2016 Election

[American Patriot]

I went to the American Constitution Party. I did it on a fluke too, without actually knowing who they were. I figured they weren't like the Green party or commies, so I was good to go. They are about the closest thing I can chose that isn't "Libertarian". I can't deal with their bullshit on drugs. The ACP isn't my cup o' tea either, they base all their stuff on "God". Nice, but I am not going to do what religious people tell me to do, any more than I'm going to allow a government to tell me what to do.

BUT, I will support Christians with a gun if I must.

Trump is going to pick a Democrat for VP.

He's got some kind of stupid strategy going.... and he figures he can pull in all the Democrats that won't vote for Hillary that way.

He's also going to get all the Trumpbots. He'll NOT get real Conservatives like most of us are.

I hope he wins. I hate saying that but I hope he kills Hillary in the election, like Reagan did to Carter, and I hope beyond hope that he makes all the naysayers eat crow.

I don't think that will happen.

Man, I sure didn't call it with Cruz.

I never get anything right.

[Ryan Ruck]

Sooo... Anyone know the last time Georgia voted "D" in a Presidential election?

Shock Poll: Trump, Clinton In Statistical Tie In Georgia

May 7, 2016

A new Landmark/RosettaStone poll has found that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are in a statistical tie in Georgia, a state that has been a Republican stronghold in presidential elections for decades.The poll, first reported by WSB-TV, shows that Trump has a slight edge over Clinton, leading 42.3 to 41.4 percent, while 15.6 percent are undecided.

The poll, first reported by WSB-TV, shows that Trump has a slight edge over Clinton, leading 42.3 to 41.4 percent, while 15.6 percent are undecided.

About 14 percent of GOP voters say that they are undecided, while just 8.7 percent of Democrats say the same.

Republican candidates have won the state the past five presidential elections.

The poll was conducted on Wednesday and surveyed 570 likely Georgia voters. It has a margin of error of 4.1 points.

[American Patriot]

Libtards point to Georgia, Right Wingers, Gun Oners and Hillbillies to make an example of the Conservatives

[American Patriot]

Right out of the horse's mouth.

http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-w...ser-1775461006

Follow

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

Michael Nunez
Today 9:10amFiled to: FACEBOOK

1.3M
1.7K50

Illustration: Jim Cooke

Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.

Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all. The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module.

In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values onto the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing—but it is in stark contrast to the company’s claims that the trending module simply lists “topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.”

These new allegations emerged after Gizmodo last week revealed details about the inner workings of Facebook’s trending news team—a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the “trending” module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site. As we reported last week, curators have access to a ranked list of trending topics surfaced by Facebook’s algorithm, which prioritizes the stories that should be shown to Facebook users in the trending section. The curators write headlines and summaries of each topic, and include links to news sites. The section, which launched in 2014, constitutes some of the most powerful real estate on the internet and helps dictate what news Facebook’s users—167 million in the US alone—are reading at any given moment.

“I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news.”

“Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” said the former curator. This individual asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retribution from the company. The former curator is politically conservative, one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.”
The former curator was so troubled by the omissions that they kept a running log of them at the time; this individual provided the notes to Gizmodo. Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. “I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news,” the former curator said.

Depending on whom you ask, Facebook is either the savior or destroyer of journalism in our time. An …Read more

Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,” said the former curator. “Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.”

Stories covered by conservative outlets (like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax) that were trending enough to be picked up by Facebook’s algorithm were excluded unless mainstream sites like the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN covered the same stories.


Other former curators interviewed by Gizmodo denied consciously suppressing conservative news, and we were unable to determine if left-wing news topics or sources were similarly suppressed. The conservative curator described the omissions as a function of his colleagues’ judgements; there is no evidence that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work.


Managers on the trending news team did, however, explicitly instruct curators to artificially manipulate the trending module in a different way: When users weren’t reading stories that management viewed as important, several former workers said, curators were told to put them in the trending news feed anyway. Several former curators described using something called an “injection tool” to push topics into the trending module that weren’t organically being shared or discussed enough to warrant inclusion—putting the headlines in front of thousands of readers rather than allowing stories to surface on their own. In some cases, after a topic was injected, it actually became the number one trending news topic on Facebook.

“We were told that if we saw something, a news story that was on the front page of these ten sites, like CNN, the New York Times, and BBC, then we could inject the topic,” said one former curator. “If it looked like it had enough news sites covering the story, we could inject it—even if it wasn’t naturally trending.” Sometimes, breaking news would be injected because it wasn’t attaining critical mass on Facebook quickly enough to be deemed “trending” by the algorithm. Former curators cited the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 and the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris as two instances in which non-trending stories were forced into the module. Facebook has struggled to compete with Twitter when it comes to delivering real-time news to users; the injection tool may have been designed to artificially correct for that deficiency in the network. “We would get yelled at if it was all over Twitter and not on Facebook,” one former curator said.

