2016 Presidential

[DougMacG]

Hillary wants her debate fact checked.  I'll take a shot at her assertions:
(more on this here: http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1467.msg98931#msg98931)

HRC:  We also, though, need to have a tax system that rewards work and not just financial transactions. And the kind of plan that Donald has put forth would be trickle-down economics all over again. In fact, it would be the most extreme version, the biggest tax cuts for the top percent of the people in this country than we’ve ever had.  I call it trumped-up trickle-down, because that’s exactly what it would be. That is not how we grow the economy.

   - This always goes unchecked.  It isn't "trickle down" if all rate cuts apply to everyone.  It is an interconnected economy, not a trickled down one.

Rating:  Straw Argument, Deception, and Lie.


HRC: "He really believes that the more you help wealthy people, the better off we’ll be and that everything will work out from there."

Still not true.  Rating:  Straw Argument, Deception, Lie and Repeating a Lie.


HRC: "I believe is the more we can do for the middle class, the more we can invest in you, your education, your skills, your future, the better we will be off and the better we’ll grow."

   - Government 'investment' is called spending, leads to debt, $20 trillion.

Rating:  Deception, Lie.


HRC: "Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. He said, back in 2006, “Gee, I hope it does collapse, because then I can go in and buy some and make some money.” "

   - Housing was over-priced in 2006.  A real estate buyer benefits from lower prices.

Rating:  Punch not landed.


HRC:  "The last thing we need to do is to go back to the policies that failed us in the first place."

   - She and her group have been in power from before the crash all the way through history's slowest 'recovery'.

Rating:  Egg on Face.


HRC: "Independent experts have looked at what I’ve proposed and looked at what Donald’s proposed, and basically they’ve said this, that if his tax plan, which would blow up the debt by over $5 trillion and would in some instances disadvantage middle-class families compared to the wealthy, were to go into effect, we would lose 3.5 million jobs and maybe have another recession.  They’ve looked at my plans and they’ve said, OK, if we can do this, and I intend to get it done, we will have 10 million more new jobs, because we will be making investments where we can grow the economy. Take clean energy. Some country is going to be the clean- energy superpower of the 21st century."

   - There isn't a serious economic study that uses static analysis.  Government money into investments like Solydra that otherwise don't pay for themselves add no net new jobs.

Rating:  Denial of Science, Lie, Deception.
  

HRC:  "I would not add a penny to the debt."

Pay no attention to the previous record of same policies.

Rating:  Congenital Lie.  There was a column by that name.


HRC:  "What I have proposed would be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy, because they have made all the gains in the economy. And I think it’s time that the wealthy and corporations paid their fair share to support this country."

   - That's exactly the argument made before Obama was elected.  These policies made it worse.

Rating:  Pathological Lie.


HRC:  "$4 billion tax benefit for your family."

   - You just said in the same debate that he pays NO federal income tax.

Rating:  Lie.


HRC: "Too many young African-American and Latino men ended up in jail for nonviolent offenses. And it’s just a fact that if you’re a young African-American man and you do the same thing as a young white man, you are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated.  So we’ve got to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. We cannot just say law and order. We have to say — we have to come forward with a plan that is going to divert people from the criminal justice system, deal with mandatory minimum sentences, which have put too many people away for too long for doing too little."

   - Mandatory sentencing was a feature of the Bill Clinton administration, as was the Defense of Marriage Act and repeal of Glass Steagal.

Rating:  Deflection, Deception, Lie.


HRC:  "He has really started his political activity based on this racist lie that our first black president was not an American citizen."

   - What is racial about birth?  And she started that political lie.

Rating:  Lying about your own Lie.


HRC:  "There was absolutely no evidence for it, but he persisted."

  - The evidence was that he was refusing to release his birth certificate for a job that has requirements regarding birth, also that his own publicist was promoting him as a Kenyan.  
Rating:  No one Left to Lie to.  There was a book by that name.  Yes, about her.


HRC:  "I voted for every sanction against Iran when I was in the Senate, but it wasn’t enough. So I spent a year-and-a-half putting together a coalition that included Russia and China to impose the toughest sanctions on Iran.   And we did drive them to the negotiating table. And my successor, John Kerry, and President Obama got a deal that put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot. That’s diplomacy. That’s coalition-building. That’s working with other nations."

   - She is taking credit for constructing the sanctions regime that they abandoned, and is supporting the abandonment.  There is a "lid" on Iran’s nuclear program"

Rating:  She is a consistently contrary indicator between right and wrong on policy.

HRC:  "Let’s have paid family leave, earned sick days. Let’s be sure we have affordable child care and debt-free college.  How are we going to do it? We’re going to do it by having the wealthy pay their fair share and close the corporate loopholes."

   - You already ran out of other peoples' money, $20 trillion in the red and counting.

Rating of anyone who believes that:  Gullible.

[DDF]

Has Trump winning 55% to 45%.

http://time.com/4506217/presidential-debate-clinton-trump-survey/?xid=time_socialflow_facebook

"This question may well prove to be a big warning flag of serious cheating to come."

This was exactly my thought.  Is the election rigged?  Why wouldn't it be?  Who is going to do anything about it?

They want to forestall him from complaining about dirty tricks, rigging the vote, stuffing the ballot box, etc.  

This question may well prove to be a big warning flag of serious cheating to come.

Exactly my concern and an odd question. Trump was smart to just answer "yes," because in doing so, he is supporting law and order. Anything else would have left him open.

Been doing homework all day. Going to edit this with my notes in a few minutes.

Edit... not going to edit it. Any analysis of this at this moment is imprudent based on the fact that no one is going to change their minds. I was thinking Johnson this morning, then got to 5600 pages of TPP junk that I have to skim vs Trump's "stop and frisk" which I also don't support. Have to see what happens at the next debate.

There are just too many variables at the moment. Election fraud is indeed a danger and why the leftist media is attempting to claim that HRC is close in the polls. I doubt she is. Electronic voting leaves no hard proof, which is a point many have mentioned before the debate. When asked of supporting Clinton, I can only laugh.

With a potential of nearly two decades of liberal rule, would you support it, while they destroy every freedom you hold dear, especially if there is a reasonable doubt that they were elected fraudulently? GC just posted an article with the gun laws that have passed... Anyone that is 40 years of age or older, remembers the difference between their childhood and the litany of laws that exist now.

Support? Support what?

[Crafty_Dog]

On line polls are of limited value.

[DDF]

On line polls are of limited value.

I agree. I was screen capturing data off of both candidates' pages last night, immediately after the debate had ended, from the top comments on their respective pages, with both publishing posts as soon as the debate had ended.

In 21 minutes, the top comment from Trump's page garnered 5950 likes in 21 minutes (283.333- endorsements of support per minute), with 394 replies.

In 18 minutes, the top comment from Clinton's page had generated 2087 likes (115.9444- endorsements of support per minute) OR 40% of the support Trump was enjoying based on the ratio, per minute. Clinton had 214 replies.

