still favoured to win what has become an incredible close race, according to late-game polls.
Between the corrupt media, the vagina voters, DNC voter fraud and the 47% who only care about free stuff, I suspect that the Hildebeast is going to make history as the first allegedly female president. But you can't count out Trump yet.
This could even end up like 2000, with court challenges, etc.
What say the rest of you? Putting aside your preferences, which are pretty much well documented, who do you think will win and by how much?
Trump won't win in a landslide. Polls can be off but I don't think they've ever been that far off. btw, I would point out Pariah like the Russians see Trump as an instrument to weaken our country.
Putting aside your preferences, which are pretty much well documented, who do you think will win and by how much?
While it's obvious who I would like to win, Frau Hitlery begins the contest with over 240 guaranteed electoral votes, an easier path to 270, and it's a harder path to electoral victory for Trump.
If the polls are to be believed (and I don't) Hillary still has the advantage. But we all know the polls are weighted with a sampling of Democrats larger than their ratio of the population, and even if they could be trusted as unbiased and accurate, most battleground states are still within the +/-3% margin of error. So it's close enough to go either way.
Hillary still has far superior numbers of campaign volunteers, a far superior air-war of ads attacking Trump multiple times every hour on virtually every channel, a superior "get-out-the-vote" drive to get the politically uninformed herded out to vote for Hillary, and the (Democrat controlled) DHS is "monitoring" the electronic voting nationwide, to also push the vote in the DNC favor. Democrats also have a massive fraudulent machine of fake voter registrations, of the dead rising to vote (and documented cases of dead Republicans rising to vote Democrat!) rigging of election machines in Texas and elsewhere where Republicans advance-vote for Trump and watch their vote register on the screen in front of them for Hillary, Democrats double voting in multiple precincts, on and on.
So...
I think Hillary wins by a narrow margin (to try and make the result look believable).
And I would be elated and pleasantly surprised if despite incredible media bias, despite Hillary buying off attorney general Loretta Lynch and FBI director James Comey to obstruct investigation, despite rigging of the DNC to leverage out Bernie Sanders , despite Hillary being fed questions in advance at 2 televised CNN presidential debates by Donna Brazile and Roland Martin, despite being incredibly out-spent and out-staffed by the Hillary campaign, despite establishment Republicans within his own party at every turn undermining Trump's campaign, it would be a truly inspiring and American story if Trump against all odds and corruption pulled out a victory.
I'm still hoping for just enough of the popular vote to go to Johnson for there to be improved visibility for the Libertarian Party in subsequent elections. Johnson himself is obviously not an ideal candidate by any means (though given the competition this is damn near an ideal election for him to be in), but this could get the ball rolling at state and local levels for a greater presence for Libertarians, Greens, and other third-party and independent options. The mischief-loving part of me really wants a state or two to go to Johnson just to prevent either candidate from being first past the post; obviously we'd have an absolute shitstorm in the House and basically everywhere if that happened, but if that's what it takes to break the two-party inside-outside scam, I'll take it.
I am forever a cuck who believes that like-minded cuck retards should be president.
In fact, I am so cucked that I'll attempt to vote my fellow cuck into office even though I know he has no chance of winning against the literal Satanist pedophile hag who will drag us into WW3, and that encouraging libertardian votes for him will take potential votes away from the one candidate that's most likely to beat her and be a better president to boot.
Trump's odds of winning have suddenly risen from 13% a few weeks ago to 25% around the time of the Obamacare failure news and Comey's Anthony Weiner computer-crime prosecution announcement, to 55% with the most recent states announced to be won by Trump.
In the last 30 minutes they called Ohio for Trump, and North Carolina for Trump. And Florida is leaning toward Trump but not announced yet. Those are the major pieces Trump needed for the win.
_____
They just announced Florida for Trump as I was typing this!
If he snags Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, it's over.
Although, he doesn't necessarily need PA, it'll further enunciate Hilldawg's failure.
What's really great is that, after the election, there will be time to research the true extent of the voter fraud committed by Hillary's campaign, and the real numbers will be known, strengthening his majority mandate.
Trump a gross piece of shit that ran one of the most divisive campaigns is not inspiring. I think that even holds true inside the GOP.
TRUMP: " I want to make America great again, bring back factories and jobs from overseas, lower taxes [like JFK and Reagan did] to stimulate growth of businesses and jobs. I want to rebuild our military, negotiate better trade deals, help black America, restore law and order and support law enforcement, secure our borders and stop illegal immigration, defeat ISIS and require common-sense vetting of immigrants from radical Islamic nations [not all muslims],replace Obamacare with something that works and is affordable, and stop our rising debt before it reaches the danger point of 23 trillion."
HILLARY: "Look! Trump is scary! He's going to start a nuclear war! He's dangerous, unstable, you don't want someone like him holding the nuclear button. He mistreats women ! Oh ohhh, the children are watching!" [Ignoring Bill Clinton's far more excessive and proven assaults, rapes and affairs with women, and ignoring that Hillary led the charge to threaten, smear and discredit these women, who Hillary knew to be telling the truth. And ignoring Hillary taking donations from radical muslim rogue nations that mistreat women, nations that endorse marital rape, wife-beating, and clitoral female circumcision. Islamic rogue nations buying Hillary's silence with tens of millions of bribe donations to her through the Clinton Foundation. And (1) ignoring Hillary's treason and negligence in Benghazi. Ignoring (2)how Hillary Clinton compromised national security EVERY DAY she was Secretary of State to the Russians and Chinese through her illegal e-mail server. (3) Selling foreign access to the U.S. State Department through donations to the Clinton foundation, And (4) promising "an open borders western hemisphere" to Clinton Foundation big-money donors in Brazil, the opposite (Saul Alinsky tactics) of what she was publicly saying about securing our borders and sovereignty. Four different kinds of treason. Count 'em. Three of those treasons under (Clinton-bought and obstructed) FBI investigation. ]
Which of these two candidates sounds more negative to you, M E M?
For all the $2 billion or so in carpet bombing negative ads by Frau Hitlery (far, FAR out-spending Trump), the American people seem to largely see through all HER negative campaigning.
Upon finding out I voted for Johnson, and while panicking over the election results, someone rather snootily asked me "what are you going to tell your black friends tomorrow?" I replied I'd probably just ask them whether or not they voted.
If he snags Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, it's over.
Although, he doesn't necessarily need PA, it'll further enunciate Hilldawg's failure.
What's really great is that, after the election, there will be time to research the true extent of the voter fraud committed by Hillary's campaign, and the real numbers will be known, strengthening his majority mandate.
Yes, something that would be swept under the rug and buried if Frau Hitlery were to win.
Just as no voter fraud has been prosecuted during Obama's 8 years. The Democrats, Obama and Hillary in particular, want the election fraud, because it helps them win elections.
Interesting how CNN is reluctant to call so many states for Trump that FOX already called 30 minutes ago.
They finally just called Georgia for Trump. David Axelrod, of all people, is saying "This is a primal scream" by the voters "saying they are not satisfied by the status quo."
Upon finding out I voted for Johnson, and while panicking over the election results, someone rather snootily asked me "what are you going to tell your black friends tomorrow?" I replied I'd probably just ask them whether or not they voted.
Upon finding out I voted for Johnson, and while panicking over the election results, someone rather snootily asked me "what are you going to tell your black friends tomorrow?" I replied I'd probably just ask them whether or not they voted.
Odds are--if they voted--they voted for Trump.
That's exactly what my wife told me. The media and DNC was so sure they could just make black voters forget how they fucked Bernie over. Kind of a racist assumption if you ask me.
Yeah, they're looking pretty sad on CNN. I have sound for them, maybe it's your local cable.
Not on TV. On YT.
Quote:
They're talking about Dems at Hillary HQ starting to cry as reality is setting in.
They don't seem to care much how happy they must be at Trump's election HQ.
I can't wait to saltmine Megan McCain's radio show. I hate that bitch with a passion, and she hates Donald Trump. Then, of course, there's Maddow. Oh my goodness--THE SALT!!
I flipped over to CNN. They're wildly speculating all the paths to victory where Hillary can still win. They're calling it : CLINTON 209 TRUMP 216
Deuling realities!
30 minutes later, and CNN still hasn't put all Trump's victories on the electoral map. Gee, I wonder who these guys voted for. Just possibly part of the 96% of reporters who donated to the Hillary campaign. Still wildly speculating how Hillary can yet pull it out.
LEAN FORWARD!
Meanwhile, Trump has pulled ahead in Pennsylvania.
Trump ahead in Utah as well, by about 100,000 votes.
CNN still hasn't updated their electoral count, still showing... CLINTON 209 TRUMP 238
...an hour later!
Chris Wallace on Fox is saying Trump will have a rare opportunity with Republican control of the Presidency, House and Senate. (The Democrat vision of taking the Senate tonight is now long gone.)
Also looking forward to Alec Baldwin, Rosie O'Donnell and about 30 other Hollywood elites leaving the country, as they vowed to, if Trump were elected. That alone is good for America.
The Dow is down 830 points. I honestly thought Trump was being overly optimistic when for the last week on the stump he predicted "another Brexit" on election night. But now we're seeing it happen!
The AP's updating electoral map also isn't eager to declare Trump's electoral victories either, which they list as currently TRUMP 244 CLINTON 215
But at least they still show the states leaning toward Trump, if not called. But they seem eager to post electoral updates for Hillary, even as they "cautiously" withhold judgement on Trump's.
That would bring Trump to a final count of 308 electoral votes, with Hillary finishing at 230. The least sure victory for Trump is New Hampshire, where Trump is leading by just about 800 votes.
Almost 90 minutes later, CNN still hasn't updated their electoral board, still showing as:
TRUMP 238 HILLARY 215
They updated Hillary's total to 215, but still haven't updated Trump's total to 254 that Fox announced long ago. Pretty clearly saying the candidate they want isn't winning.
Legitimately I'm mildly concerned for the guy. I know he was really invested in this.
I'm sorry, I misread your meaning.
I like M E M too, for all our political bickering. If we were in the same town, I'd buy him a beer. I know quite a few liberals I discuss politics with locally, and somehow it's less heated in person. I wish him well too.
I hope he's pleasantly surprised to find Trump is not as bad as he anticipated he would be. And I hope Trump turns out to be a good president. We've needed one for a long time, arguably since G H W Bush or Reagan.
Breitbart is cherry-picking some of the choice ones on their site.
From there:
Quote:
Suzanne @imsuzanne @HillaryClinton He is such a hideous mistake. To avoid leaving the USA we can go to LA and just stay stoned for 4 years. I'm so Ashamed.
That's exactly what my wife told me. The media and DNC was so sure they could just make black voters forget how they fucked Bernie over. Kind of a racist assumption if you ask me.
Honestly, I don't think that was much of a factor. I have no doubt that the MSM will try and make that a factor, butI have doubts it will stick--especially since Podesta's emails show evidence that he was controlled opposition all along.
Podesta came out on stage a few minutes ago, and said the Hillary Clinton campaign won't concede tonight, and will make a concession tomorrow.
Is that unprecedentedly bad sportsmanship? I can't remember fully what Gore did in 2000. As I recall, he did concede, and then he un-conceded later, and sued for multiple re-counts in an attempt to manipulate the result through selective re-count criteria, until he could have gotten the result he wanted. Throwing the stock market into chaos for about 6 weeks.
Karl Rove said it's better this way. Trump can polish his victory speech, and more people will be watching in the morning, than would be watching in the middle of the night.
But that's just good fortune, in spite of the Hillary camp's evasion of reality and spiteful refusal to concede.
The AP is now showing Trump to have crossed the electoral victory line and reached 276, with obviously more states to officially call later.
Fox News is also, as I type this, announcing the same. That Trump is now the 45th president of the United States. They list Pennsylvania as the state that took Trump over the electoral line to victory.
I suspect that Hillary and friends are going to either a) attempt to flee the country or b) have Trump assassinated and start the next revolution.
It was my dream early on that Hillary Clinton would be the first presidential candidate to flee the country to avoid prosecution. The shield obstructing her prosecution, Loretta Lynch and James Comey, will very soon no longer be there to prevent her from receiving the proportionate justice unleashed on Generals Petraeus and Cartwright. I hope this is a turn away from lawlessness, and a return to the rule of law, that ceased to exist in the Obama years.
Where federal agencies will no longer be used as a weapon to attack political opponents, as the IRS, FBI, OSHA, EPA and other agencies were under Obama's presidency.
Although, it's gonna be dangerous going outside, make no mistake.
You thought Hillary supporters were violent before? Watch what after tonight!
There's a lot to savor!
Really, you saw my above comments from a day ago. I think for millions of us, we desperately wanted Trump to win, but didn't think he could overcome the Tsunami of money and corruption from Hillary, Obama, the DNC, and the 96% Hillary donor liberal media, or overcome the Cultural Marxists and globalists in the Shadow Party behind them feuling that tsunami.
This is my wildest hope fulfilled. Outnumbered and outfunded, Trump pulled it off. Perhaps the hardest part, now all he has to do is follow through and keep his promises.
A lot of credit goes to Trump. He was smart. But the memers--or "thought leaders" as CTR's David Brock refers to them--that pushed him to victory played a bigger part in this. They were also largely behind Brexit. Information and counter-intelligence fought by cyber guerilla fighters are to thank for this turn out.
I can't remember if it was Politico or someone else that wrote an articles about how they lamented memes since they're ultimately what gave him his power. And they're right. Trump was smart enough to ride this power because he knew that collective consciousness wasn't a fairy tale. If you look back he used multiple memes created by /pol/ to enhance his outsider image.
I was going to start a whole thread on the topic, but I've been so busy I didn't get around to it. Suffice it to say however, Trump's victory is the result of a war fought between two cults. One is the cult that Hillary belongs to that she fostered among her closest associates (she didn't found it mind you, but she adopted it and made it her own) and the other is the one that was growing within the deepest depths of the internet who saw what was going on and were sick to death of it. It's surprisingly young, and they turned out to be so influential that the FBI and other various alphabet soup organizations were tasked with watching and containing them. In the process however, they actually redpilled the very people that were charged with their surveillance. And so Pieczenik's so called "counter coup" was given form in the guise of these rogue agents that hacked Hillary's server along with the internet dwellers who watched as their civilization and culture has slowly been degraded and destroyed, and decided to employ the same tactics used against them (us) for the past two centuries to undo the damage.
Trump and his accomplishment is both notable and remarkable, but it's not the whole story.
I wonder if many who voted for Trump were unwaveringly for him a month ago, before Hillary unleashed Alicia Machado, the recorded bus conversation from 11 years ago, and the 11 or so women who alleged Trump groped them.
I was unwavering through all that in my support (coinciding as it did, conspicuously, with the start of the WikiLeaks e-mail dumps). And I suspect now that millions of others were as well, and that we were bamboozled into despairing because of rigged polls that indicated otherwise.
The liberal media and the liberal pollsters have a lot to answer for, as they were way off the mark, and I think purposely, deceived the the public into accepting the inevitability of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Probably only Fox, MRC and a few other conservative media sources will even mention this clear media failure (at best) and partisan media deception (more likely).
Originally Posted By: Pariah
If you look back he used multiple memes created by /pol/ to enhance his outsider image.
You're probably skeptical. Understandable. But trust me, the chan culture has been a REALLY big deal.
But yeah the mainstream were off--and they knew it. But they couldn't afford to be truthful since it would have boosted Trump's supporters morale.
Along with Hillary Clinton and her disgusting henchmen and her odious organization, multiple media outlets are implicated in her dirty dealings--CNN being one of them. As I posted it in the other thread, the NYPD found evidence against CNN and ABC, among others, in Clinton's criminal dealings. They have just as much as stake in this as she does.
I just looked at the above AP link again, to see what the final result was
It's rather odd that there are multiple states that clearly went for Trump that are not added into the final total.
ALASKA (53% Trump vs 38% Clinton, 76% of precincts reporting, is there any likelihood Hillary could win with that margin, even with the 24% uncounted ?)
ARIZONA (50% Trump, vs. 45% Clinton, 98% of precincts reporting, again, no logical reason it is not called for Trump)
MICHIGAN (48% Trump, vs 47% Hillary, 99% of precincts reporting, again no logical reason it is not called for Trump)
NEW HAMPSHIRE 47% Trump (326,286), vs 47% Clinton (325,979), 93% of precincts reporting, a difference of 307 votes at this point! That's the only one I see as contestable.
On the other side...
MINNESOTA is a Hillary Clinton victory, 47% Clinton (1,353,017), vs. 45% Trump (1,316,536), a difference of 36,481 votes at this point, which is still a large margin, with 99% of precincts reporting, again, why is this one not called?
It consistently seems the networks are quick to call states for Hillary, and ridiculously slow to call them for Trump. And really, slow to call states in any election for Republicans, since at least the 2000 Bush/Gore election.
CNN's pundits were saying a few minutes ago that Trump won by using "fear" to rally the public to his side. Invoking FDR who entered office saying "There is nothing to fear but fear itself", and contrasting that with Trump who they allege is "nothing but fear."
David Gregory is continuing that narrative after the break.
SINGAPORE, Nov 9 (Reuters) - Investors should brace for a further slump in global stock markets, the U.S. dollar and most commodities if Republican candidate Donald Trump becomes the next U.S. president, as appeared increasingly likely on Wednesday.
