Pence now being interviewed on the 700 Club (not something I normally watch, came up after the local news on a TV in the other room and I heard something being mentioned on the 2A...)...he's getting asked some very good questions and providing some very good answers. He's a sharp speaker/presenter. A very good choice for VP. Nice when every question isn't a 'Let's smear DT' based...

BOSS

I've been hearing rumor Trump's speeches are on the web live.

Anyone know how to find them?

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
I've been hearing rumor Trump's speeches are on the web live.

Anyone know how to find them?

Click on this link to YouTube and scroll down just a bit to the Upcoming live streams section.

https://www.youtube.com/channe...V1Z3HsBOPYPtkw0Uw0Ug

Hillary’s Latest ‘Old News’ Mrs. Clinton has set herself up for an October Surprise.

Funny how the word “email” continues to haunt Hillary Clinton even as she dismisses every new revelation as “old news.” The latest new-old news comes in the release by Judicial Watch of 44 emails from her personal server that Mrs. Clinton failed to turn over in the batch she told the State Department included everything that was work-related. The emails paint a picture of top Clinton aides at State eager to do favors for Clinton Foundation donors.

At the heart of these documents is the glaring conflict of interest that Mrs. Clinton carried into the State Department—and then spread to those around her. Only months after the Clinton Foundation agreed to ethics protocols designed to keep Mrs. Clinton’s department from mixing State with foundation business, these new emails show her two closest aides— Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills—doing the bidding of Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band.

More at the link

RNC TV ad spending for Trump: $0

The national party breaks with tradition of spending millions on ads supporting its nominees.

http://www.politico.com/story/...p-ad-spending-229711

The Republican National Committee insists that it’s doing everything in its power to elect Donald Trump, but as Trump gets clobbered on the TV airwaves by his well-funded Democratic rival, the RNC has been conspicuously absent.

A POLITICO analysis of campaign finance records reveals that the committee has not spent anything on commercials boosting Trump since he emerged as the party’s likely nominee.

That’s a stark departure from recent elections. In 2008 and 2012, the RNC spent tens of millions of dollars on so-called independent expenditures — principally TV ads, but also direct mail and phone banks — supporting its nominees or attacking their Democratic rivals.

The lack of air cover has prompted grumbling from Trump aides and allies, many of whom believe that the RNC was never fully supportive of their candidate and that it’s now turning its back completely on the anti-establishment nominee as his poll numbers crater.

“The Democrats have an unprecedented and lopsided advertising advantage in this race like we have never seen before, and it is having a serious and negative effect,” said Curt Anderson, a former RNC political director who is helping a pro-Trump super PAC, Rebuilding America Now. “It is possible that Trump has sealed his fate at this point, but it is still a terrible mistake not to have $50 million of advertising from the Republican Party exposing Hillary Clinton and keeping her numbers down,” said Anderson, who helped to lead the RNC’s independent expenditure effort in 2004 and 2008.
reince_priebus_1160_AP.jpg

Priebus promises RNC still stands with Trump

By Alex Isenstadt, Kyle Cheney and Shane Goldmacher

In 2004, the committee spent $18.2 million on independent expenditures — or IEs, in campaign parlance — boosting George W. Bush’s reelection bid. In 2008, the RNC’s IE spending surged to $53.5 million in support of John McCain’s campaign against Barack Obama. And in 2012, the RNC spent $42.4 million on IEs boosting Mitt Romney or opposing President Obama — with nearly 80 percent of the spending occurring before mid-October.

By contrast, this cycle the RNC has spent only $321,000 on independent expenditures attacking Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. And all of that spending occurred last fall — before Trump had emerged as the leader for the GOP presidential nomination.

RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh said the committee is not going to spend any more money this cycle on television ad IEs, but that the decision is completely unrelated to Trump.

