"the October Surprise"

[GreyGeek]

Donald Trump tweeted this earlier today:

Is he stupid? He just made himself illegitimate and basically supported further investigation of voter fraud by saying millions of people voted illegally.

I wouldn't say that makes him "illegitimate", but I wouldn't call a 39 EC vote margin a landslide either.

I still remember that Obama has ZERO experience running a business and ZERO experience as a governor. He did and does have a gifted tongue, and Trump doesn't. Basically, Obama is, I believe, a lot more intelligent that Trump, but just as tricky. Remember, after Obama became President he took an "Introduction" tour of the Middle East, where he embarrassed himself by bowing deeply to the Saudi King, the man who was financing the Wahhabi murderers of 9/11. Since then he has made enemies of our friends and "friends" of our enemies. He, Hillary, McCain and others were and are behind the supporting of Islamic radicals with weapons and military intelligence, even bombing Assad's troops, until Russia told them that if they bombed government troops again they would shoot down the American planes, and they brought SA-400 ground to air missiles into Syria to back up their threat. IMO, we should be helping Russia to defeat ISIS, not helping ISIS to defeat Syria and create the ISL.

He was a Chicago organizer teaching ACORN members "organizing" from Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" (have you read it? I have a copy of it), and acted as ACORN's attorney in several lawsuits which lead to the Community Reinvestment Act legislation that Jimmy Carter signed, and Bill Clinton enhanced by preventing banks which didn't give low income loans from doing business with the Federal government, driving banks to create NINJA loans which lead to the housing bubble crash.

Here is another take on the subprime bubble

[Qqmike]

Donald Trump tweeted this earlier today:
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally ... s he stupid? He just made himself illegitimate

Yes, I saw that, too; along with a comparison between his response to Castro's death (unhinged) and Obama's response (appropriately presidential). THIS is exactly what I refer to in my post #124 above:

we just gotta (1) hope Trump grows up, real damn fast, (2) hope he gets a grip on reality, and (3) hope for the best and root for him to deliver the best for all of us.

Boy, this is a real crap-shoot. Sad we have to think this way about our president--at once apologetic, then defensive, and then critical ... all because he may not be wrapped real tight. I hope he talks to tons of people, to get lessons, role models for mature diplomacy; as opposed to him withdrawing into his craziness shell.

[MoonRise]

Donald Trump tweeted this earlier today:

Is he stupid? He just made himself illegitimate and basically supported further investigation of voter fraud by saying millions of people voted illegally.

That is why he has so many people scared. He Types before thinking. Not becoming of any official.

[whatthefunk]

Donald Trump tweeted this earlier today:

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

Is he stupid? He just made himself illegitimate and basically supported further investigation of voter fraud by saying millions of people voted illegally.

[GreyGeek]

+1 to whatthefunk
Now that Trump is in there, nothing would be gained by pressing Hillary past him and in; or by shedding any doubt on his legitimacy. At this point, we just gotta (1) hope Trump grows up, real damn fast, (2) hope he gets a grip on reality, and (3) hope for the best and root for him to deliver the best for all of us. Remember, it's us against them, and us is USA and them is the rest of them out there who would do us harm. Except, when it comes to climate change and such, us is everyone in this world.

+1 to whatthefunk and you, Qqmike, wrote.

Personally, I think it was a good thing for Trump to say he wasn't going to push for the prosecution of Hillary, even though I believe she is guilty of a lot of criminal activity with both the emails and the foundation. There is too much to do to waste time and resources on revenge gratification. Politically, her career is over, unless she decides to run for another office. Then I would advocate for reopening the investigation.

I would like to see Trump pardon those who were convicted of doing with one or two emails what Hillary did with thousands of classified emails. For example:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/20...icious-intent/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...nced-over-cla/

https://www.change.org/p/us-army-lt-...n-from-taliban

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...l-scandal.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...urnalists.html

Hey, Clinton released 100 felons on his last day in office.

BTW, here is the law on abusing classified information:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

[Qqmike]

+1 to whatthefunk
Now that Trump is in there, nothing would be gained by pressing Hillary past him and in; or by shedding any doubt on his legitimacy. At this point, we just gotta (1) hope Trump grows up, real damn fast, (2) hope he gets a grip on reality, and (3) hope for the best and root for him to deliver the best for all of us. Remember, it's us against them, and us is USA and them is the rest of them out there who would do us harm. Except, when it comes to climate change and such, us is everyone in this world.

[whatthefunk]

Although there is no evidence of voter irregularities at this time, there are rumors and I guess Jill Stein wants to dig deeper. It is her legal right and if she wants to pursue it and pay for it, fine. In the end, a recount will likely make Trump only more legitimate. It is good to settle the matter now rather than let it bog down the country for the next four years. We have enough to deal with. Lets at least have a president that is seen as being fairly elected.

[MoonRise]

Let's not forget that if the shoe was on the other foot, and it is going on right now in other races, a recount would have been requested. It is a part of the process. Always has been and to play it one way or the other is a moot point.