Markets fear a Trump victory could trigger global economic and political mayhem, creating massive uncertainty for investors who had been counting on a win by Democrat Hillary Clinton, whose policies were seen as more staid but predictable. "If current market moves hold or go further, there is likely to be quite a bit of de-leveraging and forced selling tomorrow," Mohamed El-Erian, chief economic adviser at Allianz, said as global markets skidded.
Trump has threatened to rip up major trade agreements and impose barriers in the United States on imports from countries such as Mexico and China, which could reduce trade flows and harm already sluggish global growth. Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at BMO Private Bank in Chicago, forecast U.S. stocks could drop as much as 10 percent over the next 10 sessions if Trump is elected to the most powerful office in the world.
"Investors don't know what he (Trump) is going to do; the policies he's laid out have been vague and his demeanor is capricious. "Foreign markets, particularly emerging markets, would take most of the brunt. These are markets that rely more on selling to us than us selling to them."
Market turmoil could also prevent the U.S. Federal Reserve from raising interest rates as expected in December. As the chance of a Trump upset grew, global markets plunged, with some losses eclipsing the carnage seen after Britain's shock vote to leave the European Union in late June.
Whatever the outcome, this is a horribly angry electorate," said Daniel Alpert, managing partner at Westwood Capital LLC in New York. "The markets will tank and then, those around Trump who have reasonable minds will script him with some pablum for the markets and calm them.
"But that is not the issue. The issue is that he cannot fulfill the goals of those who are in his crazy inner circle and, at the same time, truly address the interests of those who have risen up against the Washington consensus." Trump was leading Democrat Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College by a tally of 244-209 as of 0440 GMT, with some key swing states still too close to call. A tally of 270 is needed to win.
The dollar, the Mexican peso and crude oil all plunged as Trump gained ground, with U.S. stock futures tumbling nearly 5 percent, likely wiping trillions of dollars of value off global financial markets, while traditional safe havens such as sovereign bonds, the Japanese yen and gold all rallied. Emerging markets such as Mexico and companies related to them such as large U.S. stocks with global exposure are likely to bear the brunt of panic selling, investors forecast.
The MSCI Emerging Markets index plummeted 3.1 percent, its biggest one-day drop since the June 24 Brexit shock. The Mexican peso is seen the bellwether for Trump's chances of a victory as his policies are damaging to Mexico's export-heavy economy. It plunged more than 13 percent to a record low as early projections put the maverick candidate with no political experience ahead.
"We'd probably see a selloff in riskier assets, in particular emerging markets assets, particularly the Mexican peso," said Omer Esiner, chief market analyst at Commonwealth Foreign Exchange in Washington, D.C. "We're seeing that play out right now and I suspect if you see a Trump win we'd be seeing a continuation of something like that."
Trump repairing the bleeding wound, and reigning in deficit increases, negotiating better trade deals to stabilize the U.S. economy, lowering taxes to stimulate private sector businesses and job growth, is "mayhem". No doubt continuing to steer the car over the cliff would be more "stable".
This is just spitefully undermining Trump for winning. Exactly what the media did to George W. Bush in the months from election day until 9-11-2001. The only reason the media relented was because they would have looked like the assholes they are if they continued to attack the President in a time of national crisis amid the worst attack since Pearl Harbor. They waited 6 months, and then resumed their attacks on Bush.
It sounds to me like a good time to buy stocks at lower prices, that will inevitably rise significantly when all this silliness calms down.
I watched a partner of 24 years die of cancer a couple of years ago. A Trump win is a small thing for me. So I'm fine, feel sad for the country though. I fear many of those that voted for Trump are going to get hurt the most in what comes.
A Trump win is a small thing for me. So I'm fine, feel sad for the country though. I fear many of those that voted for Trump are going to get hurt the most in what comes.
As I said to a long time ago, I suspect a President Trump will end up being a lot more moderate than you think and so, yes, I suspect you are right that some of his supporters will be disappointed.
I'm sure disappointment will be there too but when I say hurt I mean poorer with less opportunities to be clear.
Considering a number of Trump's economic policies are actually fairly left-leaning (trade being a good example), that's an interesting prediction coming from you.
No but I'm not going to waste time arguing your spin. I'll grant you that spending will open up and tax cuts for the wealthy will be ushered in. None of it paid for. Remember where we are because I think we're in for a slide with what comes.
Still, I theorized that the level of turnout would be enough to override the fraud and he'd get the popular. I was wrong. So I'll eat that shit sandwich.
We all know however, that if they audit the vote--and I hope the do--there'll be, at least, well over 1.6 million fraudulent votes. And it goes without saying that those votes will all be owned by Clinton.
Looks like she'll win the popular vote. That of course isn't the electoral college. In other news Russia is very happy with Trump
What's interesting to me is that for a while leading up to yesterday, some people were predicting the opposite, namely, that Hillary would lose the popular vote and win the EC and a some conservatives were bemoaning the electoral college.
Just goes to show both sides can be...elastic...with their constitutional principles
And, while I will forever detest Hillary, I will give her some credit for not pulling an Algore and for conceding.
She was a leader in defeat in a way I think Trump can never be as a winner. I would point out that he was already crying that it was a rigged system when he thought he was going to lose. Gore conceded when it became legally impossible for him to win the college.
Congrats, Trump voters. I'm willing to give this a shot, but I do reserve the right to say fuck this shit at any moment. Seriously, while I am skeptical, he at least deserves a chance before twats turn out in the streets to protest him. The butthurt is strong in those kids.
Considering our President elect spent considerable time and energy raising the subject of "rigged" elections does he really deserve a chance? I think the piece of shit should be treated with as much respect as he's shown for others.
We're in this situation because your guys refused to put up anyone other than some old tart who couldn't display a basic range of human emotions or answer one damn question about some of the questions raised late about the emails without trying to Jedi mind trick her way into talking about Russian hackers and tax returns. Like I said about Romney in 2012, this was her election to lose and she lost it mightily. She lost suburban, Oprah watching women for Christ's sake.
He was boisterous, loud, and offensive; but--at least--he showed some emotion and didn't come off as an automaton going through various states of breakdown.
Maybe, instead of bitching and protesting, these people would be better off trying to figure out how they lost Democratic bastions to Donald God damned Trump!
Considering our President elect spent considerable time and energy raising the subject of "rigged" elections does he really deserve a chance? I think the piece of shit should be treated with as much respect as he's shown for others.
Thanks to Wikipedia for being the only place I've been able to find so far that shows the actual total electoral votes for Trump, and isn't hiding behind "too close to call" to avoid posting the real total of 306. Many sites are still showing 274 or 279.
but yeah, that 1.7% really fucked you over, didn't they?
Yes.
Trump needed every single possible vote to beat the rigging. Johnson cucks made it that much more difficult to win and took the popular vote away from Trump.
Granted, in reality, he DID win the popular vote, but that extra 1.7 percent would have taken away the liberals' wedge issue by giving him that much more of a landslide.
The electronic scam worked in Hillary's favor by counting every one vote as 1.2 votes (or somewhere in that range). Meaning that you need landslide numbers to beat it if you don't have the same standard applied to you. The additional votes that went to Gary Retard Johnson would have given that much more umph to his victory. But now the public perception is that she got more votes, and should therefore be the one in office.
Trump won the war mind you. But this maimed his victory somewhat.
Trump needed every single possible vote to beat the rigging. Johnson cucks made it that much more difficult to win and took the popular vote away from Trump.
I love it when you call me dirty words you picked up from Stormfront. <3
The chain is unbroken. That metaphor originated among white nationalists before the alt-right popularized it. It's funny because some of those guys who throw it around the most aggressively would probably pay for the privilege of watching The Donald plow their wives or girlfriends while they watched.
On the contrary, the People who went to infinity during the Dashcon and Gamergate exoduses were the ones who hated the Alt Right and made fun of the stormers.
I didn't post on 4 prior to the Quinn debacle. I went straight to infinity when the Quinn shit storm ensued.
The scapegoating has begun, and the Left desperately needs it.
In fairness there was a scramble to explain why Romney lost in 2012, although I think it was then more a case of trying to understand why it happened, rather than to blame someone. I posted one of the editorials at the time. And the tendency was to blame Romney and his advisors for his failed campaign strategy, rather than voters for not voting for him.
It's also been pointed out that about 1 million black voters who voted in 2012, didn't vote democrat in 2016.
Quote:
Yet Democratic turnout dropped in the 2016 general election: Roughly 7 million fewer Democrats voted than in 2012’s. Despite all the media attention devoted to the Clinton campaign’s “ground game,” the Democratic Party simply failed to mobilize its base of voters and lost to the least popular presidential candidate ever.
verall voter turnout in the election was also quite low, likely reflecting widespread dislike of the candidates. Nearly half of eligible voters, 47 percent, did not vote in the election. Clinton and Trump each attracted about 25 percent of the eligible electorate in a closely divided election.
Perhaps it comes as no surprise then that the Democratic Party that chose to nominate the second-least popular presidential candidate ever — a Wall Street-backed neoliberal millionaire whose foreign-policy views were even more hawkish than those of her Republican rivals — had previously systematically undermined its best chance to defeat Trump.
Internal emails from the Democratic National Committee, released by the whistleblowing journalism organization WikiLeaks, show that the Democratic Party sabotaged Sanders’ campaign on behalf of Clinton.
The DNC is supposed to be bound to impartiality, but clearly favored Clinton from the beginning. In an ensuing scandal after the leaks, four top DNC officials were pressured to resign, including chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a former co-chair for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. Mere minutes after Schultz resigned from the DNC, the 2016 Clinton campaign hired her.
An internal campaign email released by WikiLeaks also demonstrates how the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC intentionally fueled the rise of Trump, helping to create the far-right Frankenstein monster that defeated her.
Even after the Democratic Party betrayed him and undermined his campaign, Sanders, fearing a potential Trump presidency, endorsed Clinton and campaigned for her, alienating many of his supporters.
Yet Sanders also spoke out and warned that the Democratic Party was on the path to disaster. When the U.K. surprisingly voted in June to leave the European Union, in the so-called Brexit vote, Sanders penned an op-ed in The New York Times titled “Democrats Need to Wake Up.”
That "far right Frankenstein monster" is also known as the American people.
Against this screed-writer's own points, between the DNC/Hillary Clinton's betrayal of the Sanders voters, the leaked DNC e-mails of their treachery within their own party, Wikileaks' revealed DNC e-mail racism toward blacks and Hispanics, Hillary believing you need "a public strategy and a private strategy" (i.e, tell the public one thing and then pursue an opposite secret agenda), and the various crimes and treasons of Hillary evident but not prosecuted. millions of DNC previous 2012 voters just couldn't hold their nose and vote for the evil thing we call Hillary Clinton. Blacks, Hispanics, millennials, union workers, Reagan Democrats, displaced coal industry and fossil feul workers all turned from voting Democrat as they did in 2012, and either voted Trump, or stayed home.
The 'bigoted, racist" Donald Trump scored a few percentage points higher among all these racial and demographic groups. Far from exclusive, Trump's voting bloc looks like a cross-section of America! A cross-section tired of the usual race/class demagoguery of the last 8 years, of DNC leaders enabling and stoking cop-killing, of anti-capitalist, job-killing cultural Marxist slop that's being fed to them by the Democrats. They chose this year to feed elsewhere.
Hannity gave a good overview last night of what Trump did today toward transition, and what he needs to do. And the uncivility of the Democrat Left in crybaby protests and one case riot, just because their candidate didn't win :
O'Reilly's opening editorial also summed it up well:
Donald Trump's victory on Tuesday has caused outrage among some Twitter users, including those who have called for the assassination of the president-elect and his vice presidential counterpart, Mike Pence.
Since the race was called early Wednesday morning, angry Americans have flooded the social media platform. "Can someone assassinate Trump and fix this huge mistake," wrote one user on Thursday, echoing the sentiments of others upset by the outcome of the election.
Others have responded by mocking those users, pointing out that if someone were to assassinate Trump, he would simply be succeeded by Pence, whom many consider more ideological. (Video)
The Secret Service does not comment publicly on its protective operations, but threats of assassination on social media have resulted in investigations in the past. As reported by The Atlantic, the organization's "Internet Threat Desk," founded in 2000, handles these kinds of cases and has seen its responsibilities expand in recent years.
The unit, which identifies and assesses online threats against the president, was expanded in 2009 following the inauguration of President Barack Obama.
Mashable reported back in March, before Trump had clinched the Republican nomination, that those making threats against the then-candidate had received calls and visits from the Secret Service.
Anti-Trump sentiments on Twitter mirrored the in-person protests that broke out across the country on Wednesday. Gatherings of protesters were reported in Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, Boston and Portland on Wednesday.
One angry Trump protester in Los Angeles told CNN that she was ready for a civil war. "There will be casualties on both sides. There will be, because people have to die to make a change in this world," she said.
Nice image to expose your young children to, Democrat values at work! Basically advocating lynching or assassination.
I think it's safe to assume that anti-Trump protestors burning American flags, and waving Mexican and/or Soviet flags, hate America. That's beyond hating Trump, and directing hate against America itself.
"Fuera Obama", and hating America, a perfect unison of ideologies.
"FIGHT CAPITALISM". That's again about hating American values, not just hating Trump.
Y'know, maybe brownshirt thugs in the streets trying to slander and intimidate their way to victory, utilizing tactics far more common with Nazis and Leninists, are the ones who are truly "Nazi" and not Trump.
Those wishing to "CONQUER FEAR" don't generally march in a threatening manner, wear the symbol of the Anarchy movement, and hide their faces with hoods and masks. They are generally the ones creating fear.
"MAKE AMERICA MEXICO AGAIN". Yeah, that's not exactly what an immigrant melting into American society would say. She's on the wrong side of the border.
Still, I theorized that the level of turnout would be enough to override the fraud and he'd get the popular. I was wrong. So I'll eat that shit sandwich.
We all know however, that if they audit the vote--and I hope the do--there'll be, at least, well over 1.6 million fraudulent votes. And it goes without saying that those votes will all be owned by Clinton.
This really can't be overstated. In fact, 1.6 million is probably an understatement when you get down deep into the weeds of what really went on at the voting centers.
MLordandGod discusses the full implications of Trump's surge and the mountain of shit he had to dig through to beat the Clinton machine on her own fraudulent terms:
Imagine what the result would be were it not for the Clintons' bullshit tactics.
I don't necessarily agree that Trump doesn't have a mandate (what with the electoral landslide), but it's certainly lessened by the perception that he lost the popular vote--and, for that matter, at least two or three more states that would have been swung (I'm thinking of NV, CO, NH, and possibly MN).
I didn't find that last YouTube video very clear or well made. It has a conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton (backed by George Soros) for some reason felt it would be too much of a reach to steal the election entirely, but felt it would be credible to the public to (1) stack up fake votes that make Hillary win the popular vote, while losing the Electoral College vote. And that (2) having Trump win only the Electoral count while more actual votes (faked) shows Hillary won popular consensus, and thus undermines Trump's mandate to lead the nation.
I don't really buy either premise. I certainly think the Democrats cheat at every opportunity, and two incredibly corrupt successive DNC chairpersons (Wasserman-Schultz, and Brazile) in a row manifests how corrupt the very core of the DNC is, not just one or several persons, but the entire core.
That said, if the Dems could steal the popular vote, they would certainly steal the Electoral College as well if they could. And I fully expect that they stole as much as they could, but still fell short of what they needed to steal because (A) they didn't anticipate such a low black, Hispanic and millennial voter-turnout for the DNC, and (B) they didn't anticipate such a large white, blue collar/union, Reagan-Democrat turnout for Trump!
Originally Posted By: Pariah
I don't necessarily agree that Trump doesn't have a mandate (what with the electoral landslide), but it's certainly lessened by the perception that he lost the popular vote--and, for that matter, at least two or three more states that would have been swung (I'm thinking of NV, CO, NH, and possibly MN).
I'm not at all clear what your point is regarding "NV, CO, NH and possibly MN."
The blue/Democrat-voting areas tend to be crowded urban areas, and rural black areas in the South. And high crime areas. Apparently criminals vote Democrat!
The fraud is made manifest in a combination of three forms: a) illegal aliens, b) "malfunctioning" electronic ballots, and c) programming voting machines to input votes for Hillary as a float rather than an integer.
I don't think I have to explain illegal aliens and duplicate voters.
For the ballots however, counties in Texas and Florida, among other states, reported that Trump's name would either be changed to Hillary at the moment before submission, remove his name completely, or mark down Hillary's name on a straight republican ticket. Many people would probably catch this discrepancy, but some don't, and those are votes for Hillary the fraudulent nature of which cannot be proven without confirming with the voter what choice he made--a logistical nightmare.