“Facebook got a lot of pressure about not having a trending topic for Black Lives Matter.”

In other instances, curators would inject a story—even if it wasn’t being widely discussed on Facebook—because it was deemed important for making the network look like a place where people talked about hard news. “People stopped caring about Syria,” one former curator said. “[And] if it wasn’t trending on Facebook, it would make Facebook look bad.” That same curator said the Black Lives Matter movement was also injected into Facebook’s trending news module. “Facebook got a lot of pressure about not having a trending topic for Black Lives Matter,” the individual said. “They realized it was a problem, and they boosted it in the ordering. They gave it preference over other topics. When we injected it, everyone started saying, ‘Yeah, now I’m seeing it as number one’.” This particular injection is especially noteworthy because the #BlackLivesMatter movement originated on Facebook, and the ensuing media coverage of the movement often noted its powerful social media presence.
(In February, CEO Mark Zuckerberg expressed his support for the movement in an internal memo chastising Facebook employees for defacing Black Lives Matter slogans on the company’s internal “signature wall.”)
When stories about Facebook itself would trend organically on the network, news curators used less discretion—they were told not to include these stories at all. “When it was a story about the company, we were told not to touch it,” said one former curator. “It had to be cleared through several channels, even if it was being shared quite a bit. We were told that we should not be putting it on the trending tool.”

(The curators interviewed for this story worked for Facebook across a timespan ranging from mid-2014 to December 2015.)

“We were always cautious about covering Facebook,” said another former curator. “We would always wait to get second level approval before trending something to Facebook. Usually we had the authority to trend anything on our own [but] if it was something involving Facebook, the copy editor would call their manager, and that manager might even call their manager before approving a topic involving Facebook.”

Gizmodo reached out to Facebook for comment about each of these specific claims via email and phone, but did not receive a response.

Several former curators said that as the trending news algorithm improved, there were fewer instances of stories being injected. They also said that the trending news process was constantly being changed, so there’s no way to know exactly how the module is run now. But the revelations undermine any presumption of Facebook as a neutral pipeline for news, or the trending news module as an algorithmically-driven list of what people are actually talking about.

Rather, Facebook’s efforts to play the news game reveal the company to be much like the news outlets it is rapidly driving toward irrelevancy: a select group of professionals with vaguely center-left sensibilities. It just happens to be one that poses as a neutral reflection of the vox populi, has the power to influence what billions of users see, and openly discusses whether it should use that power to influence presidential elections.

“It wasn’t trending news at all,” said the former curator who logged conservative news omissions. “It was an opinion.”

[Disclosure: Facebook has launched a program that pays publishers, including the New York Times and Buzzfeed, to produce videos for its Facebook Live tool. Gawker Media, Gizmodo’s parent company, recently joined that program.]

Update: Several hours after this report was published, Gizmodo editors started seeing it as a topic in Facebook’s trending section. Gizmodo’s video was posted under the topic but the “Top Posts” were links to RedState.com and the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

[Ryan Ruck]

Author Brad Thor was on Glenn Beck's show today sharing insight on his recent Facebook post:

Dear friends:

I have taken a stance, which I know is unpopular with some of you, and which I feel I owe it to you to fully explain.

Throughout history, charismatic figures have appeared at critical moments in time. Some of these figures have advanced their nations. Some have set them back. Only with the benefit of hindsight is mankind able to make the final judgment.

I have long been a fan of the saying - History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. In other words, history leaves clues; lessons that we can all benefit from.

We are stewards of our Republic and as such, our greatest responsibility is not to ourselves, or any political party, but to the next generation of Americans. We must work tirelessly to see to it that they inherit a freer, stronger, safer, more prosperous nation than was handed to us.

To truly fulfill that obligation we must be selfless, and above all, we must be informed. We must understand the mechanics of politics, economics, and the framework that has allowed the United States to be the greatest nation in the history of the world.

As an American, my greatest allegiance is to liberty. As long as there is liberty, no task is insurmountable, no challenge too overwhelming. As long as there is liberty, anything is possible.

The true north of my compass has been, and always will be, liberty. I owe it to those who have come before me and those who will come after. I will act to safeguard liberty no matter what personal price I may be forced to bear.

Liberty is my litmus test. I weigh all actions of my government and those who seek office, against it. The ledger of freedom is incorruptible; its pages open for anyone to examine, and most importantly - to learn from.

At great personal and professional expense, I have grown more vocal over the years about the need to reduce the size of government and place in office fellow citizens guided strictly by the Founding documents.