Rather, she said, it stems from a strategic calculation made soon after the 2012 election that “that is not an efficient use of party committee dollars to spend money on television.” Pointing to a report that assessed the shortcomings of Republican efforts in the 2012 election, she said RNC leaders determined that the party’s money was better invested in data-driven voter contact operations.

“We put people on the ground for three years, invested in communities, doing data and voter registration, so that when we had a nominee, we would be able to link up with that nominee and work together to iinsure that the nominee had the best field program that the Republican nominee has ever had,” said Walsh.

Campaigns and super PACs are both better suited to funding ads, she argued.
161011_nancy_pelosi_getty_1160.jpg

Pelosi rakes in $35 million in the third quarter

By Heather Caygle

That’s because campaigns — unlike party committees — are legally entitled to lower advertising rates than outside groups. Additionally, campaigns are better positioned to make ads that reinforce their candidates’ message since party committees and super PACs are barred from coordinating their advertising strategies with the campaigns they’re trying to help.

“Why would we do an IE when we get a worse rate and worse placement than the campaign and the campaign has no idea what the messaging is going to be?” Walsh said.

Given the inefficiencies inherent in independent spending, she contended that it’s better done by super PACs, which — unlike party committees such as the RNC — can accept unlimited contributions from rich benefactors.

“A super PAC can start up tomorrow and raise $100 million immediately and put it on TV,” she said. “It’s much easier to place a last-minute TV buy than it is to go back and do three years worth of voter contact.”

That division of labor has worked well on the Democratic side.

Despite the Democratic National Committee’s lack of any IE spending, Clinton and groups supporting her had outspent Trump and his allies on ads $189 million to $50 million through the end of last week, according to advertising data compiled by the firm Advertising Analytics for NBC News.

A constellation of super PACs devoted to Trump have struggled to raise money. That’s partly because they got off to a late start and partly because there’s lingering distaste among elite GOP donors for Trump, who during his largely self-funded primary campaign eschewed super PACs and disparaged major donors as puppeteers.

The RNC’s move away from independent spending was predicated on having a more traditional nominee whose campaign spent heavily on its own advertising and whose relationships with major donors would compel them to write big checks to super PACs.
Trump renews call for special prosecutor for Clinton

2016
Trump, unbound

By Eli Stokols and Glenn Thrush

The RNC “had no way of knowing that Trump as the nominee wouldn’t have a significant paid media effort,” said Chris Mottola, a veteran Republican strategist who helped to oversee the committee’s 2012 ad campaign. “If you had predicted this election cycle, you would be living beside a pool in Vegas.”

Given the way the election developed, an adviser to one of the pro-Trump super PACs said the RNC should have adapted and stepped in to help offset the advertising gap for the good of the whole party. “It’s shocking that the RNC wouldn’t do an IE for the candidate at the top of its ticket,” the adviser said. “It’s the single best way to help every Republican candidate down the ballot.”

But Mike Shields, a former RNC chief of staff who helped orchestrate the committee’s strategic shift away from television spending and toward ground operations, suggested Trump’s campaign and its supporters should have been aware of the shift, and responded accordingly.

“The RNC has been pretty clear for four years it wasn't going to do TV. We actually created a four-year plan, and it has been executed wonderfully,” said Shields, who left the RNC last year to take the helm of a super PAC supporting the party’s House candidates.

“If the current nominee doesn't have enough money for TV, that is his responsibility, not the RNC's,” he said, adding “in the era of super PACs and billion-dollar presidential campaigns, it made sense for the RNC to own the ground game and data — and leave TV to others. The RNC has exceeded its goals, but it can't control what presidential, House or Senate candidates put on TV.”

The RNC says that its joint get-out-the-vote program with the Trump campaign had more than 1,000 staffers in the field last month, compared with fewer than 900 working for Romney in October 2012.

Brad Parscale, Trump’s digital director, said the campaign’s get-out-the-vote effort with the RNC is “outperforming 2012 numbers in nearly every battleground state.” And he praised the RNC for providing “vital ground-game infrastructure, data research and modeling, financial partnership and have staff integrated throughout our teams.”

