Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 433676 times)


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Cops stood aside as Trump people attacked
« Reply #1251 on: June 05, 2016, 02:43:06 PM »
http://www.youngcons.com/after-trump-supporters-are-beaten-at-rally-cops-confess-they-intentionally-let-it-happen/

When law enforcement doesn't do it's job, or even worse, is politicized,this does not bode well for the nation.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Bret Stephens WSJ: Hillary more surivable than Trump
« Reply #1252 on: June 05, 2016, 09:07:17 PM »
Bret Stephens, WSJ Pulitzer Prize winner who I admire very much and agree with on almost everthig, maybe not this, says Hillary ight be more survivable than Trump:

The best hope for what’s left of a serious conservative movement in America is the election in November of a Democratic president, held in check by a Republican Congress. Conservatives can survive liberal administrations, especially those whose predictable failures lead to healthy restorations—think Carter, then Reagan. What isn’t survivable is a Republican president who is part Know Nothing, part Smoot-Hawley and part John Birch. The stain of a Trump administration would cripple the conservative cause for a generation.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-the-conservative-hope-1462833870
« Last Edit: June 06, 2016, 07:52:36 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1253 on: June 06, 2016, 04:30:17 AM »
This is certainly a possibility that Trump could do so much damage that he would in the long game screw it up for good for Republicans.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - Dem nomination
« Reply #1254 on: June 06, 2016, 08:50:19 AM »
Prediction: Bernie will eek out a win in California but Hillary will clinch the nomination (In NJ) before the polls close in Calif.

Obama administration could make that more interesting by indicting Hillary on the same day hoping to help her 'get that behind her'.   Okay, that is 'not likely' but they are running out of time.  What are they going to do, announce the results of the investigation after the election?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/axelrod-clinton-will-clinch-nomination-before-the-polls-close-in-california/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-will-likely-clinch-the-democratic-nomination-in-new-jersey/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/bernie-sanders-leads-hillary-clinton-new-poll-california

Funny that Trump clinched first in a field of 17 than Hillary over Bernie, but after tomorrow that is a footnote in history.

The conventions are only about a month out.  Republicans go first.  Hillary sees Trump's running mate choice first before announcing hers.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1255 on: June 06, 2016, 09:45:03 AM »
Bret Stephens analysis is profoundly flawed.  Losing 3-5 SCOTUS picks to Hillary would be a catastrophe from which this country would not recover.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, Stephens, Trump
« Reply #1256 on: June 06, 2016, 10:24:11 AM »
Bret Stephens analysis is profoundly flawed.  Losing 3-5 SCOTUS picks to Hillary would be a catastrophe from which this country would not recover.

That's right about Hillary, but what about Trump? 

Electing another big government Republican (in name only) is ALSO something from which we will never recover.  Trump already defeated and destroyed the movement of which I was a part.  Win or lose for Trump, limited government conservatism is gone.  And now what the opponents say is true, that Republicans are the party of the rich, support cronyism for the powerful, favor special treatment for their own, hate minorities, want to pick winners and losers, etc.  How do we come back from that and how long will it take?  We can't; it won't happen in our lifetimes. 

In words only and putting her record aside, Hillary has a better grasp of US foreign policy than Trump.  He is clearly running to her left on foreign policy , and trade policy! He may win on both, good for him, but we lose IMHO.

Trump issued a list of acceptable, conservative judges that fully support my principles (and yours most likely).  Great, but what if he appoints Justices that support HIS views, that government knows best in terms of (non-existent) property right, no limits on takings or picking economic winners and losers with preferences and targeted, punitive taxes and regulations?  Uphold all of that over protecting property rights and equal protection under the law and what have we gained?  Nothing I can see.

I moved just recently to where G M has.  It is too late to save the country.  We already upheld the idea forcing us to buy government mandated "insurance".  We already ruled that it is fine for the federal government to prohibit growing your own grain on your own property to feed your own animals.  No one still in the race thinks that went too far, is outrageous.  We already upheld the power of state and local governments to take private property for preferred private property interests.  We already re-defined marriage i the Courts.  We already allow the federal government to run roughshod over all formerly private industries, to set payroll rules for people at the top, middle and bottom of the pay scale - in the "private sector"!  Sorry but no one still in the race is running against any of this.  Our side is represented by the guy who will build the best and biggest government we have ever seen!