Certain machine brands were caught inputting votes for Hillary as a floating point value, a decimal number, whereas Trump's were inputted as integers, whole numbers, as they're supposed to be. Provided the fractional value is small enough, it would give her further padding of, at least, one additional vote for every ten votes, but was probably closer to 1.2 (anymore than that would produce a noticeable discrepancy). In a general election, a would-be cheater has discrepancy window of between 1 and 2 percent before he (she) will get caught (primaries are far more lenient, offering a 5-10% window). That means Hillary's cheating ceiling is between 1.210 million and 2.420 million. Aside from the fact that only a fractional amount of those numbers are required to steal the popular vote, it's important to note that Trump achieved his electoral landslide with the barest of margins at 106 thousand plus votes spread across multiple states. As such, similar margins could have been realized in NV, CO, NH, and MN with either an absence of the large amount of fraudulent votes or an increase of votes that Trump would have otherwise had were it not for the Soros-owned voting machines (he owns Smartmatic).
And then, of course, there were the assholes in Browered and elsewhere who was caught destroying Trump ballots.
Democrats don't have to try and steal the popular votes most of the time of course since California will always give it to them. But they have to assure that the fraudulent votes they manage to sneak by the scrutiny will be evenly divided among the states--within the 2 percent margin of course.
I would add though, that this election is particularly unusual in the level of turnout motivated by Trump. So California or no, it's not improbable to assume that Hillary's now 500 thousand vote popular lead would be erased were she not attempting to operate within a fraudulent margin.
Three million votes in the U.S. presidential election were cast by illegal aliens, according to Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization.
If true, this would mean that Donald Trump still won the contest despite widespread vote fraud and almost certainly won the popular vote.
“We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens,” tweeted Phillips after reporting that the group had completed an analysis of a database of 180 million voter registrations.
“Number of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million. Consulting legal team,” he added.
According to current indications, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by around 630,000 votes, although around 7 million ballots remain uncounted.
Virtually all of the votes cast by 3 million illegal immigrants are likely to have been for Hillary Clinton, meaning Trump might have won the popular vote when this number is taken into account.
Vote fraud using ballots cast in the name of dead people and illegal alien voters was a huge concern before the election.
On the morning of the election there were 4 million dead people on U.S. voter rolls.
Although some states require some form of ID before voting, California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C. all require no identification before voting.
On top of this, less known sites have pointed out that not all absentee ballots have been counted. Historically, that portion of the vote always pulls, at least, 63% republican since its consists primarily of military personnel. They theorize that, even without acknowledging the level of illegal immigrant voter fraud, Trump may have won the popular vote by approximately 700,000 votes regardless.
That's disturbing. I suspected there were a huge ratio of fraudulent votes by various means (as evidenced in links I posted regarding the 2012 election, and with no Justice Dept pushback or price paid, why wouldn't Democrats do the same or worse in the 2016 election?
Some pundits have said that Trump winning proves the system isn't rigged. But the truth is, Trum won in spite of the system being rigged. That Trump would have won the popular vote as well if not for Democrat fraud is something that I didn't think of. Disturbing stuff. This might be the last presidential election Republicans are allowed to win.
Looking at political cartoons of Trump and the election, the cartoonists are so apoplectically angry toward Trump, they seem unable to come up with anything truly funny.
Likewise, this one. The liberal nightmare of Trump's America:
The Nazi theme is rampant among liberal cartoonists on the subject of Trump. But then, so was the W. Bush/Nazi theme 10 years ago. These cartoonists seem oblivious to the fact that it is the Democrats who weaponized FBI, ATF, EPA, OSHA, IRS and other federal agencies against their conservative opponents (Catherine Englebrecht/True The Vote, Frank Vandersloot, EPA/Gibson guitars...) Somehow that never makes a blip on their radar.
Apparently, Democratic Underground's website was recently hacked in a major way. You can read their own posted account of it here. And it still displays some delicious wank-and-cry posted opinions from the Left about Trump's election.
I don't agree with this one, but still thought the idea was well-executed:
Two thoughts: 1. If we accept the cartoonists' premise, every Republican president was a "devolution" from previous ones? Reagan and George HW Bush were "worse" than "Tricky Dick" Nixon? 2. I thought we were told the past eight years that depicting a president as a chimp or ape was racist. So now it's okay again?
O'Reilly in this clip gives a sampling of what Soros is involved in funding, on pretty much a daily basis over several decades...
...but that's really just the tip of the iceberg.
Detailing what Soros is and his multitude of "progressive" think tanks, liberal media mainstream channels and propaganda websites (MediaMatters, etc.) and front groups (such as apparent religious pundits, who are truly undermining and advocating de-Christianizing America)...
...is a plan to overthrow the U.S. as a sovereign Constitutional republic, and enslave us into a globalist system, destroy our nationalism through massive waves of both legal and illegal immigration, compromise our borders, melt us (penultimately) into a North American Union, and (ultimately) into a globalist system, where the U.S. no longer has the ability to independently act diplomatically, economically or militarily in the world, to in any way resist the globalist elites Soros is part of. Crushing the U.S.'s ability to even act in self-preservation.
In WikiLeaks e-mails just before election day, Clinton aides Jennifer Palmieri and John Podesta openly discussed setting up a fake Catholic front group (liberal secularist progressives, fronting themselves to be grassroots Catholics, demanding change in Catholic policy inconvenient to liberal progressives) as a way to leverage liberal/progressive/anti-Catholic change within the Catholic church through typical deceptive progressive/Marxist insurrection tactics.
Radio host Todd Kincannon from The Kincannon Show tweeted today that a CNN reporter told him Hillary Clinton became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight last Tuesday as the presidency was slipping away.
Quote:
CNN reporter tells me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained.
— The Kincannon Show (@kincannon_show) November 14, 2016
Hillary Clinton did not make it on stage that night. She sent John Podesta out instead.
Hillary was drunk.
Quote:
She was. I posted about that too. She was in a "psychotic drunken rage" according to my reporter friend. Doctor added sedatives to the mix. https://t.co/jZv376ydDM — The Kincannon Show (@kincannon_show) November 15, 2016
e reporter said CNN would not publish the story!
Quote:
The CNN reporter didn't fail to report it. His editors would not let him. CNN has banned all "Hillary in the bunker" stories.
— The Kincannon Show (@kincannon_show) November 15, 2016
The nation really dodged a bullet on November 8th.
I included this for the George Soros perspective. But the black Captain America social justice warrior fighting for PC against whites is new to me, and could warrant a topic all its own.
BUSINESS INSIDER Rebecca Harrington, Nov 20th 2016 4:00AM
Thousands of people have taken to the streets in the week since the election, outraged that Donald Trump is the new president-elect.
Since Hillary Clinton likely won the popular vote, over 4 million have signed a petition to encourage the Electoral College to make Clinton president instead.
The electors will gather at their state capitols in December, and vote to formally make Trump the 45th president.
With so many citizens calling on the Electoral College to choose Clinton, and some electors even saying they will switch their votes, could it happen?
HOW DOES THE ELECTORAL VOTE STAND RIGHT NOW?
Each state has an elector for every congressperson they have, plus D.C. gets three, resulting in 538 people in the Electoral College.
Trump won the popular vote in 30 states, plus one of Maine's districts (which, along with Nebraska, splits up its electors by district), giving him 290 electoral votes. Michigan's results still aren't official, but given that Trump only needed 270 to win, it doesn't really matter.
While Clinton won almost 1 million more votes than he did overall because she carried population-heavy states like California and New York, she only won the popular vote in 19 states plus D.C. — giving her 232 electoral votes.
HOW WOULD ELECTING CLINTON WORK?
Members of the Electoral College who decide to go against their state laws or traditions telling them who to vote for are quite ominously called "faithless electors."
They're pretty rare in modern political history. Thomas H. Neale, an expert in American government and the electoral college for the Congressional Research Service, found that only eight electors have been faithless since 1900.
Only electors from the party that won the popular vote get to cast their ballots in December, so only Republican electors will vote in the states that Trump won, and only Democratic electors in the states Clinton carried.
If Trump wins Michigan as he's projected to do, Clinton would need 38 electors to vote for her instead. And if she carries the state, Clinton would need 22 electors to flip.
"Even if Michigan's 16 electors went to Clinton, it would still be 290-248, and that's a lot of electors," Neale told Business Insider. "That would require a lot of electors to change their mind."
WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF IT ACUALLY HAPPENING?
Several barriers are in place preventing electors from turning "faithless."
First, Neale said, 30 states plus D.C. have laws on the books "binding" their electors to vote for the candidate who won the state's popular vote. Punishments for becoming a faithless elector range from paying a fine to being replaced with an elector who will follow the rules.
Trump has 155 unbound electoral votes, so there are technically enough electors who could decide to vote for Clinton who wouldn't get punished legally for it.
Second, electors are usually selected by the political parties in each state, Neale said. Because at least 290 electors voting in December will be Republicans, the petitioners encouraging them to vote for Clinton instead would have to convince them to abandon their party.
"The important point here to realize is these are all party loyalists, and they are pretty carefully vetted," Neale said. "Part of that is because there have been the occasional faithless electors in the past who have been an embarrassment to the party, and they want to make sure they avoid it."
A few electors have spoken out about being faithless (they call it being "moral"), but unfortunately for Clinton, they've said they plan to write in former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, or Sen. Bernie Sanders' name.
But members of Congress can formally protest any faithless elector votes, and have them thrown out, when they officially count the ballots in a joint session on January 6, 2017.
"One of my legal colleagues suggests that the joint session is the 'break glass in case of emergency' — it's the last line of defense against an election that may have been corrupted in some way," Neale said.
Finally, history isn't on Clinton's side.
"The argument can always be made that, 'Well, Sec. Clinton won the popular election and therefore she should win the presidency.' This is the core argument of the direct popular election reform movement to eliminate the electoral college," Neale said. "But that argument has been raised time and time again, and Congress hasn't acted on this proposal since 1979."
Plus, the few times faithless electors have gone against their party's nominee, they've never swung an election.
... in the closing panel Fridays on Special Report (their 6PM flagship news broadcast), they always pick political "winners" and "losers" for the week. One winner picked by Tom Rogan (on Friday, Nov 18, 2016) was Pat Buchanan, saying that the issues Buchanan has championed since 1992 are basically the issues that got Trump elected. And that a Trump administration is essentially the next best thing to a Pat Buchanan administration.
Needless to say, I couldn't possibly be more pleased with that notion.
Stein has apparently developed a sense of scrupulosity and concern-trolling. She has raised close to 4.2 million dollars in the span of a few days--just in time for the Friday deadline--to pay for the filing fees that will cover a recount in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. By PURE COINCIDENCE, she has chosen only states that Donald Trump won and would only INCIDENTALLY hand the race to Hilldawg assuming the recounts turn up Hillary wins as a result.
Suffice it to say, the details of her demand are suspicious--only by PURE COINCIDENCE of course--in that she was raising $160 thousand every hour. Someone managed to trace the influx of funds to a bot, most likely run by Soros. This also comes on the heals of "expert programmers" and "election lawyers" urging Killary to call for a recount even after her concession. Surely, we cannot assume that Hilldawg would use Stein as a proxy so that she wouldn't look like an idiot.....No we couldn't possibly assume that.
We also couldn't assume that the Green Party is controlled opposition leveraged by Soros...
Warning, Spoiler:
Jill Stein's running mate, Ajamu Baraka, has worked for at least two organisations funded by Soros
"Funding for the network and its Geneva submission apparently comes from the Human Rights Fund, an umbrella group whose steering committee of philanthropies include the Ford >Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Overbrook Foundation and an anonymous donor."
__
Now, this raises a few questions. Mainly why anyone would consider (((Stein))) a credible alternative to Clinton, when they're both getting paid by the same lobbyist billionaire.
It also casts doubt on any positions Stein and Baraka hold that'd be contrary to Soros' agenda. Like their support for Palestine/BDS, and their statements against the Soros-backed coup in Ukraine, and the corrupt Junta in Kiev.
Controlled opposition? Would be an explanation why Soros is indirectly funding them.
Let's take a closer look on the so-called US Human Rights Network:
Quote:
"What they apparently share, according to their mammoth Human Rights Council submission, is a militant vision of the U.S. as a malignant force."
"The organization seeks "to challenge the pernicious belief that the United States is inherently superior to other countries of the world"
Well, oy vey, goyim, don't you dare being proud of your country!
That sounds more like something everyone's favourite Social Justice Merchant would come up with.
Now, Soros also has well-known ties to "Blacklivesmatter", something else that ties him directly to (((Jill Stein))):
In conclusion, Baraka is Soros' personal stooge, BLM are useful idiots, and nothing the Green Party does can be taken at face value.
They're dancing to the tune of the Open Society Foundatiion.
....Nah, that couldn't possibly be true. And we definitely CANNOT ASSUME that all of these PURE COINCIDENCES are designed to try and de-legitimize Trump's win as well as line the Green Party members' pockets. That's clearly an absurdity.
It's not really a surprise that Jill Stein's crew has connections to George Soros.
It's a clear collaborative effort between Stein and the Clinton campaign. But even the most liberal in the media say it's sour graapes, and a recount doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of changing the election.
In other news, Michigan FINALLY conceded its electoral votes to Donald Trump, after a few weeks of shaving down Trump's lead.
Jill Stein, collaborating with Hillary on the re-count, is the same Jill Stein who 3 weeks ago said Hillary would start World War III, and that Trump was less scary by comparison?
Mayhaps Jill Stein is a rogue agent (considering she criticized Clinton as being the war candidate) and she's in cahoots with Trump to push this recount effort to make Hilldawg look like an idiot who's obviously in cahoots with Stein and Soros to try and steal the election. Thus, this situation gives Trump the greenlight to bring up the fact that millions of people voted illegally in Hillary's favor, more than likely diminishing what could have been a stronger republican majority in the process--not to mention a bigger landslide in the Electoral College and a Trump-owned popular vote.
In which case, Stein either got Trump to fund her effort OR duped Soros into feeding her money. In response, the Clinton campaign may very well be shitting bricks at the prospect that an unsupervised recount will expose fraud on her end, thus motivating her to stick her campaign's oar into the creek in the interest of "insuring fairness".
Wisconsin has already uncovered yet more votes for Trump that weren't previously counted.
The complete reversal by Jill Stein regarding Hillary Clinton's candidacy makes almost any explanation possible.
In the case of Michigan I listed above, delaying the release of Michigan's state vote totals reduced Trump's 13,000 vote lead down to about 10,500. This is the kind of Democrat vote-counting delay that gave Al Franken a senate seat.
The possibility that Stein might use a recount to put the screws to Soros and Hillary, using their own financial backing, would be a beautiful scenario.
The complaint contends that Stein only received 31,006 votes in Wisconsin — so Clinton is the only person who could benefit from a recount.
The complaint also alleges Clinton appears to have illegally helped Stein raise nearly $7 million for the recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan — double the amount Stein raised for her own presidential campaign. It says the Clinton campaign also emailed supporters looking for volunteers to help the recount, something Stein’s campaign didn’t do.
There's a lot of exposure given to the Harvard-sponsored debate between Jennifer Palmieri and Kelly Ann Conway, where Conway wiped the floor with Palmieri.
Something Conway pointed out is the collective liberal media focused entirely on the electoral votes leading up to election day, selling us the inevitability of Hillary's election, due to the 244 "guaranteed" electoral votes (which didn't happen) and the "blue wall" of PA, OH, WI, MI (which didn't happen). The liberal media focused entirely on the electoral votes. Now that Hillary lost, their focus is entirely on the popular vote, the portion that Hillary won while losing the actual election.
Conway also destroyed Palmieri and the other guy's notion that Trump didn't have a mandate, pointing out that beyond Trump's electoral victory, the Republicans also won 34 state governor offices, gained 60 Congressional seats, and gained 12 Senate seats during Obama's presidency, plus GOP control of thousands of other seats in state legislatures nationwide. Which manifests an overwhelming mandate for change from what the Democrats have put in place.
If a mandate means the support of the people, Trump has no mandate since more people voted for the other person. He and the GOP did well electorally via gerrymandering and the electoral college but it's a result that doesn't reflect the will of the people.
If that's how elections were done, M E M, then candidates would only campaign in a few large cities, like New York city, L.A., San Francisco and Chicago. And the rest of the country would be ignored. With the electoral college, all areas are represented, and aren't shut out by a few tiny concentrated blue areas of the country.
Whether you like it or not, the rest of the country does matter, M E M. And Trump played by the rules, and won fair and square by those rules, despite every dirty trick and corruption by the vile core leadership of the DNC and Hillary campaign.
Re-read what I wrote above. Trump and the Republicans do have a mandate, not just by Trump's election, but also by the landslide of seats the GOP picked up in the Senate, Congress, elected state Governors, and state and local legislators.
And after every other deception and dirty trick unleashed by the Democrats, what makes you so sure that Democrats didn't rig the popular vote? Oh, that's right. Rules don't matter to you, only that your side wins, by whatever deceitful means.
Something Conway pointed out is the collective liberal media focused entirely on the electoral votes leading up to election day, selling us the inevitability of Hillary's election, due to the 244 "guaranteed" electoral votes (which didn't happen) and the "blue wall" of PA, OH, WI, MI (which didn't happen). The liberal media focused entirely on the electoral votes.
Now that Hillary lost, their focus is entirely on the popular vote, the portion that Hillary won while losing the actual election.
Obamatard had a really choice quote some months back in response to Trump's charge that the vote and the polls was being rigged.
He essentially said that Trump would only have a valid argument of fraud if he won despite being so low in the polls.