I have spoken on television, radio, and in front of civic organizations. I have campaigned for candidates, marched in Tea Party rallies, and was the man who drove Andrew Breitbart to Madison, Wisconsin to speak alongside him on the capitol steps in defense of Governor Scott walker.

From taking back the United States House in 2010, to taking back the Senate in 2014, we have won battle after battle for liberty. In so doing, we have placed principled, limited government Americans in office. We knew the war wouldn’t be won overnight, but rather that it would be won over time. We have been steadfast, resolute, and successful.

But in the opinion of some of our fellow Americans, we have not been quick enough. Rather than continue to fight, a plurality of voters in the Republican primary has decided to drop an atom bomb on Washington, D.C. That atom bomb is Donald Trump.

And so I come to my explanation. When I apply my litmus test of liberty to Donald Trump, he fails - completely.

In fact, he has not only failed to ever stand for liberty, he has repeatedly worked to undermine it. From supporting an assault weapons ban, the seizure of private property via eminent domain, the restructuring of libel laws, and socialized medicine (just to name a few) - throughout his entire adult life, Donald Trump has repeatedly championed the power of the state.

Regardless of what he says now, Donald Trump has a history. That history is the clearest indication of how he would govern as president. No matter how badly Americans want to “blow up” Washington, they absolutely must consider who, and what, arises from the embers of that destruction.

After voters drop that atom bomb, what happens next?

Herein lies my greatest concern. What will become of liberty under a Trump administration? Will it grow? Will it recede? Will it vanish altogether?

Our Founders realized that the normal course of history is despotism – the control of the many by the few. That is why the Founding documents sought to constrain government. They also counted on Americans to choose wisely those whom we sought to install in office. Too often we have failed in selecting the best among us.

Donald Trump is not the best among us, nor is Hillary Clinton. They are both incredibly flawed human beings whom we should be equally ashamed of.

Neither would advance the cause of freedom. Both would take us – not to that shining city on a hill of which President Reagan spoke - but into the murky valley below. Never have I seen America faced with having two such poor choices for president.

With the lessons of history as my guide, I see in Donald Trump the character flaws that are the hallmarks of despotism. In Hillary Clinton, I also see multiple character flaws, but I see them as belonging not to a potential despot, but rather to a conniving, self-serving, progressive politician who believes in lining her own pockets and enlarging/increasing the state and its power.

The two are reprehensible – but completely different. One threatens to further enlarge the state, the other, potentially (a la Napoleon), to become it.

Growing up, a wonderful nun repeatedly told me that kindness could only be expected from the strong. When Donald Trump mocked the disability of New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski – he showed himself to be not only weak, but also lacking in compassion.

Trump’s position that he is a Christian, but has never asked for forgiveness – coupled with his incessant bragging – not only further shows that he is weak, but that he also lacks humility.

Strength, compassion, and humility are necessary in any leader – but especially so in the person who would occupy the highest and most powerful office in the world. Just look at what the absence of those qualities has done over the last seven years.

My greatest concern about Donald Trump, though, isn’t a trait he lacks, but a dangerous one he possesses – in spades. Authoritarianism.

Confident people do not bully and demean others. That is the realm of the weak and insecure. Confident people also do not threaten others, especially not their fellow citizens.

Donald Trump has told us to just wait and see what he does to Jeff Bezos once he gets into the White House. He has told us the American military will do whatever he tells them to do no matter what their reservations. He has promised to prevent American companies from moving outside the United States, regardless of what they believe is best for their businesses.

In other words, Donald Trump has clearly told all of us that he will use the power of the presidency to force people to bend to his will. This is not liberty.

In fact, Donald Trump has never even spoken about liberty. Neither has he spoken about the Constitution and the Founding documents. This is an absolute first in the history of the United States.

Instead, Donald Trump talks about hiring the “best people” and making the “best deals.” This, though, isn’t what made America great, and it certainly isn’t what will return America to its prominence.

The blueprint for America’s success is the ideas of the Framers – limited, Constitutional governance – an area in which Donald Trump is criminally ignorant.

Let me be clear that I don’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton. I also don’t want to vote for Donald Trump. My preference is to write-in or vote third party. I think they are both terrible for our future.

But between a big government progressive and a potential despot – every American must ask themselves where liberty has the greatest chance to survive over the next four years.

As a Constitutional conservative, I take solace in, and guidance from the words of Alexander Hamilton, who in the election of 1800 said, “If we must have an enemy at the head of government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible.”

I value all of you as friends, readers, and fellow patriots. There is much at stake for our Republic. Be informed, be selfless, and vote your conscience. I will not hold your decisions against you.

None of us knows the future. But I ask that all of us look to the past. Only by doing so can we safeguard liberty and chart the most well-reasoned course forward.

He hit every nail square on its head.