Meanwhile, we also blew off the idea of holding the Senate.  That has something to do with Supreme Court appointments too!  Which Justice on the Trump good list gets confirmed in a Shumer-Durbin Senate? 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
2016 Pres, Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, Libertarians blew a great opportunity
« Reply #1257 on: June 08, 2016, 08:32:32 AM »
Libertarians are running a ticket with two, two-term Republican Governors.  With Hillary and Trump at maximum, historic disapproval this should be the year and the opportunity to set up a real alternative.  But they refuse to offer any possibility of merging with conservatives to offer a real alternative.

i learned through Ron Paul and Rand Paul foreign policies that liberty is for people who already have it. Screw those who don't even though we received significant outside intervention to gain our own freedom.

How about the liberty of the unborn or the person who chooses to not participate in a gay wedding.  Oops, no liberty or 'pro-choice' for them.
---------------------------------------------
Is This Where Libertarians Say Goodbye to Conservatives?
To right-wingers, Gary Johnson's embrace of "social liberalism" negates his pledge to "sign off on any reduction in the federal government."
Nick Gillespie|Jun. 7, 2016

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/07/is-this-where-libertarians-say-goodbye-t

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1258 on: June 08, 2016, 09:12:59 AM »
Feeling deeply discouraged by Trump's verbal flatulence about the "Mexican" federal judge and Muslim judges being too biased to judge him.

He (and now we too by virtue of our support of him) was already on thin ice with latinos and much of the American public with regard to "Mexican rapists", illegal immigration, Muslim moratorium, and related comments. 

As best as I can tell, any conversation I get into from here forward, be it here, with my 5,000 FB friends, or elsewhere, will be based upon the "fact" that Trump is a bigot, even Paul Ryan says so and even a Rep. Senator has withdrawn his endorsement.  As best as I can tell, the movement towards party unity is done for.  Now any time he talks about illegal immigration the answer will be "bigot" and what will the reply be?  Any time he talks about tightening Muslim immigration and visitor visas (he's already walked away from his original call for a moratorium-- which he uncleverly called a "ban")

Unless we are saved by the FBI, Hillary is the nominee and the pravdas will be celebrating her "historical" success and Obama, now with an approval rating of over 50% (WTF?!?) will be jumping in with two feet, mocking Trump as only he can.  "Official" unemployment is down in the 4s, and the voters will be dazzled with an array of statistical bullsh*t that it would take a more serious analysis to take down than most voters care to comprehend.

Listen to Hillary's so-called "foreign policy" speech of several days ago.  There is actually quite a bit of effective anti-Trump material in there.

The advocacy of torture and killing the families of the enemy (war crimes both), the perceived bigotry of his immigration policies, the stench of Trump University-- how do we make the case to independents?  To Sandernistas? To Latinos?

And so, last night Trump gave a teleprompter speech with fresh content (the Clinton Foundation as hedge fund of corruption fueled by selling out America to her enemies)  But it was flat and dull, and the confidence that used to exude from Melanie and Ivanka, standing behind him was gone-- their faces now grim masks.

At the moment a betting man would say we are fuct.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1259 on: June 08, 2016, 10:32:48 AM »
Seconding Crafty's comments [deeply discouraged, f*ct], only worse.

"Unless we are saved by the FBI,..."

No, not even that.  On the Dem side, they couldn't be more crippled already.  No matter what happens on their side we are still stuck without a candidate and without a possibility of ever re-uniting the movement without just selling out to principle that at least for me are not my own.

I predicted, Hillary will not run, will not win the nomination if she runs and will not be elected if nominated.  Further I predicted that Trump would never win the Republican nomination and could never be the strongest candidate to run against Hillary or other leftist.

i was right on all the underlying facts.  Her scandals blew up in her face, her corruption has been fully exposed and her weaknesses as a candidate have been on full display.