But a handful of veteran GOP field organizers have privately questioned the strength of the RNC’s field program in recent interviews. Republicans trail Democrats organizationally in numerous swing states, with far fewer field staffers and canvassers to turn out votes for Trump.

And some Republicans suspect the abdication of the air war may stem less from a strategic shift to ground operations and more from the RNC’s financial position. Through the end of August, the committee had raised $231 million over the course of the election cycle, far short of the $356 million it had raised at the same point in the 2012 campaign.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
I've been hearing rumor Trump's speeches are on the web live.

Anyone know how to find them?

You can view any speech Trump or Pence have given here:

https://www.youtube.com/user/rightsideradio/playlists

That includes live streams of speeches as they happen.

Anti-Catholics & Elitist Bigots
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Will Hillary Clinton clean out the nest of anti-Catholic bigots in her inner circle? Or is anti-Catholicism acceptable in her crowd?

In a 2011 email on which Clinton campaign chief John Podesta was copied, John Halpin, a fellow at the Center for American Progress that Podesta founded, trashed Rupert Murdoch for raising his kids in a misogynist religion.

The most “powerful elements” in the conservative movement are Catholic, railed Halpin: “It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backward gender relations…”

Clinton spokesperson Jennifer Palmieri agreed: “I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they become evangelical.”

“Excellent point,” replied Halpin. “They can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they are talking about.”

What the pair is mocking here are both the faith decisions of the Murdoch family and traditional Catholic beliefs and social teaching.

This is a pristine example of the anti-Catholicism that historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr., called “the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people.”

In another email in this latest document dump from WikiLeaks, writes Ben Wolfgang of The Washington Times, Podesta and Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, mocked the Miss America pageant, because so many finalists are Southern girls and young women.

Said Podesta, “Do you think it’s weird that of the 15 finalists in the Miss America, 10 came from the 11 states of the CSA?”

The CSA would be the Confederate States of America.

“Not at all,” says Tanden, “I would imagine the only people who watch it are from the confederacy and by now they know that so they’ve rigged the thing in their honor.”

In another email, Podesta himself uses the sort of language liberals once said disqualified Nixon from staying on as president — regarding former Governor Bill Richardson. Podesta refers to him and other Hispanics whom he is trying to court for Clinton as “needy Latinos.”

What these emails reveal is the sneering contempt of liberal elites for Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Southerners, and even Hispanics loyal to them. And the contents of these emails correlate with the revealed bigotries of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

In September, Clinton told a gathering of rich contributors at a gay rights fundraiser in New York City:

“[Y]ou could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.”

Responding to the cheers and laughter, Clinton went on, “Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

What Clinton said to the LGBT partisans echoed what Obama told rich contributors in San Francisco in 2008, who wondered why he was not doing better in Pennsylvania.

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and … the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. … And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Obama was saying that when small-town Pennsylvanians fall behind, they blame others and revert to their bibles, bigotries and guns.

Yet Obama has never explained what caused him to sit content for 20 years — and be married and have his daughters baptized — in the church of a ranting racist like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who, at the time of 9/11, roared from his pulpit “God Damn America!”

What so attracted Barack Obama to Rev. Wright’s bigotry?

These latest emails confirm what we already knew.

Our elites, who are forever charging others with “racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia,” are steeped in their own bigotries — toward Southerners, conservatives, Middle Americans, Evangelical Christians, and traditionalist Catholics — the “irredeemables.”

Though the election is still a month off, the campaign of 2016 has already done irreparable damage to the American establishment.

Its roots in the nation it purports to lead have been attenuated if not severed. It has shown the world a portrait of American democracy at its apex that approaches the repellent.

Through the savagery of its attacks on those who have risen up against it, the establishment has stripped itself of all claim to be the moral leader of American society. Its moral authority is gone.