From the replies, we can also garner interest generated by either candidate. I know that is subject to several factors that may sway data (both are from English speaking pages, time zones, amount of households that have internet, and a lack of input from either Stein's or Johnson's pages). Even still, the reverse is also true... those that were awake, on the internet, and had just watched the debate, those are the results of what they had to say.

Interesting to note, is the correlation between Time's result of 55% pro Trump, and the casual data gathered by what I observed last night. More drastic are Youtube ratios which I have generally calculated at roughly 12 in 5 supporting Clinton. I should look into why that is.

[DougMacG]

From our point of view Trump missed so many opportunities.  OTOH maybe he did land some lasting punches with his targeted voters.  

[One other point is that Romney destroyed Obama in the first debate of 2012 and lost the election decisively.]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/did-donald-trump-deconstruct-hillary-clinton-with-marginal-voters/article/2603043

Did Donald Trump deconstruct Hillary Clinton with marginal voters?

By MICHAEL BARONE (@MICHAELBARONE) • 9/27/16 7:39 PM

One way to look at Monday's night presidential debate: Both candidates were speaking, time and again, to marginal voters. Specifically, to young Americans, and for a considerable time to young black Americans in particular, people who may or may not choose to vote, may choose to vote for a third- or fourth-party candidate or may (Democrats hope) turn out to vote in large numbers for Hillary Clinton. Clinton's strategy of replicating the 2012 Obama 51 percent majority requires high turnout among groups that over history have had a low propensity to vote — blacks, Hispanics, young people. Trump's strategy, given his unpopularity with young voters, is to deter them from voting for Clinton, especially considering that the black and Hispanic percentages among young people eligible to vote is higher than those percentages among older people.

"She's been doing this for 30 years," Trump said near the beginning of the debate, while talking about trade. The number's not quite accurate: Clinton has been a national figure for only — only! — 25 years, since Bill Clinton began running for president in 1991, but she was also, as speakers at the Democratic National Convention mentioned over and over, a public policymaker starting at least when Bill Clinton was first elected governor in 1978, 38 years ago. "And Hillary, I'd just ask you this," Trump said some minutes later. "You've been doing this for 30 years." There's no clear antecedent for "this" — Trump was riffing about energy, debt, trade — but the point was made again. He even lapsed into absurdity — "You've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life" — which is impossible because the Islamic State didn't exist for most of that time. Much later in the debate, he chimed in on ISIS. "So she talks about taking them out. She's been doing it a long time." And near the end of the debate, he chimed in, "Hillary's has experience, it's bad experience."

Trump also went after her on flip-flopping, which is to say, sincerity. He brazenly predicted that she would push the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement she's currently and then recalled, accurately, "You called it the gold standard of trade deals." Young people, it seems safe to say, value sincerity and dislike candidates who switch positions for political reasons.

Trump missed a chance to skewer Clinton for her secret email server in response to a question on cybersecurity, but earlier, when moderator Lester Holt (otherwise mum on the emails) asked her to respond to Trump's mention of them, he said, "That was more than a mistake. That was done purposely. OK?" At which point he repeated the previous two sentences. "When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth so they're not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it's disgraceful."

So on three critical characteristics Trump tried to get across the message that Clinton is antique, expedient and dishonest — qualities that young people presumably abhor. He underlined the concerns that have young people in some target state polls casting more than 20 percent of their votes for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein or no candidate rather than the Democratic nominee.

How did Clinton try to appeal to young voters? Near the beginning of the debate, as part of a laundry list of policies supported by many Democrats, she called for "paid family leave, sick days" and "affordable child care and debt-free college." She echoed the call for "debt-free college" later but did not describe her plan, adapted from Bernie Sanders' proposal, in any detail. Later, in listing her "plans," she said, "We also have to look at how we help families balance the responsibilities at home and the responsibilities at business." Not all these concerns are shared by many young people, especially those who are marginal voters. Not all want to go to college. The percentage of Millennials who are married is lower than it was of previous generations and most unmarrieds are not in the market for child care. By no means do all have jobs. It's not clear that the policies will help them.

She also attacked Trump for positions and statements presumably unattractive to young people. She charged that "Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpretrated by the Chinese" — a slight alteration of a Trump tweet. And at the end of the debate Lester Holt asked a question that gave her a chance to reprise some of the repulsive things Trump has said about women.

"We move into our next segment talking about America's direction," said Lester Holt. "Let's start by talking about race." I don't recall "race" being a subject in any presidential debate in the last four elections (please correct me if I'm wrong), which tells you something about the state of things today.

In response, Clinton echoed the complaints of the Black Lives Matter group: "race still determines too much," there is "systemic racism in our criminal justice system" and "implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police." But she said, "It's really unfortunate that he [Trump] paints such a dire negative picture of black communities in our country." She joined Lester Holt in stating, inaccurately, that stop and frisk has been declared unconstitutional (for once, Trump had his facts straight on this and relayed them clearly). But she also said that police deserve respect and "we do always have to make sure we keep people safe." But the clear thrust of her remarks was in line with that of many protesters and of most black elected Democrats, and she called for federal "retraining" of police. Presumably she did so in the hope of rallying black voters, particularly young blacks, to the polls.

In contrast, Trump talked bluntly about the need for "law and order" and made the point, less clearly than he had at the Republican National Convention, that "the people that are most affected by what's happening" — increasing crime and violent riots — "are African-American and Hispanic people. And it's very unfair to them what our politicians are allowing to happen." He didn't cite the FBI figures released Monday showing murders nationally up 11 percent in 2015 — the biggest annual rise in decades. But he did make specific reference to recent events in Charlotte, Chicago, Detroit, New York and Dallas which show some acquaintance with what's going on.

My own sense is that Trump got the better of this exchange. Clinton's stance may gin up black turnout, but it's not likely to rise to the levels of 2008 and 2012 when the first black president was running. And if the Democratic percentage among blacks should fall from the 95 and 93 percent of those years to the 84 and 83 percent Bill Clinton got in the 1990s, that would mean 1 point off Hillary Clinton's percentage nationally and more in target states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. And I'm not sure it helps Hillary Clinton to accuse the 70-plus percent of voters who are white that they have a problem with "implicit bias."       (more at link)

[Crafty_Dog]