On the other side, Trump was so bad people started to accept the Senate's most conservative member as the centrist compromise.  All of what we feared to be bad about Trump came true.

If Hillary were handcuffed, hauled off, locked up and held without bail, it wouldn't solve a single one of our problems.  She would still win or Bernie or Biden etc would in her place.  We are stuck without a leader and without an acceptable candidate to represent our interests with 5 months to go before the election.  That means we are screwed for more than 4 years, probably more than 8 years, for the rest of our lifetimes and likely forever - not to be overly negative about it.

On my bet with ccp, it is time for me to concede.  You were right.  You didn't want to be right but your were right.  I think I will send you my bank transfer codes and you can take what I owe before the big crony government ruling uni-party takes the rest.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1262 on: June 09, 2016, 06:39:13 AM »
How perfect for the crook.  Pay off her silicon valley donors and bring in millions of new Democrat Party voters to all keep her in power.




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1263 on: June 09, 2016, 09:03:32 AM »
"On my bet with ccp, it is time for me to concede.  You were right.  You didn't want to be right but your were right.  I think I will send you my bank transfer codes and you can take what I owe before the big crony government ruling uni-party takes the rest."

First time I won a bet and hated it!

To think my taxes will go up MORE!   :x  The Dem party is just going bonkers waiting to get Christy out of NJ and the Democratic mafia will rape us more at the state level as well.

All the while immigrants are just flooding in from all over the world and voting for them .

"Elizabeth the Great" is now "rumored" to be endorsing Hillary.  AS Doug and one of my favorite TV characters would have said , surprise surprise surprise.

She is formidable only because the left media just so adores her.  She can do no wrong.  She is the left's great vaginal hope.  More than Hillary
« Last Edit: June 09, 2016, 09:06:04 AM by ccp »

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Stewart Rhodes: Patriots Must Step Up to Protect Americans Against Assault.
« Reply #1264 on: June 09, 2016, 05:45:33 PM »
IN THE WAKE OF SAN JOSE, PATRIOTS MUST STEP UP TO PROTECT ALL AMERICANS AGAINST ASSAULT BY VIOLENT THUGS

An article posted in the morning hours of June 09, 2016, [HERE] is titled:

San Jose Undercover Cops: “Trump Supporters were running for their lives – We were unable to help”…

In light of several key factors arising from the article at Conservative Treehouse, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes wishes to issue a statement, which I will post below.  However, let us first set the tone by viewing a video clip from YouTube:



In addition to posting the above video in their article, the “Conservative Treehouse” also has furnished some police reports from City of San Jose, California, which include —

Under Cover San Jose Officer #1: […] Throughout the afternoon and evening I watched several individuals wearing “Trump” articles of clothing getting punched, kicked and pushed.

Under Cover #2: […] I was assigned to the Covert Response Unit and dressed in a plainclothes capacity. … As time came closer to 18:00 more protesters arrived; mostly younger males and females between the ages of 14 to 25.  … some began burning the United States flag in the middle of the street. It became inherently dangerous for anyone wearing a hat or T-Shirt in support of Trump.  I observed Trump supporters being spit on, objects being thrown at them, punched, kicked and even robbed of their personal belongings.  In these instances I observed victims running for their lives because protesters began adopting the mob mentality and attacking people.  I was unable to make contact with any of these victims due to my undercover capacity and fear for my own safety as well.

I strongly recommend going to the original article and following their embedded links, where readers will learn about the Mayor’s complicity in the police stand-down and the official policy for police to allow this to take place outside a Trump for President rally on June 02.  Example:

San Jose Police Chief Garcia admitted his officers were instructed not to stop violent protesters from beating the Trump rally attendees. In addition the San Jose Mayor has openly admitted to approving the San Jose police departments plans, and blamed Donald Trump for having the audacity to have a rally in “his city“.

Do go to the original site and check the other embedded links to get yet more insight into what transpired, and did not transpire but should have. And if you want to go up a level or two in your perception of today’s America, check out Michael Shaw’s outstanding work on the Globalization of California.