[Malsua]

Author Brad Thor was on Glenn Beck's show today sharing insight on his recent Facebook post:


He hit every nail square on its head.

I agree as well.

>>Neither has he spoken about the Constitution and the Founding documents.<<

He's spoken about the bill of rights and the 2nd amendment specifically, so this statement is not quite accurate.


My only comment is that Hillary has essentially stated that she's going for our guns as soon as her canckles are in the chair. Trump's position on guns is the polar opposite. I'm not really concerned so much about what he's said and done in the past about guns. I've changed my mind over the years on things. His position on guns, right now, is pretty much as good as it gets. Can it change? Will it? Probably, but at least we're starting at a good place. Hillary is starting at confiscation and will probably get worse from there.

[Ryan Ruck]

I agree as well.

>>Neither has he spoken about the Constitution and the Founding documents.<<

He's spoken about the bill of rights and the 2nd amendment specifically, so this statement is not quite accurate.


My only comment is that Hillary has essentially stated that she's going for our guns as soon as her canckles are in the chair. Trump's position on guns is the polar opposite. I'm not really concerned so much about what he's said and done in the past about guns. I've changed my mind over the years on things. His position on guns, right now, is pretty much as good as it gets. Can it change? Will it? Probably, but at least we're starting at a good place. Hillary is starting at confiscation and will probably get worse from there.

Sure, people can change their minds over the years but let's face it, when you're 70 you kind of get set in your ways.

And also, there's no indication that Trump actually has changed his mind. Since actions always speak louder than words, did you realize that just 3 and 5 years ago he was donating money to California's Kamala Harris?



What does Kamala Harris have to do with the 2nd Amendment? As California's AG, a lot.

From Calguns:

WHAT KAMALA HARRIS HAS DONE TO HURT GUN OWNERS:

Recruited other District Attorneys and filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller arguing that the Second Amendment does NOT protect a fundamental individual civil right. She then dismissed the importance of the ruling in Heller, twice stating that it created a “new right” to bear arms.

Sources: Press Release, San Francisco District Attorney Kamala D. Harris Sworn into Second Term in Office by U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein: Crack Down on Illegal Guns Centerpieces of DA Harris’ Second Term (available at http://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/News.asp?id=386 (text of brief available at http://www.nraila.org/heller/conamic…attorneys.pdf; video footage of Harris’s comments on the brief available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-G1VGJBWcU); Kamala D. Harris, CLE Focus Column: Under the Gun, Daily J. (June 2009) (available at http://www.dailyjournal.com/cle.cfm?…=902646&evid=1).

Supported San Francisco’s Proposition H civilian handgun possession ban, the most far-reaching civilian handgun ban in the nation. Only a lawsuit stopped it from happening.


Instituted a “zero tolerance” charging policy for all gun crimes, even minor and inadvertent violations. Ensnared good people in a web of complex gun control laws and seeks prosecution of their “crimes” to the fullest. She said that “[i]f you carry an illegal gun in the city of San Francisco and your case is brought to my office, you are going to spend time in jail. Period.” Her charging policy included: opposing the release of defendants on their own recognizance for all gun crimes; recommending that anyone convicted of carrying a concealed or loaded weapon be sentenced to a minimum of 90 days in jail; charging all cases involving possession of an “assault weapon” as felonies; and requesting ridiculously higher bail amount in gun crimes.

Sources: Joe Garofoli, D.A. Vows to Go After Gun Law Violators: Harris Takes Tough Approach, Pledges Maximum Penalties, S.F. Gate (May 29, 2004) (available at http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-05-2…s-gun-violence).

Sponsored a San Francisco ordinance requiring gun owners to keep their handguns in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock in their own homes making them useless for immediate self-defense! And said that “[j]ust because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs.”

Sources: Cecilia M. Vega, Mayor Offers Package of Gun Control Laws: He Seeks to Prohibit Firearms Possession on City Property, S.F. Gate (May 16, 2007) (available at http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-05-1…-gun-related); Press Release, Mayor Gavin Newsom and District Attorney Kamala Harris Unveil New Firearms Legislation (May 16, 2007) (available at http://www.sfmayor.org/archives/Pres…s_2007_60643); Simon Perez, CBS 5, Politics, San Francisco Proposes New Gun Control Measures, http://cbs5.com/politics/san.francis….2.455726.html (posted May 16, 2007, 10:50 p.m. PST).

Named “Distinguished Leader of 2008″ by the Legal Community Against Violence, a leading gun ban advocacy group.


Called for the repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prevents the release of confidential law enforcement data on firearms traces, protecting gun owner’s sensitive information, ongoing investigations, and the lives of law enforcement officers. She wants the gun ban lobby to be able to misuse this information to file frivolous claims against the gun industry for the criminal misuse of its products.