It’s Like No One Remembers Who John Warner Is
Most of the Washington media is acting like it’s an enormous surprise that former senator John Warner of Virginia is endorsing Hillary Clinton.
People, people . . . Sometimes I feel like the only man with memory in land of amnesiacs. It was just two years ago that Warner was endorsing the Democrat in the Senate race.
Retired Republican Sen. John Warner endorsed his Democratic successor and onetime rival Mark Warner on Monday in his race against Ed Gillespie.
The 86-year-old told POLITICO that the state benefits from the seniority in the Senate that the 59-year-old Warner (the two are not related) is accumulating. The former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee also praised the younger Warner – with whom he has developed a friendship since the two squared off in a race nearly two decades ago – for effectively advocating on behalf of the state’s large military presence.
John Warner is the kind of Republican who supported Roe v. Wade and embryonic stem cell research, voted for the Brady Bill, sought to extend the Assault Weapons Ban, voted to reject the nomination of Robert Bork, voted against Bill Clinton’s impeachment, broke with the rest of the party on the Terry Schiavo case, was part of the Gang of 14 on the “nuclear option,” co-sponsored a resolution opposing the 2007 surge of additional U.S. troops in Iraq, and cosponsored cap-and-trade legislation.
John Warner is exactly the kind of Republican you would expect to see endorse Hillary Clinton.
Who Will Win More Votes Where It Counts, Trump or GOP Senate Candidates?
The piece of data that will most illuminate 2016 is Donald Trump’s vote total in key states compared to the vote totals of the Republican Senate candidates in those states.
The easy, lazy narrative is that a tired, unappealing Republican establishment was sputtering, and then Trump came along, energizing working-class white voters, and he represents a better, more broadly-appealing agenda for the party and represents the GOP future.
The current RealClearPolitics averages in each state tell a completely different story.
Right now, Trump is running a little ahead of GOP Senate candidates in a couple of states . . .
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Colorado: 41 percent.
Darryl Glenn’s current level in the RCP average in Colorado: 40.4 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Indiana: 45 percent.
Todd Young’s current level in the RCP average in Indiana: 40.5 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Missouri: 46.7 percent.
Roy Blunt’s current level in the RCP average in Missouri: 44.6 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in North Carolina: 42.3 percent.
Richard Burr’s current level in the RCP average in North Carolina: 42.2 percent.
Trump is running a little behind GOP Senate candidates in a bunch of states . . .
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Florida: 43.3 percent.
Marco Rubio’s current level in the RCP average in Florida: 46.4 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Georgia: 45.4 percent.
Johnny Isakson’s current level in the RCP average in Georgia: 49 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Illinois: 34.5 percent.
Mark Kirk’s current level in the RCP average in Illinois: 37.5 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Nevada: 42.8 percent.
Joe Heck’s current level in the RCP average in Nevada: 45 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Pennsylvania: 41.8 percent.
Pat Toomey’s current level in the RCP average in Pennsylvania: 42.2 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Wisconsin: 38 percent.
Ron Johnson’s current level in the RCP average in Wisconsin: 41.3 percent.
And Trump is running way behind GOP Senate candidates in another couple of states.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Arizona: 40.4 percent.
John McCain’s current level in the RCP average in Arizona: 49.7 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Iowa: 42.8 percent.
Chuck Grassley’s current level in the RCP average in Iowa: 52 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in New Hampshire: 37.3 percent.
Kelly Ayotte’s current level in the RCP average in New Hampshire: 47.3 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Ohio: 42.7 percent.
Rob Portman’s current level in the RCP average in Ohio: 49.3 percent.
All appropriate caveats apply: Polls can be wrong, a bad sample can throw off the RCP average, et cetera. After the election, when all the votes are counted, we’ll have real data. Some will argue that this is an imperfect measuring stick, because Trump is competing against Clinton as well as Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, and most third-party candidates in Senate races are minimally consequential. Of course, this is part of the point. Trump alienates and repels a portion of the electorate that is usually more open to voting for a Republican nominee.

[DDF]

I think you're right. I'm trying to do homework and also read the Trans-Pacific Partnership to pick it apart, and maybe send some things to Trump's campaign that he can use.

At 5,544 pages (it's hard to tell because the actual government link with the text is in several links due to its size), it weighs more than 100 lbs. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/05/tpp-trade-deal-hits-5544-pages-longer-obamacare-plus-rubios-gang-eight-cheap-labor-amnesty-bill/

The full text is here: https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

Immediately, off of the preamble link, there are already glaring problems -

• ESTABLISH a comprehensive regional   agreement   that promotes economic  integration to liberalise trade.

Liberalise - make liberal or more liberal, of laws and rules. To cause to change; make different; cause a transformation; relax controls.

• BUILD on  their  respective  rights  and  obligations  under  the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

Basically ceding more power to - "an intergovernmental organization which regulates international trade."

• RECOGNISE further their  inherent  right  to  adopt,  maintain  or  modify health care systems

A good question would be, what healthcare systems have to do with international trade, but they've certainly justified it somewhere in their mountain of documents. I am one of few that actually took the time to read Obamacare in its entirety. Pelosi's infamous "you have to pass it so you can see what's in it," was her way of saying, that she hadn't read it herself, and at more than twice the size of Obamacare, the amount of people that get paid to read this, won't.

• AFFIRM that  state-owned  enterprises  can  play  a  legitimate  role  in  the diverse  economies  of  the  Parties,  while  recognising (sic) that  the  provision  of unfair  advantages  to  state-owned  enterprises  undermines  fair  and  open trade  and  investment, and  resolve to establish  rules  for state-owned enterprises   that   promote  a   level   playing   field   with   privately   owned businesses, transparency and sound business practices;

So the State, wants to regulate the rules by which the State will play by? Clinton, Russia being allowed to buy American plutonium, and cash shoveled into the Clinton Foundation come to mind.


[/list]

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Preamble.pdf

I'll read more of this and see what comes to surface. If anything, someone should pass a law, that makes passing legislation that takes longer than three days to speed read, illegal. When I do read it, I'll post it in the appropriate thread. Just in the preamble, there is even more to pick apart, depending on how much interest and power you think the United States should retain, a fundamental difference in philosophies that cannot be ignored, but that is easy to sell the American public.

[DDF]

All appropriate caveats apply: Polls can be wrong, a bad sample can throw off the RCP average, et cetera. After the election, when all the votes are counted, we’ll have real data. Some will argue that this is an imperfect measuring stick, because Trump is competing against Clinton as well as Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, and most third-party candidates in Senate races are minimally consequential. Of course, this is part of the point. Trump alienates and repels a portion of the electorate that is usually more open to voting for a Republican nominee.

That is critical.

I think the appropriate thing to do is find and expose Johnson's negative points. He (Johnson) should be in the debates, but not just for Johnson's sake, but for the sake of finding out the negative portions that don't come to light, such as his support of TPP. The public has been focused so much, on attacking and endorsing Clinton or Trump, that even though the likelihood of a Libertarian victory is diminished with the inherent power of the DNC and GOP, the fact that Johnson (Stein to a much lesser extent), will pull needed votes from either candidate, MUST BE addressed. Johnson should receive much more attention than he is currently receiving, and not all of it positive.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0Tp2UUQf2k

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fact-checking-lester-holt-1475016937

Fact-Checking Lester Holt
Here’s the legal back story on that stop-and-frisk ruling.
Sept. 27, 2016 6:55 p.m. ET

We told you Tuesday that Donald Trump was right when he pushed back on debate moderator Lester Holt over “stop and frisk” policing. But the story deserves a more complete explanation, not least because the media are distorting the record.

Mr. Trump invoked stop and frisk as a way to “take the gun away from criminals” in high-crime areas and protect the innocent. That provoked Mr. Holt, who said that “stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York.” Mr. Trump then noted that the ruling in the case came from a “very against police judge” who later had the case taken away from her. Mrs. Clinton then echoed Mr. Holt.

