Will the Media Question Her? What about her claims, what about evidence?

While Clinton told Mossberg and Swisher she did not engage in lies during her campaign, she said Trump's side did. Clinton also raised the theory that "1,000 Russian agents" were working every day to make sure that distorted "content" was appearing before internet users. Clinton did not cite her source for the claim.

Another bizarre claim Clinton made was that Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway were chosen to run the final months of the Trump campaign because of the urging of Cambridge Analytica, which is owned by billionaire Rebecca Mercer and family. The Mercers said they would "wed" their data with the RNC and Trump's data if the hires were made.

Bannon and Conway did not immediately return a request from LifeZette to respond.

Clinton also blamed the Democratic National Committee for being in poor shape, after eight years of what should have been salad days for the party, given former President Barack Obama's tenure.

"I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation," said Clinton. "I get the nomination. So I'm now the nominee of the Democratic party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic party. I mean, it was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it."


1) [EXPECT BLOWBACK on this issue from the DNC people via intermediaries. And this is only one of many!!  Click here!]

2) ANOTHER article concerning Hillary's attack on DNC.  BLOWBACK is a bitch Hillary.  No one will be with you next time! 

3) AND MORE from CNN 



 Data was on Clinton's mind, quite a bit, and not just because she was at a coding conference. Clinton laid out a three-part conspiracy in which weaponized information was coordinated on Facebook and elsewhere. Clinton came very close to suggesting Cambridge Analytica coordinated with the Russians.

The three-part conspiracy started, Clinton said, when the Russians stole information from the Democrats and Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta.

The next step was coordination, Clinton said. There was no possible way, Clinton said, that the Russians would know how to distribute the information in the most damaging way, without American help. (Clinton brushed aside the fact that WikiLeaks began leaking the information on Oct. 7, because she said WikiLeaks is the same thing as the Russian secret service.)

"The Russians, in my opinion, and based on the intel and counter-intel people I've talked to, could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided," said Clinton. "Guided by Americans. And guided by people who had polling and data and information."

 So, intel and counter-intel people divulged top secret information to Hillary ... and that is ok because?

SHE IS A LUNATIC.  She and TRUMP should get together after Melania leaves!

She hasn't acknowledged anything.  She has not been introspective nor reflective.  She eschews personal responsibility now as she did decades ago when Bill was fucking random women in the White House, and she spent her time attacking the women.

A reasonably thorough analysis of the election in the campaign book “Shattered,” journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes report they were surprised “when Clintonworld sources started telling us in 2015 that Hillary was still struggling to articulate her motivation for seeking the presidency.” Her campaign was “an unholy mess, fraught with tangled lines of authority . . . distorted priorities, and no sense of greater purpose.” “Hillary didn’t have a vision to articulate. And no one else could give one to her.” “Hillary had been running for president for almost a decade and still didn’t really have a rationale.”


One reason she lost:  Her.

According to Rothschild: Hillary lost because ...

of John Podesta:

“HRC lost because you ran an arrogant out of touch campaign,” she wrote, before calling him a loser. 


So, if I recall correctly:

1. Men without college education
2. Women with college degrees
3. Millenials who didn't vote
4. Comey for all his shit
5. Obama for not doing enough shit
6. The Democratic party who was divided over Bernie and Clinton campaign and they were not loyal to Clintons.
7. ....

NY Times OP Ed: Sorry Libs ....

Sorry, Liberals. Bigotry Didn’t Elect Donald Trump.

By DAVID PAUL KUHN
NY Times

DEC. 26, 2016

Donald J. Trump won the white working-class vote over Hillary Clinton by a larger margin than any major-party nominee since World War II. Instead of this considerable achievement inspiring introspection, figures from the heights of journalism, entertainment, literature and the Clinton campaign continue to suggest that Mr. Trump won the presidency by appealing to the bigotry of his supporters. As Bill Clinton recently said, the one thing Mr. Trump knows “is how to get angry white men to vote for him.”

This stereotyping of Trump voters is not only illiberal, it falsely presumes Mr. Trump won because of his worst comments about women and minorities rather than despite them.