I really wish I could find it now.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
If a mandate means the support of the people, Trump has no mandate since more people voted for the other person. He and the GOP did well electorally via gerrymandering and the electoral college but it's a result that doesn't reflect the will of the people.
How in the motherfuck could you claim that the GOP is guilty of gerrymandering? Is this Bizarro world, or what?
In any event, Trump's political siege has overseen the manifestation of nation-wide majorities in congress, state legislatures, and governorship. That is a mandate. The GOP is a hair's breadth away from being able to pass, theoretically, constitutional amendments.
Even if I were to accommodate Clinton's millions of fraudulent voters as an argument, we are not a democracy. We're a Federalist Republic. While I haven't been a fan of federalism for quite some time, the Electoral College is the only means by which to fairly give every respective state--and the various cultures housed within them--a say over the direction of the country under such a system. What you propose would be a tyranny of the minority since all one would need is a single over-proportionately populous state to decide the fate of every other state in the union. That is bullshit. We are a collection of fifty sovereign states. Not a superstate with fifty provinces.
Yeah, don't really care about your politically motivated accusations. The piece of shit got less votes and so doesn't reflect the will of the people. Don't worry though he'll still able to fuck the country up and get lots of us killed without a mandate.
Whatever you care to believe about the Clinton and her campaign's "honesty", you cannot ignore the fact that we are NOT A FUCKING SUPERSTATE. We are not a Tolkienian system in which we prop up one state to rule them all. The word for that is "tyranny".
The day that we decide the popular vote is all that matters is the day that we are no longer a republic. And quite frankly, neither you or your ilk put any emphasis on the popular vote prior to the election. It is only now, after competing for--and losing--the Electoral College votes, that you libshits are raising a stink about it. That makes you look particularly foolish.
Clinton unlike Drumf, got more votes than the other candidates. Time magazine probably wouldn't have had mandate in a cover story otherwise. It would look foolish trying to claim a mandate with a candidate that received less of the popular vote yes?
Not surprised you feel that way. You're pretty partisan. Here for example you render the word mandate meaningless because the popular vote went to the democrat.
In any event, getting back to the recount, I understand that as of today the net result is Trump has a net GAIN of six votes over the total on election night.
I hope you didn't donate too much to the recount MEM.
Michigan votes in areas that voted for Hillary Clinton have been inflated due to worker error disqualifying recounts under state law.
Michigan officials say they can not reconcile vote counts in 610 of 1,680 precincts, or 59% of the precincts, in Michigan’s largest county , Wayne County, which Hillary won by a margin of 2 to 1 over Donald Trump because the original vote counts in the poll books do not match the number of votes in the machine printout reports.
Specifically, the number of votes recorded by the voting machines were higher than the number of voters that were logged into to vote in these precincts.
In many cases Canvassers say there were aware of the discrepancies in the original vote counts but gave no explanation for the why counts did not match up but certified the original election counts anyway.
Now officials are mainly blaming the discrepancy on jams in the optical ballots in the scanners which forced workers to run the same ballots through the machines more than once.
To prevent a ballot scanned multiple times from being counted as more than one vote poll workers were supposed to adjust the machine counters but officials stated the workers failed to do so in many cases.
They also state in more rare cases there could have been issues with people not having identification being manually placed in boxes or rare human errors such as sealing the wrong number of votes for certification due to transposing numbers.
Michigan state law requires precincts which poll books don’t match to be excluded from the recount and if the recount results can’t be certified, which requires reconciliation of the counts, the original certified results stand.
Issues due to human error, such as sealing the wrong number of votes in the original certification should be easily reconciled during a hand recount but in the precincts in question they are unable to reconcile the votes.
The discrepancy was only uncovered yesterday after an Obama appointed judge issued a midnight ruling ordering a hand recount in Michigan on Sunday.
Despite state law requiring the votes be disqualified election officials are fighting to keep the counts included and believe that not all of the 392 precincts will be excluded from the final recount.
There are also discrepancies in other counties Clinton carried but they are not as widespread as Detroit
Clinton carried Genesee County, which includes Flint, where so far 13 of 222 precincts are reported with invalid results but officials certified the results there as well.
Officials in Ingham reported six of their 30 precincts from Lansing including a ballot box with a hole in it which could have been used to slip in fraudulent ballots or remove legitimate ones.
Votes in Rochester Hills precinct 11 in Oakland county have been disqualified after more ballots were found in the machine logs than were actually in the ballot box. Workers could offer no explanation other than it didn’t match in the original certified results and it doesn’t match now before conceding that the precinct is not recountable.
I'm starting to believe that theory a whole lot more.
Especially since, mayhaps, this is not simply a vie for honesty and an attempt to expose how Stein, herself, was cheated, but also to expose the corruption of the Democratic Party and possibly have the Green party inherit the DEM voter base as a result.
More bad news for Democrats— Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s Michigan recount unintentionally exposed this major voting fraud scandal.
In Detroit, one of the chief ways they engage in voter fraud is to count the same ballot MULTIPLE times. This is just ONE way. They also do some shady stuff with absentee ballots etc.
Once they started the Michigan recount in earnest, and knowing he would be exposed, the Detroit City Clerk Daniel Baxter all of a sudden started claiming that the optical scanners which read the paper ballots did not work the day of the election. Baxter blamed the discrepancies on decade-old voting machines. That is his cover story. Nothing like this was mentioned until he realized their voting fraud scheme would be detected.
Baxter’s claim is that, when trying to push the ballots through the readers, the ballots would be stuck and they’d have to push them through again thus ‘ACCIDENTALLY’ resulting in a double count. He says the poll workers sometimes ‘FORGET’ to adjust the machine count and instead let the ballot count twice.
And, it’s much worse than that. In one Detroit Precinct, a recount team was given a box of ballots with an unbroken seal where everything appeared proper and in place. The tag on the box said there were 306 ballots. The book said 306, and the ticket said 306, so that means there should be 306 paper ballots on the box. When they pulled out the ballots, there were exactly FIFTY paper ballots in a locked sealed box that again was supposed to have 306. The official canvasser approved count for this precinct was 306. For FIFTY ballots.
It looks like Detroit counts each vote more than SIX TIMES! No wonder they get such high turnout rates!
Ken Crider, who helped with the recount in Cobo Hall in Detroit, posted this on Facebook last night. Ken said a ballot box in Detroit had been tampered with — and that each vote was counted SIX TIMES!
Barring more conflicting information, I'm prepared to call Jill Stein a genius. As a Green, she's still technically on Soros' payroll, but apparently she cares more about the party than the agenda of its sponsorship. She, like everyone else, knew that Hilldawg rigged the vote--using the various methods I mentioned prior. As such, she also knew that, because of the rig, it was all but certain that the Green Party would be robbed of the 5% threshold that would qualify it for federal funding in future elections (incidentally, the Libertardian party was most assuredly robbed as well).
Keeping this in mind, as well as her previous criticism directed toward Shillary, we have sufficient evidence to reason her motives as going beyond an attempt to undermine Trump. All the same however, if she started any recounts in Killary-won states, it would be a very unpopular move, and she would be immediately shot down. So what's the alternative? Three Trump-won states. The only perceived goal of a recount would be to undermine Trump. In which case, any attempt to crowd-source for this seemingly pro-Hillary recount strategy would attract the open wallets of zealous liberals who're still butthurt over the loss--perhaps even Soros himself, which would explain the bot donating so much cash.
And this turns out to be the real reason that Killary's campaign insinuated itself into the recount effort: to keep people from finding out the truth. But apparently, it wasn't enough.
My question: did Trump have foreknowledge of Stein's move all along? Did he, perhaps, help fund the operation, assuming he knew?
A federal judge on Monday issued a stinging rejection of a Green Party-backed request to recount paper ballots in Pennsylvania's presidential election, won by Republican Donald Trump, and scan some counties' election systems for signs of hacking.
In his 31-page decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said there were at least six grounds that required him to reject the Green Party's lawsuit, which had been opposed by Trump, the Pennsylvania Republican Party and the Pennsylvania attorney general's office.
Suspicion of a hacked Pennsylvania election "borders on the irrational" while granting the Green Party's recount bid could "ensure that that no Pennsylvania vote counts" given Tuesday's federal deadline to certify the vote for the Electoral College, Diamond wrote.
"Most importantly, there is no credible evidence that any 'hack' occurred, and compelling evidence that Pennsylvania's voting system was not in any way compromised," Diamond wrote. He also said the lawsuit suffered from a lack of standing, potentially the lack of federal jurisdiction and an "unexplained, highly prejudicial" wait before filing last week's lawsuit.
The decision was the Green Party's latest roadblock in Pennsylvania after hitting numerous walls in county and state courts. Green Party-backed lawyers argue that it was possible that computer hackers changed the election outcome and that Pennsylvania's heavy use of paperless machines makes it a prime target. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein also contended that Pennsylvania has erected unconstitutional barriers to voters seeking a recount.
It is part of a broader effort by Stein to recount votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Trump won all three states narrowly over Democrat Hillary Clinton, while Stein captured about 1 percent of the vote, or less, in all three states.
In Pennsylvania, Trump beat Clinton in Pennsylvania by about 44,000 votes out of 6 million cast.
A federal judge halted Michigan's recount last week after three days. The Wisconsin recount was expected to conclude Monday. With about 95 percent of the votes recounted as of Sunday, Clinton had gained 25 votes on Trump, but still trailed by about 22,000.
Well, the Democrats (and their allies in the media), have tried multiple post-election campaigns to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's presidential election victory:
1) Blaming James Comey for re-opening his investigation of Hillary 11 days before the election. (Then closing it again a few days later.) 2) Obsessing over Hillary's winning the popular vote, despite her losing the electoral vote. (Even though there's some persuasive evidence Hillary rigged the popular vote. Just as she rigged her victory over Bernie Sanders, rigged the debates by knowing the questions in advance, etc., etc.) 3) In collaboration with Jill Stein, demanding a re-count, which again didn't go Hillary's way, and in some cases showed even more votes for Trump in the re-count. 4) Now they're selling the narrative that "The Russians wanted Trump to win", and implying if not outright saying that Trump was openly colluding with the Russians to do so. But there's no evidence that Russian hacking attempts had any effect on the election, regardless of their intent. The Russians didn't piss off voters by vowing to destroy the coal industry, Hillary did. The Russians didn't skip campaigning in Ohio and Pennsylvania, arrogantly complacent in her assured victories there, Hillary did. The Russians didn't rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders, didn't pay front-men $1,500 each to start violence at Trump rallies, didn't cheat in the debates by getting the questions in advance. Hillary did.
The latest effort to discredit Trump's election victory is 5) harassing and intimidating electors into not voting for Trump as they are obligated by law to do. In some cases, even making death threats at electors if they vote for Trump. A nice glimpse of what Hillary's Reich would have been like, had she won. No one ever so richly deserved to lose, like Frau Hitlery deserved to lose. And to anyone not already part of the indoctrinated Left, that is increasingly obvious.
ELECTION THERAPY FROM MY BASKET OF DEPLORABLES by Maureen Dowd
Quote:
The election was a complete repudiation of Barack Obama: his fantasy world of political correctness, the politicization of the Justice Department and the I.R.S., an out-of-control E.P.A., his neutering of the military, his nonsupport of the police and his fixation on things like transgender bathrooms. Since he became president, his party has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 14 governorships.
The country had signaled strongly in the last two midterms that they were not happy. The Dems’ answer was to give them more of the same from a person they did not like or trust.
Preaching — and pandering — with a message of inclusion, the Democrats have instead become a party where incivility and bad manners are taken for granted, rudeness is routine, religion is mocked and there is absolutely no respect for a differing opinion. This did not go down well in the Midwest, where Trump flipped three blue states and 44 electoral votes.
The rudeness reached its peak when Vice President-elect Mike Pence was booed by attendees of “Hamilton” and then pompously lectured by the cast. This may play well with the New York theater crowd but is considered boorish and unacceptable by those of us taught to respect the office of the president and vice president, if not the occupants.
Here is a short primer for the young protesters. If your preferred candidate loses, there is no need for mass hysteria, canceled midterms, safe spaces, crying rooms or group primal screams. You might understand this better if you had not received participation trophies, undeserved grades to protect your feelings or even if you had a proper understanding of civics. The Democrats are now crying that Hillary had more popular votes. That can be her participation trophy.
If any of my sons had told me they were too distraught over a national election to take an exam, I would have brought them home the next day, fearful of the instruction they were receiving. Not one of the top 50 colleges mandate one semester of Western Civilization. Maybe they should rethink that.
Mr. Trump received over 62 million votes, not all of them cast by homophobes, Islamaphobes, racists, sexists, misogynists or any other “ists.” I would caution Trump deniers that all of the crying and whining is not good preparation for the coming storm. The liberal media, both print and electronic, has lost all credibility. I am reasonably sure that none of the mainstream print media had stories prepared for a Trump victory. I watched the networks and cable stations in their midnight meltdown — embodied by Rachel Maddow explaining to viewers that they were not having a “terrible, terrible dream” and that they had not died and “gone to hell.”
The media’s criticism of Trump’s high-level picks as “not diverse enough” or “too white and male” — a day before he named two women and offered a cabinet position to an African-American — magnified this fact.
Here is a final word to my Democratic friends. The election is over. There will not be a do-over. So let me bid farewell to Al Sharpton, Ben Rhodes and the Clintons. Note to Cher, Barbra, Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham: Your plane is waiting. And to Jon Stewart, who talked about moving to another planet: Your spaceship is waiting. To Bruce Springsteen, Jay Z, Beyoncé and Katy Perry, thanks for the free concerts. And finally, to all the foreign countries that contributed to the Clinton Foundation, there will not be a payoff or a rebate.
As Eddie Murphy so eloquently stated in the movie “48 Hrs.”: “There’s a new sheriff in town.” And he is going to be here for 1,461 days. Merry Christmas.
Yes, you read the name correctly. That scathing critique of the Left was by Maureen Dowd!
Dowd hates Clinton, that's a column she's been writing in different variations for probably the last decade. I found our CIA and FBI reports much more interesting but since it amounts to Putin helping elect Trump to weaken us, it's something you won't ever accept as true.
Just for the sake of argument, assume that Putin had the power to elect one candidate over another. Why didn't he Putin (if he thought Hillary was such a threat), not knock her out in the primary so that he'd have either Trump or Bernie "the Socialist Peacenik" Sanders?
I think Putin used what he had in the best strategic way. Remember Wikileaks intentionally timed the leaks to do the most damage. In other news republicans are starting to increasingly warming up to Putin more.
I understand that you're still reeling from your girl's crushing, and in all likelihood, final defeat. As such, you need to find some excuse to explain it.
However, even if accept as true that Russia hacked the DNC and attempted to influence the election, there is not one scintilla of evidence that it did, in fact, affect the outcome.
First off, as reported in the Wall St. Journal, there was an attempt to hack the RNC as well. But it failed. It failed because the RNC had tighter security and cooperated with the FBI in stopping the hack. The DNC, conversely, did not.
Second, the emails weren't fake. And they were largely the kind of "insider baseball" that journalists find interesting for a day or two but generally don't hold much sway with the general public. Indeed, as leftists are quick to point out, Hillary won the popular vote. If, as you know claim, the emails were turning off voters she wouldn't have done so.
The bottom line here is that Hillary lost because she got overconfident, thought she had about three states "in the bag" that weren't and Trump was able to peel off just enough of the white working class vote in those states to take the electoral college. Even Bill has more or less admitted that.
President Obama is blaming his party's electoral losses this year on Democrats' failure to "show up" and make their argument all around the country.
In an interview with NPR broadcast Monday, the president said the country has a "scrambled political landscape."
"There are some things that we know are a challenge for Democrats — structural problems," he said.
Obama noted that Democratic voters are often clustered in urban areas and on the coasts. "So as a consequence, you've got a situation where there're not only entire states but also big chunks of states where, if we're not showing up, if we're not in there making an argument, then we're going to lose," he said.
"And we can lose badly, and that's what happened in this election."
Putin helped depress the turnout for Clinton though. You guys were having orgasms when Wikileaks timed the releases but it was Russia cupping your balls
Putin helped depress the turnout for Clinton though...when Wikileaks timed the releases...
As you have just admitted, Wikileaks timed the releases, not Putin.
Even if one were to concede that the leaks (as opposed to your other whipping boy, Comey)(or even Jill Stein) depressed turnout, Putin didn't time them.
Accordingly, there is no way for Putin to have "depressed the turnout" in the manner you described.
You "forgot" that Russia supplied Wikileaks with the material.
No. They didn't.
Whistleblowers have admitted on multiple occasions that IT WAS OUR OWN PEOPLE THAT DID THE HACKING and then gave it to Wikileaks for them to disseminate.
How is it that I have to remind a liberal that it wasn't the Red Menace? Seriously, you and your ilk are channeling Joe McCarthy pretty damn hard right now.
And Trump wins the Electoral College soundly, although with 2 protest votes taking away from his score. In the end, he still ended up 304.
The only thing left now is inauguration. In which case, either he's killed off or Soetoro declares war on Russia to cover up His and Killary's offenses.