Here’s what really happened. The federal judge in the stop-and-frisk case was Shira Scheindlin, a notorious police critic whose behavior got her taken off the case by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court put it this way:

“Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges . . . and that the appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation was compromised by the District Judge’s improper application of the Court’s ‘related case rule’ . . . and by a series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court.”

The court then remanded the case to another judge who would not present an appearance of bias against the police. In a follow-up opinion, the appellate judges cited a New Yorker interview with Judge Scheindlin that included a quote from a former law clerk saying “what you have to remember about the judge is that she thinks cops lie.”

This is an extraordinary rebuke by a higher court and raises doubts that the merits of her ruling would have held up on appeal. As Rudolph Giuliani makes clear nearby, the judge’s ruling of unconstitutionality applied only to stop and frisk as it was practiced in New York at the time. Such police search tactics have long been upheld by higher courts.

In the end, the clock ran out on Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and new Mayor Bill de Blasiochose not to appeal. We rate Mr. Trump’s claim true and unfairly second-guessed by a moderator who didn’t give the viewing public all the facts.

[DougMacG]

Is this a national issue relative to this election, why was it brought up in this debate with time for big issues so limited?  I presume the answer to that was to isolate Trump from blacks, stop and frisk is hugely unpopular with blacks.  Also to distract attention away from current failures.

This is like abortion question, questioners pick apart the most extreme conservative position on rare cases and ignore the 98% where babies are getting slaughtered for convenience reasons.  In this case, the black and Hispanic neighborhoods are becoming war zones.  Bothering innocent people isn't a big part of the fix.

The policy as I understand it is stop, question and frisk, not stop and frisk.

[Crafty_Dog]

ow much money can the Obama Administration seize from banks before triggering a global financial panic? U.S. Department of Justice lawyers decided to find out by running a two-week experiment at Germany’s Deutsche Bank. The experiment appears to have ended on Friday, but not before Washington had ignited a run on one of the world’s largest financial institutions.

The government threat to Deutsche Bank’s safety and soundness began on Sept. 15. That’s when the Journal reported that Justice was demanding an eye-watering $14 billion to resolve an investigation of the bank’s sale of mortgage-backed securities prior to the 2008 financial panic.

Deutsche Bank then had to acknowledge the size of this government stick-up as its stock price proceeded to drop more than 20% in a fortnight. The lack of exuberance among investors was entirely rational. Washington’s proposed withdrawal represented most of the bank’s market capitalization.

Why announce this giant robbery now? Well, on Friday morning the Financial Times quoted two anonymous sources as saying Justice is seeking an “omnibus settlement” from Deutsche Bank, Barclays and Credit Suisse “to achieve maximum public impact by collecting an eye-catching sum in penalties” merely “weeks before the U.S. presidential election.”

The FT is often wrong, but we assume it didn’t make this up. And you don’t have to be a cynic to believe that this Administration would stage a bank raid that it could brag about to rev up voter enthusiasm among Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Democrats.

The problem is that the feds were creating the very systemic financial risk—aka “contagion”—that they claim to want to prevent. The public raid created so many doubts that major hedge funds began to flee Deutsche Bank amid uncertainty about its financial stability. The bank’s travails also called into question the strength of other European lenders, whose stock prices also fell.

Deutsche Bank CEO John Cryan had to write a letter assuring employees that despite “speculation in the media that a few of our hedge fund clients have reduced some activities with us,” the bank still had more than 20 million clients and strong fundamentals.

A crisis for the bank was averted when Agence France Press reported Friday that the U.S. government suddenly appeared willing to accept only $5.4 billion from Deutsche Bank, rather than the $14 billion it had been demanding. Not so coincidentally, the new settlement amount is roughly equal to the litigation reserves recently reported by the bank. The news appeared to quell the run, and Deutsche Bank shares rallied strongly.

To summarize this fiasco: The feds leak a giant settlement number of $14 billion against an already shaky European bank to make the Democrats look tough on banks only weeks before an election. But they misjudge the market reaction, and then quickly settle for less than half that amount when they realize they might end up toppling a giant bank and kicking off another global financial panic.

We’d sure like to see the phone and email communications between Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Attorney General Loretta Lynch this week. Maybe Mr. Lew’s Financial Stability Oversight Council should investigate this case of government-induced systemic risk. He could bring in House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling as investigating counsel.

Notably missing here is any thought for proper justice in the creation of either settlement number. It all seems to have been an arbitrary political game. Justice lawyers have never even publicly stated what exactly Deutsche Bank is supposed to have done wrong. Does it even matter in Barack Obama’s Washington? 

WSJ

[Crafty_Dog]

------
Let me pull out my list of Hillary tax hikes: a $350 billion income-tax increase in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions (without lowering personal tax rates); a more than $400 billion “fairness” tax hike in the form of a 4 percent surcharge on high-end earners; and the “Buffet rule,” which would establish a 30 percent minimum tax on earners with adjusted gross incomes over $1 million.
 
Clinton also proposes increase the estate tax rate to a range of 45 to 65 percent and reduce the exemption to $3.5 million.

Remember, estate taxes are already hit once by the income tax and again by the capital-gains tax. Here Hillary would end the stepped-up capital gains tax basis and instead value the gain all the way back to the initial transaction.
 
One of my favorite economists, Scott Grannis, calls this legalized theft.
 
Hillary also would raise the capital-gains tax to over 40 percent, unless gains are held for more than six years; cap various business deductions (without lowering the corporate rate); and install some sort of “exit tax” for corporate earnings overseas (which are overseas to avoid the high corporate rates she will not reduce).
 
Then there’s her proposed tax on stock trading, her attraction to a payroll tax hike, her endorsement of a steep soda tax and 25 percent national gun tax, and her openness to a carbon tax.

Now contrast this with Donald Trump’s plan to reduce tax rates for individuals and large and small businesses (while abolishing the death tax).
 
His new 15 percent corporate-tax-rate plan would unleash overseas-profits repatriation and a huge surge in corporate investment. By itself, the business tax reform could grow the economy by 4 percent.

He has a prosperity plan. She has a recession plan.

———

Slashing the corporate tax rate I am certain would result in a new wave of corporate investment, which has been noticeably lacking in the current weak expansion. My brother, who used to be Treasurer at Qualcomm, says that he is positive Qualcomm (and many other companies) would react very positively to such a move. It’s hard to underestimate how powerful the Trump changes would be, in my humble opinion.

Hillary, however, would do everything wrong. Maybe the Republican Congress might play a few more years of deadlock, but then again if Hillary wins the Dems might regain control of the Senate. Who knows the mischief the two establishment parties might wreak. I think voting for Trump is a very sensible gamble that things might improve somewhat or a lot, whereas if Hillary wins it’s only a question of how badly things might deteriorate.