Message From Stewart Rhodes

No American, anywhere, whether you agree with their views or not, should be attacked for expressing their God given (and Constitution protected) rights of free speech and assembly, and their right to participate in our political process. And no police officer, who has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution, should obey any order to not protect the rights of people to peaceably assemble and express their views, and should refuse any order to stand by and do nothing as violent, criminal thugs assault Americans who are simply exercising their rights. It is a disgrace to have the police obey such orders, and an act of treason for the politicians to give such orders.

If officers are so outnumbered that they are concerned for their own safety, that is one thing, but to not intervene because some oath breaking, partisan scumbag politician orders them to stand down, so the politician’s thuggish foot-soldiers have a free hand to terrorize and assault other Americans, is inexcusable. Whatever happened to “Protect and Serve”? The fundamental justification for having police, or having government at all, is to protect people against predatory violence. These violent communist and La Raza racist thugs are the true “Brownshirts” of modern America, attempting to use violence and intimidation to shut down free speech and assembly.

If the police will not protect Americans from violent assault meant to punish them for their political views, and meant to silence them by force, then Americans will have to protect themselves, and each other, from such violence.

I call on all patriotic Americans to step up and protect the weak, the elderly, the vulnerable among them against these thugs, wherever they strike. Veterans, you have a particular obligation and duty, under your oath, to step up and protect your fellow Americans by stepping in between them and these thugs.  In the absence of police protection, Veterans need to step in the gap and form up five to eight man security teams who can serve as escorts and rescue people from being beaten.

As anyone versed in defensive tactics or combatives will tell you, whenever anyone is sucker punched there is a very real and serious risk that they will fall and then hit their head on the concrete, on a parking block, on a curb, on a parked car, etc and that secondary impact can, and does, result in death.  A person can also be stomped and kicked to death by a mob in short order. These are deadly threat mob assaults and must be treated as such.

Anyone attending any event targeted by these radical leftist extremists needs to realize they are in a tactical situation that requires them to prepare for the worst and to take steps to protect themselves. They should go in groups of four or more, and among them needs to be people who are fit enough, and trained enough, to hold their own in a melee. If you are a fit, strong veteran, you have a duty to be the “sheepdog” and walk with those who are less able to defend themselves. Go in groups, and be ready to defend yourselves and others.

Any Oath Keeper who goes out and protects people who are under such threat of assault is doing the right thing. And we need to be willing to do that for ANY American under such threat, even if we disagree with their political views (for example, even if you disagree with Democrats who will be attending the DNC, or any other Democrat gathering, you should be willing to protect them if they are assaulted by violent radicals, and the same for Republicans attending the RNC). This org is non-partisan for a very good reason. We must stand for the rights of all Americans, at all times, in all places.

When we stepped up in Ferguson, MO and protected Natalie, of Natalie’s Cakes and More (who happens to be a black woman), and her neighbors, we didn’t ask them what political party they belonged to, or what their politics were. It didn’t matter. We protected them because it was the right thing to do, and because no American should be assaulted, murdered by arsonists, or raped, robbed, or looted. Same here.

I will be holding an urgent Oath Keepers BOD and leadership call tomorrow night to discuss this situation and how we can help. But all patriots, regardless of what group they are in, need to step up and protect people against such violence and attempts to use force to chill their speech.

These are intolerable acts of thuggery that must be stopped.

For the Republic,

Stewart Rhodes

PS – the San Jose Police Department has issued a statement, defending their inaction, saying:

While several physical assaults did occur, the police personnel on scene had the difficult task of weighing the need to immediately apprehend the suspect(s) against the possibility that police action involving the use of physical force under the circumstances would further insight the crowd and produce more violent behavior.