Sources: Heather Knight, Mayors Fight Gun Measure, S.F. Gate (June 19, 2007) (available at http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-06-1…t-illegal-guns) (video footage of Harris discussing the law available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbr3lboHGw0).

Supported legislation making it illegal to possess or sell any guns or ammunition on any city-owned property, including parks, and regardless of licenses possessed or whether it’s a private residence. And she supported baseless state legislation banning guns shows at Cow Palace, stating: “This place behind us, the Cow Palace, is state property that is allowing the state of California to be a merchant of tools of death.”

Sources: Heather Knight, S.F. Mayor, Police Chief, Others Call for Gun-Show Ban at Cow Palace, S.F. Chron. (Aug. 10, 2007) (available at http://kamalaharris.org/news/319) (video footage of Harris speaking out against gun shows at Cow Palace available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW0oee_7ZhU).

Sponsored legislation increasing already impossibly burdensome regulations on gun dealers. And said that “[i]t’s about that one gun shop [in San Francisco] and making a statement to anyone who’s thinking about opening up.”

Sources: Cecilia M. Vega, Mayor Offers Package of Gun Control Laws: He Seeks to Prohibit Firearms Possession on City Property, S.F. Gate (May 16, 2007) (available at http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-05-1…-gun-related); Press Release, Mayor Gavin Newsom and District Attorney Kamala Harris Unveil New Firearms Legislation (May 16, 2007) (available at http://www.sfmayor.org/archives/Pres…es_2007_60643/).

Opposed the death penalty in the case of a cop-killer, Isaac Espinoza.

Sources: Matthew B. Stannard, D.A. Won’t Pursue Death in Cop Slaying: Harris Fulfills Campaign Pledge with Decision, S.F. Gate (Apr. 14, 2004) (available at http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-04-1…tal-punishment).

Said that “[g]etting illegal guns off our streets and protecting California’s assault weapons ban . . . will remain top priorities when I am Attorney General.” And she called for renewal of the dismal failure the federal so-called “assault weapon” ban.

Sources: Joe Garofoli, D.A. Vows to Go After Gun Law Violators: Harris Takes Tough Approach, Pledges Maximum Penalties, S.F. Gate (May 29, 2004) (available at http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-05-2…gun-violence);
Dan Morain, Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman React – Sort Of – to Big Gun Ruling, Sacramento Bee (July 1, 2010) (available at http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_swarm/20…an-sort-o.html).

I'm sorry but Trump's most recent words and actions right up to just before he decided to run demonstrate that at the absolute best, he's not much more than your typical NYC elitist who believes "guns are good enough for me but not for thee" and they're certainly not a central part of his life like yours or mine.

I've got very, very little doubt that if it came down to having to work with Dems to get or not get his vaunted wall, he would trade away gun rights in a heartbeat for Dem support so he doesn't look like he's broken the cornerstone of his campaign. Guns were never a cornerstone of his campaign so why wouldn't they be on the table? It is easily conceivable for him to agree to "reasonable restrictions" like a second AWB (maybe even with another sunset clause) since he's already indicated support for one in the past and we did have one in place very recently, if it meant Dems signing off on a border wall. After all, it's not like he's saying you can't hunt! And we all know from the fantasy land of NYC, nobody needs assault weapons and more than 10 rounds to shoot a deer.

Also, with regard to Thor's statement about Trump speaking about the Constitution and other Founding documents, I believe he's referring to Trump using them as guideposts in formulating his positions. No doubt Trump has mentioned them in passing but, he doesn't actually hold them near and dear to his core principles, largely because he doesn't have any.

I honestly think we're more likely to maintain our 2nd Amendment rights, at least in the short term, under a President Clinton than a President Trump. As shitty as the Republicans in the House and Senate have been on a lot, let's face it, even though we've had Obama threaten our 2nd Amendment rights multiple times and trying to wield EOs unconstitutionally, nothing has actually happened. Even after several mass shootings that the press has done their best to blow out of proportion. The Republicans have actually stood fast on any further infringements on the 2nd Amendment under Obama and I'm sure they would do the same under President Clinton. Under a Republican Donald Trump, I see them being much more willing to deal since he's in the party. Now, this is assuming a lot in that Trump being on the ticket will not fuck over the down ballot candidates and cause a tip in power in the House and Senate, which there are a number of indications it will. If that happens, who knows...

Also, as I said in the short term, under a President Clinton I don't think our 2nd Amendment rights will be affected. Longer term they may well be if she is able to sway the court with anti-2A justices. Then again, under Donald Trump, if he's donating to AGs like Kamala Harris and elevating people like Chris Christie and Rudi Giuliani to positions of power already, after praising his hard left judge sister, what do you really expect for Trump SCOTUS nominees?