I’m not excusing Trump’s painful ignorance on foreign trade matters, but I don’t think he would be able to do a lot of damage there. I think his bluster is mostly a negotiating tactic. I also note that Steve Moore and David Malpass, both good friends of mine for many years, are among Trump’s advisors, and they are solid supply-siders, so at the very least they might be able to tame Trump’s baser instincts.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we8OnvlWSHg

[ccp]

Although now Clinton is doing the same nonsense with the name calling etc:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-tweets-alicia-machado-204233809.html

He could beat her so easily .  If only he would listen to people who could give him the story lines we all know here that most in America are dying to hear , if only someone would say it.

[Crafty_Dog]

 By Bret Stephens
Oct. 3, 2016 7:28 p.m. ET
107 COMMENTS

What follows is a draft of a speech Donald Trump is scheduled to deliver Tuesday, Oct. 4 in Prescott Valley, Ariz. We haven’t confirmed its authenticity because, like the rest of the corrupt media, we’re totally dishonest.

Thank you, everybody, thank you. It’s good to be back in Arizona. And you know we’re going to win, right? The polls say we’re going to win in Arizona, and we will.

The polls also say we’d lose the general election if it were held today. But they’re wrong. So wrong. You know how pollsters work? They guess who will show up to vote on election day, and then they poll these “likely voters.”

But let me tell you something. The pollsters have no clue. None. They don’t have a clue who the electorate is, and they don’t have a clue of what’s going on in America. Believe me, folks, on election day they’re going to find out.

The other day, in Colombia—I’m talking about the country in South America—they held a vote. A referendum. President Santos staked his reputation on a, quote-unquote, peace deal with the terrorists of the FARC.

Now the FARC, they’re the worst people in the world. They’ve killed tens of thousands of people. They make their money through drug trafficking and kidnapping. They’ve been terrorizing Colombians for 50 years.

Along comes Santos, and he makes this terrible deal that says to the FARC: We’re not going to send you to jail. We’re going to sentence your leaders to community service. We’re even going to guarantee you seats in the Congress.

And all the polls said the deal was going to win in a landslide. Obama and Kerry lined up behind it. Santos told Colombians they had no choice, that it was the only road to peace.

Guess what? The polls were wrong. The Colombians knew a bad deal when they saw one. They weren’t going to let killers get away with their crimes. The only deal they want with the FARC is the same deal Reagan got from Russia: We win, they lose.

Folks, it was the same story with the Brexit vote in June. All the polls said the Brits wouldn’t vote to leave the European Union. They did. All the experts said the sky would fall if the Brits voted to go. It didn’t. These geniuses said that Britain was too small to be the master of its own destiny. The British people believe otherwise, and I’m with them!

What happened in Britain, in Colombia, it’s going to happen here. Because, like them, we’re sick of it.

We’re sick of hearing ObamaCare is working when even the New York Times admits it’s a total disaster. We’re sick of hearing how great the economy is when it’s floating on a big wave of cheap credit that benefits Wall Street at the expense of savers. We’re sick of hearing how great the Iran deal is, then watching our sailors being humiliated while we secretly fork over pallets of cash.

You know what we’re also sick of? Liberal hypocrites.

I’m not supposed to say the name I’m about to say. Well, two words: Alicia. Machado.

Who is this Alicia Machado, other than a political prop for Hillary? She was a beauty queen for a business I helped run called “ Miss Universe.” The business of beauty queens is to be beautiful, just like it’s the business of athletes to be fit. Duh! And when she gained some weight, I insisted she lose it. Did I call her “ Miss Piggy”? Boo hoo. Get over it.

For this I’m being treated very badly. Let me ask you something: Other than Lena Dunham, when was the last time Anna Wintour ran a fat person on the cover of Vogue? And when was the last time Hillary said no to one of Ms. Wintour’s big fundraisers because of Vogue’s “lookism”?

So spare me the sensitivity lectures. Spare me the business lectures, too. Those tax returns someone stole and the New York Times published? The ones that showed I once lost nearly a billion dollars and used every legal trick in the book to stage a comeback?

All of you here understand this is how business is done in America. Some years you make money. Some years you lose. You take advantage of every tax break you can because the government is trying to screw you every other way.

That’s the real world. It’s only in the unreal world that Hillary lives in that you can make a fortune by being a failed secretary of state and then cash in on obscene speaking fees, or arrange for Bill to get an $18 million salary to be “honorary chancellor” at a for-profit college while the Obama administration destroys every other for-profit. That’s called corruption, no matter whether it’s legal or not.

Folks, there’s a giant wave coming. A tsunami of Americans who won’t stand for being told we don’t know what’s good for us. Who refuse to be lectured by political grifters about how to make an honest buck. Who don’t need our morals improved by Hillary Macbeth and Billy Caligula. And who refuse to accept that we have to make lousy deals, or make do with less, or that America can’t ever be great again.

To all the liberals and Never Trumpers who don’t get why Hillary isn’t ahead by 50 points—I just explained it. To all of you, get ready for Nov. 8. It’s going to be a beautiful thing. Believe me.

Write bstephens@wsj.com

[Crafty_Dog]

We wrote Monday that many liberals believe that defeating Donald Trump justifies anything, and right on time comes the egregious Eric Schneiderman. The New York Attorney General delivered his own personal October surprise for Hillary Clinton by announcing a supposed scandal over Mr. Trump’s charitable foundation.

Mr. Schneiderman’s office, in a letter sent Friday and released Monday, ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to cease raising money in New York. According to the letter, the Trump outfit is not correctly registered in the state to solicit funds.

The AG gave the foundation 15 days to turn over reams of paper, including audited financial statements and annual financial reports going back many years. Mr. Schneiderman warned in his letter that failure to comply will be deemed a “fraud upon the people of the state of New York.”

The announcement is Mr. Schneiderman’s latest misuse of his prosecutorial authority to attack his political enemies. The AG’s office first announced it was “investigating” Mr. Trump in mid-September—the better to begin a round of bad headlines—and has also been touting its inquiry into Trump University. While it’s possible the Trump Foundation has violated in some way “section 172 of Article 7-A New York’s Executive Law,” it’s notable that the best Mr. Schneiderman could drum up by way of “fraud” was a paperwork technicality.

The bigger point is timing. Mr. Schneiderman’s cease-and-desist order, coming a month before a general election, smells like partisan politics. The AG has endorsed Mrs. Clinton and sits on the Democratic nominee’s New York “leadership council,” which the Clinton campaign describes as the “in-state leadership” for her campaign, charged with “amplifying the campaign’s national voice to New York families” and “aiding the campaign with rapid response.”

Mr. Schneiderman’s prosecution of her opponent certainly qualifies as “rapid.” He could easily have waited until Nov. 9 to divulge his investigation and unveil his order. If the Trump Foundation has been deficient with its paperwork for as long as the AG’s office says, a few more weeks of delay would hardly hurt.

“To the public it will appear that Schneiderman acted not in the interest of his client, the State, but for whatever influence his announcement might have on the election outcome,” NYU School of Law Professor Stephen Gillers told LawNewz.com, and Mr. Gillers is no conservative.