In fact, had those people who agreed that Mr. Trump lacked “a sense of decency” voted for Mrs. Clinton, she would have been elected the next president.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump equally won over party loyalists. Yet about one in five voters did not have a favorable view of either candidate. These voters overwhelmingly backed Mr. Trump. Exit polls demonstrated that if voters who disapproved of both candidates had divided evenly between them, Mrs. Clinton would have won.

Several weeks before the election, a Quinnipiac University poll found that 51 percent of white working-class voters did not believe that Mr. Trump had a “sense of decency” and ranked Mrs. Clinton slightly higher on that quality.

But they were not voting on decency. Indeed, one-fifth of voters — more than 25 million Americans — said they “somewhat” disapproved of Mr. Trump’s treatment of women. Mr. Trump won three-quarters of these voters, despite their disapprobation.

Bluntly put, much of the white working class decided that Mr. Trump could be a jerk. Absent any other champion, they supported the jerk they thought was more on their side — that is, on the issues that most concerned them.

And anti-immigrant blowback, for instance, was not what unified them. Mr. Trump proposed expelling illegal immigrants yet more of his voters, by a 50 percent to 45 percent margin, said illegal immigrants working here should be offered a chance to apply for legal status rather than be deported.

In the Obama era, we also saw that race was not a critical driver of white swing votes. Barack Obama won more support among white men in 2008, including the working class, than any Democrat since 1980.

Mr. Obama’s support among these whites was at its peak in 2008 after the stock market crash. At the depths of the Great Recession that followed, blue-collar white men experienced the most job losses.

Their support began hemorrhaging after Mr. Obama chose early in his presidency — when congressional Democrats could have overcome Republican obstruction — to fight for health care reform instead of a “new New Deal.”

By 2016, Mr. Trump personified the vote against the status quo, one still not working out for them. A post-campaign study comparing the George W. Bush coalition in 2000 to the Trump coalition in 2016 found that Mr. Trump particularly improved in areas hurt most by competition from Chinese imports, from the bygone brick and tile industry of Mason City, Iowa, to the flagging furniture plants of Hickory, N.C. The study concluded that, had the import competition from China been half as large, Mrs. Clinton would have won key swing states and the presidency with them.

This argument does not ignore bigotry. Racism appeared more concentrated among Trump voters. One poll found that four in 10 Trump supporters said blacks were more “lazy” than whites, compared with one-quarter of Clinton or John Kasich supporters.

But traits are not motives and don’t necessarily decide votes. Consider that four in 10 liberal Democrats, the largest share of any group, said in 2011 that they would hold a Mormon candidate’s faith against him or her. It would be silly to argue that, therefore, liberals voted for Mr. Obama because Mitt Romney was Mormon.

Yet the Trump coalition continues to be branded as white backlash. The stereotyping forgets that many Trump supporters held a progressive outlook. Mr. Trump won nearly one in four voters who wanted the next president to follow more liberal policies.

Democrats need only recall Mr. Clinton to understand how voters can support someone in spite of his faults. Mr. Clinton won re-election in 1996 despite a majority, including about a third of liberal voters, saying he was not honest. His approval rating reached the highest point of his presidency during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It wasn’t that Democrats and independents endorsed Mr. Clinton’s behavior. They opposed Republicans more.

Two decades later, we are reminded again that a vote for a presidential candidate is not a vote for every aspect of him. We can look for the worst in our opponents, but that doesn’t always explain how they got the best of us.

Trump Election: Retreat from the World

It is true everyone has a right to their opinion, but some opinions are weighted differently than others!

I recall during the election, and immediately thereafter - the inane punditry from the misinformed and uneducated, that Trump would retreat from the world.  Trump would step back from action around the globe and would instead build fortress Americana and relinquish our role in the world.

Do you all recall such drivel?

I do.  It was daily, and in multiple reports.  Sometimes repeated 2-3 times in an article.

And then there was Henry Kissinger.