Let's not forget that the FBI has reopened the CF investigation. Assuming Obama doesn't preemptively pardon her, that could be the fourth nail in her coffin.
Well, the Democrats (and their allies in the media), have tried multiple post-election campaigns to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's presidential election victory:
1) Blaming James Comey for re-opening his investigation of Hillary 11 days before the election. (Then closing it again a few days later.) 2) Obsessing over Hillary's winning the popular vote, despite her losing the electoral vote. (Even though there's some persuasive evidence Hillary rigged the popular vote. Just as she rigged her victory over Bernie Sanders, rigged the debates by knowing the questions in advance, etc., etc.) 3) In collaboration with Jill Stein, demanding a re-count, which again didn't go Hillary's way, and in some cases showed even more votes for Trump in the re-count. 4) Now they're selling the narrative that "The Russians wanted Trump to win", and implying if not outright saying that Trump was openly colluding with the Russians to do so. But there's no evidence that Russian hacking attempts had any effect on the election, regardless of their intent. The Russians didn't piss off voters by vowing to destroy the coal industry, Hillary did. The Russians didn't skip campaigning in Ohio and Pennsylvania, arrogantly complacent in her assured victories there, Hillary did. The Russians didn't rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders, didn't pay front-men $1,500 each to start violence at Trump rallies, didn't cheat in the debates by getting the questions in advance. Hillary did.
The latest effort to discredit Trump's election victory is 5) harassing and intimidating electors into not voting for Trump as they are obligated by law to do. In some cases, even making death threats at electors if they vote for Trump. A nice glimpse of what Hillary's Reich would have been like, had she won. No one ever so richly deserved to lose, like Frau Hitlery deserved to lose. And to anyone not already part of the indoctrinated Left, that is increasingly obvious.
Added to that about 2 weeks ago:
6) Democrat partisans tried to obstruct/intimidate/threaten the Electoral College representatives from voting as they are bound to vote by the voters they represent, in their state district voter totals. But Hillary lost here again, Trump lost 2 electoral votes, Hillary lost 5.
And today, the very last obstacle:
7) The electoral votes were announced and tallied on the House floor in Washington DC. To which Vice President Biden finally had to talk over and stop their spiteful defiance of the rule of law, and say "It's over!"
This, from the very last few minutes of the very last episode of Megyn Kelly's show, as she leaves Fox News to take a position for NBC. The exchange with Biden on the Congressional floor demonstrates that Democrats have no respect for the system and rule of law, their only goal is obstruction, slander, and whatever bending of the rules will bring them to power (fruitlessly this time), and even failing, relentlessly try to smear the legitimacy of Trump's administration, who ACTUALLY WON THE ELECTION! DESPITE every dirty trick and obstruction by Democrats. DESPITE the false narratives that will continue by the Obama administration, that Trump's victory is somehow won by a false narrative and a product of Russian tampering, and not by Trump winning on addressing the issues voters really care about, and by campaigning 5 times as much as Hillary every day across the country, for months! That Hillary's failure is in truth a product of her own corruption, exposed by WikiLeaks, Project Veritas, and both conservative and mainstream media.
Every spiteful America-hating kneejerk tendency of the Democrat Left is on full display. And despite it all, every last dirty trick, they failed. AGAIN!
And by "America hating", I mean the open contempt of Democrats for the process and our Constitutional rule of law. Democrats have proven this year, like in no other election, that they don't care about free speech, about the will of the voters, and about the Constitutional protections of that. Democrats have demonstrated their contempt for our republic, that all they care about is whatever manipulation of the system will give them power.
And as the last 8 years have demonstrated, when given power, how Democrats will abuse that power at every opportunity, and weaponize it against Republican dissenters. No better example than the IRS targeting Tea Party and religious conservative groups, and auditing prominent Republican campaign donors like Gibson Guitars, True The Vote, Catherine Englebrecht, and Frank Vandersloot. And likewise targeting them for harassment/intimidation using FBI, ATF, OSHA, EPA and other federal agencies. That no Democrat has voiced opposition to this incredible abuse of federal power in the last 4 years freezes my blood.
Liberals have threatened the electoral voters for simply doing their jobs and voting in accordance with their constituents! Liberals even threaten any entertainer who would perform at Trump's inauguration! A Democrat power structure that generates that kind of threat and fear needs to be destroyed and neutralized. I'm elated these evil bastards were denied power and rejected by the American people.
I loved how Trump blasted back at Buzzfeed and CNN yesterday in his first news conference since his election. He rightly chastised the media bias, and Hillary/Obama/Democrat partisan elements in the intelligence community who leaked this half-baked story to the media.
An important consideration of Obama's 53% approval rating is the way --for over 8 years!!-- the Obama adoring media has pumped him up, gushed over his every word, and shielded him from stories that incredibly, over 8 years later, have never adequately been reported despite overwhelming evidence. Such as Barack Obama's ties to William Ayers. Such as his Cultural Marxist radicalism, hostile to the very fundamentals of our Constitution and free market capitalist system, and his hostility toward our military, diplomatic and economic hegemonic influence in the world as a superpower, which he has sought his entire presidency to damage and diminish. Such as Obama's ties to Jeremiah Wright and belief in liberation theology. Such as Obama's anti-colonialism, that again is clear in his destruction from within, as president, of U.S. military and diplomatic influence, siding against Mubarek in Egypt, supportingthe Arab Spring, that collapsed U.S. influence in the Mid East.
Such as Obama's stoking racial tensions, endorsing as somehow legitimate the Black Lives Matter movement, that has resulted in cops shot and killed nationwide in recent months. Such as Obama ***NOT*** intervening, ever, to free two Marines imprisoned unjustly in Mexican prisons. Who in spite of Obama, eventually regained their freedom. Likewise Obama's ignoring the shooting of a military recruiter, until Obama was shamed into making an obligatory token mention long after the fact. Such as the deception that has surrounded the passing of Obamacare every step of the way, clearly planned as a Trojan horse, that would require a bailout and conversion to a single-payer system, which was always the intended final goal. Abundantly clear in Obama's stated preference for a single payer system (in video recorded comments) long before Obamacare's passing, a deception reliant on "the stupidity of the American voter" (as clearly said by Jonathan Gruber, repeatedly, on video) and the media's flying cover for the deception.
All these scandals and more, with low-hanging fruit that would make their proving Obama's radicalism and destruction to the nation easy, the media ignores. But CNN and other partisan media leaps at half-baked trash stories about Trump with the Russians, in a media attempt to destroy Trump's presidency before it begins.
The Democrat/liberal media attempt to destroy Trump's presidency before it begins continues. in the last week with representative John Lewis (D- GA) saying Trump is an "illegitimate president" and he would not attend Trump's inauguration. Other Democrats have jumped on the bandwagon, and (so far) 42 Democrats, many black, all far-left, say they will not attend Trump's inauguration. That's roughly one fifth of House Democrats, all from far-left districts, who could urinate on the American flag and their districts would still vote for them. They pretty much are, regarding the inauguration.
Also the threatening of any celebrity who dares to entertain at the Trump inauguration. Including the band that will play at a small black college.
All these issues were covered well on O'Reilly's program last night.
As well as on Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity's programs that followed it.
I watched Alisyn Camerota and Chris Cuomo on CNN this morning, and found it laughable the selective omission and DNC-newsletter version of events. Some guy who wrote a book went on about how Obama was a great president who just isn't getting credit for his accomplishments ( !) 8 years of no better than 2.1% annual economic growth, his red line in Syria that he wimped out on, giving North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, ISIS and Al Qaida the green light to step up their aggression. Meaning Obama is directly responsible for the ISIS/Assad bloodshed that resulted from his inaction, causing literally millions of violence-prone refugees fleeing to Europe and the U.S., and a vast increase of terrorist attacks in the U.S. and worldwide. Weaponizing the IRS under Lois Lerner against Republican opposition, as well as similarly weaponizing ATF, OSHA, FBI, EPA and other federal agencies. Obama throwing kerosine on the fire of black violence with his endorsement of the Black Lives Matter movement and undermining police, resulting in cops getting shot and killed nationwide, and other black-on-white violence. Doubling the national debt from 10.5 trillion up to 20 trillion. Quadrupling the number of printed dollars, risking the collapse of the dollar. Oh, YEAH! Obama's doing a great job!
Four more days, and Obama's war on America will end. And Trump can begin signing executive orders to undo all the crazy shit that Obama tyrannically bypassed the will of the American people to put in place. Thank God our next president is not Hillary Clinton.
The Democrat/liberal media attempt to destroy Trump's presidency before it begins continues. in the last week with representative John Lewis (D- GA) saying Trump is an "illegitimate president" and he would not attend Trump's inauguration. Other Democrats have jumped on the bandwagon, and (so far) 42 Democrats, many black, all far-left, say they will not attend Trump's inauguration. That's roughly one fifth of House Democrats, all from far-left districts, who could urinate on the American flag and their districts would still vote for them. They pretty much are, regarding the inauguration.
That number's up to 68 now. 68 screaming infant crybabies, spitefully trying to wreck the country just because their candidate didn't win.
Tucker Carlson's program Tuesday night captured well the insanity of what's going on. Sam Moore, the guy who sings "Soul Man", an 82 year old black man, offered to sing at Trump's inauguration, and has received angry mail and death threats since he did so. For singing! A guy who has lived through segregation, the Great Depression, World War II, the McCarthy era and the Civil Rights era, the 60's and Vietnam war, the Nixon/Watergate era, says that THIS is the most angry and divisive period he has lived through!
The piece of shit ran a scorched earth campaign and race baited Obama with the crazy birther nonsense. I don't blame anybody for passing on Trump's inauguration. Nobody from either side should be threatened though. You pretend the death threats are only one way but it isn't. Piece of shit:
Quote:
"So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise."
The piece of shit ran a scorched earth campaign and race baited Obama with the crazy birther nonsense. I don't blame anybody for passing on Trump's inauguration. Nobody from either side should be threatened though. You pretend the death threats are only one way but it isn't. Piece of shit:
Quote:
"So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise."
The piece of shit ran a scorched earth campaign and race baited Obama with the crazy birther nonsense. I don't blame anybody for passing on Trump's inauguration. Nobody from either side should be threatened though. You pretend the death threats are only one way but it isn't. Piece of shit:
Quote:
"So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise."
M E M, do you really think Donald Trump was making a serious threat in that quoted comment? It was said with humor, basically saying, this guy is annoying, please, someone get him out of here. It's said with about the same seriousness as Henny Youngman saying "Take my wife, please!" Spike Lee posting online the address of what he thought was the address of George Zimmerman's parents, and saying "This is where these people live, go after them," THAT's a serious wish for harm. (And these people, who were NOT Zimmerman's parents and were completely unrelated to Zimmerman, had to flee their home.) Hillary Clinton's campaign (as reported by Project Veritas) paying people $1,500 each to go to Trump rallies and deliberately provoke violence, THAT's a serious provocation of violence. What Al Sharpton has done. What Jesse Jackson has done. What ACORN has done. What Black Lives Matter has done. Those are all serious attempts to stoke violence. Trump's comments are not. And anyone who is not an ideological partisan can plainly see that.
Anybody that finds O'keefe's projects where he has a long history of editing videos to give viewers the wrong impression valid is the ideological partisan WB. You just got done blasting the media in general (except Hannity). In your world the guy who fought for the right to vote is the villain while your hero spent years fighting the government to keep black people out of his father's properties. Trump is a piece of shit not because he's a republican but because of his long history you ignore and brush off.
If that were true, why is the mainstream media covering this story too?
It is widely acknowledged by pundits on every network that these Hillary Clinton subordinate groups were paying people to go to Trump rallies and stoke violence.
It was also widely acknowledged that O'Keefe was correct about ACORN. Correct to the point that the U.S. congress voted to cut off billions in funding for ACORN, and the U.S. Census Bureau also severed ties with ACORN, preventing ACORN from corrupting the new U.S. census polls.
Much as you'd like to believe otherwise, those are simply facts.
Two days ago on January 18th, Hannity contrasted W. Bush's civility with Obama's cheap shots and demagoguery quite well:
I celebrate Obama's departure, and the fact that his unwillingness to follow rule of law means almost his entire presidency will be erased within weeks by a series of Trump executive orders, except for a few appointed judges and federal attorneys.
Barack Obama is gone, his legacy will soon be little more than racial demagoguery, dead cops and the ashes of would-be Cultural Marxism.
If that were true, why is the mainstream media covering this story too?
It is widely acknowledged by pundits on every network that these Hillary Clinton subordinate groups were paying people to go to Trump rallies and stoke violence.
It was also widely acknowledged that O'Keefe was correct about ACORN. Correct to the point that the U.S. congress voted to cut off billions in funding for ACORN, and the U.S. Census Bureau also severed ties with ACORN, preventing ACORN from corrupting the ne census.
Much as you'd like to believe otherwise, those are simply facts.
The press covered the story as it hit and unfortunately your hero's deception was taken at face value. One Acorn worker that was one of Okeefe's victims called the cops after talking with him. The Okeefe's video made him out to be a villain. O'keefe had to pay for smearing the guy. And when Acorn was investigated multiple times and cleared the damage was done. You leave out all that becbause it doesn't fit your narrative. Acorn's real crime was that it helped poor people register and vote.
ACORN's real crime was that it committed crimes! It defrauded the federal government and taxpayers. PERIOD. That Congress de-funded ACORN, and that the U.S. Census Bureau severed ties as well is testament to that. ACORN's registration of fraudulent voters is well documented. If anything you say about O'Keefe is true, it is a tiny footnote of minor error in the greater context of these facts. Otherwise correct news reporting sources all the time have to later make retractions of minor errors. I wrote articles for two years, and would often have people approach me after a story was in print, and tell me things after-the-fact that I wish I'd known before press-time.
One of the most interesting, a Boca Raton police officer expressed embarrassment about how L.A. police officers had beaten Rodney King, that it was an embarrassment to police everywhere in its unprofessionalism. His take was that no matter how big Rodney King was, four officers should have been able to wrestle him to the ground , cuff him and put him in a squad car, and it was not their job to punish King beyond arresting him. (That's not so much correcting an inaccuracy as it is an insight, that officers didn't side with the L.A. cops, and what professional officers themselves saw as the correct way King should have been handled.)
What I said about O'keefe isn't in doubt but a matter of legal record. He dishonestly smeared with his videos and had to pay up. You being okay with deceit as long as it benefits your party isn't surprising to me.
I'm OK with a Congress that took away billions in funding from ACORN because of their blatant dishonesty and lack of ethics. I'm OK with the U.S. Census Bureau's severing ties with ACORN and not letting its members participate in (and corrupt) the U.S. census.
You are looking at a minor infraction by O'Keefe where one ACORN individual filed a case against O'Keefe and he could not disprove the allegation. Perhaps the ACORN guy was a corrupt thug like the rest, but O'Keefe simply could not prove it. That does not disprove what every other major media source has acknowledged as fact about ACORN, despite an error on a minor footnote by O'Keefe.
The ceremony was beautiful to watch, particularly the Missouri State University chorus, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. And Donald Trump's inauguration speech (a relatively brief 15 minutes).
I showed what I could find on YouTube. The best I saw on television was narrated by Neil Cavuto on Fox Business News.
The liberal media --of course!!-- called Trump's speech "dark" and made absurd comparisons to antisemitic racism of the 1930's, and to Adolf Hitler. Gee, I missed the part when Hitler said "whether white or black or brown we all bleed red, and share the same hopes and dreams." Trump talked about rebuilding America and creating a shining example for the world, and in the process re-uniting as a nation and finding faith in each other.
Yeah. Dark stuff.
I briefly flipped over to CNN repeatedly, and saw David Gergen, Wolf Blitzer and others obsessing over bean-counts of how many minorities Trump has selected for his cabinet. And when Don Lemon was on later with Gloria Borger and several other cackling liberal harpies, they giggled about what awful dancers Trump and several of his cabinet were at a ball dancing with male and female Marines. They also grudgingly said Melania Trump looked elegant, but quickly followed up that in expensive fashions looked out of touch with average Americans.
Screw them. One thing I like about Milania Trump is that while she speaks English with a heavy accent, she speaks four other languages. I like that she is a first-generation immigrant to the U.S., and is already First Lady, and before she ever married Trump, had achieved enormous success in her own right. She is the embodiment of the American Dream, and of how welcoming our nation is to new immigrants. In that alone, she is an inspiring first lady. I haven't heard that mentioned anywhere.
Likewise the rest of the Trumps. They are on a par with the Kennedys or the Reagans in appearance. And beyond that, whatever they began with, they are hard workers and remarkably accomplished and generous people, who have achieved way beyond what they were given. They are one better than the Kennedys, because they have not only earned it, but seem to appreciate people in a down-to-earth way. While possibly touched on, I haven't heard that particularly spotlighted either.
Maybe Okeefe can put together a video of it to conform ,to your reality.
AGAIN: Obviously I share the same reality as the United States Congress, and the U.S. Census Bureau. And at the time ACORN's chestnuts were cut off, the Democrats were still majorities in both houses of Congress. THAT is reality, beyond the way you would like to spin it.
New press secretary Sean Spicer blasted the collective media for smearing Trump with a fake story of Trump allegedly removing a bust of Martin Luther King (which wasn't), and for the media attempting to downplay and diminish visible turnout for the Trump inauguration.