Witness how responsible prosecutors operate: In Florida, state attorney Mark Ober recently requested that Governor Rick Scott assign a different attorney to look into allegations that Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi was influenced by a Trump campaign donation. Mr. Ober noted that he had worked with Ms. Bondi for decades and viewed her as a “close personal friend,” and that his oversight of the case would be a conflict of interest. Mr. Schneiderman isn’t even feigning an interest in the neutral application of law.

There’s also Mr. Schneiderman’s screaming double standard. A September Scripps News investigation found that “year after year the [Clinton Foundation and Clinton Health Access Initiative] have ignored New York law and related instructions” when it comes to revealing foreign donors. New York charity law requires nonprofits to divulge the name of each government “agency” (foreign or domestic) and “the amount of each contribution” each year. It found that Mr. Schneiderman has the power to force that disclosure but has refused to do so.

This abdication is especially notable given that Mr. Schneiderman has been on a tear to force conservative nonprofits to reveal their confidential lists of donors—the better for the left to know whom to harass and target. The lawless AG has sued an outfit known as Citizens United to get its donor list, and in late August he convinced a federal judge to help him trammel that group’s First Amendment rights. Mr. Schneiderman bragged, as usual, that this disclosure is protecting his state from “fraud and abuse.”

New York citizens deserve to be protected from abuse—of the prosecutorial kind that Mr. Schneiderman is exercising to swing an election. The irony is that Mr. Trump’s critics keep telling us that he must be defeated because he poses a unique threat to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. What about the abuses that Mr. Schneiderman is practicing now? Where’s the liberal outrage?

[ccp]

Hopefully Mike Pence can make the big picture case  we have on this board prayed for during the last 10 years rather than simply listening to narcissism for 90% of an hour and a half:

https://www.wired.com/2016/10/how-to-watch-vice-presidential-debate/

[ccp]

Republicans seem happy with Pence.  But what about undecideds that is the key?  Personally I didn't think Pence was quite forceful enough or convincing enough to win over undecideds. 
For example,
Just saying tax cuts and deregulation is ok with me but that ain't gonna grab undecided voters while Kaine kept at it with the gigantic tax write off Trump can take that most other people have no comparable ability to do.
I don't think he was convincing to undecideds. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440725/vice-presidential-debate-mike-pence-parries-tim-kaine-easily

And the CNN moderator  had 2 *hit* follow up  questions near the beginning of the debate ala Lester Holt and the rest of the CNN crew but I heard zero comparable *hit* questions to Kaine. 

[DDF]

Republicans seem happy with Pence.  But what about undecideds that is the key?  Personally I didn't think Pence was quite forceful enough or convincing enough to win over undecideds. 
For example,
Just saying tax cuts and deregulation is ok with me but that ain't gonna grab undecided voters while Kaine kept at it with the gigantic tax write off Trump can take that most other people have no comparable ability to do.
I don't think he was convincing to undecideds. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440725/vice-presidential-debate-mike-pence-parries-tim-kaine-easily

And the CNN moderator  had 2 *hit* follow up  questions near the beginning of the debate ala Lester Holt and the rest of the CNN crew but I heard zero comparable *hit* questions to Kaine. 

I saw two people that I know are liberals (very liberal), express their like of Pence over Kaine. At this point, I think people for the most part are decided. I saw someone mention that Clinton could throw babies off of the top of a building, and her supporters still wouldn't care. Trump supporters, due to hatred of Hillary and what she has done and stands for, same thing almost, except Trump hasn't done anything that costs people's lives, hasn't deliberately destroyed property of Americans in the way of government documents, denying those Americans their right through the FOIA to see what they contained, but I'm preaching to the choir.

[ccp]

"I saw two people that I know are liberals (very liberal), express their like of Pence over Kaine."

Well, hopefully I may be wrong and undecideds will also feel this way.

[Crafty_Dog]

If Donald Trump could make the case for Donald Trump half as well as Mike Pence makes the case for Donald Trump, the New York businessman would be well on his way to the White House. That’s our conclusion from Tuesday’s vice presidential debate, in which the Indiana Governor made the sustained case against the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama status quo in Washington that Mr. Trump should have made last week.

Mr. Pence is a former radio talk show host, and it showed with his cool, articulate delivery. His earnest, low-key demeanor was a notable contrast to Tim Kaine, whose strategy seemed to be to interrupt Mr. Pence at every opportunity. Perhaps the Virginia Senator studied Joe Biden’s strategy from four years ago when the Vice President did the same against Paul Ryan, but Mr. Kaine is not a natural bully. Our guess is that his endless interruptions grated on millions of viewers.

Mr. Kaine’s marching orders clearly were to absorb the Clinton campaign’s opposition research file on Mr. Trump, keep repeating it, and dare Mr. Pence to defend it. The point seemed to be to remind Americans that Mr. Trump can be crude, nasty and untutored. This fits the Clinton campaign strategy to delegitimize Mr. Trump personally as a potential President. His affirmative case for Mrs. Clinton and her agenda were almost afterthoughts.

For the most part Mr. Pence dodged this trap, going back on offense against the Clinton-Obama record rather than defend every Trump statement, many of which are indefensible. This is a useful lesson for Mr. Trump to take into the next debate on Sunday night, a town hall in which audience members will ask the questions. People want to like their Presidents.

The most notable substantive exchanges occurred on foreign policy, with Mr. Pence offering a detailed critique of Mr. Obama’s record and growing global disorder. Mr. Kaine kept saying that Hillary Clinton was part of the team that killed Osama bin Laden, but that is old antiterror news. Mr. Pence replied that the main terror threat now is Islamic State, which he rightly said grew out of “the vacuum” left when President Obama withdrew all U.S. troops from Iraq.

Also notable was the debate on Russia, with Mr. Kaine claiming that Mr. Trump has business ties with “oligarchs” that cause him to apologize for Vladimir Putin. Mr. Trump’s admiration for Mr. Putin is mysterious and worrisome. But Mr. Pence pointed out that Mrs. Clinton’s hawkishness-come-lately on Russia follows years of weak policy that invited Mr. Putin’s aggression. Mr. Pence reminded the audience what a classic Republican security policy sounds like—if only Mr. Trump would adopt it.

Vice presidential debates don’t typically change the course of an election, but this one could be different if Mr. Trump heeds its lessons in his next debate. The Republican has slid in the polls since the first debate by getting lost in dead-end issues and self-indulgent Twitter bursts. If this is the Trump who shows up on Sunday, he will validate the Kaine critique and the election will essentially be over.

The alternative is to follow the Pence template of doing your homework, sounding presidential, and making the case for change from the failures of the last seven years on the economy and security. If Mr. Trump wants to win, his running mate showed him the way.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.dickmorris.com/pence-won-debate-boost-trump-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

[DougMacG]

(A little late to this as a post disappeared in my computer...)