Not someone you could say was an isolationist.  He was there for some of the most COLD of the Cold War period.  From Vietnam to China to the Soviet Union ... not a Dove by any measure.

Interesting.  With more than 40 years of experience.  Well, on CBS Face the Nation, the former Secretary of State made an insightful comment -


"Donald Trump is a phenomenon that foreign countries haven't seen." 

"So it is a shocking experience to them that he came in to office. At the same time, extraordinary opportunity."

 

Kissinger said every country now has to consider two things.

 

"One, their perception that the previous president, or the outgoing president, basically withdrew America from international politics, so that they had to make their own assessments of their necessities," he said.

 

"And secondly, that here is a new president who's asking a lot of unfamiliar questions. And because of the combination of the partial vacuum and the new questions, one could imagine that something remarkable and new emerges out of it."

 

 

Hmmm.  Just the opposite of all that drivel we heard.  In fact, an insight for the Obama supporters - he did just what many people claimed he had been doing ... withdrawing from the world, leaving opportunity for disaster.

 

 

 

 

 

Fake News

Best thing to denounce, but first spread it, then deny it, then denounce it.

What a plan.  Liars and Beguilers.  No way to know who is who.

The Hillary Campaign as the biggest propagator along with main stream media.

Hillary Lost: Reason 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003 ...

The Russians hacked the election (which might suggest to a reasonable person we should stop with electronic/digital voting and go back to, entirely, paper ballots) and wanted Trump to win (despite statements of Trump voters that they watched as, before their eyes the Trump vote became a Hillary vote).

Comey did it.  The FBI Director caused the election to be won by Trump.

Within a day of the election, the Hillary campaign made it clear why she lost the election:

uneducated white men!

Shortly after, perhaps 96 hours or so, came excuse number 2:

educated women!  self hating women!


And the reasons just rolled on in ...

The most recent, by Robby Mook at Harvard -

- millenials didn't vote!



Why not admit what everyone knows!  Everyone voted against her.  38% of Hispanics voted FOR Trump.  Women.  Men.  Millenials, African Americans, James Comey, and the Russians ...


She lost because SHE was the reason!

Her campaign argued (not the DNC - they know she was the problem) she actually won.  Nooooo


Silly bunnies, she didn't win.  Votes for her came from people like Bush ... people who said they would not vote for Trump.  Not because she was the better person, but because they voted against him.

By the way, NO ONE, NO AGENCY OF THE US GOVERNMENT HAS DEFINITIVELY STATED THE RUSSIANS hacked anything.  More lies and fake news spread by ... oh my gosh ... Democrats.

The Election: Quarterbacking Part 1

Within 24 hours of the election, we were told it was all because of uneducated males that Trump won.

Now, they have a new idea -

When she was asked by Chris Hayes why Hillary didn’t do better with white women than Barack Obama did in 2012, McIntosh responded, “Internalized misogyny is a real thing and this is a thing we have to be talking about as we go through and see.”
McIntosh then echoed what she claimed was Obama’s assessment.
“We as a society react poorly to women seeking positions of power. We are uncomfortable about that and we seek to justify that uncomfortable feeling because it can’t possibly be because we don’t want to see a woman in that position of power,” McIntosh said.
“As we go through these numbers, as we figure out exactly what happened with turnout, it seems to be white college-educated women,” she continued.
“We have work to do talking to those women about what happened this year and why we would vote against our self-interest,” McIntosh said.


So we have - uneducated men, educated women ....

Let's see who else.

Obama and the Millenial

She doesn't like the word illegal because anyone in the US is working hard and that makes them a citizen.

But when it comes to voting ... I am a little at a loss.

Is he encouraging or supporting illegal voting?

Watch and decide!

Dear Republicans

The 17 people who stood on the stage were the 'best' you had?  You didn't have much.

Are Republicans just getting less competent, less qualified, less able to 'be'?  Are Republicans so caught up in the myriad of victimization schemes they have lost sight of the prize - the history and future of the United States of America.  They were a grand party, one with ideas, and men who stood for values and an identity - who were proud of America and were willing to fight til the end to save her from the wrong path.