Spicer beautifully said to the media "There's been a lot of talk in the media about needing to hold Donald Trump accountable. And I'm here to tell you that it goes two ways. We're going to hold the press accountable as well. The American people deserve better. And [President Trump] will take his message directly to the American people, where his focus will always be."
Wow. WOW ! Never has the media been more blatantly aligned against a U.S. president, and this is a powerful message that it will not be tolerated, and that the media (who has always controlled the message with a liberal bias) will itself be exposed! This is definitely not a news media that will adore Trump the way they adored Obama.
Nor is it a Press Secretary or Trump administration that will quietly endure the cheap shots without firing back. I always felt that was a weakness of W. Bush's, that he would ignore these slanders without responding, creating an image that he was incapable of answering accusations, rather than choosing to ignore what was untrue.
Does it bother you at all that they just out and out lied about crowd size and than attacked the media for not lying?
Not quite correct. Sean Spicer correctly said that the media tried to downplay the size of the crowd (in yet another fraudulent overture) in an attempt to delegitimize Trump's presidency as not supported. The crowds were larger than the media suggested.
Spicer was wrong on one minor point, saying these were "the largest crowds ever" for an inauguration. They were smaller than Obama's 2013 inauguration because of increased security that did not make the area as accessible, and therefore many could not get into the ceremony area in time to see the inauguration. But press secretary Spicer cited the evidence that the crowds were much larger than the media was willing to admit.
Likewise Spicer was right about the complete fabrication of the alleged missing MLK bust. Likewise Spicer was right about the media falsely portraying Trump as allegedly condemning the entire CIA, rather than his condemning only its political-appointed leadership from the past administration, as is the true case. Pulitzer-winning Watergate journalist Bob Woodward backs that up, saying the intelligence smearing Trump right before the inauguration was "complete garbage, that never should have been released."
What evidence did Spicer provide that was true? Really pathetic lies starting out.
I see no facts to back that up that empty "lies" slander.
Spicer cited areas that during previous events in Washington are known to hold crowds in excess of 250,000, he cited three areas that collectively alone would hold crowds of 750,000. He cited the recorded volumes of public transportation that brought people into Washington square.
...Spicer made two unprovable statements in his briefing: that photographs of the audience at Trump's inaugural were intentionally framed to minimize the appearance of support, and that Trump drew the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration.
But he also made statements that were quickly disproven: that the Washington Metro system recorded more riders on the day of Trump's inaugural than when Obama was sworn in for his second term, that Friday marked the first time that white floor covering was used on the Washington Mall that amplified empty spaces, and it was the first time spectators were required to pass through magnetometers to enter the Mall. ...
Already asked and answered, M E M. We've been over this before. While Spicer was wrong about it being "largest crowd ever", he still cited things that proved it was a very large crowd, larger than the media wanted to report. While it was not "larger than 2013", it was still larger than the media projected.
And the media flatout lied about the Martin Luther King bust allegedly having been removed.
And the media flatout lied about Trump attacking the entire intelligence field, as opposed to the Obama-appointed political leadership of the intelligence field, who released bad intelligence to smear Trump, that Bob Woodward described as "complete garbage" that should never have been released.
Federalist senior writer Mary Katharine Ham joined Jake Tapper on CNN’s “The Lead” to talk about anti-Trump protestors getting rowdy, attacking, and spitting on Gold Star families attending the American Legion Salute to Heroes Inaugural Gala Friday.
Ryan Manion, who lost her brother in Iraq in 2007 and Amy Looney, whose husband died in Afghanistan in 2010, were spat upon by anti-Trump protestors while walking into and leaving the American Legion’s Salute to American Heroes Inaugural Gala Friday night. According to Manion, whose Facebook post on the incident has been shared almost 2,000 times, they were not black-bloc-style rioters but mostly regular protesters, and many of them were women. Manion is a personal friend of Ham’s, who talked to her about the incident after seeing her Facebook post. Aside from that, there has been almost no media coverage of this incident.
“As we made our way through the crowd, we were spit at and called some of the worst and most vile things I have ever heard come out of a person’s mouth,” Manion wrote on Facebook. “These people had such hatred in their eyes when they screamed at us. After leaving the event we walked outside and was first pushed by a man in a mask hiding his face, then told by 2 women that we ruined this country… As the one woman screamed the other pushed up against me and colored all over my mom’s shawl I was wearing with permanent marker. I am angry and I am scared. My brother and Amy’s husband gave their lives to protect the freedoms that we hold so dear.”
Ham brought up the incident on CNN.
“I think we can all agree that the tone of protesting yesterday was different than today,” Ham said. “This is a nonpartisan organization holding this ball, they work for a non-partisan foundation and are Gold Star families, but when they went in they were surrounded by protesters and they were spit upon and cursed at — on the way in and the way out.”
“They were shaken, but fine — but [it’s] very disappointing,” she added.
“I don’t think this characterizes the march and the movement that we saw out here today,” she said. “I want to be careful about that because I think that that’s something people have unfairly done to conservative movements in the past and to Tea Partiers, where you pick one thing and you go: ‘Look at those awful people out there, their concerns should be dismissed.'”
“But this is part of the story, as is Madonna saying she thinks about blowing up the White House,” she said. “Those are not great things. If it were a conservative movement, we would hear a lot about it. If you don’t think that the left has some prejudices of its own that can lead it very astray like it did last night in that instance, then you’re wrong. And if you think that that’s not part of the reason many turned to Trump, then you’re also wrong.”
Manion wrote an op-ed on the incident for the Philadephia Inquirer today, but there has been no media frenzy to report on this incident.
“Amy and I did not attend the Inaugural Ball as a political statement. We support the current administration exactly like we supported the previous administration and just like we will support every future administration that the American people elect. Amy and I keep our personal politics private; our duty is to the legacy of Travis and Brendan and all those that have served and sacrificed,” Manion wrote.
“I believe this ugly incident involving Amy and me is one of those teachable moments that our entire country can learn from. The character of this country is, at the end of the day, defined by our differences. I have friends who I love dearly on both sides of the political aisle. Let’s celebrate the differences that not only define us, but define what makes the United States of America the greatest country in the world.”
I thought this clip summed up well the hypocrisy, impotence and desperation of Obama's statements and actions in his final days as president.
"Who are you going to believe? Julian Assange [whose WikiLeaks has so far never released false information]? Or the guy who said "If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it? "
Your "greatness" is Cultural Marxism, whose only logic is internally destroying the United States for 8 years. Racial demagoguery that splinters America along race and class lines.
Supporting a Black Lives Matter movement that fronts false rhetoric and has resulted in dozens of cops being shot in the last 6 months.
Alienating Britain, Israel, Czech republic and other allies of the U.S., that Obama either would not support or outright stabbed in the back.
Obama drawing a "red line" in Syria that he then backed away from when Assad crossed it. That ineffectual cowardice is what stoked the Arab refugee crisis that is now burying Europe, and to a lesser degree the United States. That also gave birth to ISIS, and instead of strangling it in the cradle, Obama cockily labelled it "junior varsity" and allowed it to spread to over 40 nations, and counting.
Obama not supporting Mubarek in Egypt, endorsing the Arab Spring, resulting in collapse of U.S. diplomatic influence in the Mid East and North Africa.
Making a bad deal with Iran that gives them license to get nuclear weapons within 10 years.
Doubling our national debt to 20 trillion.
Destroying America from within. Wow, what "greatness" for Obama!
Unlike any president in the 40 years or so I've been politically aware, Trump has been held to unusual standards for what he has been unable to achieve in his first 100 days. The story in the liberal press is never what he's done in his first hundred days, or works nearing completion, or how much he has achieved relative to other presidents, but instead always what Trump has failed to do in that brief period.
Granted, Trump himself set a list of what he planned to do in his first 100 days, but again, that should be reported in perspective of what other presidents have done in the same timeframe. Obama, to be certain, was not held to the same standard. In contrast, Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace prize, within days of inauguration, before he had done anything!
On the last episode of Martha McCallum's show "The First 100 days" Friday, April 28th (the show is now titled "The Story" beyond that point, weeknights at 7 PM) Donald Trump appeared on her show to give an interview from his own perspective of the first hundred days.
With all due respect, M E M, I've never seen you so full of hot excrement in your efforts to call the president a "piece of shit".
Whether you choose in your liberal-partisan delusion to acknowledge it or not, Trump's campaign did have substance. He campaigned to rebuild the U.S. economically, rebuild it militarily, to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration, to rebuild our industrial base and reverse the export of jobs. And summed up in a catch-phrase, to "make America great again".
As opposed to Hillary Rodent Clinton, whose only message was "Ooooh, Donald Trump is scary, you have to vote for me and stop him!" She barely campaigned relative to Trump, Trump was out there making 6 or 8 rallies across cities nationwide PER DAY. Frau Hitlery did maybe two a day, and many days did none. EVEN DEMOCRATS LEADERS (David Axelrod, just today!) have said that Hillary's message was devoid of a resonant message, and polls show that Trump would now win with 53% >>>>AND<<<< win the popular vote as well. 96% of Trump voters say they would vote for him again, and I am most definitely one of them.
Just a few posts above I mentioned Trump's inauguration ceremony and speech:
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
The ceremony was beautiful to watch, particularly the Missouri State University chorus, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. And Donald Trump's inauguration speech (a relatively brief 15 minutes).
I showed what I could find on YouTube. The best I saw on television was narrated by Neil Cavuto on Fox Business News.
The liberal media --of course!!-- called Trump's speech "dark" and made absurd comparisons to antisemitic racism of the 1930's, and to Adolf Hitler. Gee, I missed the part when Hitler said "whether white or black or brown we all bleed red, and share the same hopes and dreams." Trump talked about rebuilding America and creating a shining example for the world, and in the process re-uniting as a nation and finding faith in each other.
Yeah. Dark stuff.
I briefly flipped over to CNN repeatedly, and saw David Gergen, Wolf Blitzer and others obsessing over bean-counts of how many minorities Trump has selected for his cabinet. And when Don Lemon was on later with Gloria Borger and several other cackling liberal harpies, they giggled about what awful dancers Trump and several of his cabinet were at a ball dancing with male and female Marines. They also grudgingly said Melania Trump looked elegant, but quickly followed up that in expensive fashions looked out of touch with average Americans.
Screw them. One thing I like about Milania Trump is that while she speaks English with a heavy accent, she speaks four other languages. I like that she is a first-generation immigrant to the U.S., and is already First Lady, and before she ever married Trump, had achieved enormous success in her own right. She is the embodiment of the American Dream, and of how welcoming our nation is to new immigrants. In that alone, she is an inspiring first lady. I haven't heard that mentioned anywhere.
Likewise the rest of the Trumps. They are on a par with the Kennedys or the Reagans in appearance. And beyond that, whatever they began with, they are hard workers and remarkably accomplished and generous people, who have achieved way beyond what they were given. They are one better than the Kennedys, because they have not only earned it, but seem to appreciate people in a down-to-earth way. While possibly touched on, I haven't heard that particularly spotlighted either.
Only a RAW and MediaMatters zealot like yourself could see that as negative, hateful and failing to rally unity.
Most republicans have stayed loyal but that is hardly the rest of the country. They'll jump ship too as things start to go to hell. The piece of shit has his daily craziness. Yesterday it was calling for a government shutdown.
Trump didn't call for a government shutdown. If you quoted Trump in context, it is the Democrats who want a shutdown, because they know the [liberal] media will blame Republicans no matter what. Trump basically said that if it takes a shutdown to clean up government, then bring it on.
But Sen. McConnell took the possibility of a shutdown off the table from the outset, so the point is really moot. Whatever Trump's bravado remarks, it will never happen because of the establishment Republicans. I personally don't want a shutdown, but I still want it to be a viable possibility, for negotiation purposes with the spiteful obstructionist Democrats. Taking it off the table as even possible just hands a win to the corrupt Dems.
A few days ago, the Georgia 6th district special election, where Democrats were supposed to have a "wave"/"bellweather" election that would show the tide was turning for Democrats and away from Trump. The election that was supposed to be the point where Trump's political capital was gone and the Republican party would turn on him and reject his agenda. ( Aided by the fact that huge money went into this election from OUTSIDE of the Georgia district, mostly millions from Hollywood elites in California, to the tune of 30 million dollars, the most that has ever been given to ANY Congressional campaign in history. Far outspending the Republican candidate, Rep Karen Handel.)
Despite everything the Democrats poured into this one House district, despite every poll showing Handel would lose (gosh that sounds familiar!) despite her vastly being outspent, despite the media clearly being on the Democrat side... she won.
Hannity in his June 21st program did a beautiful job of summing it up. I especially like President Trump's Iowa victory speech where he specifically listed CNN as one of the fake news networks, and then goes "Oop! the light on the CNN camera went off. They're not covering us live anymore, I can't imagine why!"
Just as Trump was overwhelmingly projected in polls to be the election loser in 2016, just as Trump was conspired against by the media, just as Trump was vastly out-spent, and despite all this still won, so it happened now 7 months later with Rep. Karen Handel in her Georgia election. Which despite the liberal media's desire otherwise, shows a further mandate for Trump, rather than (their clear wish) that this election had been a Democrat victory and a mandate against him. And it also manifests that one-sided coverage, one-sided funding, one-sided polling are still a gigantic problem. It manifests that Democrats, polls, and the complicit media STILL can no longer be believed. And Trump won. Again.
Trump's rally in Youngstown, Ohio last night, with an emphasis on his accomplishments barely 6 months in office, and in particular his commitment to secure our borders, stop illegal immigration and end sanctuary cities.
I agree that he is arguably the president who has achieved more in his first 6 months than any other president.
And that is with many of his appointees still waiting to be confirmed. At this point Obama had over 90% of his staff confirmed and in place. Despite being 1/8th of the way through his term, the obstruction of Trump's presidency by Democrats every step of the way continues.
I'll say it again: It's not "racism" or bigotry to oppose illegal immigration. This country admits 1.1 million legal green-card immigrants a year, more than pretty much the other nations of the world combined. We have a generous LEGAL immigration policy, admitting people from nations worldwide. But we have a right to control who comes in our country and enforce our laws to protect the nation. And if you want to see what happens in nations that don't have common-sense immigration policy, just look what is happening in Sweden, Germany, France and the rest of Europe right now.
Actually, you see quite a bit of it in the U.S. with crime, drugs, gangs, and Islamic attacks. But as has been cited widely, illegals crossings are down roughly 70% now.
Trump said that Mexican officials told him there are less illegal crossings into Mexico from central America. Because they know they won't make it across the Northern border into the U.S., so they've stopped coming into Mexico as well! With or without an actual wall, it's amazing what just a little bit of enforcement can do to deter bad actors.
With a graph charting his daily support ratio from inauguration day to present.
A snapshot of what the current issues are affecting his (and the GOP House and Senate control, and the Democrats' support):
Quote:
Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 40% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-nine percent (59%) disapprove. The latest figures include 24% who Strongly Approve of the way the president is performing and 49% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -25. (see trends).
Fifty-five percent (55%) of Likely GOP Voters now view Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unfavorably following his failed attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare that earned him a public rebuke from the president.
But maybe Republicans in Congress who won’t work with the president are on to something. Voters, for now at least, say they’re more likely to reward the anti-Trumpers.
However, most Republicans continue to believe that GOP members of Congress have lost touch with their party's voters from throughout the nation. Democrats are also more critical of their party representatives.
Most voters in general think Congress doesn’t listen to them and [that Congress] is more interested in making the media happy.
Two-out-of-three voters (66%) still say that when people move to America from other parts of the world, they should adopt America’s culture, language and heritage.
While Trump's cumulative popularity since January has declined, it still isn't that far off numbers during Obama's tenure as president, which mostly fluctuated around 50%, fluctuating 10% above or below, often in the mid to low 40's.
The major difference being the media protected and pumped Obama up, while conversely under Trump, despise him and often post distortedly negative or demonstrably false stories about Trump to tear his popular support down.
In President Trump’s first six months since the election and since his inauguration the US Stock Markets are at record highs and millions of Americans are benefitting in their retirement savings accounts.
* The DOW daily closing stock market average has risen 18% since the election on November 8th. (On November 9th the DOW closed at 18,332 – yesterday on July 19th the DOW closed at 21,641 for another all time stock market closing high).
* Since the election the DOW has set a new all time closing high one out of every four days the market is open! * Since the Inauguration on January 20th the DOW is up 9%. (It was at 19,827 at January 20th.) * The DOW took just 66 days to climb from 19,000 to above 21,000, the fastest 2,000 point run ever. The DOW closed above 19,000 for the first time on November 22nd and closed above 21,000 on March 1st. * The DOW closed above 20,000 on January 25th and the March 1st rally matched the fastest-ever 1,000 point increase in the DOW at 24 days. * On February 28th President Trump matched President Reagan’s 1987 record for most continuous closing high trading days when the DOW reached a new high for its 12th day in a row! * The S&P 500 and the NASDAQ have both set new all-time highs during this period. * The US Stock Market gained $4 trillion in wealth since Trump was elected! * The S&P 500 also broke $20 Trillion for the first time in its history.