VP choices are supposed to bring you no votes.  Mike Pence may be the exception.  He warms Trump to the middle and firms up the base a little.  I have been speaking highly of Pence since before the entire election cycle and spoke highly of Pence when Trump chose him.  Pence made me proud in this debate.  He projects a lot of good qualities, looks calm, ready and Presidential.  He helps firm up conservative voters for Trump, people like me.  No matter what you think of Trump, the pick of Pence shows good judgment to conservatives and gives hope for the American Creed, something that Pence gets.  On the other side of it, Hillary and Kaine offer none of that.  All their proposals are for a government run 'private sector', to run the country with the exact the opposite policies of what worked for her husband.  Implement Chavez-Venezueala policies and expect Reagan-like results.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Pence has experience with a decade in congress, foreign policy experience, and executive experience running a medium sized state.  Under his conservative watch, unemployment was cut in half in Indiana.  Under Tim Kaine's tax and spend tenure, unemployment doubled in Virginia.  Notice that their relative records were not brought up by the co-conspirator moderator or media.  Pence mentioned that once and Kaine let it go by.

As mentioned, Mike Pence is likable to independents and undecideds and he makes conservatism likable to a wider audience.

Kaine was nothing short of annoying throughout the debate with 72 counted interruptions.  Can someone check in this weekend with SNL and see if they picked up on it.  Kaine focused on Trump gaffes' not his policies.  His claim of eternal peace and serenity in Iran was nothing short of astonishing.  He was called out for being scripted and then stayed with the script until everyone but him felt his embarrassment.  I kind of wish they did have an earpiece to the handlers so that someone could have told him to get off it.  The script was very reminiscent of Susan Rice telling on all networks that a video led to an attack.  The world's number one sponsor of terror has given up its long-held nuclear ambition because of the toughness, charm and ingenuity of the former Secretary of State that no one else can see.  What really happened is what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called, this agreement paves the path for Iran to become a very real nuclear threat.  On top of that, we airlifted them the money.  

In a Presidential tragedy, it would be very easy to see Pence step in, composed and ready to lead the country.

All Pence gained is lost if Trump steps up Sunday with another bad debate of his own.  I look for Trump to show up sharper and readier than he was in the first debate, and the format perhaps favors him.  

[ccp]

Now  we know what the next topic at the town hall will be with liberal leftist moderators.   

[ccp]

http://www.businessinsider.com/will-trump-quit-presidential-race-what-happens-2016-10

[G M]

http://www.businessinsider.com/will-trump-quit-presidential-race-what-happens-2016-10

Wait, wasn't it the left that proclaimed that sex doesn't matter as a topic of morality for public office?

[ccp]

Gretchen Carlson, Machado, and now Odell........

"Wait, wasn't it the left that proclaimed that sex doesn't matter as a topic of morality for public office?"

True, but I dream he will turn tonights town hall into a Pence like performance.  I didn't even think Pence did as well as others did because he did not respond to the name calling.  Indeed I was wrong and the strategy  worked!

In my heart I know Trump probably will not, or cannot do that.  Instead of apologizing and moving on he will do what he always does.  And again the always Trumpsters will cheer and the Nevertrumpsters will be disgusted and those in the middle will tip to Clinton and those like me will just lament..........

 

[DDF]

By far, the best attack of the night:

“It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” Mrs. Clinton observed.

“Because,” Mr. Trump replied “you’d be in jail.”

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/clinton-trump-second-debate-election-2016/because-youd-be-in-jail

Edit: I chose this specific op/ed piece, because it shows plainly, the Left's contempt of the law when it's one of their own involved, referring to Trump as a "dictator."

[ccp]

This one was pretty good too:


"Clinton said Lincoln used different arguments with different members of Congress to get them to abolish slavery, calling his tactics “principled and strategic.” She then condemned the hack, saying she believed it was evidence that Russia was interfering in the U.S. election to favor Trump.

Trump hit back, making fun of Clinton for comparing her comments to the actions of Lincoln.

“She lied. Now she’s blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln,” Trump said. “Honest Abe never lied. That’s the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That’s a big, big difference. We’re talking about some difference.”

[Hill,  your no Abe Lincoln!]

[DDF]

This one was pretty good too:


"Clinton said Lincoln used different arguments with different members of Congress to get them to abolish slavery, calling his tactics “principled and strategic.” She then condemned the hack, saying she believed it was evidence that Russia was interfering in the U.S. election to favor Trump.

Trump hit back, making fun of Clinton for comparing her comments to the actions of Lincoln.

“She lied. Now she’s blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln,” Trump said. “Honest Abe never lied. That’s the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That’s a big, big difference. We’re talking about some difference.”

[Hill,  your no Abe Lincoln!]

I agree!

Also..... I think that the fact that every debate moderator this election year, being a liberal (including the upcoming Chris Wallace), should be addressed. Especially when the Commission on Presidential Debates claims to be bi-partisan.

[DougMacG]

Regarding the 'lewd tape', one thing that seems to be overlooked is that it was Hillary's camp I believe that brought this into the public view - so that she could tell you to keep your young boys and girls away from the debate.  The electorate knew he has made comments about women, breast sizes etc.  Certainly it makes it worse to hear this including non-consensual allusions, but if she wanted the debate to be on the issues, she could have made her attacks on the issues.  They have been publicly offering rewards for coming up with material like this.  I expect more.  It's still early (October).

In the debate, Trump fought her to a draw.  Proved he offers a serious alternative to governing.  Proved that electing Hillary and the Clinton's in a binary election is no sure way to make the White House squeaky clean and free of debauchery. 

On the HRC side, it has always been said that the more people get to see her, the less they like her.  Trump has attached her to the status quo and is actively attacking the quality of the status quo on economic and foreign policy arguments.  She likely will still lead as this latest scandal and debate settle, but her numbers everywhere are consistently well under 50%.

Stated earlier on the forum, oddly it was Democrats, liberals and Clinton defenders that argued loudly that personal conduct has no relevance to the office of the Presidency.  I may disagree and argued long and hard for Republicans to choose someone else before this surfaced, but at this point, what choice do we have?

Holier than thou Republicans, purists, Rinos and establishment types better get back on track fairly soon.  This election will have consequences.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://castle2016.com/home/

[ccp]

I don't agree that I needed the hysterical mass media to get me upset when I heard Trump's 11 yo rant about sexual assault.  I was just totally offended and disgusted.  Locker room talk about sex-capades or talking about girl's bodies is one thing.  But grabbing women and kissing them or grabbing their private parts is not something I or anyone I knew (with one exception) would approve, though I am sure it may be in some circles.   Yeah , I know , the old John Wayne movies where the leading man grabs the girl and forceably kisses her till she gives in to her passion and moments later is passionately kissing him back.........

I agree with the final conclusion as to why we need still need to vote Trump:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440944/donald-trump-tape-liberal-hysteria

some people I know who are Republican will simply write in candidates .  They refuse to vote Trump.  I admit I don't understand when they know they are helping Clinton but they tell me it is something about conscious......

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/10/11/ben-carson-stuns-cnn-anchor-with-his-defense-of-trump-s-lewd-200/21580333/

[Crafty_Dog]

second post
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/10/11/wikileaks-clinton-bragged-putin-taking-private-inner-sanctum/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/russias_lavrov_so_many_pussies_around_the_presidential_campaign_on_both_sides_that_i_prefer_not_to_comment.html

[ccp]

 

Why oh why am I forced to vote and defend this kind of person:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Yes I know these are just allegations but the same could be said of Cosby, Clinton, etc

Is this fate?
Is this the "folly" of mankind?
Is this some sort of test?
Of morality?
Of my conscious?
Of nihilism?
Of religion?
Of end justifies the means?

