I'm hearing a lot of crap from both libtard AND "conservative" talking heads, and I'm not so sure I'm not getting fed the better part of a load of crap, ie, if Trump doesn't get back "on message" he's toast, if Trump this, if Trump that, yada yada yada. I'm thinking this crap is from the same crowd that was saying Trump would never achieve the minimum votes to clinch the nomination,etc. Since Trump went way over the minimum votes to secure the nomination, the pundits were all wrong. Do you think the current blather against Trump contains the same amount of bullshit and crappy predictions that predicted Trump would not secure the votes to secure the nomination ? I'm starting to think so, because I'm hearing SO much crap about my man, that I think the left AND "right" didn't learn their lesson, and have doubled down, thus the incredible amount of negativity and lack of support from the "conservative" media. What say you ?

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
I'm hearing a lot of crap from both libtard AND "conservative" talking heads, and I'm not so sure I'm not getting fed the better part of a load of crap, ie, if Trump doesn't get back "on message" he's toast, if Trump this, if Trump that, yada yada yada. I'm thinking this crap is from the same crowd that was saying Trump would never achieve the minimum votes to clinch the nomination,etc. Since Trump went way over the minimum votes to secure the nomination, the pundits were all wrong. Do you think the current blather against Trump contains the same amount of bullshit and crappy predictions that predicted Trump would not secure the votes to secure the nomination ? I'm starting to think so, because I'm hearing SO much crap about my man, that I think the left AND "right" didn't learn their lesson, and have doubled down, thus the incredible amount of negativity and lack of support from the "conservative" media. What say you ?

Just getting people to tune in.

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:

"Umm, could you repeat the stuff where you talked about all the things??"

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
I'm hearing a lot of crap from both libtard AND "conservative" talking heads, and I'm not so sure I'm not getting fed the better part of a load of crap, ie, if Trump doesn't get back "on message" he's toast, if Trump this, if Trump that, yada yada yada. I'm thinking this crap is from the same crowd that was saying Trump would never achieve the minimum votes to clinch the nomination,etc. Since Trump went way over the minimum votes to secure the nomination, the pundits were all wrong. Do you think the current blather against Trump contains the same amount of bullshit and crappy predictions that predicted Trump would not secure the votes to secure the nomination ? I'm starting to think so, because I'm hearing SO much crap about my man, that I think the left AND "right" didn't learn their lesson, and have doubled down, thus the incredible amount of negativity and lack of support from the "conservative" media. What say you ?

You can get the same effect by putting your forehead on a bat and spinning around.

Maybe the answer is to support the nominee.

I hope Trump latches on to the Hag mentioning the Iranian Nuclear Physicist who was executed in her unsecured Emails.

Haven't seen the story anywhere except on Fox. Looks like the Iranians were reading her mail. Id make hay with that were I Trump. Regards 18DAI

This is a double post. Short version here. Long version in the Clinton Top Secret email thread.

Clinton spokesperson says there were no classified emails in the Clinton emails. Clinton disagrees w FBI Director.

Another entry?

The point of Evan McMullin’s candidacy is to tip Utah to Hillary, right?

Evan McMullin would make for an unlikely presidential candidate. He has never held elective office before and has spent most of his career as a CIA officer.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mckay...kfAa2LePb#.rkRwm6Rey

Mormons are the most reliably anti-Trump conservative demographic in America. Two of the most outspoken anti-Trump politicians in the GOP, Mitt Romney and Mike Lee, are Mormon. Importantly, Mormons dominate a state, Utah, on which the GOP depends for six easy electoral votes and they’re a significant minority in two others, Arizona and Nevada, that are in play this year.
http://hotair.com/archives/201...ah-to-hillary-right/

McMullin does look like a hand picked entry to tip Utah to Clinton.

Wouldn't be surprised if Romney and Mike Lee are involved someway.

McMullin:
born in Provo, Utah
attended BYU
member of the LDS church

Don't be fooled. We will be flooded w dirty tricks to tip the win to Clinton

The ONLY way to stop Clinton, is to vote for Trump.

Wasn't this supposed to be along the lines of flooding the ballot with candidates so no one achieves a majority in the electoral college?

In 1824, for instance, four candidates ran and no one received the 131 electoral college votes needed to win the presidency. The vote fractured 84, 99, 41 and 37. Hence, no winner.

So, the House of Representatives was then allowed to decide the presidency through voting and dealing in the electoral college. Adams made what was called a corrupt bargain with Henry Clay and even though Jackson received the most popular votes (41.4%), Adams became president through the House vote.

The #nevertrump strategy, I heard at one time, was to essentially take the 270 majority away from both Trump and Clinton by running a candidate in key states to leach votes, leaving the House to decide who will be the next president.

Huum. Will the voters play along?