The fact is, this is a big shit sandwich buffet that both the idiot socialist voters and idiot WWE crowd has foisted on us. This is what happens when the election process is treated like a sports match or American Idol by people who have little to no knowledge of the gravity of their decisions or skin in the game.

And if this is any indication of future elections, does it really matter what the ultimate outcome is if this is what we're going to face every time? Like I said a little while ago, I was always skeptical of the people that said someone like Reagan could never get elected again in this day and age. Well, here we are so, what's the point if we're that far gone?

We all knew a crash was coming one way or another regardless who was elected. Cruz just gave us the best chance of walking away from a crash landing. Instead the electorate has decided to shove the stick forward. Elections have consequences. You best assume the crash position and pray for the best...

[Malsua]

Hillary's Scotus picks will be rabid leftists. There is no doubt about this. Chelsea has spoken words from her mother. "Now that Scalia is out of the way..."

Will Trump's be rabid leftists? Unknown, but probably not.

I realize you have a visceral hate for Trump, so it goes, but no matter how you twist it, under any category, Hillary will _NOT_ be better. All decisions by Hillary will be to concentrate her power, expand government, curtail our rights and push the global agenda at the expense of us. Trump at least is paying lip service to putting the interests of regular Americans ahead of globalists.

[Ryan Ruck]

Hillary's Scotus picks will be rabid leftists. There is no doubt about this. Chelsea has spoken words from her mother. "Now that Scalia is out of the way..."

Will Trump's be rabid leftists? Unknown, but probably not.

I realize you have a visceral hate for Trump, so it goes, but no matter how you twist it, under any category, Hillary will _NOT_ be better. All decisions by Hillary will be to concentrate her power, expand government, curtail our rights and push the global agenda at the expense of us. Trump at least is paying lip service to putting the interests of regular Americans ahead of globalists.

See, I think that's what I resent most about this whole election.

Let me preface this with a mention that I'm NOT lumping you into this category. We've known each other too long and I know you way better than to think this.

That said, have you seen that now that Trump has essentially secured the nomination, the message of Trump supporters from the primary to address complaints by non-Trump people of his faults has now become, "Well, he might not be as bad as Hillary so you have to vote for him!"

Fuck you people! We had a chance to nominate someone who is/was head and shoulders above not just Hillary but nearly every other person in Washington D.C. and you assholes pissed it all away for Donald Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Trump.

Hell, I can think of 5 other candidates that were in the race that, while I might not be as enthusiastic to pull the lever for as Cruz, would have absolutely zero problem voting for. But no! It's got to be the absolute worst nominee on multiple levels!

These dickfaces chose our shitty path with wanton disregard for the importance of things like SCOTUS justices, down ballot candidates, and a whole metric fuck ton of other issues most of us Cruz supporters raised during the primary. Hell, I even had one Trump supporter, very early in the race, blatantly tell me after I mentioned SCOTUS hanging in the balance and pointing out that Cruz clerked in the SC, Cruz has argued in front of the SC, that Cruz would use the Constitution as a yard stick by which to measure SCOTUS picks, "Yeah Cruz would definitely be better making SCOTUS picks, without question. But, Trump!"

With logic like that I'll be damned if I'm going to play any part in shit show.




Oh, and for good measure...

[Malsua]

Well, the NJ primary isn't here yet and I would not have voted for Trump in the Primary, now it doesn't matter anyway.

I simply don't see Trump as bad as you do. I see him as a disruptive force. He's a big fuck you to the GOP establishment that has given us open borders and a drunk speaker that cries at the drop of a hat.

You and Larry Correia are aligned in the same way. I get it. I wouldn't have voted for foam party Rubio had he been the nominee.

[vector7]

Published on May 24, 2016
BREAKING: SHOTS FIRED AT TRUMP RALLY IN ALBUQUERQUE





Leftists Riot In San Diego At Trump Rally, Here Are Some Of The Better Hippy Beat Down Videos UPDATE: We Found A Protester Trying To Grab A Cop’s Gun…

Leftists Riot In San Diego At Trump Rally, Here Are Some Of The Better Hippy Beat Down Videos UPDATE: We Found A Protester Trying To Grab A Cop’s Gun…

http://www.weaselzippers.us/273902-sd-beatdown/

[American Patriot]

I don't like Trump. I can't explain why though, since I just don't know.

Call it a gut feeling.

Then I hate Hillary Clinton. She's a lying sack of shit traitorous, man hating, Military Hating Lesbian bitch. The only reason Obama is in the WH is due to her. She helped get him in to align the stars to get her in.

Trump is FEARED by her, by the Left, by the Right and by a lot of foreign countries. Just like Reagan was.

The difference being, Reagan was very clean on his politics, and he was clear when he switched parties, and clear when he became a Republican. Trump is the "pastels" where Reagan was the bright and varied colors.