NATIONAL DEBT
As of today, the US Debt has decreased under President Trump since his inauguration by (-$103) Billion. (President Obama increased the US debt in his first 6 months more than $974 Billion or nearly $1 Trillion.) The difference between Presidents Trump and Obama is more than $1 Trillion.
JOBS
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics President Trump added a projected 1,027,000 jobs in his first six months (January through June 2017.) President Obama on the other hand lost more than 3,826,000 million jobs in his first six months.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Also according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the unemployment rate since President Trump’s inauguration decreased from 4.8% to 4.4% (January through June 2017). The unemployment rate in January 2017 was 4.8% and by June it was down to 4.4%. Unemployment under President Obama on the other hand moved in the opposite direction. In his first six months as President the US unemployment rate increased each month from 7.8% in January 2009 to 9.5% by June of 2009.
INFLATION
As noted earlier this week, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics the US inflation rate decreased to an eight month low in June to 1.6%. This is in part due to President Trump’s energy policies that are helping average Americans with cheaper gas and electricity.
HOUSING SALES
Housing sales are red-hot in the US right now. In 2011, houses for sale were on the market an average 84 days. This year, it’s just 45 days.
According to the US Census Bureau, there were nearly twice as many US housing sales in the past couple of months as there were under President Obama in 2009 during the same time period. (The annualized housing sales rate for May 2017 is reported at 610,000 where in 2009 this amount was only 376,000.)
DECREASE IN REGULATIONS
One of the first things that President Trump did in office was to reduce the number or burdensome regulations put in place during the Obama era. In January President Trump signed his 2 for 1 executive order mandating that for every new regulation, two regulations needed to be revoked. Even far left Politico notes that significant new federal regulations since Trump’s inauguration have slowed to an almost total halt.
Regulations cost Americans and American companies money to implement and maintain. Reducing or halting regulations allows companies to spend their money on more prudent money making areas.
OTHER ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The US Manufacturing Index soared to a 33 year high in President Trump’s first six months which was the best number since 1983 under President Reagan.
The Federal Reserve has increased interest rates three times since President Trump was elected into office in November. The Fed increased interest rates only once in Obama’s 8 Years prior to the increase after President Trumps winning the election in November.
Illegal immigration is down almost 70% under President Trump.
NATO announced Allied spending is up $10 Billion because of President Trump.
After being nominated by President Trump, Constitutionalist Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed and sworn in as Supreme Court Justice in early April.
The President has signed around 150 executive orders, memoranda and proclamations as of July 19th, including:
* Dismantling Obama’s climate change initiatives. * Travel bans for individuals from a select number of countries embroiled in terrorist atrocities. * Enforcing regulatory reform. * Protecting Law enforcement. * Mandating for every new regulation to eliminate two. * Defeating ISIS. * Rebuilding the military. * Building a border wall. * Cutting funding for sanctuary cities. * Approving pipelines. * Reducing regulations on manufacturers. * Placing a hiring freeze on federal employees. * Exiting the US from the TPP.
President Trump and his beautiful family visited leaders around the world. In his first foreign trip as President he went to Saudi Arabia and gave one of the most historic speeches in US history. The President implored the Muslim leaders of 50 countries to get rid of terrorists in their countries and “drive them out“. No world leader had ever done this!
As a result, the President sided with the leaders of these countries including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan against terrorism, ISIS and Iran.
In addition to all this, the President has met with many foreign leaders from across the globe on numerous trips and he invited others to his place in Florida, Mar-a-Lago, including Xi from China, Abe from Japan, etc.
The President also pointed out numerous times that the MSM (Main Stream Media) reports only on a made up Russia conspiracy story and ignores these accomplishments. These actions are making the majority of Americans aware of the tremendous bias and falsehoods emanating from the media in the US and abroad. This too is another major Trump accomplishment.
And let’s not forget that the President unloaded on CNN with arguably the greatest tweet by any man ever in early July –
IN SUMMARY
President Trump is doing all he can for the American people and as a result the economy is on fire with the stock market reaching new all time highs once every four days! In nearly every economic category the US economy is improving under President Trump. In addition, President Trump has implemented numerous executive actions that he promised he would do when running for office. The US is in much better shape in only six months. Americans have hope again due to the real changes this President instituted from the economy to immigration.
There is still much to do but President Trump is showing that he is doing all he can to Make America Great Again.
The budget passed in the House yesterday. That's the penultimate step to passing tax cuts. On top of all Trump's other successes (border security, record-low unemployment, the highest economic growth since 2001, a 25% rise in the stock market...) the economy should really accelerate, and even the Trump-hating liberal media will be unable to mask his true success as president. And he hasn't even been in office a year yet.
Even as the Democrat party is imploding in corruption and scandal.
Trump just completed an Asian tour where he made speeches in Japan, South Korea, Beijing and Vietnam outlining his changes in foreign policy,
resolve against North Korean aggression, calling for Chinese help in disarming N. Korea or the U.S. will unilaterally disarm them,
a call for Pacific nations to obey laws of their trade agreements with the U.S., where access to U.S. markets requires adherence by Asian nations to trade agreements, and elimination of trade deficits with the U.S. and (specifically China) not manipulating their currency.
Trump was well-received everywhere... except by the destroy-Trump 93% DNC-Newspeak liberal media.
In combination with his domestic achievements, Trump's standing up for U.S. interests unapologetically in his meetings with Asian leaders is resulting in a further rise in the polls with a public who likes a president standing up for U.S. actions and interests. (As opposed to Obama's apology tour and bowing to foreign kings, and Obama's utter flaccidness, withdrawing from Iraq prematurely, not enforcing his "red line" in Syria, sitting on his hands during the Russian invasion of Crimea, likewise doing nothing during Russia's further invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and weakness elsewhere in the world. )
Thank you for your always critical level headed review of anything Trump does. It was especially touching as he sided with the old KGB over our intelligence agencies. And throwing previous administrations under the bus while visiting China was also amazing but sort of old hat. Guess it pays to not be an American who believes in basic human rights. Trump's gushing was just right don't you think?
As for my "critical level headed review" of Trump's Asian trip, that's pretty much what was reported in the news. It's pretty much verbatim what he said. The domestic achievements he's made (now a 28% rise in the stock market since his election, an 87% reduction in illegal border crossings, the lowest unemployment rate since 2000, on and on) are likewise quantifiably true, for media willing to report them.
As for "[Trump] sided with the old KGB over our intelligence agencies", that is complete far-Left MediaMatters fantasy propaganda. Trump's rebuilding our military and strong foreign policy is not something Putin/KGB welcomes.
It is in fact the Democrats, for DECADES and certainly Hillary and Obama, who have treasonously surrendered on every front, or when not able to make it happen, at least pushed for surrender. Hillary Clinton's illegal private e-mail server, that compromised national security and left her communications with other officials ripe for the hacking by the Russians and Chinese EVERY DAY she was secretary of state. Hillary selling out 20% of U.S. uranium to the Russians in exchange for 140 million dollars in Russian donations to the Clinton Foundation. That's far from a complete list of her, and the Democrats' treasonous acts. And further, where Trump has the appearance of "collusion", it is often the Democrats who deviously set up the circumstances to create the APPEARANCE of Trump collusion. As in the Trump Jr/Veselnetskaya meeting.
I forgot to mention this earlier, but I was in Palm Beach on both Dec 31 2017, and on Jan 1, 2018.
On Dec 31, there were about 40 West Palm Beach cops, and possibly some other Secret Service and other private security as we passed Mar A Lago. There was an outside tent over part of the road through the parking lot where they would stop cars going in to inspect them first before letting them drive in.
Going by from I-95 east toward Mar A Lago on Jan 1st, I noticed a lot more police along the two-mile stretch, at least 100. There were also a lot of people standing by the road with signs. I'd say at least 300. This was about 4 PM, and coincidentally, about the time Trump was to leave and head West on Southern Blvd to depart from the West Palm Beach airport, back to the White House.
Remarkably, virtually none of the signs held were negative. Mostly they said things like "Thank you, Mr. President", "We love you.", "We support you, President Trump", "Latinos for Trump". "Jews for Trump", and one I had to stop to read, "TRUMP didn't create hate, he revealed it!"
I only saw one opposition group of about 7 people, holding a large sign that took about 5 people to hold, that just said in large letters, "RESIGN". So, over 95% positive. I've never seen such an adoring crowd for a political leader. No mention of that on the news, of course. But I was there, I saw it.
I was previously at the Boca Raton Resort and Club when Bill Clinton was there in 2000 for a world economic conference, but didn't see him. Quite the opposite for Clinton, there were over 100 protestors, none of whom supported Clinton, and addressed his crimes and abuses with their signs.
The only president I actually met and shook hands with was Gerald Ford, at a campaign rally, in 1976. It was interesting to see Secret Service agents staking out all the rooftops before his appearance. And he was quite personable, I exchanged a few words with him. I was 13. As a kid, I was amazed he'd give me any attention.
But I was very struck by the overwhelming positive reception for Trump a few days ago, along his route to the airport. That'll get televised coverage, oh... never.
Many points where he addresses the specific concerns of regular middle class citizens. As contrasted with Democrats who prioritize leftist groups, minorities (portrayed as victims to rally them to vote as Democrats). And illegal immigrants, that Democrats treat better than they treat taxpaying U.S. citizens or U.S. military veterans or police.
Trump is addressing their specific concerns, while Democrats have been kneecapping them for 8 years. Gee, why do you suppose these people are voting for Trump and support him so enthusiastically?
Trump spoke before CPAC this morning, for about an hour and 15 minutes. Toward the end, citing a long list of what he has accomplished. Would that Democrats and the liberal media would give him credit for that.
An economy growing at a faster rate than in roughly 20 years, black unemployment and women's unemployment at record lows. Rebuilding our military, trying to pass infrastructure rebuilding, and offer for DACA reform that demonstrates the Democrats' unwillingness to negotiate, securing our borders. All this, amidst incredible lawless DNC obstruction, and a witch-hunt Meuller investigation.
Again, citing his achievements the liberal media refuses to acknowledge and report. And the Democrats who sat there scowling and refused to applaud when Trump acknowledged soldier heroes, citizen heroes, and others who have sacrificed for the nation and their patriotic ambitions, and who have triumphed. The Democrats couldn't even cheer for THAT!
Regardless, it again manifests that Trump has largely fulfilled his promises, and achieved more than either of his predecessors did in 8 years each. He has brought this country back from the Democrat/establishment Republican abyss.
I bask in Trump's victory over this hegemonic liberal media propaganda every day. It's SUCH a pleasure to listen to Trump propose new policy that (like no other president since Reagan) MAKES SENSE and is of visible benefit to the nation and its people. And how the Democrats and liberal media go absolutely wild in response, bemoan Armageddon if it is imposed, and when the exact opposite happens, somehow they still can't acknowledge that Trump was right all along.
"Build a wall, stop illegal immigration." Even without the wall (YET!) Illegal immigration is way down, by about 75%, just based on Trump's stated determination. And that is one area Jeff Sessions is doing his job right, cracking down on sanctuary cities.
"Lower taxes, cut regulation." Done, and done! We are already seeing the economic benefit. And where Trump promised to cut 2 regulations for every new one written, it is quantifiably true that Trump has cut more than 20 regulations for each new one.
U.S. leadership in the world. The initial strike by Trump in Syria. ISIS more than 97% destroyed. North Korea at least talking about negotiating peace. Trump taking on nations that benefit from free trade tariff-free with the U.S., but reciprocate with huge tariffs on U.S. goods exported to their countries. No example better than the auto industry. The liberals whine and scream coming Armageddon again, but fail to acknowledge that trade deficits sharply rose during their allegedly more sensible and diplomatic policies that pushed American factories and jobs overseas. Now they are coming back.
Lots more Trump has accomplished in just a year. But that alone should only increase Trump's support in Nov 2020.
While Democrats are still talking about "social justice", siding with Black Lives Matter shooting cops, pushing for gender-neutral bathrooms, trying to take away guns (except for the people who guard them!), trying to shut down free speech on college campuses, and defending corrupt officials like Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Robert Meuller. And no one is listening. Please, by all means, keep it up, Dems!
How the media gleefully anticipated a landslide for Hillary, and how despite all their predicions of the inevitability of a Hillary victory, it turned out in fact to be a landslide for Trump.
Trump gave an energetic campaign-style speech tonight in Elkhart, Indiana for roughly an hour from about 7:30 to 8:30 PM. Talking about his excesses, including the release by North Korea of three U.S. prisoners they've held for about 3 years. Trump cited the waste of Obama and his other predecessors who gave away hundreds of billions and got no return on what they spent. And that Trump gave away nothing to secure the release of these prisoners.
Trump also cited his unprecedented numbers on his economy, jobs for blacks and Hispanics, his foreign policy and trade successes, and the success of Republicans in campaigns over the last two days that bodes well for 2018. This week, Trump also (despite 91% negative coverage by the liberal media!) has now passed the 51% threshold in presidential poll support.
Citing that by many measures, the country has NEVER had such high numbers, and certainly the best in 20 years, he announced a new slogan for November 2018 and 2020: "KEEP AMERICA GREAT" !
The Democrats always portray Trump and his supporters as motivated by "hate" and compare them to Nazis. But for "Nazis", Trump's speeches are consistently optimistic and filled with humor, and a long list of what has been achieved. He even says the media as much as they hate him, actually benefit as well from their coverage of Trump, that their ratings have never been higher! I've never seen "hate" that was so cheerful and inclusive. As opposed to the race- and class-splintering demagoguery and Alinsky tactics we had in Obama's Germany.
2 of the prisoners were taken after Trump became president so as usual Spanky lied in his tweet about the prisoners. He also recently threatened to take away press credentials because he wants more positive press coverage.
Meh, sad deflection. And no problem it seems with Spanky telling an obvious lie. Guess we're all getting used to that and the constant attacks on the press though. The new normal.
Donald Trump threw out campaign spending conventions as he stormed his way to the American presidency.
The businessman racked up 278 electoral votes as of Wednesday morning, versus 228 for Clinton, with three states still not called by NBC News.
Trump did so with thin traditional campaign spending. His chaotic and often divisive campaign drew constant eyeballs, earning him billions of dollars in free media and allowing him to spend comparatively little on television ads and ground operations.
His campaign committee spent about $238.9 million through mid-October, compared with $450.6 million by Clinton's. That equals about $859,538 spent per Trump electoral vote, versus about $1.97 million spent per Clinton electoral vote.
Those numbers do not include spending from Oct. 20 to Election Day.
While Trump's campaign increased its spending on television ads in its final election push, it still used the traditional outreach tool much less than Clinton's did. As of late October, Clinton spent's campaign spent about $141.7 million on ads, compared with $58.8 million for Trump's campaign, according to NBC News.
That disparity extended to campaign payrolls. For example, Clinton's campaign had about 800 people on payroll at the end of August, versus about 130 for Trump's. Democrats often have larger ground operations than Republicans.
Still, it wasn't just Clinton who heavily outspent Trump. He shelled out much less money than other recent nominees, as well.
Through mid-October 2012, the campaigns of President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent $630.8 million and $360.7 million, respectively.
Obama's campaign also spent about $593.9 million through mid-October 2008. Sen. John McCain's 2008 campaign actually spent less than Trump, about $216.8 million through mid-October.
If anyone recalls, I cited the NY Times after the 2008 election, that Obama outspent McCain in key battleground regions at rates of 4-to-1, and in some areas 8-to-1 or more.
Yet Trump spent far less than Hillary in 2016, and by smartly placing his resources, achieved a landslide electoral victory.
Also interesting, courtesy of FORTUNE, a list of billionaires who supported Hillary in 2016 (that also includes a link to the billionaires who supported Trump in 2016).
Interesting not only to see who their biggest backers are, but the faces of some of the richest and most politically powerful people in this country. Who through campaign finance, are the true rulers of the country, not the elected officials beholden to them.
But more people actually voted for Hillary. She didn't have Putin helper her either.
As I said in the Voter Fraud topic today, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats used every possible dirty trick, cheated in every other conceivable way in 2016, up to and including using falsified evidence to get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. What makes you so sure, with the cited history of the 6.9 MILLION illegal votes discovered by True The Vote in only 28 states, that Hillary Clinton didn't rig the popular vote as well?
I'm still of the opinion that Hillary cheated, but based on Trump's unanticipatedly high support, didn't cheat quite enough for her to win.
As I recall, Pariah expressed that same opinion. Based on considerable history of Hillary/Democrat past cheating.
Like everything else, Trump and his supporters accuse and attack anything and everything that doesn't suit them. Not winning the popular vote while Russia was helping Trump are facts that don't suit you.
That deflects from all the factual basis I cited, of Democrats previously submitting MILLIONS of fake voters and double-voters, as cited by True The Vote (who were suppressed and intimidated by the IRS with audits of their personal and organization records, and raids on their small business, to silence them).