You have been so long divorced from the people - the immigrants, and working class - you have bought in to the 2nd class status Republicans have held for so long that you believe capitulating to Democrats helps your chances of ... I'm not sure what, but you must believe something.  Each time Republicans hold a branch - Congress or White House, when it turns over, you work nicely to allow a smooth transition.  You don't ram bills through, you invite Democrats to the office and discuss a transition.  Why?  Collegiality?

When Democrats lose control of a branch of government they ram bills through, exclude Republicans from meetings or discussions until the new government takes office.  This has happened each and every time the switch has occurred since at least 1996.  Why do you still insist on following a path that hurts America each time.  They push bills through, hold committee hearings and don't allow Republicans input, even when the national/state votes are for the Republicans.  They play the legalistic game, you play collegiality.  Why?  Are you retarded.  There actions do not benefit America so why do you allow it.  They don't.  What are you afraid of - being called abrasive or pushy ... they already call you that and every nasty name possible.  Where is your spine.  Where is your willingness to do what is best for America and Americans.  In your socks.

Instead the party of ideas gave us 17 people - none of whom would be a very good president.

The Presidency is not just a job.  It is not just an office.  It is not just a position within a building called the White House.  It is the single most important position on planet earth.  From the creation of said position by George Washington, and the manner he carried himself, the respect that was developed within and for the position of President of the United States ... decades and centuries of work by men who treated the position with respect and reverence (yes, I am aware some did not) - centuries of work by men who built the respect up ... to be torn down by either of the two people we are faced with choosing from ... is disgraceful.

You created Trump.  Had someone of stature and respect run, he would not.  Your bumbling useless idiots are what brought him into the game.  You did it.  You and the Democratic party put us in the horrible position we now find ourselves.  Shame on all of you.

Now that he is the President, if you fail to support him, you will destroy the Republican party and doom your chances of ever governing again for 50 years.  It is your choice, but if you choose wrong, America loses.  The world loses.

Signed,
Very unhappy camper

Clinton: No one says no to her!

A President Clinton would be out of control: Glenn Reynolds

Glenn Harlan Reynolds 10:38 a.m. EDT October 30, 2016

He's no paragon of virtue, but it won’t be that way with a President Trump.

 “Someone somewhere should have told her no.” Those are the words of a Clinton ally quoted in a roundup of Democratic reactions to Hillary Clinton’s FBI news by congressional newspaper The Hill. And, despite the fact that they come from a Clinton supporter, albeit an angry and disappointed one, they may illustrate the best reason for choosing Donald Trump instead of Clinton.

Here’s the full quote:

“I'm livid, actually. . . .This has turned into malpractice. It's an unforced error at this point. I have no idea what Comey is up to but the idea this email issue is popping back up again is outrageous. It never should have occurred in the first place. Someone somewhere should have told her no. And they didn't and now we're all paying the price.”

Someone, somewhere, should have told her no. Well, yes. But who? That was the problem with Secretary of State Clinton, and it will be a bigger problem with a President Clinton. Because, by all appearances, nobody tells Clinton no, and Clinton has no compunction about breaking the rules when it suits her purposes.

Thus the Clinton Foundation became a global money-laundering and influence-peddling organization without precedent in American history. Donors to the foundation were encouraged to steer money to what one employee called “Bill Clinton, Inc.,” and later to Clinton. State Department personnel did favors for people who donated money to the Foundation. And to make sure that nobody found out what was going on, Clinton ran her own homebrew server operation designed to ensure that Freedom of Information Act requests turned up nothing — and even President Obama, rather than saying no, went along, sending her emails at her non-government address under a fake name.

Someone somewhere should have told her no. But if the president wasn’t going to tell her no, who would? Staff at the State Department? They might have been willing to tell some other secretary of state no, but Clinton? Too risky, it seems. They certainly went along without visible objection, and without even leaks.

The press? When The New York Times reported Clinton’s secret, illegal server, Politico’s Glenn Thrush, far from condemning it, called it “badass.”

