Trump would beat Clinton on popular vote

Daily Wire [excerpt]

The one consolation Hillary Clinton continues to cling to after her stunning upset at the hands of Donald Trump in November is the fact that she won the popular vote, by about 2 percent (48 – 46), which though ultimately meaningless in the electoral college system, Democrats have attempted to hold up as “proof” that Trump is “not their president.” But buried within a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll is the delicious little nugget that if a rematch were to be held today, Clinton would apparently be stripped of even that moral victory.

The new WashPost/ABC News poll found that while 46 percent of those surveyed said they voted for Clinton and 43 percent said they voted for Trump, asked how they would vote if given a second chance, respondents ended up giving Trump the popular vote win in the hypothetical rematch, 43 – 40.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/12265/obama-admits-trump-caught-him-guard-blames-bubble-james-barrett

So instead of wondering why Trump’s support has not weakened, the winner of the election, why don’t they ask where Hillary’s support has gone? It’s melting, at the time she clearly is  plotting a rematch for 2020.  Where have all the Clinton flowers gone?

Meanwhile, Obama told ABC News that he blamed “the bubble,” or the job itself, for the reason he underestimated Trump and his popularity.

“[T]he bubble is the bubble,” he told Stephanopoulos. “And, I think we’ve done a pretty good job staying in touch with the American people. But at a certain point you can’t help but lose some feel for what’s on the ground because you’re not on the ground.”

The problem was not the job, but the person in that job.

No, Obama, its not losing touch with the American people if you never were in touch with the people to begin with. Yet at the same time, he was clearly delusional in his support for Hillary. He used his job “in the bubble” as the predicate to elect Hillary Clinton — who seems to have her own “bubble” of disconnect.

Of course, Obama has yet to admit that in effect he lost to Trump, because Obama was so invested in his legacy and Hillary’s win. Instead, “the bubble did it”.

But the media all carps about Trump’s low numbers? Yet the Dems have still not realized elections do have consequences.

Chelsea forming swamp of support

Brought to you, again, by the corrupt Clinton’s perpetual campaign of enablers. Back, by unpopular demand, is the slobbering press now pimping Chelsea Clinton for mass public consumption. Who cares about Chelsea? Well that doesn’t matter.

How cool? Not. Power of women? Oh, they found just the perfect model… of nothing.

The corrupt Clinton machine is busy grooming her for what, as a favorite politician? A bridge way too far.

They aren’t floating her possible candidacy, They are steaming full speed ahead Titanic style toward the biggest iceberg out there. The last Clinton has not yet admitted why she lost, but here’s another… in case you couldn’t stomach the last one. Cool?

Bannon Bombs Media

Steve Bannon made a statement in an interview and all mainstream media go ballistic. What was his capiital offense., it? He basically told them to shut up_for a while, and just listen. I guess those are fighting words.

As is usually the ]problem, there is the statement(suggestion) and then what media says ABOUT it. And they can say a ;ot. So their talkathon continues and now they even throw in their “we won’t…we won’t.” But the public at large knows what the media or press have been doing. There is not even a question about it. This just gave them an additional thing to talk about.

According to the NYT :

“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while,” Mr. Bannon said in an interview on Wednesday.

“I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”

It is the opposition party — as opposed to what they were doing for eight years of Obama.

The hyper-hypocrisy flared when CNN had whining-fest over this comment. Christiane Amanpour went into overdrive saying this constant criticism from Trump everyday is an attempt to delegitimize them, CNN, and is so very disconcerting. It is not fair, ha ha.

But when Sean Spicer complained at the podium about the constant drumbeat against Trump, they laughed and said he was whining, that this is their job and they’ll proudly continue. Now they are complaining. Criticism got under their skin.

Nothing stops their non-stop attackathon on Trump. So is it war? You decide. I just think its a welcome change to finally see them back on their heels.

I mean in one week they already questioned the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency, called him a liar, and CNN called his advisers propaganda ministers.Basically anything they wouldn’t do or say to Obama. I don’t believe a lot from them, but when they are this disturbed, I gotta know that is for real. So they want their conduct to go unchallenged.

That old journalism rule is to never become the story. They blew that one right out of the water. Now media itself has become the story. They had already lost their credibility way back. But now they became the central story because it is so bad. Even after they were exposed trying to help Hillary and colluding with the DNC. They are now advocacy, activist journalism. They warned us that we’re in for a bumpy ride for the next four years

But they do it non-stop over every detail Trump does. He goes around or over them on Twitter. They keep carping away. No you know one thing for sure, that never would have happened under Obama, and they wouldn’t allow it under Clinton. Just for one full day, I’d like to see what it would have been like with Hillary and just one press conference.

The way I see it, media has picked a hell of a hill to die on. The left will tell media to keep attacking and run right into the fire. Everything the people wanted and stood up for, they stand against. It’s going to be one long, amusing battle. … CNN still sucks.

RightRing | Bullright

Comey turning Explainer-in-Chief?

Sticking to news you wish was fake and the inauguration, the Comey factor is back. Just a cameraman short of a reality show in Washington, Comey weighs a public explanation for his actions during the campaign. Then a generous side-order of Clintons’ explanations.

Add some gasoline to that fire, why don’t you? Democrats are already furious with Comey, claiming he caused them to lose along with the Russian hacking. That is a wild conspiracy: the FBI and Russians in tandem took Hillary down. Does that mean we should be grateful to them both for the election results? I think so.