What a load of bull.  I just got off the phone with veteran police officers and tactical trainers Greg McWhirter (former Indianapolis cop and current Montana corrections) and John Karriman (Missouri Police Academy Defensive Tactics instructor) and both of them stated that standing down is exactly opposite of what the San Jose police should have done, and only emboldened the thugs, producing more violent behavior, since the thugs could clearly see that the police would do nothing to stop them.  The right answer was to drop a hammer on the first thugs to commit assault, including using less than lethal rubber baton shotgun rounds if needed (thugs hate and fear shotguns) and pepper balls.  Make an example of a few, and the rest tend to back off (just like any gaggle of bullies).  The excuse given by the department is akin to a cowardly husband saying “don’t resist Martha, or it will make them angry, just let them have their way” which usually results in rape and murder of both of them.   It gives the thugs a green light and the thrill of doing as they wish right in front of the police.  What’s next?   Will “politically correct” cops let someone be beaten to death in front of them out of fear of inciting the crowd to more violent behavior?   Given how fast someone can be beaten to death by a mob, that nobody was killed here was just blind luck, and certainly not because of anything the San Jose Police Department did.



"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1265 on: June 12, 2016, 06:03:45 AM »
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

Could there be any other reason for this other than the easily persuadable group of voters looking at the 2 candidates running and concluding that Obama is not so bad after all?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1266 on: June 12, 2016, 07:28:18 AM »
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

Could there be any other reason for this other than the easily persuadable group of voters looking at the 2 candidates running and concluding that Obama is not so bad after all?

Worst recovery in history with domestic ad world security spiraling out of control, 54% approval??!!  This is the failure of the Republican primary campaign. 

We had 17 reasonably strong candidates competing to best explain of how Obama governed wrong and how best for Republicans can set it right.  Trump single-handedly turned that into a circular firing squad.  Now he thinks he won.  Some winner, he trails Hillary by 10 points in his own favorite poll, Reuters.   He has now driven Obama's numbers up over 50.  We know everything wrong with everyone from Jeb Bush to Scott Walker but President Barack Obama got a pass.   Trump's more unpopular than the felon Hillary.  He is poised to lose the Senate.  He still doesn't know how the economy or the nuclear triad works, thinks Mexico is in Indiana and that Indiana's problems are in Mexico.  He doesn't care about balancing the budget, reforming entitlements or stopping Putin.

I said early on that his lack of understanding and appreciation for private property rights is an indication of flaws to come.

Trump makes Barack Obama look like an experienced and effective statesman.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1267 on: June 12, 2016, 07:35:08 AM »
"Trump makes Barack Obama look like an experienced and effective statesman."

Doug I suspect this is exactly right!
Rather suddenly Brock's numbers are climbing 10 % which must be related to Trump scaring off independents or whatever one wants to call the group that votes with whomever sounds good on THAT day!

Remember how Clinton's numbers went up 15 tp 20 points after a single speech?

All else is forgiven as long as the politician says the right thing on a given day.

WE can be sure Hillary will study this to death.  Trump seems to only know attacks and slogans.
It is looking worse every day he keeps doing the same thing.
Clinton will understand this.  So will some Trump people .  But will Trump?

It worked for him up to this point but I don't think he is going to win over these "day to day reactionary thinkers" who always seem to be (ironically) the group that decides national elections.  
« Last Edit: June 12, 2016, 07:38:50 AM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1268 on: June 12, 2016, 11:45:06 AM »
"Trump seems to only know attacks and slogans.
It is looking worse every day he keeps doing the same thing."


George Will said (paraphrasing), changing Trump would be like telling Mick Jagger and Keith Richards to get off of rock and roll; people want to hear chamber music.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1269 on: June 14, 2016, 06:40:25 PM »
I heard the WSJ reported that FBI sources say the EDC is not going to be charged?


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1270 on: June 14, 2016, 07:25:22 PM »
I heard the WSJ reported that FBI sources say the EDC is not going to be charged?



After Buraq Hussein endorsed her? It was clear the fix was in.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1271 on: June 27, 2016, 10:41:41 AM »
Caught a bit of the EDC with Forked Tongue Warren this morning.

Seems to be good synergy between the two. 

FTW has some very good populist issues (Feds should not be profiting on your students loans , , , on an education which should be free anyway) and that Consumer Protection Board she helped set up. 