Congress? Clinton has stonewalled and run rings around numerous committees investigating her. 

Besides, Congress had already told her no, in the form of statutes governing the treatment of government communications and classified information. She just ignored those rules and did what she wanted. Hotel magnate Leona Helmsley famously said that “only little people pay taxes.” Clinton seems to feel the same way about obeying laws.

It won’t be that way with a President Trump. This isn’t because Trump is any less arrogant than Clinton (though it would be hard to be more arrogant). It’s because more people will be willing to tell Trump no. The civil service, which leans overwhelmingly Democratic, won’t be bending over backwards to do his will. The press can’t stand him. And the Congress, even if controlled by the GOP, won’t support him if he misbehaves because so many Republicans dislike him, too.

The truth is, neither one of our leading candidates for president is a paragon of virtue. But only one of them has already made a habit of flouting the law while in office, selling favors and escaping the consequences, and only one of them is likely to be able to pull it off from the White House.

And that’s the problem. If Secretary of State Clinton, serving under a president and with an eye on winning a second term in the White House, wasn’t constrained by the rules, who will constrain her if she’s president?

The answer, most likely, is nobody. And, once again, we’ll all be paying the price.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.

Russian Threats: Vote Hillary for War

Zhirinovsky is a funny guy.  What he has to say is quite funny until you think about it and then the second paragraph ...
 


"Relations between Russia and the United States can't get any worse. The only way they can get worse is if a war starts," said Zhirinovsky, speaking in his huge office on the 10th floor of Russia's State Duma, or lower house of parliament.

"Americans voting for a president on Nov. 8 must realize that they are voting for peace on Planet Earth if they vote for Trump. But if they vote for Hillary it's war. It will be a short movie. There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere."

Age and Experience

Society, ours and for the most part, humanity, give a pass on behavior (excepting murder) while you are in your teens or twenties.  You could be 50 and a story comes out from 30 years ago in which you behaved badly and ... you get a pass.  You grew up and ... hopefully behaved.

Donald Trump gets no such pass.  Regardless of his actions ten years, twenty years, or thirty years ago - he was still a mature adult when he did those things and as psychologists tell us, after your mid/late 20s you don't change your character much.  In his case, his behavior hasn't changed much at all.  Whether 30 years ago, 20, 10, or 5 years ago, his words and behavior were then, and are today,  unacceptable.

Richard Branson tells a story about lunch with Donald Trump many years ago in which Trump told him he would get a few people who didn't help Trump in his time of need.  He would spend the rest of his life getting even with them.  And this made Branson uncomfortable.

It should.

Just as it should make us all uncomfortable that Bill and Hillary never let go or forgive people who cross them.  They make a list and check it every so often to remind themselves who they still have to destroy.   They keep secret files and use various entities and resources to destroy people.

There is no difference but scale and the fact the Clintons have access to extreme power and have used it.

Dear Donald

I wanted to dash off a short note to you before I get back to my regularly scheduled programming.

You don't deserve our votes.  Not a single one.

In a 'normal' year, you would have only 10 votes and most would be from your family.

You are obnoxious.  Your actions and words are highly objectionable.  Your behavior is odious.

You are highly annoying with an objectionable word use problem - your use of malapropisms is simply ... wrong.  I cringe every time I hear you speak or read anything you have written.  Worse still, you don't even understand you are doing it.

You appear to be a bully, inconsiderate, and highly disrespectful.  You say things that are not only wrong but just ... wrong.  Making light of nuclear is something no political figure should do, no human should do.  Your speeches are popoloca and that is disturbing.  Your crass behavior and use of vulgar vocabulary may be typical for you, but it is not what we want from a president.




You should never have fallen into the trap of answering 'their' questions which, regardless of how you answer, you lose.   Hillary is a great example - she weasels out of everything by changing the subject or simply deflects to whatever subject she wants to drone on about - like Assange.  You bound straight in habnab. 

You don't deserve our votes, but you will get more than the media believe you will get on November 8.  My guess is you will still lose, as you deserve to do, but you will get a LOT of votes ... perhaps almost close to her popular vote ... which should tell her something!  I doubt she will even notice - she is a deeply disturbed human being with little remorse for her actions, or empathy for others.  Her sociopathic and dare I say, psychopathic behavior is very disturbing.  To have someone like this sitting in the Oval Office, even if they are napping all the time, is scary.

It is still possible to defeat the bitch, but it will take a miracle.  The National Enquirer story is pretty damning, but the major media will ignore it and will instead chase and hound you about an apology for having winked at some person 30 years ago.   They don't want to look into the allegations raised in the Enquirer, or the $2 billion foundation and what it doesn't do in Haiti or Columbia.  They don't want to demand an immediate retraction and return of funds from those countries who slaughter gays and subjugate women.  The media won't demand a denunciation from her for anything.  Her misprision will not even raise eyebrows, not yet at least.  Had her campaign made comments about Muslims rather than Catholics, the media and world would have jumped on them ... but it was just Catholics so no one cared.  

No, the miracle will have to be much bigger.  On the level of an appearance by the Holy Mother.

 Absent that, you are done, toast, baked, over cooked, ready for the trash ... and we must endure that bitch and her sleazy, abusive, misogynistic husband for 4 years.  I'm sure women will cheer, although if I were them I would be deeply shamed.  We will, most likely, not have to endure her for the full 4 years ... her health will not permit her that luxury and so we will get Kaine and his obnoxious.  In fact, the American people will be exposed to the obnoxious of Hillary for however many years and then Kaine for the remainder.

Then she will be some heroic figure when in truth, she should be relegated to the ash heap of history.  Sadly feminists and others who would rather deify her than help women and the poor, will not allow that to happen.

I am very sad Donald.  I am sad for my family and for millions of Americans who have to endure that woman.  She is not a supporter of anything except making money for her foundation.  She doesn't care about the United States. She never did.  She is in the truest sense - psychopathic.

I am deeply saddened by the fact you were nominated instead of almost any other human being - because anyone else would have been elected over her.  Even Democrats don't like her.  Bill doesn't even like her. Romney could have won.  McCain still could.  I even wonder about Palin.

I am very sad.  Sad for our future.  Sad.


 (Still) An American

(and yes, I did use obnoxious correctly - look it up!)

P.S.
You stand a real shot at winning today.  You need Florida and 1-2 other states that are now in flux, and you can do it.  I really believe Florida will go for you.  I hope so.  Pennsylvania probably won't although I really hope it would.


I hope, if you win in 4 days, that you don't believe the votes were all for you - many were against Hillary.  Don't disrespect the office.  Don't gild the White House in that horrid and putrescent color scheme of your NY apartment.  The White House is our house, you rent it for 4 years.  Disappoint me, disrespect the Oval Office, or Office of the President, and I will oppose you equally as I oppose Hillary today.


Good luck.  Our future is counting on it.




P.S.S.
You do deserve some credit Donald.  I know Democrats are aware of this, even if they never acknowledge it - you beat them.  
Hillary had her machine.  She had the media behind her.  She had billionaires and tech companies behind her.  She had all of Hollywood behind her.  She had virtually every journalist alive supporting her, Mexican billionaires donated.  She had the Democratic party behind her, the current president supporting her, the current Vice President supporting her.  An ex-president who is still much liked, out supporting her.  And then there was you.

You, almost alone.  The Republican party split as soon as the temperatures went up a degree.  The ex-presidents of the Republican party were invisible or said they would vote for Hillary.  Billionaires in the Republican party distanced themselves.  Most Republicans distanced themselves.  The party apparatus did the least it could do.  The party leaders all but tripped you as you went about campaigning.  And you still did better than Romney or McCain.  You did it.  Not them.  You stood up to Hillary and her entire apparatus and have her very worried today.  And even if you lose, you did something the Republican party couldn't do.  

They should really be ashamed.  Had they done 10% more for you than they did ... you could have blasted her out of the water and taken down the most formidable system we have known in 50 years.

 






My dear hillary letter