BTW, this is, perhaps, why the Utah candidate is not concerned with qualifying in every state. The goal is not to win but to block the existing candidates.

The strategy has been employed a number of times in our history.

RINO asshats never seem to get the message:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/...r-BBvoWLC?li=BBnb7Kz

RMD

I still have my eye on the prize and will vote for Trump, but I must admit, this media onslaught is depressing. Not for what they're trying to do, but the reasons they're doing it. Entirely corrupted, entirely corrupt. It's a revelation, one layer at a time, one day at a time. I'm not losing hope for victory, but I am losing hope in our national situation as a whole. The establishment is so fully entrenched and they've spent decades fine-tuning how to manipulate voters. Fairly disgusted with the whole thing.

But every day they pile on Donald strengthens my resolve. Those corrupt, colluding fucks won't convince me to vote other than for Donald J. Trump. I don't need a statesman with a voting record, I need a door-kicker with a firehose to wash out Capitol Hill. Hillary is not that. Donald is, and they know it, and they're scared. Keep banging the panic drum you worthless slime! We're all listening, and we hear you clearly.

The media lies and distortions caused me to donate 100 dollars to Trump campaign today.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/

The August 2016 ACLDN's President's Message is worth your time to read. It's at this LINK.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
I still have my eye on the prize and will vote for Trump, but I must admit, this media onslaught is depressing. Not for what they're trying to do, but the reasons they're doing it. Entirely corrupted, entirely corrupt. It's a revelation, one layer at a time, one day at a time. I'm not losing hope for victory, but I am losing hope in our national situation as a whole. The establishment is so fully entrenched and they've spent decades fine-tuning how to manipulate voters. Fairly disgusted with the whole thing.

But every day they pile on Donald strengthens my resolve. Those corrupt, colluding fucks won't convince me to vote other than for Donald J. Trump. I don't need a statesman with a voting record, I need a door-kicker with a firehose to wash out Capitol Hill. Hillary is not that. Donald is, and they know it, and they're scared. Keep banging the panic drum you worthless slime! We're all listening, and we hear you clearly.

You're right. Hillary isn't Trump's foe in this election. It's the media. Hell, in the real world Hillary, with all her dishonesty & illegal activities wouldn't have a chance at being elected for city council in Chicago.

With everybody being offended by something nowdays, Trump can't say anything of substance without the media twisting it into implying that he hates Mexicans, muslims, blacks, the poor, women, or some other victim group.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-...led-refugees-for-un/

During a July 27 radio interview with fellow Never Trump member Erick Erickson, Glenn Beck and his co-hosts articulated an ambitious scheme to run a third party candidate in red states that are not battleground states for Trump.

The idea, which was explained by Beck’s co-host Stu Burguiere, is to have this independent candidate siphon off enough votes from Trump to keep Trump and Hillary Clinton under the threshold of 270 electoral votes needed to win the race outright, thereby throwing the election to the House of Representatives to decide the outcome, where they hope a Republican House will elect their independent candidate or another person who is not Trump.

Burguiere matter-of-factly said that “the will of the people is a serious problem with this” scheme because the people actually voted for Trump

***********************
We have always been proud that our country has such smooth transitions after our presidential elections. This is the first time I can remember that people are openly talking about defying the will of the voters. This is dangerous stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

We have always been proud that our country has such smooth transitions after our presidential elections. This is the first time I can remember that people are openly talking about defying the will of the voters. This is dangerous stuff.

If that scumbag, doofus dork Erick Erickson and Glenn Beck and whoever else is scheming this traitorous action and truly means to carry it out, then I would not object in the least if they were hanged tomorrow on the National Mall.

Link

50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘at Risk’


Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, have signed a letter declaring that Donald J. Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” to be president and “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

Mr. Trump, the officials warn, “would be the most reckless president in American history.”

The letter says Mr. Trump would weaken the United States’ moral authority and questions his knowledge of and belief in the Constitution. It says he has “demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding” of the nation’s “vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances and the democratic values” on which American policy should be based. And it laments that “Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself.”

“None of us will vote for Donald Trump,” the letter states, though it notes later that many Americans “have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us.”

While foreign policy elites in both parties often argue among themselves — behind closed doors, or politely in the pages of Foreign Affairs magazine — it is extraordinarily rare for them to step into the political arena so publicly and aggressively. Several former midlevel officials issued a similar if milder letter in March, during the primaries. But Monday’s letter included many senior former officials who until now have remained silent in public, even while denouncing Mr. Trump’s policies over dinners or in small Republican conclaves.

Late Monday, Mr. Trump struck back. The signatories of the letter, he said in a statement, were “the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place.” He dismissed them as “nothing more than the failed Washington elite looking to hold onto their power.”