Regarding the latter, they ARE some seriously hideous practices by finance companies (See "This Week with John Oliver" episode on this) and FTW's attacks on them and other consumer protection issues will play very well AND allow the EDC to ride the coat tails of her popularity on this issue-- allowing her to shore up her very weak link of being 'for' the little guy.

Also, FTW is a very good attack dog against Trump.  EDC was chortling about how she gets under Trump's skin.


Prediction:  The EDC will choose FTW for VP.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1273 on: June 27, 2016, 11:46:08 AM »
Caught a bit of the EDC with Forked Tongue Warren this morning.

Seems to be good synergy between the two.  

FTW has some very good populist issues (Feds should not be profiting on your students loans , , , on an education which should be free anyway) and that Consumer Protection Board she helped set up.  

Regarding the latter, they ARE some seriously hideous practices by finance companies (See "This Week with John Oliver" episode on this) and FTW's attacks on them and other consumer protection issues will play very well AND allow the EDC to ride the coat tails of her popularity on this issue-- allowing her to shore up her very weak link of being 'for' the little guy.

Also, FTW is a very good attack dog against Trump.  EDC was chortling about how she gets under Trump's skin.


Prediction:  The EDC will choose FTW for VP.

Didn't see that, but agree to a point.  Choosing Warren locks in the woman question.  Trump probably picks a man because he needs some gravitas and the few women that would give him that (Condaleeza Rice?) will not do it.  She gets the historic matchup, men against women, and she has the most (bad) experience.

Warren locks up the Bernie sympathizers, a big part of populism and the hard left.  The downside is that they leave the middle wide open.  Warren isn't any younger, is another phony, has no relevant experience and opens up the potential to paint the ticket far left.  She is not the cautious choice like Biden and won't be excused for gaffes like Biden was.

All said, I agree, very good chance she picks her.  The other choices don't look very good.  This campaign from their point of view is about ripping Trump.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2016, 12:05:45 PM by DougMacG »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Howard Beale
« Reply #1275 on: June 27, 2016, 07:07:40 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Huff post
« Reply #1277 on: July 02, 2016, 05:44:00 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Huff post
« Reply #1278 on: July 02, 2016, 06:49:37 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1279 on: July 02, 2016, 07:17:51 PM »
"I never knew Joe Arapaio was Jewish!"  He must be, he got the same star on his page!

The idiot posts from all these liberal Jews who are all hard core Democrats.

Who are they kidding?  The day after Trump is giving a speech that we must Defend Israel .  Right.  :-P





DDF

  • Guest
Napolitano
« Reply #1280 on: July 06, 2016, 09:09:31 AM »
« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 12:05:21 PM by DDF »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1281 on: July 06, 2016, 12:20:26 PM »
Not that that is from quite some time ago.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1284 on: July 14, 2016, 08:44:10 AM »
Armed with weapons and even more importantly with cameras ready to document for the world any trouble that they provoke.

Today the war for America is waged with propaganda and not weapons (for the most part).

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1288 on: July 19, 2016, 09:02:23 AM »
Pat Smith: ‘I Blame Hillary Clinton Personally for the Death of My Son’

Hey, remember when grieving mothers of American men slain in battle had “absolute moral authority,” in the words of New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd?

Why would Pat Smith, mother of Sean Smith, one of the four Americans killed in the attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, not have that same authority?

From Pat Smith’s remarks Monday night:

My son Sean was one of four brave Americans killed during the 2012 terrorist attack at Benghazi.

Sean was a wonderful son and father to my two amazing grandchildren, Samantha and Nathan, now 10 and 11. He was proud to serve his country with the United States Foreign Service. The last time I talked to Sean, the night before the terrorist attack, he told me, “Mom, I am going to die.”

All security had been pulled from the embassy, he explained. And when he asked why, he never received a response. Nobody listened. Nobody seemed to care.  The very next day, he was murdered by radical Islamic terrorists. To this day, I don’t even know why a computer guy like Sean was sent to Benghazi. That night, we lost sons, brothers, fathers, and husbands. We lost four brave Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for the country they chose to serve. And the American people lost the truth.