[GreyGeek]

That's true, and contestants have a right to request a recount before Dec 13th even without any irregularities, of which none are being claimed. But, as I pointed out, Michigan has already been recounted and even though Hillary gained 576 votes (IIRC) she's still 10,000 short of reversing the outcome. Without Michigan the possibility that the recount will turn the election to Hillary's favor is nil, and Stein and Hillary know that. So, why do it if the purpose is not to deliberately throw the election into the House of Representatives, where she will lose for sure? So the Left can continue to bang the drum of illegitimacy?

[whatthefunk]

If there are irregularities, I think a recount should happen even if it wont change the outcome of the election. Voting irregularities need to discovered and corrected in order for democracy to work.

[GreyGeek]

Why the Progressives are pushing for a recount

The Federal deadline for a recount is December 13th.

"The recount in Wisconsin, and the coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change the outcomes in any of the states. No recount ever changes thousands of votes. I do not think that is the purpose. The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters. If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232. No one hits 270.

Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time this happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.

If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it? The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress."

However, Michigan's recount has already been done once, and Trump still won by 10,000 votes, so those 16 EC votes stay put. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have a combined total of 30 EC votes. If they both flip to Hillary she still needs 9 more votes to reach 270. They are not there, so she fails anyway.

When Mike Wallace asked Trump if he would accept the results of the election Trump said “I’ll keep you in suspense.”

Clinton responded to Trump saying “That’s horrifying.”

She went on to say, “That’s not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. President Obama said the other day that when you’re whining before the game is even finished it just shows you’re not even up to doing the job. “

She added, “And let’s be clear about what he’s saying and what he means. He’s denigrating—he’s talking down our democracy. I for one am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our major two parties would take that kind of position.”

Now, exactly who is denigrating and talking down our democracy?

[GreyGeek]

Interesting read:

https://medium.com/@MedicalReport/ho...9ac#.nnq8hgtkb

Very interesting indeed, but merely an echo of the original Bloomberg BusinessWeek article, which was written 12 days before the election, while your citation was written 10 days AFTER the election.

The most recent article tries to weave "fake news" into the anti-Trump narrative in order to explain the Left's loss, while ignoring the suppression of free speech by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube claiming those that speak against Clinton are using "hate speech". YouTube did it by demonitizing videos that were not complimentary of Hillary, regardless of how factual and polite they were, or outright suspension of accounts, like Facebook and Twitter did if their shadow banning didn't have the necessary effects. An experiment was run to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Twitter by posting two identical messages, one with the word "White" and the other with the word "Black". Twitter canceled the account of one but not the other. Can you guess which one?


The original article uses words like "bunker" to describe the place were Trump's team met. The maligning implication is obvious. So is their choice of words in explaining Trump's targeting specific groups of voters:

“We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” says a senior official.

A "senior official". Uh, huh. Right. Fake news indeed. And the voter database they suggest is somehow evil? Both Obama and Clinton had identical databases with identical demographic information in them. Their use of databases is OK, but Trump's use is evil?

The Bloomberg article did identify the reason why Clinton lost:

Almost every public and private metric suggests Trump is headed for a loss, possibly an epic one. His frustrated demeanor on the campaign trail suggests he knows it.

That meme was pushed HARD by every MNM outlet from the day Hillary announced until the night of the election. IOW, they believed their own propaganda. It was designed to "suppress" Trump supporters votes, borrowing Bloomberg logic, but it back fired. It convinced Hillary supporters that since she had the election "in the bag" they didn't need to go vote, and many of them did not. This was made very clear by the DNC and Posdesta email leaks. Nothing Trump did during the campaign was even close to the skulduggery the Clinton campaign was doing.

The Bloomberg article also implied that with 12 days to go Trump was losing and "he knew it". Another uh huh moment. By that time Trump had more than 80 campaign rallies and only one has an attendance of less than 7,000. Hillary had a little over 30 campaign stops and only one had more than 7,000 in attendance. Trump was filling coliseums seating 10, 20 and 30 thousand. Hillary had trouble filling a high school gymnasium. The media was always careful to post only close up photos of Hillary at the podiums, except during that one time, when she drew almost 10,000. When she stopped by Omaha a supporter enthusiastically tweeted "Big crowd greets Hillary at Omaha" and showed a close up,cropped photo which apparently supported her contention. Another person tweeted under her, "You mean this crowd?". A photo of the same event was taken from across the room and showed that the "crowd" was no more than 50-75 voters.

Hillary begin inviting voters to free concerts by Left wing entertainment folks in order to draw a crowd. It didn't help.

Besides the dirty tricks revealed in the emails, Hillary's worst enemy was Hillary herself, her history of pathological lying. Too many to mention here. But, at this point, "what difference does it make"?

[whatthefunk]

Interesting read:

https://medium.com/@MedicalReport/ho...9ac#.nnq8hgtkb

[GreyGeek]

Definition of hypocrisy

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...d-free-turkey/

[Qqmike]

Well, I, personally, thought that the Billary Machine would squash him like a bug even with an October Surprise. Shows how much I know.

Her machine would have crushed him, except her machine was terribly flawed in it lack of intel capability to locate profitable districts to work (i.e., key working-class districts in key states). Hillary screwed up, imo. She's the boss and should have been on top of knowing what to do and when.