Mr. Trump correctly identified many of the signatories as the architects of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. But he also blamed them for allowing Americans “to die in Benghazi” and for permitting “the rise of ISIS” — referring to the 2012 attacks on the American mission in Libya and the spread of the Islamic State, both of which occurred during the Obama administration. At the time, most of Mr. Trump’s Republican foreign policy critics were in think tanks, private consultancies or law firms, or signed on as advisers to the Republican hopefuls Mr. Trump beat in the primaries.

Among the most prominent signatories are Michael V. Hayden, a former director of both the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency; John D. Negroponte, who served as the first director of national intelligence and then deputy secretary of state; and Robert B. Zoellick, another former deputy secretary of state, United States trade representive and, until 2012, president of the World Bank. Two former secretaries of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, also signed, as did Eric S. Edelman, who was Vice President Dick Cheney’s national security adviser and as a top aide to Robert M. Gates when he was secretary of defense.

Robert Blackwill and James Jeffrey, two key strategists in Mr. Bush’s National Security Council, and William H. Taft IV, a former deputy secretary of defense and ambassador to NATO, also signed. Mr. Blackwill, a former aide to Henry A. Kissinger, is expected to endorse Mrs. Clinton this week.

The letter underscores the continuing rupture in the Republican Party, but particularly within its national security establishment. Many of those signing it had declined to add their names to the letter released in March. But a number said in recent interviews that they changed their minds once they heard Mr. Trump invite Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton’s email server — a sarcastic remark, he said later — and say that he would check to see how much NATO members contributed to the alliance before sending forces to help stave off a Russian attack. They viewed Mr. Trump’s comments on NATO as an abandonment of America’s most significant alliance relationship.

Mr. Trump has said throughout his campaign that he intends to upend Republican foreign policy orthodoxy on everything from trade to Russia, where he has been complimentary of President Vladimir V. Putin, saying nothing about its crackdown on human rights and little about its annexation of Crimea.

The sharp split in the Republican Party raises the question of whom Mr. Trump will turn to for institutional memory if he is elected. The officials he denounced made plenty of mistakes, some of which they acknowledge and some they gloss over. But they are also the party’s repository of experience of economic, diplomatic and military strategies, both successful and failed. Mr. Trump’s own bench of foreign policy advisers has had comparatively little experience.

Missing from the signatories are any of the living Republican former secretaries of state: Mr. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

Mr. Trump met with Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Baker several months ago, and “I came away with a lot of knowledge,” he told The New York Times in a July 20 interview. But neither of the two, who represent different foreign policy approaches within the party, has said if he will endorse Mr. Trump.

It is unclear whether the former secretaries plan to stay silent or will issue their own statements. But particularly striking is how many of Ms. Rice’s closest aides at the White House and the State Department, including Philip Zelikow, Eliot A. Cohen, Meghan O’Sullivan, Kori Schake and Michael Green, are all signatories.

“We agreed to focus on Trump’s fitness to be president, not his substantive positions,” said John B. Bellinger III, who was Ms. Rice’s legal adviser at the National Security Council and the State Department, and who drafted the letter.

He said that among the signatories, “some will vote for” Mrs. Clinton, “and some will not vote, but all agree Trump is not qualified and would be dangerous.”

The Clinton campaign appeared to be aware that the letter was circulating and encouraged it, but played no role in drafting it, several signatories said.

Yet perhaps most striking about the letter is the degree to which it echoes Mrs. Clinton’s main argument about her rival: that his temperament makes him unsuitable for the job, and that he should not be entrusted with the control of nuclear weapons.

“He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood,” the letter says. “He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be president and commander in chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”

Mr. Trump responded in his statement that his vision was “one that is not run by a ruling family dynasty. It’s an America first vision that stands up to foreign dictators instead of taking money from them, seeks peace over war, rebuilds our military and makes other countries pay their fair share for their protection.”

In a rational world, this picture should end the debate...

Where were those 50 GOP officials when obama was getting elected ?

The full damage that obama has done won't be known for decades, if ever. But obama's damage isn't theoretical, it is now historical fact.

Here is Rep consultant Rick Wilson on one of his rants against Trump:

"As a principled conservative, I loathe the high likelihood that Hillary Clinton will win this election.

She’ll nominate liberal Supreme Court justices . We’ll lose religious liberty . We’ll have our Second Amendment freedoms compromised . Chuck Schumer’s immigration bill is going to be so bad it will make many of us beg for the Gang of Eight .

However, Trump would be far worse. He’d be more dangerous to our safety and our republic. And since I know his loss is coming, I pray to God that it is total. You should, too."

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-...hillary-trump-worse/


we need bigger insane asylums

quote:

50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘at Risk’

In other words, the establishment is scared shitless that Trump will win and they will be shown to be the assholes they really are.