Even if Clinton wins, it can no longer credibly speak for America.

As for the national press corps — the Fourth Estate — it has been compromised, its credibility crippled, as some of the greatest of the press institutions have nakedly shilled for the regime candidate, while others have been exposed as propagandists or corrupt collaborators posturing as objective reporters.

What institution in America today, besides the military, enjoys national respect? And if people do not respect the regime, if they believe it acts in its own cold interest rather than the nation’s, why should they respect or follow its leadership?

We have entered uncharted waters.

In regards to the long first post on this page: keep digging your own grave, RNC. They cry and cry about what Trump is doing to 'the party,' but they are committing suicide over this election.

And we are watching and remembering.

So the libs think the Miss America pageant has been rigged by operatives of the Confederate States Of America? Hahahahah! That is hilarious. Man, you can't make this shit up.

quote:

Said Podesta, “Do you think it’s weird that of the 15 finalists in the Miss America, 10 came from the 11 states of the CSA?”

The CSA would be the Confederate States of America.

“Not at all,” says Tanden, “I would imagine the only people who watch it are from the confederacy and by now they know that so they’ve rigged the thing in their honor.”

^ I doubt many believe the RNC's explanation regarding TV spending during this campaign.

Anyway, saw this elsewhere (from a Trump rally in Cincinnati, reported by The Guardian)... not the classiest, but pretty funny:

I really hope Trump spends minimal time about the sexual harassment claims. He needs to stay almost completely focused on the differences between what he would do as president and what Clinton would do as president.

The GOPissers will never change. They must be voted out. They cling like stink in an outhouse.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I really hope Trump spends minimal time about the sexual harassment claims. He needs to stay almost completely focused on the differences between what he would do as president and what Clinton would do as president.

100% agreed. The Clinton Campaign is trying to lure Trump into getting into the gutter with them. If he does, he has lost. Unfortunately, Trump is first and foremost a showman. An entertainer. I'm not sure he can resist the temptation. If he can, this media blitz will fail.

The Greensboro, NC rally will start in about 45 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPTO9Uiz0k

Well, it started ok but then he just couldn't resist....and the rally fell apart quickly.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mainframe Coder,

quote:

RNC TV ad spending for Trump: $0

The grave is dug.

Now the RNC can jump in to join our nation if Clinton is elected.

A huge portion of the Trump supporters, myself included, will tell them to fuck off, forever.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
In 2004, the committee spent $18.2 million on independent expenditures — or IEs, in campaign parlance — boosting George W. Bush’s reelection bid. In 2008, the RNC’s IE spending surged to $53.5 million in support of John McCain’s campaign against Barack Obama. And in 2012, the RNC spent $42.4 million on IEs boosting Mitt Romney or opposing President Obama — with nearly 80 percent of the spending occurring before mid-October.

By contrast, this cycle the RNC has spent only $321,000 on independent expenditures attacking Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. And all of that spending occurred last fall — before Trump had emerged as the leader for the GOP presidential nomination.

RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh said the committee is not going to spend any more money this cycle on television ad IEs, but that the decision is completely unrelated to Trump.

So the past establishment candidates received millions of dollars in TV commercial support, but Trump gets nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Now we know why Trump has virtually no ads on television.

Anyone who lowers themselves to defend the RNC and the establishment Republicans should be embarrassed.

‘Americans against establishment in both parties’ - Ann Coulter

People in the US are waking up and recognizing they are against the establishment in both parties. They are seeing this for what it is, says conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter.
Trends
US Elections 2016
Some of the hacked emails uncover what conservatives have been saying about Hillary Clinton all along: “You can't trust her.” In the meantime, there is a political civil war breaking out in the Republican Party. Donald Trump says he doesn't need or want any support from House Speaker Paul Ryan.

RT host Ed Schultz discussed these with conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter. Her latest book is “In Trump we trust. E pluribus awesome!”...