For all of this loss, for all of this grief, for all of the cynicism the tragedy in Benghazi has wrought upon America, I blame Hillary Clinton. I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son.  In an email to her daughter shortly after the attack, Hillary Clinton blamed it on terrorism. But when I saw Hillary Clinton at Sean’s coffin ceremony, just days later, she looked me squarely in the eye and told me a video was responsible. Since then, I have repeatedly asked Hillary Clinton to explain to me the real reason why my son is dead. I’m still waiting.

Whenever I called the State Department, no one would speak to me because they say I am “not a member of the immediate family.” Sean is my SON. Hillary Clinton is a woman, a mother and a grandmother of two. I am a woman, a mother and a grandmother of two. How could she do this to me? How could she do this to any American family?

It will not surprise you to learn that a lot of members of the media seethed at Smith’s speech. Perhaps it was indeed exploitative for the Trump campaign to put her front and center at the convention; she’s grieving and, some will argue, looking for a scapegoat for her son’s death. (Again, I don’t recall this argument coming from any Democrats during the peak of Cindy Sheehan’s public role in antiwar activism.)

If you’re one of those folks who found Pat Smith’s remarks shamelessly exploitative, I wonder if you’ll see the same grumbling about the speakers at the upcoming Democratic National Convention:

Also scheduled Tuesday are Mothers of the Movement members Gwen Carr, Mother of Eric Garner; Sybrina Fulton, Mother of Trayvon Martin; Maria Hamilton, Mother of Dontré Hamilton; Lucia McBath, Mother of Jordan Davis; Lezley McSpadden, Mother of Michael Brown; Cleopatra Pendleton-Cowley, Mother of Hadiya Pendleton; Geneva Reed-Veal, Mother of Sandra Bland.

Oh, now it’s not okay to invoke tragic deaths in the name of a political agenda? I’ll keep that in mind next week. Or after the next mass shooting.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1289 on: July 19, 2016, 09:13:19 AM »
"It will not surprise you to learn that a lot of members of the media seethed at Smith’s speech. Perhaps it was indeed exploitative for the Trump campaign to put her front and center at the convention; she’s grieving and, some will argue, looking for a scapegoat for her son’s death. (Again, I don’t recall this argument coming from any Democrats during the peak of Cindy Sheehan’s public role in antiwar activism.)"

Those who seethed need not worry.  There is 100 % chance we will see adorable illegal immigrant families trying to pull at our heart strings at the DNC.  (what about illegal do they not understand?)
Possible we will see the families of a minority  youth shot by a police officer as well.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1290 on: July 19, 2016, 10:17:47 AM »
Didn't Biden have a problem with plagarizing in the past ?  woops here it is courtesy of Maureen Dowd no less.  the lib from the NYT: http://wgntv.com/2016/07/19/remember-when-joe-biden-plagiarized-a-speech-while-running-for-president/

How about this about the guy with a national monument on the Mall mentioned years ago on this board or one of the previous ones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr._authorship_issues
« Last Edit: July 19, 2016, 10:49:26 AM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
POTH: EDC 76% likely to win
« Reply #1291 on: July 19, 2016, 12:00:41 PM »
Hillary Clinton has a 76% chance of winning the presidency, our election forecast finds. See the state-by-state breakdown.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016 12:50 PM EDT

Our elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls. A victory by Donald Trump remains quite possible: Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same probability that an N.B.A. player will miss a free throw.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: July 19, 2016, 12:41:29 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1293 on: July 22, 2016, 04:44:50 PM »
I would think he should show a bump in the polls till Clinton mob tears him apart and promise tax payers funds for every interest group they can scrape up next week:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1295 on: July 24, 2016, 07:06:26 AM »
" I actually like Hillary – a lot – and I think she has been given a bad rap she doesn’t deserve. But her vote for the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her again. To date, I haven’t broken that promise. For the sake of preventing a proto-fascist from becoming our commander-in-chief, I’m breaking that promise. I sadly believe Clinton will find a way to get us in some kind of military action."

Yup , she got a bad rap.  Doesn't deserve the criticism.