Is this a sad joke on us?
I spent decades feeling disgusted by Bill Clinton and blaming the two of them for dragging this country down.

Now I am voting for this guy?

 

[DDF]

"She has to go to jail," he added, to rousing cheers.

"Based on her crimes, she should not be allowed to run for president. It's time for a new direction," he said, to chants of "Lock her up!" from the crowd.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/explosive-trump-repeats-call-jail-clinton-232642126.html

In regard to the allegations cast against Trump, I don't believe any of it. The accusers had years to accuse Trump, including a case that was even thrown out, and only when he runs against someone that has been found to be a criminal, cheat, corrupt and two-faced, does these accusers come forward, especially in regard to the timing of the wikileaks releases and sheer media bandstanding for Clinton.

It tells me almost everything I need to know.

Trump is going to CRUSH Clinton in November. The ratio of support (disregarding the polls that are ALL run by people from the Left), is vastly in favor of Trump.

Any look at facebook, twitter, youtube likes and comments, will quickly give you the following:

Facebook Support:
Trump - 11,367,570 followers
Trump For President - 1,848,693 followers
Clinton - 7,023,564 followers
Clinton For President - 588,356

Twitter Support:
Trump - 12,421,017 followers
Clinton - 9,684,799 followers

Rally Attendance:
Trump - 337,995
Clinton - 13,970
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/after-first-2-full-months-since-conventions-trump-is-crushing-hillary-in-campaign-event-attendance/

Youtube Channels:
Trump - 69,561 subscribers (Trump allows commenting)
Clinton - 82,540 subscribers (Does not allow comments, because when she has, the response is filled with vitriol & her videos have far more dislikes than likes on average, )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9W0F2mz1jc 27K likes to 80,000 dislikes

There is NO WAY, that Trump is receiving this type of support, and losing to Clinton. Even Michael Moore and other leftists have said it.

The polls, just like the media, are doing everything in their considerable power, to elect someone that the Attorney General and Obama have protected, and failing outright rigging the voting machines, they're going to fail.

One interesting aspect of polls and online numbers, is the age factor in regard to elderly, that do not have a large online presence, but who may well heavily favor Trump, and the fact that it is socially "safe" to support Clinton. Here, I myself, have to be careful about how much support I show for Trump, and there are many who are in that predicament, especially since the Left is so quick to brand someone as "racist," "xenophobe," etc.

In fact, I was just called that last night by my sister in law (a Liberal Mexican), and when I asked her what Trump said specifically that was racist, she couldn't quote him, so I quoted him for her. When I explained TPP and what it will really mean to Mexico, once the US economy is gutted and what that will mean to Mexico in terms of money sent back being cut to almost zero, she didn't care, and I am sure, she thinks I am a bad man because of it... and she used to love me. She called me a "pendejo, racist, xenophobe," even after explaining the facts and that it wasn't even her right to have an opinion in the matter.

Thankfully she wields no power over me. How many people are afraid of their bosses finding out they support Trump?

Clinton is going to get smashed in November.

[ccp]

"Trump is going to CRUSH Clinton in November"

From your mouth to Gods ears so to speak.

 I must say his oratory skills are really good.  He is every bit as good as Obama
 and he has been the only Repub who has said things that need to be said and establish goals that need to be set.

[DDF]

"Trump is going to CRUSH Clinton in November"

From your mouth to Gods ears so to speak.

 I must say his oratory skills are really good.  He is every bit as good as Obama
 and he has been the only Repub who has said things that need to be said and establish goals that need to be set.

We're not far off from the results. I remain confident.

Edit: I'm about to quote Michelle Obama from her speech today, to what seemed to be a packed gymnasium. Her speech has garnered some 554,000 views thus far (not sure why Clinton can't get out of bed). Trump's speech yesterday OTOH, was to some 30,000 people, and has garnered 1.5 million views. We'll see where Michelle's speech sits in view count tomorrow.

Far from wishful thinking.

[ccp]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/196388/satisfaction-remains-low-leading-election.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

Yet more than 50% are satisfied/approve with/of Obama ? 

[G M]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/196388/satisfaction-remains-low-leading-election.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

Yet more than 50% are satisfied/approve with/of Obama ? 

Because a good chunk of the population is stupid.

[ccp]

"Because a good chunk of the population is stupid."

AND, no matter what, the media left him skate.  Despite abuse of power, deceit, tail wagging the dog, mistakes all over the place on foreign policy. and corruption all the way to the top.

[DougMacG]

Yet more than 50% are satisfied/approve with/of Obama ?

This is a real problem in the dynamic of the race, in addition to the problems with the change candidate.  But maybe that polled approval is personal to Obama and not transferable to his chosen successor.

Here is another measure of the same question:

Right Direction  30.4
Wrong Track     63.6
Spread            -33.2
RCP Average as of today
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

If wrong track out-polls right direction by more than two to one and one candidate clearly represents more of the same, there is a mile-wide opening for a challenger to drive through even with today's electorate where half the people have below average intelligence.

[DDF]

You two can sit there and believe the media's polls if you want to. I buy none of it.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I've seen that Reagan was behind 12 points in the polls as well and killed it.

Trumps sells out stadiums... Clinton can't fill a high school gymnasium.

I know you don't like Trump, and that he wasn't favored here. I called that early on. I'm calling this too. Not being arrogant. It's just that numbers of bodies don't lie.

[DougMacG]

“A team of 7 people editing your tweets is God’s way of telling you you shouldn’t be president of the United States
Iowahawk:  “your choice is between someone who tweets like an idiot and someone who requires a small army of editors to avoid tweeting like an idiot.”

[G M]

You two can sit there and believe the media's polls if you want to. I buy none of it.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I've seen that Reagan was behind 12 points in the polls as well and killed it.

Trumps sells out stadiums... Clinton can't fill a high school gymnasium.

I know you don't like Trump, and that he wasn't favored here. I called that early on. I'm calling this too. Not being arrogant. It's just that numbers of bodies don't lie.

There are far more people in cemeteries that will turn out to vote for Clinton. Also, it's not about the national numbers, it's about the electoral college.

[DDF]

Rigging the Election - Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

[youtube]5IuJGHuIkzY[/youtube]

[DDF]

You two can sit there and believe the media's polls if you want to. I buy none of it.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I've seen that Reagan was behind 12 points in the polls as well and killed it.

Trumps sells out stadiums... Clinton can't fill a high school gymnasium.

I know you don't like Trump, and that he wasn't favored here. I called that early on. I'm calling this too. Not being arrogant. It's just that numbers of bodies don't lie.

There are far more people in cemeteries that will turn out to vote for Clinton. Also, it's not about the national numbers, it's about the electoral college.

Agreed.