Not surprised the RNC won't buy any ads

Trump is doing just fine on his own, and the RNC is simply showing how much of a collection of losers they are

The reason why Trump is doing so well is because of the RNC itself. Cancers are like that though. The RNC is a cancer upon America and conservatives, and Trump is where he is because of the RNC. The Dems just happen to be the foil.

Trump is the 3rd party candidate we've all wanted but he couldn't get traction as a 3rd party so why not use the RNC against itself?

I think it was a brilliant move.

With the 1st question on sexual stuff, Trump should respond "Do you want me to talk about that again, or, do you want to hear my plans for getting this country back on track?" The audience will provide the answer.

MSNBC has a lying Bimbo on tv right now giving a press conference/statement....next to Gloria Allred.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...l-smear-campaign.php

Today’s news is dominated by claims that years ago, Donald Trump made crude comments about women, or inappropriately touched women, or intruded into a women’s dressing room, and so on. Gone from the campaign are such issues as the economy, Obamacare, national security and immigration . As Election Day approaches, the news is all Trump scandals, all the time.

Some will say–I may have said–that Republican primary voters asked for it by nominating a man with obvious personal vulnerabilities, instead of a more upright (and more electable) Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Ted Cruz or whoever.

But what’s a Republican to do? Last cycle, we nominated the ultimate Boy Scout: Mitt Romney. Whatever you think of Romney from a policy perspective, he is as admirable a man as you will ever meet. To find a presidential candidate of better moral character, you probably have to go back to Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Romney never said a rude word about a woman in his life.

So what happened? Did Romney and the GOP get credit in the press for the candidates’s outstanding character? No. Romney, who helped to create tens of thousands of jobs at Bain Capital, was denounced as a “vulture capitalist” and blamed, absurdly, for one woman’s developing cancer. The Washington Post made a front page story of the fact that 50 years earlier, when he was in high school, he and others had cut a classmate’s hair. Oh, and Romney was a racist, too. Does anyone remember why? I don’t.

The cycle before that, GOP voters nominated John McCain. McCain is a great patriot, a man of extraordinary character and courage who survived years of torture and abuse as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Did the liberal media give Republicans credit for nominating such a hero? No. The New York Times, to its everlasting shame, peddled a false rumor that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist. (Bill Clinton would have done that before breakfast.) It also berated McCain for failing to release his medical records–which, actually, he did, unlike Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

The Left’s permanent smear campaign against conservatives doesn’t just extend to Republican presidential candidates. Recall how the Democrat/media complex treated the Tea Party. Prominent House Democrats lied, disgracefully: they claimed, falsely, that Tea Party activists at a protest in Washington had hurled racial insults at black Democrats like John Lewis. The press ate it up. They printed the Democrats’ lies as facts, and to this day reporters and editors have never corrected the libel, even though a $100,000 prize to anyone who could substantiate the Democrats’ lies went unclaimed.

What’s the point? I’m not really sure. I certainly am not in favor of nominating candidates of poor or marginal character. But the hypocrisy of the liberal media is galling. In this election cycle, lewd comments made decades ago are apparently of earth-shattering importance. Really? Where was that standard when Bill Clinton was running for office? Or John Kennedy? Or Lyndon Johnson? And how about Barack Obama and Joe Biden? Has anyone actually investigated to see what they might have said about women over the last thirty years?

What is the point of nominating someone of extraordinary moral stature, like Mitt Romney, if the political press will not only unanimously refuse to acknowledge the fact, but worse, join in a campaign of deception to smear Romney in the eyes of voters?

These days there is lots of gnashing of teeth over the decline of our political culture. And it surely has declined, as manifested in the current presidential campaign. But one must ask, why has that happened? It seems to me that the media’s permanent smear campaign against the Republican Party, waged cycle after cycle regardless of the actual merits of Republican nominees, is the largest part of the answer.

*****************

The first step in defeating this is to recognize what they do every election.