The Comey explainer would be an inaugural fiasco

Ed Morrissey | December 21, 2016 | Hot Air

Which Inauguration Day event tickets will be tougher to get? An official President Donald J. Trump Ball, or an excruciating exercise in which James Comey tries to “prove” he wasn’t acting in a partisan manner? The latter might hold more promise for history, actually:

/…

Certainly Comey can step through his actions and demonstrate how he wanted to be completely transparent no matter what action he was taking, and that’s at least defensible. His July statement recommending no action on Hillary Clinton took place in the context of a very public investigation, and the FBI faced accusations of partisanship no matter what decision was reached. The only option Comey really had was to offer a thorough public explanation of the conclusion the FBI reached.

http://beta.hotair.com/archives/2016/12/21/new-event-on-the-inauguration-schedule-the-comey-explainer/

Comey seems to be considering it. That would just further ignite all the Left’s conspiracies. Bad enough what Comey did, it only adds more bricks in Hillary’s wall of blame.

More stupidity from Bill and Hillary

On the day of the electoral college vote, Bill Clinton explained their loss: Hillary just could not overcome “the Russians and the FBI deal.” Here comes the victim card.

She could not prevail against them.

CBS

“I’ve never cast a vote I was prouder of,” [Bill] Clinton told reporters after voting for Hillary Clinton in Albany, New York on Monday as one of the state’s Democratic electors. [Bill Clinton continued:]

“You know, I’ve watched her work for two years. I watched her battle through that bogus email deal, be vindicated at the end when Secretary Powell came out. She fought through that. She fought through everything. And she prevailed against it all but at the end we had the Russians and the FBI deal, and she couldn’t prevail against them,” he said. “She did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes.”

Start with “bogus email deal”. Considering it grew out of the Benghazi investigation, which was her doing, it was her own server “deal.” She had it for four years and never stopped it. Then she said it was a mistake — one that lasted four long years, meanwhile 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack. But nothing bogus about it all.

Yet Hillary prevailed? Well, if you mean she beat being indicted. Even though America lost, big time, and it put our government at risk. But who cares about that? “She prevailed.” Then Colin Powell vindicated her? No he didn’t.

Hillary told her donors:

“He [Putin] is determined to score a point against me which he did. But also undermine our democracy.”

That would make Putin stronger than our democracy. Hillary gave him the propaganda win, along with validating his election influence. Except that Hillary’s campaign were the ones actually playing the Russian card on Trump 24/7 — with a big assist from media .

Another explanation from Comey for his actions?
Well, what difference at this point does it make?

What’s next, an official independent investigation into why Hillary lost? They might as well start the next election on inauguration day. “Viva la 20, stupid.”

Inaugural Blues

In keeping with the RSNR theme, news you only wish was fake but isn’t, comes this gem.

The Left is trying to organize a protest strike on Donald Trump’s inauguration. They are calling out to their comrades in cause in the entertainment and show business. Combine that with a fundraiser for their many leftist organizations, like Planned Parenthood.

Leave it to former Clinton labor secretary, Robert Reich, to concoct the grand idea and lead the charge. They hope to get SNL character assassin Alec Baldwin to MC.

Former Secretary of Labor Proposes ‘Freedom Concert’ To Overshadow Inauguration

by Lindsey Ellefson | December 19th, 2016 | Mediaite

Robert Reich is a beloved author, blogger, and professor who was once the Secretary of Labor. He has over 1 million fans on Facebook and regularly has posts gain quick and sizable amounts of interaction, including shares. Here’s a recent example of a post that really took off:

The Trump people are upset that the only musicians willing to perform at the Trump inauguration are Kid Rock and Ted Nugent.

Someone just suggested to me a televised “freedom concert” to air at the same time as the inauguration — with huge celebrities like Beyoncé and Jay Z, Madonna, Katy Perry, Justin Timberlake, Gaga, Bruce Springsteen, and so on. Alec Baldwin MC’s the event, playing Trump as he does on SNL.

Presto. The Trump inauguration loses all the TV ratings.
Basically, no one watches it.

Even better, the proceeds of the freedom concert go to the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Lambda Legal, NAACP, Common Cause, CAIR, IRAP, SPLC, Environmental Defense Fund, Human Rights Campaign Fund, MoveOn, Economic Policy Institute, Inequality Media, and GLAD.

What do you think?

Can you smell something? That’s the desperate stench of Donald Trump’s team trying to find a celebrity who doesn’t sell “Gods, Guns & Trump” shirts willing to… [see]

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-secretary-of-labor-proposes-freedom-concert-to-overshadow-inauguration/

Someone seems to be having inaugural blues. They started a Change.UG petition.

How ironic that a former Labor Secretary is calling out a strike on the inauguration. How many things are weird about that?

A protest strike and fundraiser — two things the Left is skilled at, besides wasting money. Combined into one with their anti-Trump fervor and voila. Maybe they’ll hand out LSD as well? Nothing is off the table. “Freedom Concert,” that’s a hoot. Sounds like a plan.

Scheduling Conflict?

There could be some problems though, since many celebrity activists already said they are leaving the country if Trump was elected. They could even be planning on leaving that day because it would be the last chance before Trump takes office.

Well, maybe enough stragglers will stay behind to entertain the masses. They will also have to hit up the celebs for money before they take it and depart our shores.

I thought what a shame they can’t get Obama to come, but he will be busy on that day.

H/T to Mediaite

 

Making my list, checking it over

Let me check my end of the year list, not quite complete:

I mentioned the hypocrisy of the left.
I mentioned the evil nature of the Left
I mentioned the inability of the Left to relate to real, working people.
I mentioned the arrogance of Obama, Hillary and Democrats.
I mentioned how we are worse off now, practically than ever in history.

The world is more dangerous now than before Obama controlled the White House.
I wrote about reasons for supporting Trump, and some of the problems coming.

I mentioned what Islamists are doing to threaten and bring down America.
I mentioned political correctness, the favorite tool to push the Left’s agenda.
I said a lot about Russia, and where politicians failed to confront serious threats.
I talked about Christian victims and the Islamic agenda.
I mentioned most of the problems with ISIS and the caliphate.
I mentioned the stupidity of Democrats and some Republicans.
I mentioned the failure of the establishment and leaders to take people seriously.
I covered the mockery of Christians and their values everywhere.

I talked about the absurdity of the claim Trump was wrong for Christians.
I listened to all their absurd arguments on….well, everything.
I dignified their bafoonery by just talking about their schemes and motives.
I tried reasoning with the unreasonable Left.
I pointed out ruling class elitists and establishment don’t get it – and don’t care.
I’ve given much more time an energy to it all than they really deserve.

Check-a-roony

As to conclusions, well, that’s a deep subject. If enlightenment was the age of reason, then we are now in the age of anti-reason. That’s the point: the left no longer wants to explain, or even defend, what they do.

They just claim it is their inherent right to force their political ideology on everyone. And it is a political ideology. The harder it is forced down our throats the better they like it. The people who preach tolerance actually do not want to get along with anyone. Conflict is their means and their motive. Have you ever heard people talk so much about revolution while they were actually in control?

Hope and Change

Change is coming, change happened; but the naysayers are still wallowing in their denial. For eight years they talked about hope and “change.” Now it finally happened and boy are they pissed. We proved they really wanted no change at all, only total control.

Why didn’t they just say that instead of claiming to want change? Change you can believe in was total control, which is the only thing they do believe in. But total control does not require belief… only submission.

After the election, they are still campaigning only to overturn the results of the election. So they appeal to electors to overturn the results of the electoral college. They are never really satisfied, even when they get what they want. Or especially when they get what they want because then they just want more.

Red Scare

Hillary’s campaign and Democrats now complain about the influence Russia had in the election — or how much it hurt her. But then they claim Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million people. What is their point? So maybe they mean Russia hurt her electoral college path. Hmm, how’s that?

What about the Russiaphobia they spread about Trump? Do they care what effect that had? How about when Mike Morell, former CIA director, called Trump an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation? Do they really want to talk about the Russian effect? How about when they claimed Trump could not be trusted with the nuclear codes? But Hillary had a rogue server risking national security but they are talking about threats? Nuclear. The idea was to present Trump as a bigger security threat than Hillary.

What have we learned? As Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. Any means to their ends — or to clarify it, their means has no ends. Yet it is an incomplete list.

Now Michele Obama is out of hope, once again. No longer is she “proud” of America.
Fleeting pride didn’t take long. It makes me wonder what her hope was really in?

Feelings, “nothing more than feelings”:

[ABC]Obama said Russian President Vladimir Putin “is well aware of my feelings about this, because I spoke to him directly about it.”

Obama declined to say how the U.S. planned to respond, but White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday that Obama believes in a “proportional response.”

President Obama, the guy who promised Putin more flexibility in his second term, now says he told Putin to “cut it out” on DNC and Hillary’s campaign hacking. He warns the cyber threat is real…like the Russian threat, Syria, ISIS, and a near-term North Korea problem — all second only to that immediate Climate Change threat. Check!

RightRing | Bullright

Mike Morell’s divert and attack road show

Mike Morell, Clinton confidante, is back out on the trail. Speaking about the Russian involvement and hacks in the election, their favorite subject:

Breitbart
TEL AVIV – Mike Morell, the former acting director of the CIA, is generating headlines for claiming that alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election amounts to “the political equivalent of 9/11.”

“It is an attack on our very democracy,” Morell said. “It’s an attack on who we are as a people. A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life. To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11. It is huge and the fact that it hasn’t gotten more attention from the Obama administration, Congress, and the mainstream media, is just shocking to me.”

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/12/14/mike-morell-cited-in-russia-hacking-stories-crafted-misleading-benghazi-talking-points/

So he calls it a 9/11 even after his involvement in the memo rewriting Benghazi attack.

Fake News or Harry Reid’s news

Okay, let’s write some fake news. I mean I’m bored.

So Harry Reid complains the Russian hacking influenced the election throwing it to Trump. Right. Then he claimed that Comey single-handedly influenced the election results for Trump. Slap the certificate of authenticity on that. Both are true, to Reid.

Now this means that Russia, Putin’s hacks and Comey with the FBI in unison all worked together to get Trump elected. We are talking a huge conspiracy, fake news there. Plus, Hillary’s people at Harvard said the media helped get Trump elected. Media-Russia-FBI-Comey.

It doesn’t stop there, turns out Reid is also against fake news. Here is Harry Reid giving his retirement lecture speech. He lashed out at Fake News. (HuffPo)

“We’re entering a new Gilded Age. It has never been more important to be able to distinguish between what’s real and what is fake… We have media outlets pushing conspiracy theories disguised as news. Separating real from fake has never been more important.”

He cited Pope Francis to bolster his case: (but Hillary also railed against fake news)

“[The Pope]said yesterday, and this is a quote: ‘The media that focuses on scandals and spread fake news to smear politicians risk becoming like people who have a morbid fascination with excrement,’” Reid said.

Echoing that,

Hillary Clinton took the opposite tone, calling fake news “a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly.”

Then Reid went on to referrence George Orwell’s “1984” to make his case.

The king of fake news is very concerned about Fake News. It turns out that writing a report about Harry Reid and fake news is a good way to point out fake news. He brought in the Pope and George Orwell. Who is more creative than that? Any time you can use the Pope to help promote your conspiracies is a good day. Hillary, I found your culprit.

The Left: hypocrisy is thy name

I always stand prepared to be outraged at the depth of hypocrisy on the left. Then I am not really. But this issue is deeper than that. I’ve come to believe there are two kinds of hypocrisy at work. There is a standard blatant hypocrisy and then there is a more sinister, fundamental hypocrisy. The latter is what I see more and more of.

The election highlighted it. During the debates before the election, there were all the calls of Trump to accept the results of the election. All those now discredited polls had showed Trump losing and Hillary the unchallenged winner. It was obvious they said. Media had pointed out daily that there was no chance for Trump to win. They asserted that the election was not based on a popular vote, whether you like it or not, but on the electoral system. That system favors Clinton, they said. They told us it was all about getting over 270 in the electoral college.Again, that would put Hillary in the White House and makes it albeit impossible for Trump to meet that daunting uphill task.

Then there was Larry Sabato going from network to network telling us there really was no way for Trump to win. He would not say zero chance but he gave him very little chance. There were all those polls, which never seem to put Hillary down by much. They mostly had her with around a six point lead in states. Closer to election it was 3 or 4 points. (I know I am generalizing but it doesn’t matter — they gave her a heavy advantage)

So everywhere they could, they were looking for concessions from Trump. “Will you accept the results of election” system? Trump just refused to play their submission game. Hillary even said she was outraged saying that, for the first time in history, we have someone unwilling to say he would accept the results. At the time, I thought it would be ironic if he won and Dems refused to accept the results. But they kept repeating it was Trump who would not accept results and the rules, as they were laid out.

Then we had the election and people were surprised. First, surprised by the results; then by the denial and refusal to accept the results as they happened. Media did report it because they really had no choice. When AP declared the winner, they could not disagree. But almost immediately it became about the popular vote.

Democrats said we don’t know the final tally of the popular vote, and it went from there. They became obsessed with the popular vote count. Before the election, they said that regardless of popular vote count the results would be determined by the electoral college. So much for that.

Now that we have the results, this fits with all their other hypocrisy. They really don’t care about that; it doesn’t bother them. However, when you notice how rooted hypocrisy is in their DNA, you see the bigger problem. It is who they are, say one thing do another.

They make a big issue about something — digging in their heels — until it is inconvenient for them to hold that position. Then they turn on a dime to support the opposite position. That’s just the way it is with the left. They are always prepared to be hypocrites because it doesn’t matter to them. Their blatant hypocrisy means nothing to them because it is a fundamental tenant of their ideology, politics rules to the left. They will do and say anything to justify their political position at the time. (subject to revision)

This is the same type of fundamental hypocrisy we see in their foreign policy positioning. They were against warring mentality. Democrats stood for Libyan intervention and then Benghazi, right up to the minute they had to take responsibility for it. Then they were AWOL about it.

All along, Democrats played with the notion of Russian involvement and sorted ties to Russia. We heard these claims from everywhere. Hillary supporter. and confident, Mike Morell took to the editorial page calling Trump an unwitting agent of the Russia federation. Charges were fierce. They even accused Trump of encouraging espionage.

“It’s pretty clear you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race,” Clinton said to Trump at the third presidential debate in October. — Politifact

Putin had also blamed Hillary for intervening in their election and stirring dissent afterward, a subject completely lost in the media. Yet Obama and his cohorts had been dabbling in other countries’ elections throughout both his terms, even in Israeli.

They went all-in behind the rise of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. Has Obama even visited Egypt since the coupe stabilized the situation? No, sort of odd considering he started out his apology tour with a Cairo speech.

Here starts the big story: blame Russia for the election results. Which is really funny because Dems claim Russians’ objective was to influence the election and undermine the integrity of our system. Mission accomplished. Democrats certify that Russia did influence the outcome, despite lack of proof. Since the election is over, given the results, Dems claim our electoral college system is not so great. Undermine the integrity of our election? Mission accomplished. How many ways can one challenge an election?

The very thing Dems accused Russia of trying to do, they willingly did themselves. No one can undermine our process as well as Democrats, when they set their minds to it. They embarked on a recount program and questioned the legitimacy of the electoral college. They tried to undermine that system by influencing the electorates, to get them to switch allegiance from Trump.

But Obama previously mocked the Russian geopolitical threat. Obama promised Russia and Putin he would be more “flexible” after his last election. Putin is still collecting.

If all Russia was trying to do was undermine the integrity of the process, then count Democrats in for that. But earlier they stood on the platform of integrity, declaring our example to the world of peaceful power transfer and our long established history of accepting election results — whether we like them or not. Scratch that!

First NYT reported:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.”

The statement came as liberal opponents of Donald J. Trump, some citing fears of vote hacking, are seeking recounts in three states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where his margin of victory was extremely thin.

In its statement, the administration said, “The Kremlin probably expected that publicity surrounding the disclosures that followed the Russian government-directed compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations, would raise questions about the integrity of the election process that could have undermined the legitimacy of the president-elect.”

But wait, Democrats were all about undermining the legitimacy of Trump even as a candidate. It was a personal thing to Obama, who declared Trump was unqualified from the presidential podium. Hillary and her operatives questioned Trump on nuclear codes.

“Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” it added.

They “stand behind the results?” Well, that is until they don’t. Democrats started a hashtag #AuditTheVote. Which is it, they stand behind the resuts or they don’t?

Independent Journal Review

Obama’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco told reporters on Friday:

“We may have crossed into a new threshold and it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after-action, to understand what has happened and to impart some lessons learned.”

Added White House spokesman Eric Schultz at the daily press briefing:

“This will be a review that is both broad and deep at the same time.”

“Obviously, you can imagine a report like this is gonna contain highly, you know, sensitive and even classified information….[We’ll] make public as much as we can.”

So now they aren’t sure they will disclose the results. But isn’t doing an investigation an attempt to reassure the public and restore credibility in our system? Yet they let it be known, beforehand, that they are going to selectively report the results. Uh?

First Obama had claimed that he did not want to get involved in presidential election politics. Now he goes all in to investigate presidential election, questioning foreign involvement in our election process. See how this Hypocrisy thing works? First Obama lectured, and mocked, Trump on questioning our rigged system or the outcome of our election as ridiculous. Now he is the chief tin-foil hat in the process questioning the integrity of our election.

But then this is the same president who is claiming his administration is scandal free, too. I guess there is time enough to start one more scandal over the results of the election.

Funny how before the election, who cared? But we had how many hackings all over our government. One report is anyone who ever worked in government has had their personal information stolen. Did we hear Obama’s outrage about that? How about Democrats’ outrage calling for us to do something about it? We do know nothing stopped Obama, who could have taken action on any one of these hacks. But yet, he hasn’t. (at least that we know of, and we probably would know if they did)

Obama now tees up a Russia conflict for Trump, when he would do nothing on cyber warfare before. And he now warns Trump about the immediate “near term” North Korea threat. So all problems become elevated to red alert when Trump is sworn in. Media to follow suite. But hypocrisy? — Not a problem.

RightRing | Bullright

Mean and nasty Dems discuss their nasty campaign

As much as what Dems say is irrelevant, I can’t resist calling out some of these statements.

The two campaigns had a meeting at Harvard to discuss the election and results. Whoa, Dems are drinking nasty juice. I always called vodka mean juice but there is something worse, Democrats’ talking points.

They never miss an opportunity to play the race card. If anyone made this election about race, it was Democrats, from the beginning to the last day. No, it continues on.

CNN

Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald said the Trump campaign had operated in the world of “dark arts.” As an example, she flashed the final issue of the National Enquirer, essentially describing Clinton as a corrupt criminal who should be thrown in jail.

“I don’t think you guys give yourself enough credit for the negative campaign you ran,” Grunwald said. “I think it was an incredibly effective negative campaign, and you guys don’t get credit for it.”

“Dark arts,” nothing vaguely sinister about all their name-calling, is there? How about Dems’ dark arts of smear and illusion? (with some help) Apparently she missed all the negative media/press coverage about Trump and his campaign. But Trump’s campaign doesn’t get enough credit for actually winning.

Dems favorite word is Dark. Everything Dems do is dark. They labeled the Republican convention “dark” while their convention was mired in scandal before it began. DWS had to resign…. but then she was hired immediately by Hillary. Surprise. Talk about narratives? Even Hillary’s campaign was a scandal.

Over the course of the two-day conference, the Clinton team attributed their general election loss to a myriad of factors. They said they faced huge headwinds within the electorate because of the strong desire for change: “We underestimated the force of that wind of change,” Mook said.

“Underestimated” the force of change” — ya think? Clinton ran on tailwinds of more of the same. Headwinds won, thank God. We didn’t underestimate the force of Hillary and Obama’s WH. Can’t say they did not try everything in their corrupt arsenal.

Then they went all out nuclear blaming the FBI and Comey for throwing the election to Republicans.

Clinton advisers also blamed unfair media coverage — noting that it was a struggle every day to get Clinton’s message to break through in a media environment dominated by Trump.

Hillary Clinton went 275 days without a press conference. Is that someone being denied media coverage?

“What hurt us was (the Trump campaign) coming after her or the press picking at us,” Palmieri said.

Press was picking at Hillary’s campaign, really? Where and when was that? They did attack Trump 24/7 and it continues. What alternative reality they live in.

Don’t Out Anger Me

In this fallout of the Left about the election results, something comes to the surface.

An exit poll said 69% of people were angry about the way government was run in DC. The angry, fed up people are a big reason Trump was elected. We all get that.

That sentiment on the right is so clear it is not even debated by MSM. They despise us and our “drain the swamp” anger. They certainly don’t question the existence of it.

But after the election, the Left is now fuming at the results. Their anger is flowing through the streets. (anger is stock and trade of the Marxist Left) They even say anger is not enough; they call for violence. So which anger wins — ours or theirs? (See)

The above is how uber-Leftists talk. Trump’s appointments stir up more Leftist anger. Too bad so sad. But they have laser-focused their anger on them. (Alinsky rules: personalize it)

George W Bush now says “it is about what’s best for people who are angry.”

After Trump election, Bush says “anger shouldn’t drive policy”

The Texas Tribune reports

Former President George W. Bush on Tuesday cautioned against allowing anger to dictate policy in the wake of a heated presidential race — especially when it comes to trade, an issue in the crosshairs of President-elect Donald Trump.

“I understand anger, and some people might have been angry when I was president, but anger shouldn’t drive policy,” Bush said during a speech in Dallas. “What should drive policy is what’s best for the people who are angry and how does it benefit people in our country and people in our neighborhood.”

Read https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/15/after-trump-election-bush-says-anger-shouldnt-driv/

Gee, thanks for the anger lesson Bush, but I think I’ll pass. Our anger was/is justified. Actually, our outrage and anger needs to influence policy, after all that has gone on in the last decade. And we chose Trump as a president and a vehicle.

Remember, it was Obama who in his first campaign called us bitter. Hillary called us deplorables. We were the perpetually marginalized. But thanks for the anger shout out.

On the other side, should Trump assuage the anger of the Marxists? Should one do what is best for them? Only reaching their goals will make them happy.

However, the question is which anger Bush was talking about — ours or the Left’s? Then which anger should be assuaged — doing what is best for those who are angry

Bush said. “I’m interested in politics, but I don’t think it’s helpful for a former president to criticize successors. It’s a hard job to begin with, and I don’t think it helps to make it any harder.”

Working with the incoming president? Obama is creating the illusion of working for a smooth transition. But he is hardly doing anything toward that ideal end.

I think our anger trumps their anger, and we won.

Obama had a press conference to, again, criticize and lecture Trump. Evidently he didn’t get his fill of that campaigning last month for Hillary.

Let’s see, Obama was wrong on Brexit, now he’s been proven wrong about Trump winning. He has a failed record to boot. So he goes overseas and what does Obama love to do overseas? Right, criticize his opponents and enemies back home. That is his shtick

Politico

Then he’s going to tell them to trust him this time on his promises and assessments of where things will go now that Trump did what he assured them couldn’t happen.

Obama’s Secretary of Stupid Shit did not win the election. But he did so depend on her to secure his decomposing foreign policy legacy. No such luck. But Trump is probably a bigger threat to it than Hillary would have been. And that explains his bubbling anger and resentment.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Obama’s legacy “shall be etched in stone.” And nowhere did it confer on a president the right to pick his replacement, as Obama expected.

In fact, it is all rather fluid. So Obama does what he always does, go overseas to schmooze it up with his fellow lefties, and share his frustrations about American politics — actions — then take aim at his domestic counterparts from offshore. That, while appearing to reassure them that it is not that bad. All disingenuous of course.

Commenting overseas about the election:

“I was surprised by the election results.” “Did I recognize that there was anger, frustration among the population? Of course I did,” Obama said.

But Obama and his caustic policies were the cause of much of it. He just insisted on throwing more of it in our faces as he campaigned around the country. So the election was a rejection of him as well. Let’s see how fast Obama identifies with the Left’s anger?

Just don’t lose sight of, or underestimate, this anger and pissed-offness of the people that finally brought us this far. The fierce reaction — protests and rioting — is the problem, not the solution. Message to the left: Don’t even try to out anger me.

H/T image to http://theamericanfirst.com/hollywood-director-paul-schrader-calls-for-violence-to-stop-donald-trump/

 

Throwing Comey Under The Bus

Friday, CNN reported:

In a conference call with top donors Friday, campaign chairman John Podesta said a “hostile press corps” contributed to Clinton’s defeat. Other top advisers said Comey’s decision to take another look at Clinton’s emails stopped the campaign’s momentum and motivated Trump voters. That bombshell contributed to a significant fall-off among college educated voters “who fizzled at the end,” an adviser said. Those voters, always wavering about Clinton, were simply turned off at the end. “

So the guy who got her off the hook is now the villain of her election loss. Fizzled?

Podesta blaming a hostile press is so rich. He really did say that.The hostile press which were kind enough to share the debate questions with her. And the media who made cute bio-documentaries showing her in a Mother Teresa light. Then all the press that ran stories with lists of supporters, from military to Republican officials, who endorsed her as the right choice. That hostile press corp. She even finishes her race with a scandal.

Here we go with Dems’ mind games

Rush Limbaugh puts it in stark terms. He’s talking strategy which is what this is all about.

I’m Getting Nervous About All These Calls for Trump to Unify with the Losers

November 10, 2016

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I’m getting nervous. I am already getting nervous. I know it’s early. I’m not getting nervous because of anything I’ve heard President-Elect Trump say. I’m getting nervous because of things I’m hearing other people say, things totally unnecessary. And I want to take some time today to try to explain why I’m nervous and destroy some myths that seem to always pop up after elections about unity and crossing the aisle and working together and almost apologizing for winning.

I’m sick of it. I’m fed up with it. I have watched it happen for now 29 years, and I’m not gonna sit here and stand or sit mute while it happens again. We have been governed against our will for the last eight years. The Democrat Party — and nobody saw this, folks — because everybody was so focused on two people, Hillary and Donald Trump. Nobody, I mean nobody until after it was over, had any idea what had really happened.

We should have known it because we’ve been chronicling it. I’m talking about the demise of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party since 2010, the midterm elections in 2010, they lost 900 seats in that election in the House, in the Senate, go to governorships, mayors, town council, if you go all over the country, they got a shellacking. We now know that if Donald Trump had run for president in 2012 using the exact data he got versus what Obama got in 2012, Donald Trump would have beaten Obama in 2012, if you take the data from this election and measure it against what Obama had.

“And we also have the plummeting fortunes of the Democrat Party to back it up. The Democrat Party happens to be the receptacle for anti-Americanism in America today. If you don’t like America and if you’ve got problems with America, that’s where you go. You go to the Democrat Party. It is undeniable. Now, I warned everybody about this rioting. I warned about it constantly. I want you to hear, because, folks, it isn’t real. I am begging you to ignore it. Do not let it affect you. “

Lots more: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/11/10/i_m_getting_nervous_about_all_these_calls_for_trump_to_unify_with_the_losers

That is enough to open the can of worms. I am sick of it, too, but that doesn’t seem to matter. I’ve been watching this for years wondering just how far Democrats will be allowed to push their agenda? I think we now know. It came to a screeching halt, at least for the moment…only for the moment.

Like clockwork, Dems now shift to try to interfere in the Republican party. They have ruined themselves, and failed at their own mission. But suddenly they are advisers to Repubs and we should listen to them? I know, it is absurd but this is what they do. They want to do anything to detract from the train wreck in the DNC. I mean anything. And bringing Republicans down, after a win, is a huge objective they can all get behind.

Now Clinton campaign staffer, Jennifer Palmieri, says it was Comey’s fault Hillary lost. She cannot take any responsibility. Their campaign accepts no blame for the outcome. Next they’ll blame voters. Hillary the failed human being and candidate shall not be blamed. They want Dems as passionate about her corrupt record as Mother Teresa’s.

For years they have been beating Repubs over the head about the autopsy of the Republican party. I was sick of that. But have an introspective investigation of the DNC and Hillary Campaign? No, can’t have that. “Even Republicans said you need to do __.”

Now Democrats are pushing the idea of Keith Ellison as DNC Chair. Did we mention because he is a Muslim? Think about it, they ousted a Chair literally on the eve of their convention because of a scandal. So they replaced her with the pillar of integrity Donna Brazile, Clinton loyalist.Then there was the corrupted candidate herself.

Problem is they’ll focus their criticism on Republicans. We don’t play that BS. And no one is going to appoint them, or Hillary, as the “tolerance czar.” I can’t wait to see Dems invisible autopsy. They promised people booty for votes. Now the protracted chase and foreplay is over, Democrat stooges are aghast at reality – no booty. Take it out on Republicans.

Not Anti-Trump… No Job

Grubhub CEO tells pro-Trump employees they have ‘no place’ in company

Those who disagree with political screed told to ‘please reply to this email with your resignation’

Washington Times

The Grubhub co-founder then went on to blast the billionaire’s “demeaning” rhetoric towards minorities and other groups.

“I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump and will work to shield our community from this movement as best as I can,” Mr. Maloney continued, Fox News first reported Thursday.

“I want to reaffirm to anyone on our team that is scared or feels personally exposed, that I and everyone else here at Grubhub will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life for yourself and your family here in the United States,” he said in the email, which the company later posted online.

“If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here,” the CEO wrote. “We do not tolerate hateful attitudes on our team.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/10/matt-maloney-grubhub-ceo-tells-pro-trump-employees/

Well, now that’s simple enough. No discrimination or intolerance there. Then he adds that he is not embarrassed about it. He tried to clean up his statements by issuing a statement, but it’s too late. Not to worry, I’m real sure people got the message. (like they were supposed to) You are hateful if you support Trump.

Winning in a ‘feel bad’ sort of way

This should be an easy column to write on winning a national election that is the biggest of my lifetime. But it’s not, due to the overshadowing reality.

It should be as easy as basking in the glow of victory, however it has immediately been tampered by a media feeding frenzy. (I suppose I should not be surprised.)

For a flavor of that, there was a meltdown of sorts on CNN Wednesday on Don Lemon’s show. Already they are positioning and guessing what Trump will do, and considering the protests staging. Should have, would have, could have been a celebration. Media and Hillary tried to deny Trump’s celebration as long as they could.

CNN’s Brian Stelter said that media really missed seeing this whole thing, presumably the result forthcoming. He claims it definitely has some soul-searching to do. Really what soul-searching, how they failed to prevent Trump from winning? That is his implication.

Well, historian Douglas Brinkley was asked about comparisons to Dewey and Truman. He said, “oh, I think this is even bigger” than that. Then he seemed to encourage tempering their criticism of Trump in the immediate aftermath.

Stelter, for his part, said, “This was one of the biggest media failures of our generation.” He argued that everyone in the media has soul-searching to do.

Historian Douglas Brinkley went on to say that the healing process should begin and it’s not helpful to be “bleak” and “nihilistic.”

Toobin pushed back and said it’s not nihilistic to talk about how much power Trump has now. Brinkley said it’s unfair to dismiss Trump as a “right-wing cartoon.”

And then he ended up telling Toobin, “You’ve been dead wrong about this whole election!… We need to give people a chance right now!”

Watch above, via CNN.

See video at: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/youve-been-dead-wrong-about-this-whole-election-historian-battles-cnns-toobin/

Along with that there is Van Jones’ election night meltdown — panic mode.

People have talked about a miracle. I’m hearing about a nightmare,” he said. “It’s hard to be a parent tonight for a lot of us. You tell your kids, ‘Don’t be a bully.’ You tell your kids, ‘Don’t be a bigot.’ You tell your kids, ‘Do your homework and be prepared.’ And then you have this outcome and you have people putting children to bed tonight and they’re afraid of breakfast. They’re afraid of ‘How do I explain this to my children?’”

“This was a whitelash. This was a whitelash against a changing country. It was a whitelash against a black president, in part. And that’s the part where the pain comes. And Donald Trump has a responsibility tonight to come out and reassure people that he is going to be the president of all the people who he insulted and offended and brushed aside.”

See: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/whitelash-against-a-black-president-van-jones-blows-up-over-election-results/

So it was a whitelash. He interpreted this as a last gasp of white people to elect a president. But Trump has already been called all the names before and it continues. What’s another name? Talk about drama. There is no shortage of that on the liberal left. You have to wonder what about all the people Obama offended and insulted, often publicly on official occasions? So now we are guilty of coordinating in a whitelash.

No one reminds Van Jones that he supported the one who was in the White House when Jack Boot Reno sent her Feds to raid a home and deport Elian Gonzolez at gun point. The only time we’ve seen that, while she said nothing. Then remind him who was on the deportation side and who was on the asylum side.

Judging by all this, no “honeymoon.”

Obama went out to give his condolences to Trump for winning. Then he pledged full cooperation with Trump’s transition team.

Take a look here and here. Does that look like people eager to cooperate?

Then CNN’s Angela Rye political analyst came on in an emotional bloodletting about illegal immigration fears. They showed high school students now joining protests in San Fransisco, practically shedding tears as they march down the street speaking to positioned reporters. One girl was breaking down saying what Trump was calling all Mexicans. The anchor thanked her for her important perspective.

Sure, they are advocacy news now, no hiding it. They are reduced to liberal talking points that you hear from any Democrat, probably because of the close communications like we saw in Wiki Leaks. Bring on the kids — sounds better hearing it from them.

Here was CNN on election night explaining away Clinton’s refusal to accept results. When Lewandowski questions “where’s Hillary?” Van Jones told Corey he was being a horrible person. Somehow critics were not being fair to Hillary and treating Hillary humanely?

So now we are inhumane for expecting her to make a statement election night?

Also see Rush column, he’s getting nervous about demands for unity with losers.

My reply to Hillary’s concession speech

Hillary delivered a self-centered concession speech, long after the results were known — away from her glamorous setting she had for winning.

My response to her is:

Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!

Clinton’s exile begins.

The people are coming, the people are coming!

NYT Dismissing Hillary’s Scandal Palooza

The old, outdated Thomas Friedmanin NY Times was making a sales pitch to Trump people. (or was he saying that to try to attract some readers?) Here’s his buildup:

NYT Opinion

This is my last column until after the election, so I’d like to address the people least likely to read it: Donald Trump voters. Who knows? …/

Yes, Hillary Clinton is a flawed leader — but in the way so many presidents were. We know her flaws: She has a weakness for secrecy, occasionally fudges truths, has fawning aides and a husband who lacks discipline when it comes to moneymaking and women. But she is not indecent, and that is an important distinction. And she’s studious, has sought out people of substance on every issue and has taken the job of running for president seriously.

Read:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/opinion/donald-trump-voters-just-hear-me-out.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

So he called Trump indecent. You know, indecent trumps corruption for a disqualifier. The other problem is you cannot call Hillary a leader. She has lead nothing, except the path to corruption. She has actually taken responsibility for nothing, though she claimed to. And her Legacy of Lies just doesn’t stop – Bosnia to Benghazi to servers in her basement.

She is an expert at deleting things and coverups, if that is a prerequisite for president. How can anyone marginalize and minimize Hillary’s faults and corruption?

America, turn the page

Hearing Democrats stand on the tired old talking points is like the smell of pissing on a fire. You don’t want to be downwind. They just keep repeating their failures to cheers.

Is moving away from their recent scandal the only kind of ‘move on’ Democrats understand? Yes it is.

It’s time to remove this cancer from our politics and public office. Obama has politicized every department in government. He made dysfunction the norm and injustice the cause celeb. All delivered on a steaming hot shit platter to us with a message that we cannot refuse to accept it. Now he says: please, have more…you’ll love it.

How about a change? I was flabbergasted to hear Hillary say she would be real change. You cannot believe anything she promises but she has the gall to call herself change.

Hillary calls a rogue server, pay to play, lying, Benghazi, failure and never ending coverups “strong leadership.” Then she lectures us about healing and division. Where’s she get the chutzpah?

Here’s to the forgotten voter.

RightRing | Bullright

Campaign rats’ nest of who’s who

So Hillary Clinton — under FBI investigation — has her husband, former president Bill Clinton, the sitting president, Obama with AF-1, the sitting Vice President, a former Vice President, the current First Lady, Moochele, and a slew of assorted sitting elected officials all out campaigning for her to help drag her over the line.

Who’s paying for AF-1? Don’t people find this a bit top heavy? That’s enough; it’s all I have to say about it. And their biggest complaint is Donald Trump talking about a rigged system. Has anyone ever ran against a candidate, a sitting president and VP, and former president at the same time? We’re breaking history everywhere.