Trump will get my vote for one reason. He isn't Hillary Clinton. Whether he can do a better job than her, I am sure. Better job than Obama, absolutely. Better job than Reagan, not so much.

The election system isn't broken. The electoral system isn't broken. America isn't broken. The population of this country, the majority of them, are broken.

The population is a bunch of lazy assed sheep determined to steal, suck dry and kill anyone and anything that ever had a dream. They are trying to kill the American Dream - subvert it to being "Get Free Shit" when you come here. The Barbarians are at the door, folks. In fact, they are INSIDE already. And some of them are the Left Wingers who are Socialists and closet Commies.

This country is about to have a Revolution that will make the French Revolution look like kindergartners on the play ground.

When the purge comes, be ready.

Because when Trump gets in... it's going to start in earnest. If you think there has been hate and vitriol NOW, just wait a few more months.

[Ryan Ruck]

Trump is FEARED by her, by the Left, by the Right and by a lot of foreign countries. Just like Reagan was.

Nope...

[American Patriot]

oh, wife swappers, I'm sure.

lol




But then, there's this.

[American Patriot]

Ryan, you're not alone in this either.




Jonas Grumby

May 7 at 1:19am ·







As per many of your posted suggestions, I have given things of late much deliberate, careful thought and consideration. My conscience alone guides my actions. This is the email I sent moments ago to the Hood County Republican executive committee. It reads as follows.
My friends,
With Donald Trump as the party's effective nominee, I now realize the party has no intention of restoring the Constitution or the order of law, and as well has no desire whatsoever to maintain a Constitutionally limited Republic. The Party has decided instead to align itself to support a Socialist Oligarchy system of government. The chosen nominee has spent his entire adult life funding the very opposition of the planks within our party. These are not rumors or hearsay. They are documented, undisputed facts. I've come to the honest conclusion that the party now neither represents nor defends the values that I hold dear; that chief among them are the defense of the Constitution and the freedom and liberty for which it alone is capable of securing the People from government tyranny and despotism.
History proves that the Constitution must come before Country and Country before Party. That is the only order of things. Any other order of priority is a recipe for dictators and despots.
Having made this profound conclusion of fact, it is with a heavy heart that effective immediately, I resign my position as Hood County Pct Chair for Pct 15. As well, I resign my position as State Delegate to the Texas State GOP Convention.
Respectful I Remain,
Christopher S. Watson SGT (ret)
Texas Army NG

[Ryan Ruck]

oh, wife swappers, I'm sure.

So much for Art Of The Deal... I'd say Bill definitely got the better end of that stick.

[American Patriot]

lol

[vector7]

BREAKING: Massive Riot Outside San Jose Trump Rally, Socialists Attack, Assault Trump Supporters With Fists, Bottles, Eggs


Progresivism is a mental disorder.

Watch: The moment a Trump supporter, surrounded by protesters, is egged in the face, hit by other food. pic.twitter.com/qYFdwJWvrS
— Jacob Rascon (@Jacobnbc) June 3, 2016

#Trump supporter and protestors clash in front of San Jose Marriott. Throwing eggs. Both sides taunting pic.twitter.com/dpMHR5b3KU
— Jana Katsuyama (@JanaKTVU) June 3, 2016

Crowd and police clash putside #trump event in #SanJose. Tension very high. pic.twitter.com/xNKeWBtlF0
— Jana Katsuyama (@JanaKTVU) June 3, 2016

Protesters cornering Trump supporters as they leave. This woman taunted them. They cornered her & threw eggs at her pic.twitter.com/MiDGDBkKIo
— Sara Murray (@SaraMurray) June 3, 2016

NOW: #Trump supporter attacked and left bleeding in San Jose pic.twitter.com/kC2GVz9JcZ
— Tim Pool (@Timcast) June 3, 2016

JUST IN: Trump supporters being attacked, assaulted by protestors outside Trump rally in San Jose – @Jacobnbc https://t.co/l7Lrhd7b9a
— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) June 3, 2016

Notice the PSL signs? Party of Socialism and Liberation, setting a Trump hat on fire.

[Ryan Ruck]

Trump Endorses Fanatically Open-Borders RINO, Renee Ellmers

June 5, 2016

The “Trump revolution” has officially come full circle.

As we’ve observed throughout this election season, every single House and Senate incumbent has won reelection. Ironically, the extra “Trump turnout” has helped establishment incumbents fend off challenges from grassroots conservatives across the map. Now, Donald Trump is directly wading into congressional primaries on behalf of open-border RINOs.