As I've cited repeatedly, ALL the occasions where there was interaction between the Trump campaign officials and Russia were set up to LOOK like Trump attempts, when in fact they were set up by the Clinton Campaign/Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele, or by other Deep State operatives. Three examples: 1) The meeting with Russian attorney Veselnitskaya and Donald Trump Jr.: Veselnitskaya had no legitimate reason to even be in the United States, except for a very unusual VISA that was prepared for her by Obama's attorney general Loretta Lynch personally. Veselnitskaya called Donald Trump Jr. and offered Hillary Clinton compromising e-mails. Trump Jr. agrees to a meeting (if I recall, in Trump Tower). Trump Jr sits down with her for 20 minutes before he see she is not being honest with him, and ends the meeting, no transaction. By her own appointment book, Veselnitskaya met with Fusion GPS (Hillary Clinton's paid-for opposition research/smear merchants) both *BEFORE* *AND AFTER* the meeting with Trump Jr.! CLEARLY, a set-up, orchestrated by the Clinton campaign. All the puppet strings surrounding that meeting lead straight to then-attorney general Lynch, Fusion GPS, and right up to the Clinton campaign and DNC who directly funded the salacious "Russia Dossier".
2) Then-Senator Jeff Sessions (now Trump's attorney general) was set up by Democrats at an Obama State of the Union address for a brief handshake and photo-op with the Russian ambassador. Despite that their "meeting" and "conversation" was all of a minute or two and couldn't have extended beyond Hello, nice to meet you, how are you doing? This meeting stirred a public hissy-fit by the Democrat leadership where they demanded that Sessions recuse himself. For what, I'm still not sure.
3) Like Veselnitskaya, several FBI/DOJ spies/"confidential informats" made offers of Hillary Clinton secret/compromising e-mails to multiple Trump officials, including Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Michael Flynn, George Pappadapoulos, Roger Stone, Sam Clovis, and Michael Caputo. The last two not only didn't take the bait, but immediately reported the offers to FBI/DOJ, and Senate/Congress investigators. Michael Caputo said their informing investigators of these illegal offers was met by all with complete indifference and NO INVESTIGATION, and in particular the FBI seemed to know in advance what Caputo was telling them. Because in retrospect, knowing now of the "confidential informant"/spies FBI sent among them, Michael Caputo could see these guys were bait sent by the FBI to trap them, and FBI was only interested in setting them up, not capturing the ones offering the top secret e-mails.
I keep pointing out these facts, M E M, and you keep evading them. You are citing off-the-cuff slanders and allegations with no basis in fact. I am citing facts. EVERYTHING leads to Christopher Steele/the Steele "Russia Dossier"/Fusion-GPS/the insulating Clinton-hired law firm/the Clinton Campaign. EVERYTHING.
NOTHING leads to Trump that didn't start and was orchestrated by the Clinton campaign. NOTHING.
President Trump at a public aappearance on Friday, June 29, 2018:
One of several speeches in the last few weeks by Trump touring the country, highlighting workers and business owners who have benefitted from his tax cuts. A black lady who is now able to send her kids to college, and a chemical business owner from Somerset, PA who is out of debt, able to replace equipment, and hiring dozens of new employees.
In spite of 93% negative media coverage, Trump continues to rise in the polls. Because his policies are working. For a change, working for the American people, not for illegal immigrants, gang members, drug traffickers, and Islamic terrorists who want to slip in the country and kill us. Democrat leaders seem confused that they are representative and Senators of the United States, and not of some foreign country.
"When a young charismatic Obama moved the Democrat party to the far left and still had a base that supported him, that was not transferrable in 2016 to an older white woman with a shrill witch-like voice like Hillary. Wasn't gonna happen."
At 33:00 into the video, Hanson talks about his astonishment that even after the incredible betrayal by Brazile and Wasserman Schultz within the DNC to rig the nomination, Bernie Sanders still remained in lockstep and supported Hillary in the election. That to Democrats, they would never even think of forming a "never Hillary" movement on the Left, that they will support any criminal/ethical lapse that advances their cause of "the little guy".
Trump did better in 38 states over Romney, including winning many Democrat strongholds in the Mid-Atlantic coast and the Rust Belt that were considered unwinnable. 2012 is widely considered a presidential campaign that Romney should have won, but for a poorly managed campaign, that allowed Obama to be more than a one-term president.
All of which hammers home the point that Romney (who actually benefitted from Trump endorsement in Nov 2018, to win his Senate seat) is absolutely the last person who could credibly bash Trump. And yet he does. What an ingrate.
Romney and McCain are both 100% proof to me that there is absolutely no negotiation possible with the Democrat/Left. That no matter how moderate and milquetoast, any Republican will be bashed as "extreme", "right wing", "white supremacist", "scary", "dangerous", "Nazi/Hitler" and so forth. Except in the case where they attack their fellow Republicans. But Dems and the media will again label them "extreme/right-wing" the moment they step out of line and behave like Republicans again.
Tucker Carlson yesterday (on his first day back after about 2 weeks of vacation) did a beautiful job of deconstructing Mitt Romney's attack on Trump, and its being a manifestation of the larger establishment/corporate/globalist beast that infests and controls the majority of both parties. And how Trump is a threat to both parties, because he is flipping the table and uprooting the corruption the establishment elites of both parties have spent decades building.
Looking at the criticism being leveled at Romney it seems to amount to the GOP making Trump loyalty a value or moral. Trump's moral shortcomings and lies are not to be brought up because it helps democrats. So basically a moral sewer. While I disagree with many of Romney's and the late McCain policies they operated under an ethical and moral code that would befit a President. Trump doesn't.
Looking at the criticism being leveled at Romney it seems to amount to the GOP making Trump loyalty a value or moral. Trump's moral shortcomings and lies are not to be brought up because it helps democrats. So basically a moral sewer. While I disagree with many of Romney's and the late McCain policies they operated under an ethical and moral code that would befit a President. Trump doesn't.
What you say is a non-sequitur. Romney's jabs at Trump are clearly self-serving, in an effort to position himself as an opposing alternative to Trump. He rails on Trump's "character", details not specified. This from Romney, a guy who made his $300 million fortune in a career at Bain Capital of buying companies, breaking them into parts and selling them off, and in some cases depriving decades-employed workers of their pensions. There was a time where I respected and supported Romney in 2008 and 2012 as a civil guy who appeared to put his party first and had bipartisan appeal as a moderate, despite his not being a conservative. But over and over Romney since then has demonstrated his character and loyalty are in question.
If Romney were taking a consistent moral stand against Trump the last 3 years, he should not have accepted Trump's political support to get elected. And since Romney did accept Trump's support, as one reporter phrased it interviewing him, Romney's attack on Trump now is "a shiv in the back".
Romney previously stabbed Trump in the back during the 2016 campaign, after Trump was the Republican nominee. During the primary inter-party criticism is fair play, but during the general campaign, Romney was sabotaging his own party. Then after elected, Trump generously tried to make peace with Romney, Trump invited him to the White House in early 2017, and potentially even offered him a cabinet position. Romney visited the White House and made friendly, but then later attacked Trump again. Then Trump (presumably at invitation) campaigned for Romney in 2018. And now post-election, before Romney has even begun his term as Utah Senator, Romney has already backstabbed Trump again.
And I'm still waiting for proof of Trump's alleged "moral shortcomings". Much has been alleged, nothing has been proven. The sexual allegations against Trump are a joke as I've detailed before, especially relative to the transgressions of Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, JFK, and LBJ, among others, that you and your party turn a blind eye to. Regarding the alleged "collusion" with Russia, everything that is alleged about Trump, is proven to have occurred in the Clinton Foundation and Clinton campaign, including corruption in the DOJ and FBI that have sabotaged her prosecution.
Beyond irrational hatred of Trump (and hypocrisy regarding the same PROVEN charges against your own in the Democrat Central Committee), what do you really have, beyond Democrat corruption, Democrat abuse of power, and Democrat weaponization of government against your party's political enemies?
Trump's approval numbers are roughly the same or better as Obama at the same point in his presidency.
The difference is, Obama's numbers were with an adoring press flying cover for Obama and pumping him up every step of the way, inflating his popularity by as much as 10 points. As opposed to the 92% negatie coverage of Trump, where the media clearly hates and partisanly undermines Trump, and often gets the story wrong in over-reach after over-reach in their attempts to tear him down. They probably over-sample Democrats to bring his numbers even lower. And despite that, as recently as February Trump had approval numbers of over 50%.
Another aspect I notice is that Trump on any given day is usually 1 to 5 points above where Obama was at the same point in his presidency. And again, that's with an unprecedentedly hostile liberal media doing their damnedest to tear Trump down every day.
...it gives me hope that huge swaths of even states like New York, Maine, Virginia, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and California are more red than one would initially think.
And that with Trump's impressive economic successes, benefitting blacks, hispanics, women, that he will win by an even larger margin, as his policies have benefitted even those voters in demographics that did not support him in 2016.
Though Trump was outgunned 2-to-1 in campaign funds, Trump spent what funds he had more targetedly, and had more funds left in reserve unspent after the election.
Originally in the New York Times, the three election models that most accurately predicted the 2016 and 2012 elections have predicted based on their studies that Trump will win re-election in 2020.
An interesting look at not just the 2016 election, but also at roughly 60 years of U.S. presidential elections. We know that in 2016, Trump won 46% of the popular vote and Hillary won 48%.
But this graph looks not just at the ratio of those who voted, but their smaller ratio as a subset of the total population, in elections back to 1960.
That graph could include the total population (including ineligible children and non-citizen legal immigrants, of which my stepmother was, from Germany, she lived here 60 years but never felt a need to become a U.S. citizen and vote). Or it more likely is the total adult and U.S. citizen population eligible to vote. Which I assume it to be.
But either way, that the election victory in any election could be vastly changed if everyone eligible voted. Our presidents over 60 years represent, at most, the choice of 38% of all citizens. And generally the choice of 26% to 31% of all citizens.
40 to 48% of the public in election after election don't participate. That amount participating could elect a third alternative candidate by a landslide. In 1992, 19% voted for Ross Perot, which inflated participation that year to 64% of the public.
Perot died a few days ago. The deficit and free trade issues he pressed in 1992 and 1996, along with the issues of sovereignty, free trade, offshoring of jobs and border security raised by Pat Buchanan in 1992, 1996 and 2000, are the issues that Trump championed and won on in 2016. Trump's presidency is the enduring legacy of both Perot and Buchanan.
The Nazi theme is rampant among liberal cartoonists on the subject of Trump. But then, so was the W. Bush/Nazi theme 10 years ago. These cartoonists seem oblivious to the fact that it is the Democrats who weaponized FBI, ATF, EPA, OSHA, IRS and other federal agencies against their conservative opponents (Catherine Englebrecht/True The Vote, Frank Vandersloot, EPA/Gibson guitars...) Somehow that never makes a blip on their radar.
Man, what a difference a few years makes...
The weaponization of federal agencies by the Democrat-Bolsheviks against their political opponents is even more clear 4, 5 and 6 years later under the Biden puppet regime.
And all the liberal media fear-mongering about Trump being Hitler was shown to be absolutely untrue. Far from oppressed or racially profiled, every minority group under Trump's four years saw lower unemployment than any time in history, saw higher wages, higher home-ownership.
It is Biden and the Democrats who prove to have Nazi-like hate of any who disagree with them, and to demonize Republicans, and even moderate Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard or Alan Dershowiz, as traitors and enemies of the state who need to be purged, removed and shunned.
FBI raids on Mar A Lago and on any Trump officials and grassroots supporters, especially in the weeks right after the Mar A Lago raid. Fascist state terror, pure and simple.
87,000 new IRS agents in Democrat legislation rammed through, to audit, intimidate and harass their enemies.
Fire-bombing pro-life centers and Republican leaders' offices.
And a steady stream of attacks on Trump supporters, averaging roughly one attack a day, for years.
The indefinite imprisonment, under the most inhumane conditions, of 1,300 trespassers (at most) at the Capitol on January 6th. That is increasingly shown to have been orchestrated by a Democrat-weaponized FBI, by senior FBI staff who also faked the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping, and then when exposed, instead of fired, were put in charge of staging Jan 6th riots, and then the Mar A Lago raid. The 1,300 people who virtually all did absolutely nothing wrong, who for 20 months have been treated worse than Al Qaida prisoners, worse than murderers, worse than violent Antifa and BLM members, all the rest of whom the Democrat-Bolsheviks immediately released. While Trump supporters from Jan 6th are not even given clean drinking water, and are daily psychologically tortured, isolated and often not even given visitation with attorneys, driven to suicide, and often beaten by prison guards who are rabid Democrats, as revealed by their social media posts.
And further statements by Democrat leaders (Democrat Tim Ryan a few days ago talking about a need to "crush the MAGA movement") inciting violence against Republicans,. And NO DEMOCRAT leader dissenting or calling for toning down that rhetoric, not one. Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris... every Democrat.
Nicolle Wallace live on MSNBC calling for Biden to do a drone strike on Mar A Lago and kill Trump. Calls by Rep. A O-C and others to compile blacklists to prevent former Trump officials from being able to find a job after serving in the Trump White House. Former Bill Clinton official Robert Reich calling for Soviet-style televised public confessions of former Trump officials. New York Times writer Jennifer Rubin saying "The Republican party needs to be destroyed so completely it can never come back." Clearly a sentiment shared by many fanatical Democrat agents in the DOJ and FBI.
6 years later, it's very clear who the authoritarian Nazis truly are. And those fascist banners should all have a big "D" for Democrat.
Looking back over this topic, I'd also forgotten how the liberal media had tried to suppress and hold back the news of a Trump election victory in Nov 2016. And to call Trump "illegitimate" and undermine him every step of the way for 4 years, about 100 elected Democrats who refused to attend Trump's Jan 2017 inauguration. Government officials who undermined Trump for 4 years even within the halls of the DOJ, FBI, CIA, National Security Council, and within the deep-state infested sieve-leaking halls of the White House itself.
The Democrats are as much talented liars as they are vicious authoritarians. They have a genuine talent for false narrative and misdirection. And for portraying themselves as the victims, when they are truly the aggressors. That is more clear to millions of American voters than it was just 21 months ago. The Democrats have shown their hand, and THEY are the true Nazis they allege Trump and the right to be.
I reject any evidence that doesn't conform to my psychotic world-view out of hand then wonder why people don't engage me seriously as I proudly identify as a fucking Florida Man moron.
Originally Posted by Wonder Boy (as lyingly scripted by Iggy, because that';s all he's got)
I reject any evidence that doesn't conform to my psychotic world-view out of hand then wonder why people don't engage me seriously as I proudly identify as a fucking Florida Man moron.
Yes, Wondy, we fucking know.
Originally Posted by Wonder Boy
What you describe as "right wing propaganda sites" are, in fact, mainstream conservative news. And many of them not even conservatives, but liberals who while not conservatives, are outraged by the unhinged bias and radical-Leftist Bolshevik power grab that is being attempted by the united-front liberal media, radical-leftist tech companies and social media, and the Democrat-Bolshvik party, who are trying to establish authoritarian one-party rule in the United States. Journalists like John Solomon, Lara Logan, Sharyl Attkisson, Glenn Greenwald, Ron Kessler, Bernard Goldberg, John Stossel, those are all undeniably mainstream award-winning reporters.
There are extensive examples to confirm that it is in fact the liberal media that YOU exalt, that are in fact, the true propagandists. Fox News, Newsmax, FBN, Wall Street Journal, the American Conservative, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Rasmussen, New York Post, The Federalist, Revolver News, Rebel News, Human Events, Substack, MRC.org, and American Greatness, are all pretty mainstream and accessible news organizations who hire journalists to write actual news stories, not propaganda opinion blogs.
And I would hold any of them in higher regard than (as Sharyl Atkisson sourced extensively) the overtly partisan propagandists who have been caught deliberately getting stories wrong for over 10 years on event after event. From Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, the Sandy Hook shooter, the Aurora Colorado movie theatre shooter, to selective omission of Rev. Jeremiah Wright ties to Obama, selective omission of William Ayers' ties to Obama. The Hillary Clinton Benghazi negligence (10 years later and STILL no one has reported where either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama were during the hours of that attack.) The Hillary Clinton e-mails on a private server, that compromised top-secret documents to the Russian and Chinese spy hackers on a daily basis for four years (THAT doesn't bother you, but this contrived thing about documents at Mar A Lago does?!?) The partisan reporting that I sourced and linked repeatedly in a topic during Occupy Wall Street fiasco protests, that was sometimes so egregious newspapers and broadcast news networks had to fire reporters. And from 2015-present, literally DOZENS of stories about Donald Trump where the media over and over DELIBERATELY got it wrong, so intense was their Trump-hate and their zeal to destroy Trump, by any deceitful means. And yet it blew up in their faces, over and over. Failed. Exposed. Over and over.
So yeah, when you source CNN or MSNBC, or Politico, or Washington Post, or New York Times, you're essentially quoting liberal opinion blogs that agree with your unhinged partisan opinion and hatred. And if you doubt that, just look at the above examples quoted by Sharyl Attkisson.
A New York Times so hostile to reporting objective news, that a mass of N Y Times employees harassed reporter/editor Bari Weiss into quitting, just for giving Sen.Tom Cotton equal time in an editorial, in the silly idea of giving balanced coverage to both sides. The New York Times employees have the same mentality as those working for Tass or Pravda.
But yeah, whatever, here I am trying to reason with the mentally ill, so intense is your irrational leftissm and Trump-hate.
to get a reaction. Moron.