"Beyoncé stormed on the field at this year’s Super Bowl (our game!) with an army of Black Women, fists raised, declaring that our domination was hereby terminated!"

How glorious! Yet when one of 3 or 4 singers sang "all lives matter" during  a baseball game's national anthem the group was forced to apologize.  I agree that all of us white people should be forced into ghettos and forced to pay 90% of our earnings as reparations for all the saintly non white people's of the world.  Starting with the wealthy Michael Moore.

" Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of humor — and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a sick political system."

Doug,
Did you vote for Ventura?  I think you have a good sense of humor.
Speaking of humor I think voting the comedian Al Franken to the Senate was pretty great.  I mean Moore doesn't see "dark" humor in that?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2016, 08:06:00 AM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1296 on: July 24, 2016, 08:10:41 AM »
" I actually like Hillary – a lot – and I think she has been given a bad rap she doesn’t deserve. But her vote for the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her again. To date, I haven’t broken that promise. For the sake of preventing a proto-fascist from becoming our commander-in-chief, I’m breaking that promise. I sadly believe Clinton will find a way to get us in some kind of military action."  [ - Michael Moore, not much of an endorsement!]
---------------

" Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of humor — and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a sick political system."

Doug,
Did you vote for Ventura?



No, I didn't vote for Ventura but I watched it happen.  He wasn't as crazy then.  Someone before him in the Independence Party or whatever they called it earned the right for him to be in the debates with 15% of the vote in a previous election.  Two totally establishment politicians set the table for people to say f*** you to both parties pretty much the way Moore described it.  That is partly analogous to Trump.  He is a way for people to say f*** you to both sides of the establishment without agreeing with him on issues.

Note the absence of all Bushes, McCain, Romney, Boehner, and Rove at Trump's convention.

We seek reason here but people vote largely on emotion.

Speaking of humor I think voting the comedian Al Franken to the Senate was pretty great.  I mean Moore doesn't see "dark" humor in that?

I was not a fan of Franken's SNL humor and he's not the least bit funny as a Senator. All he knows is sarcasm and leftism.  It was more that he was a celebrity in name and a serious voice in politics from a leftist point of view.  He wrote books on Rush Limbaugh and he hosted the failed Air America radio to challenge him, bringing in leftist thought leaders for 3 hours a day for years.  This work caused him to be fully versed on the leftist side of the issues.  By winning the DFL (Dem) nomination, he won the election in 'blue' MN.  Amy Klobuchar, the other Senator is more popular and probably more liberal.  Think Hillary Clinton without all the charm and charisma.  Trump does not bring MN into play and Hillary will only come here to raise big money.  When Reagan won 49 states, guess which one he lost...
« Last Edit: July 24, 2016, 08:12:32 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1297 on: July 24, 2016, 09:17:30 AM »
"When Reagan won 49 states, guess which one he lost..."

That is right.  I forgot about that.

"Note the absence of all Bushes, McCain, Romney, Boehner, and Rove at Trump's convention."

I don't blame them.  But for me, they were not missed.  Cruz should have stayed home as well.  I can see why Cruz is so hated by nearly everyone who has to work with him.  Sure I like most of his positions but he is just not charismatic no matter what Mark Levin says.  I am afraid I am not a Ryan fan either.

My thoughts on Trump already noted on the board.  He is the only one who was running on the right or left who was saying America first.  He was the only one saying he would slow down illegal immigration.  The only one.  I have waited 25 years for that. 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1298 on: July 25, 2016, 06:23:02 AM »
"Note the absence of all Bushes, McCain, Romney, Boehner, and Rove at Trump's convention."
I don't blame them.  But for me, they were not missed.


Right.  I'm not as anti-'establishment' as some but my point is, that rift is a positive for Trump in the eyes of many he wishes to court especially those wanting to express a protest or screw them all vote.     Trump says he is not a Republican (or a Democrat), right as he accepts the Republican nomination!  A majority of voters do not identify as Republican and a majority do not identify as Democrat.  This starts as a 3 point election either way.  They both have challenges holding their base and need to chip away a point here and there in the middle and around the edges. 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile