Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

[Tom Ligon]

I can't stop laughing. Trump can't read:

http://qz.com/824550/samantha-bee-comes ... cant-read/

Yeah, I know, the disclaimer is that this is just a spoof on how easy it is to start a rumor. Still, the research is compelling, and it fits the facts. It is clear he's never read the Constitution. Hates teleprompters. Video clips in this piece have Trump saying he's not read contracts he's signed, and in fact he can't read them even with them right in front of him.

I'm more concerned with the secret Trump server pinging a secret Alfa Bank server in Russia ... another conspiracy theory. Yeah, no smoking gun, yet at least as credible as some of Trump's theories.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ussia.html

There's something here folks. Trust me. There's something here. Soooo criminal. He wants to give the country away. An international conspiracy. This is as big as his bankruptcies. As big as the Trump University Swindle. Bigger! Whaaaat? You want ME to provide hard proof?

[paperburn1]

Could be nothing , could be his system is owned.
The company I worked for had to shut down everything, and I mean everything for two weeks this year because we finally figured out we were owned by a foreign actor and it literally took two weeks to clean because we were reinfected before we could even get the servers up and running for a full day.

[williatw]

The forgotten women who are supporting Trump


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gestures during a campaign rally at the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2016, in Eau Claire, Wis

Almost all these women have male relatives or friends in the military; some of those men are serving in very dangerous places. Their devotion to these men motivates some of their bitterness toward elites whose men don’t have to worry about IEDs and midnight visits from the military police. Their fears for the men’s safety also explain much of their contempt for Hillary Clinton, whose infamous question from the Benghazi hearings—“What difference at this point does it make?”—was the verbal equivalent of a cottonmouth bite.

But while the media have been celebrating Republican women who finally “get it,” they have been less vocal about a striking class and education divide that should be a familiar theme in this election. Yes, college-educated women are overwhelmingly for Clinton; but women without college degrees are sticking with the Republican nominee. They may be less enthusiastic than they were in 2012, when they overwhelmingly supported Mitt Romney, and they are far less gung-ho than the almost two-thirds of their male counterparts in the Trump camp. Still, while the polls vary widely, Trump runs as high as 27 points ahead among white women without a college degree, higher than Clinton’s 23-point advantage among college-educated women.

So why are less-educated white women willing to look past Trump’s serial offenses? One preferred media explanation is that many of these women are evangelical Christians who remain wedded to traditional gender roles and feel anxious about women in powerful positions. “Women who want to be protected in the private sphere or need to be protected in the private sphere tend to emphasize the need to protect and privilege women’s special capacities for nurturing,” the feminist historian Stephanie Coontz said in an interview in Vox.

The picture that emerges from on-the-ground reporting, including some of my own, clashes with this image of the timid Biblical “help meet.” Consider the most memorable character in J.D. Vance’s bestselling memoir "Hillbilly Elegy": his grandmother, Mawmaw, a woman at ease with a rifle. Mawmaw was so disgusted by her husband’s drinking that she doused him with gasoline and tossed a lit match. For good reason, her grandson took her seriously when she threatened to run over a classmate whom she believed was having a bad influence on him. (Amazingly, both men avoided serious injury.)


Yes, college-educated women are overwhelmingly for Clinton; but women without college degrees are sticking with the Republican nominee.

Not that most of Trump’s female supporters resemble Mawmaw. They work in insurance offices, hospitals, or schools, where they have to put on proper attire and say “Pardon me” without thinking when they bump into someone. Still, away from work, they are familiar with rural life and the coarser manners that sometimes go along with it. Their husbands or uncles may drive a truck; maybe their brother-in-law is a fireman or a plumber, men who come home muddy, greasy, and smelling more like an oil spill than Valentino Uomo. In her recent book "Strangers in Their Own Land," the sociologist Arlie Hochschild profiles a single, 60-year-old Lake Charles, Louisiana accountant, a Pentecostal with “a direct, forceful manner.” “I learned to handle a shotgun when I was six, picking off cottonmouth and copperhead snakes,” she tells Hochschild. “My daddy used to say if you shoot ‘em, you clean ‘em and eat ‘em.”

Almost all these women have male relatives or friends in the military; some of those men are serving in very dangerous places. Their devotion to these men motivates some of their bitterness toward elites whose men don’t have to worry about IEDs and midnight visits from the military police. Their fears for the men’s safety also explain much of their contempt for Hillary Clinton, whose infamous question from the Benghazi hearings—“What difference at this point does it make?”—was the verbal equivalent of a cottonmouth bite.

None of this means that Trump-supporting women approve of the candidate’s wandering hands and foul mouth. But they take for granted a certain degree of bawdiness in relations between the sexes. “When a group of women are together, we’re talking just as nasty as the guys,” a Trump-supporting teacher from Staten Island told me. “We’re all guilty.”

At any rate, she continues, she doesn’t get the gap between, on the one hand, empowered feminist talk—the quasi-ironic embrace of terms like “bitch” and “nasty woman”—and the reluctance to say anything when they’re mistreated by a man, on the other. (Or when they say they were mistreated; a lot of Trump women are extremely skeptical.) “All of these liberal women, I find it funny they’re so outspoken fighting for women’s rights and now they’re afraid? It’s all bullshit.” Atlantic writer Molly Ball once asked Ivana Trump, Donald’s first wife, whether it was “painful” to be “treated like she was disposable, discarded abruptly after more than a decade of marriage for a younger woman?” “Ivana harrumphed . . . ‘I am Eastern European woman. I am strong.’”

This language and worldview is a planet apart from our Trump-o-phobic media, professional, and political class, among whom I include myself. We were raised to “use our words” not gasoline cans and pick-up trucks. We work with men who sweat primarily when they go to the gym. We intuitively sense the line between playfully suggestive and inappropriate, a word that has become oddly resurgent in this era of the bourgeois f-bomb.

To understand this election, we should have spent much more time talking to women at ease with skinning a snake or having nightly dinner with a bone-tired man with calloused hands and few words. Had we done so, we might be less surprised by the results next Tuesday, whatever they might be

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/ ... trump.html

[williatw]

Scott Adams' Blog


Unhypnotizing a Clinton Supporter

In my opinion, Trump might be the safest president we have ever had. He can lead the dark parts of his base toward the light (as Nixon went to China) and he has no incentive for war. Claims about his “temperament” are mostly about his penchant for insults, and that isn’t a mortal danger to anyone.

1. Trump’s Tough Talk Inspires violence: Ask Clinton supporters if they have seen the Project Veritas video of Clinton operatives talking about paying people to incite violence at Trump rallies. The people on the video have been fired, and we haven’t seen violence at Trump rallies since.

2. Temperament: Ask Clinton supporters if they have seen the video of Clinton ranting “Why aren’t I already fifty points ahead?” She looks either inebriated or deranged. Mention that the people who know Trump personally have reported that he is both smart and sane in person. Even his enemies who know him personally don’t claim he has a temperament problem. If he did, is there any chance we wouldn’t have heard about it by now?

3. Trump might insult foreign leaders into a war: Trump and Putin seem to get along fine. Netanyahu said he could work with Trump. Mexico isn’t likely to start a war over trade, or the wall. Trump says North Korea is China’s problem, which is literally the safest thing you could say. And China’s leaders are adults who know Trump says offensive things now and then. China will pursue its own interests, and none of those interests involve going to war over some words. Likewise, other leaders are adults too. They won’t change their foreign policy over some insults.

5. Trump might start a war: Trump owns buildings and property around the world. As a general rule, people who own a lot of real estate don’t start wars because their own assets are at risk. But Clinton is “sponsored” – via the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees – by defense companies that profit from war. Likewise, Clinton is sponsored by foreign countries whose interests don’t align with American interests. Clinton supported war in Iraq and Libya, and she threatens Russia, just as the money trail suggests she would. Trump talks mostly about having a strong military to avoid war. He gains nothing by war.

6. Alcohol: Normally alcohol would not be a risk factor in picking a president because usually both candidates are social drinkers. But Trump has never had an alcoholic beverage while Clinton tells us she enjoys social drinking. Having a few social drinks is not a problem unless you plan to drive a car…or make a nuclear launch decision. If we don’t trust a social drinker to operate a motor vehicle, can we trust a social drinker to manage a nuclear arsenal?

If you have ever drunk-texted, or received a text from someone who has, you already know how much “social drinking” can influence decisions.

7. Group Violence versus Crazy Individuals: Have you noticed that when you see election-related violence from a group, it is always Clinton supporters? That happened at Trump’s San Jose rally, and it happened with the homeless woman protecting Trump’s star on the Walk of Fame. When Trump supporters do something violent they are usually acting alone, and crazy. When Clinton supporters get violent it comes in the form of mobs who are NOT crazy. That’s the dangerous kind of violence because they are literally Stronger Together.

8. Pacing and Leading: When normal politicians change their minds we label it flip-flopping or – more kindly – “evolving” in their thinking. When a Master Persuader does it, you are seeing pacing and leading, which is a major tool of persuasion. Pacing involves matching people – in this case emotionally – and later using that bond to lead them. We see Trump doing this often.


a. Trump paced his base by saying he would deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. Once he had his base on his side emotionally, he led to them to his current policy of deporting only the people who committed crimes while here. Have you heard any Trump supporters complain about it lately?

b. Trump paced his base by saying he would ban all Muslim immigration to stop terrorist infiltration. Once he had them on his side emotionally, he led them first to a ban on specific problem countries, and then again to “extreme vetting,” which is a lot like Clinton’s plan. Trump supporters followed, and you don’t hear them complaining.

c. Early in the primaries Trump paced the racists in the Republican party by not disavowing them as clearly and as loudly as even the racists thought he would. Since then he has led Republicans to think that some form of a “New Deal” for African-Americans might be worth a look.

d. At the Republican National Convention, Trump used his emotional connection to his supporters to declare he was the strongest voice to protect the LGBTQ community. Republicans stood and cheered.

Readers of this blog might recall that months ago I predicted that Trump would soften his immigration proposals. That’s because I saw him from the start as a Master Persuader, not a crazy person, and not a common flip-flopper.

In my opinion, Trump might be the safest president we have ever had. He can lead the dark parts of his base toward the light (as Nixon went to China) and he has no incentive for war. Claims about his “temperament” are mostly about his penchant for insults, and that isn’t a mortal danger to anyone.

And there you have your formula for unhypnotizing a Clinton supporter who is mostly worried about Trump being dangerous

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1527344653 ... -supporter

[ladajo]

Personally, I would like to know why my tax dollars are being spent by our 'President' to fly around the nation campaigning for Billary. I find this a gross misuse of government resources, if not criminal. A sitting President should NOT be using the state's resources to campaign. That is bullshit, and indicative of the entire entitled and corrupt culture in DC and Politics as we know that I want to see broken and discarded. The self-centeredness of these folks is beyond me. I lament we are here, and I know we need to fix it, or we as a nation are doomed to become another historical case study. Although, if our nation does implode, as it seems want to do of late, the fate of a coherent history in the future may be in doubt. Meh.

[Tom Ligon]

How many years ago was it that a US President actually used commercial transportatio?. I remember the event and that it was a major story. It must have been at least 20 years back, probably way more. Nixon, I think.

I don't think they're allowed to any more.

If the policy holds that was in place then, if a President wants to go some place on personal or campaign business, they have to pay the government for commercial air fare for themselves and their family. But the government insists they fly Air Force One, complete with Secret Service, a full crew of support staff, and a guy carrying an ominous briefcase. This includes campaigning and vacations.

Is it a smart policy? It has always given me heartburn. But it is applied to both parties and has been for a very long time.

[ladajo]

I do not think it would be that difficult to process it as a cost in kind. That is done all the time for 'normal' government employees.
Thus the overhead costs of being President can be left out, and the taxpayer is somewhat unburdened by the non-Presidential efforts of the sitting President. And I see this as an issue for ANY President. It should not be MY burden to pay full cost for the President's vacations and personal business. Elsewhere in government service this is considered CLEARLY waste, fraud, and abuse.
The individual needs to pay constructive cost differentials. Period. I don't care who they are. We are all citizens and equal.

[JoeP]

Clearly some are more equal than others.

[williatw]

'The FBI is Trumpland': anti-Clinton atmosphere spurred leaking, sources say

Highly unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton intensified after James Comey’s decision not to recommend an indictment over her use of a private email server



One agent called the bureau ‘Trumplandia,’ with some colleagues openly discussing voting for the Republican nominee.

Deep antipathy to Hillary Clinton exists within the FBI, multiple bureau sources have told the Guardian, spurring a rapid series of leaks damaging to her campaign just days before the election.

Deep antipathy to Hillary Clinton exists within the FBI, multiple bureau sources have told the Guardian, spurring a rapid series of leaks damaging to her campaign just days before the election.


Current and former FBI officials, none of whom were willing or cleared to speak on the record, have described a chaotic internal climate that resulted from outrage over director James Comey’s July decision not to recommend an indictment over Clinton’s maintenance of a private email server on which classified information transited.

“The FBI is Trumpland,” said one current agent.

This atmosphere raises major questions about how Comey and the bureau he is slated to run for the next seven years can work with Clinton should she win the White House.

The currently serving FBI agent said Clinton is “the antichrist personified to a large swath of FBI personnel,” and that “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.”

The agent called the bureau “Trumplandia”, with some colleagues openly discussing voting for a GOP nominee who has garnered unprecedented condemnation from the party’s national security wing and who has pledged to jail Clinton if elected.

“There are lots of people who don’t think Trump is qualified, but also believe Clinton is corrupt. What you hear a lot is that it’s a bad choice, between an incompetent and a corrupt politician,” said a former FBI official.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... are_btn_tw

This is probably the result of blowback from years of Hillary Clinton's purported deep seated openly expressed animosity/contempt toward military and law enforcement personnel as well as the Secret Service; if so it (the FBI antagonism) is probably arguably justified to some extent. A Commander-in-chief who has a barely concealed (if not open) irrational hatred for the military/law enforcement personnel/agencies she is supposed to be leading. If she (Hillary) pull this election out somehow and becomes prez, expect her to do a major purge of the FBI in short order.


Hillary’s MASSIVE MELTDOWN "If that f - - - ing bastard wins, we all hang from nooses!

Hillary is afraid of the gallows if Trump wins. She was interviewed by Matt Lauer and went off in a tirade of cursing. Hillary said: " If that f - - - ing bastard wins, we all hang from nooses!" Camera's were not allowed to film the massive meltdown. But the staffers couldn't believe how horrible she was.
Remember the Sept. 7 Commander-in-Chief Forum where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton appeared separately but back-to-back for 30 minutes each?
According to an email forwarded to us late last night, which originated from a Comcast email address, the technical crew for NBC which produced the event is now speaking out about what took place moments after Clinton walked off the set – a massive profanity-laced tirade aimed at NBC’s host, Matt Lauer.
It turned out that Clinton had been fed all the questions for approval in advance of the forum.
But then, after the approval, Matt Lauer had had a change of heart and he started his questioning with an unapproved line concerning Clinton’s use of an illegal private server for her sometimes classified, work-related emails.
According to a Comcast official (the parent company of NBC Universal) who apparently was quoting those on the set:
“When Matt posed the one legitimate question about the FBI investigation concerning her homemade server and the unsecured emails, we could see she was beginning to boil.”
According to an NBC Associate Producer of the Forum, as soon as Clinton got off the set, she exploded.
“Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant, and the screaming started.”
“She was in a full meltdown and no one on her staff dared speak with her – she went kind of manic and didn't have any control over herself at that point.”
“How these people work with this woman is amazing to me. She really didn't seem to care who heard any of it.”
“You really had to see this to believe it. She came apart – literally unglued; she is the most foul-mouthed woman I’ve ever heard … and that voice at screech level … awful!”
“She screamed she’d get that f…..ing Lauer fired for this.”
Referring to Donald Trump, Clinton said:
“If that f - - - ing bastard wins, we all hang from nooses! Lauer’s finished...and if I lose it’s all on your heads for screwing this up.”
So, Crooked Hillary fears the gallows, eh? Interesting.
Her dozen or more aides were visibly disturbed and tried to calm her down when she started shaking uncontrollably, as she screamed to get an executive at Comcast the parent company of NBC Universal, on the phone. Then, two rather large aides grabbed her and helped her walk to her car.
Matt Lauer was massively criticized for the rest of the week on air by the Clinton campaign and the rest of the MSM as having conducted:
“an unfair and partisan attack on Clinton.”
According to the email, calls were made to the New York Times, the Washington Post, Huffington Post and Twitter executives with orders to crush Matt Lauer.
One staffer on the Clinton campaign told the NBC staff that they all fear Clinton’s wrath and uncontrollable outbursts, and one described Hillary as “an egotistical psychopath.”
Since Hillary does not allow any staff to have cell phones when she is in their presence, no footage is available.
Interim DNC chairman Donna Brazile, the first black woman to hold the position, was singled out by Hillary during the rant. She screamed at Donna:
“I’m so sick of your face. You stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo, while letting that f - - - ing Lauer get away with this. What are you good for, really? Get the f - - - to work janitoring this mess - do I make myself clear?”
A female NBC executive said that Donna Brazile looked at Mrs. Clinton and never flinched, which seemed to enrage Hillary all the more. The executive continued:
“It was the most awful and terrible...and racist display – such a profane meltdown I have ever witnessed from anyone, and I will never forget it.
“That woman should never see the inside of the oval office I can tell you that. She was unhinged and just continued to verbally abuse everyone – she was out of control.”
Why did Lauer ask his rogue question? According to sources close to Lauer, because:
“… the American people deserve an answer from the former Secretary of State.”
election, results

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at2iwcQNNlY

[ladajo]

That is the Hillary I have heard about from numerous sources, and somewhat personal experience in Haiti.
Her staff are terrified of her, it is clear in how they carry themselves and represent her.
One of the more amusing things was a directive that no one on the ground was allowed to take any photos that showed her from the side or rear angles, as she was incredibly protective of allowing her girth to show. Of course that is about the worst thing you can say to a bunch of military folks on the ground. Talk about 'challenge accepted'.

In other news, if I or anyone I know with allowed free access to a SCIF by an uncleared person (her maid in this case) in my home (or anywhere), and/or, tasked them to print and handle classified information; that would be an instant and one way trip to jail, not to mention a lifetime loss of security clearances.

This single point should be enough to indict her. I guess we will see. This is beyond ridiculous. It is criminal in accordance with the law. Period.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-di ... materials/

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer,employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

Any questions?

And the fun part is that the government could seize her residences as part of the punishment given that they were utilized in commissoin of the crime.

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.

Edit: Corrected NY Post Link

[ladajo]

For those that are math challenged, the above statutes indicate she is facing up to 21 Years in prison, in addition to fines and seizures for her sense of entitlement.

[Diogenes]

For those that are math challenged, the above statutes indicate she is facing up to 21 Years in prison, in addition to fines and seizures for her sense of entitlement.

The system is rigged. The Government is corrupt. The New York media created it.

[choff]

Watching Lady Gaga getting cheered at the Democrat rally on TV, the all black uniform with the red armband is giving me a bad feeling about the future.

[hanelyp]

Indications are very good that Trump will take the Presidency by a strong electoral margin, http://www.nytimes.com/elections/foreca ... abc-region . And the early projections were total bunk. At this moment a 306 electoral vote victory appears most likely.

[williatw]

Indications are very good that Trump will take the Presidency by a strong electoral margin, http://www.nytimes.com/elections/foreca ... abc-region . And the early projections were total bunk. At this moment a 306 electoral vote victory appears most likely.

Yuppers...pre election polls were dead wrong, looks like Trump opened up a can of Whoop-ass on Hillary. So much for Bill and Hillary's "plan" first he gets to be president and then it was supposed to be her turn. So much (hopefully) for the Clinton (crime family) control of the Dems. As far as I am concerned they can both retire from public life; that and get ready for the special prosecutor Trump will get to go after the Clinton Foundation, E-mail scandal, etc. Looking decent for the Republicans to retain control of the Senate as well; think they will lose some seats however, don't know how narrow the margin will be.

Addendum: I would love for someone to have an secret open mic (or camera) to catch the screaming hysterical tirade Hillary will unleash at her staff, husband, DNC leadership, etc. when the magnitude of her unexpected defeat sinks in (if she thinks there are no cameras rolling). Queen Hillary will not accept defeat graciously at least not privately.