Trump could have gotten involved in a number of worthy primaries. He could have backed Jim Bridenstine against the Boehner acolyte challenging him. He could have joined Ted Cruz and Tom Coburn in backing Jarrin Jackson against leadership-hack Markwayne Mullin in the adjacent district in eastern Oklahoma. He could have supported Paul Nehlen, the challenger to Speaker Paul Ryan. Nope, he is nowhere to be seen; the same way he is missing in action when it comes to lending his voice to fight a single legislative battle for conservatives.

Instead, Trump has planted his flag in North Carolina’s newly-drawn Second Congressional District, where he just endorsed Renee Ellmers. This, from Politico:

Trump makes a personal appeal to voters to back Ellmers in a robocall released Saturday. She was "the first congresswoman to endorse me and she really was terrific and boy, is she a fighter," Trump says in the call. It is the first time this election that Trump has picked sides in a congressional race.
"I need her help in Washington so we can work together to defeat ISIS, secure our border and bring back jobs and frankly, so many other things," Trump continues. "And Renee knows how to do it. She gets it. And together, we will make America great again."

Oh, she’s a fighter alright – a fighter for the Boehner K Street political elites. There is perhaps no sitting member who embodies the source of anger among Republican voters – the anger that has engendered the rise of Trump in the first place – more than Renee Ellmers. After she was elected as a “Tea Party conservative” in 2010, she immediately became one of the most loyal foots soldiers for Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy and has done more to fight the conservative grassroots on immigration that any sitting House member.

Check out her CR profile here, and you will discover a more extensive liberal rap sheet than almost any sitting Republican congressman. Whether it’s opposing her state’s marriage amendment, fighting against pro-life legislation, or voting to support Obama’s amnesty even for convicted child molesters, Ellmers was always with the far-left.

A friend of mine spent several years working to challenge Ellmers before the federal courts stepped in and egregiously remade the maps in middle of an election. Now Ellmers is running in the same district as Rep. George Holding, a less offensive RINO, and conservative/libertarian activist Greg Brannon.

Trump’s support for Ellmers comes on the heels of him sticking it to conservatives in North Carolina and siding with Obama and his transgender war against the state. Yet, in the world of Trump, it’s all about cronyism and scratching the back of those who support him. Couple this with Trump’s close support for Mitch McConnell, Bob Corker and now Marco Rubio, and it’s quite evident that when you strip away the boisterous rhetoric, we are back to a non-existent party being led by yet another liberal nominee.

Many of us were told to embrace Trump because although he was not a traditional conservative, at least he’d burn the establishment to the ground. We were told to put up with his vulgarity, incoherence and immoral lifestyle because it was worth it to “stick it to the party elites.” We were told that although he is a liberal on other issues, it was worth voting for him because immigration was the most important issue. Well, now we are left with the vulgarity, incoherence, and immoral lifestyle together with the worst of the party elites who promote open borders.

Conservatives can debate with each other over supporting Trump in November until they turn blue in the face, but unless they hold him accountable he will have no incentive to move to the right. And unless conservatives begin looking beyond this election cycle and work towards building an enduring movement and a party to serve as a vehicle for that movement, there won’t be anything left to fight for.

[vector7]

June 04, 2016, 04:04 pm
Trump shared a photo of a black family, but they don't support him

By Paulina Firozi

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump shared a photo of a black family he said was on the “Trump Train” — but the family is not endorsing or supporting any candidate, including Trump, according to BuzzFeed.

"@Don_Vito_08: Thank You Mr. Trump for Standing up for Our Country! #VoteTrump2016 JOIN ME ON THE #TrumpTrainhttps://t.co/zgopGvSEen"
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2016

Eddie and Vanessa Perry are shown in the photo with their kids, BuzzFeed reported. They are from Cincinnati, Ohio, and were featured in an article from local station WCPO last summer in a story about a black family reunion in the Midwest. The tweet was initially shared by Twitter account @Don_Vito_08, which appears to have deleted the post.

The image shows a caption with large red and white letters next to the photo that reads: “AMERICAN FAMILIES FOR TRUMP. We need a common sense PRESIDENT.”

The BuzzFeed reporter included a screenshot of a Google search of "black family" and pointed out that this particular photo is one of the earliest results.

It’s not the first time Trump has tweeted an image originally shared by @Don_Vito_08. The account also posted the image comparing former presidential rival Ted Cruz's wife, Heidi, and Trump’s wife, Melania — the highly criticized post that sparked a fight between the presumptive GOP nominee and the Texas senator.

Eddie Perry told BuzzFeed that a friend texted him a screenshot of Trump’s tweet and said, “I immediately knew it was political propaganda.”

He added the tweet was “misleading,” saying that although there may be black families endorsing Trump, “this black family didn’t endorse anyone.”

Trump raised eyebrows at a rally on Friday when he pointed out a black attendee and said, "Look at my African-American over here."