2016 Election

[American Patriot]

Trump is the Reagan of today. Not in politics. But in the political exercise we are seeing

[Ryan Ruck]

I hate to be the pessimist but I think he's going to end up more like Mondale than Reagan.

[Ryan Ruck]

12 Million Democrats Voted In The Republican Primaries

June 25, 2016

After a lot of work I have finished my math calculations. A simple effort will show that from 2000 to 2008 there was a change in Primary votes of 10-12 million. Ten million more Republicans and 12 million less Democrats. But this is child's play. Getting deeper, examining States with close polling prior to the registration requirements, States with a clear winner in polls prior to registration change requirements, and you can set patterns.

Using 2000 and 2008 as baselines, the conclusion was staggering. Trump only got about 3.3 million Republican Votes. The rest are Democrats, approximately 12 million of them.

I also found via my studies by going back to 1992 that this behavior is not new, in fact even when there is a tight contest about 5% will "strategically vote" in the Republican Party primary/caucus. Even more disturbing is that it appears that there may be even a 5% not normally detectable, of Republicans who only vote Democrat. Aka plants that we always knew existed.

In some circumstances the vote differences were so extreme that it defies explanation. Only for one election did I not find good information, and that being an incumbent versus a challenger I could ignore it safely.

Of 31 million who voted in the Republican Primary 38% approximately were Democrats.

Even in Oregon, a Closed Primary, we saw 110,000 change registration in time, and my calculations are approximately 80,000 voted for the perceived weakest candidates. They chose our Presidential Candidate, they chose our US Senate Candidate, and they chose our Governor Candidate. Ironically they did not vote strongly down ticket including for Secretary of State, and this assisted in my efforts to calculate the percentage who actually voted versus those who did not.

I would like to break this down to precise, exacting numbers, with names, addresses, to do a full study. I would love it if people would help me get voter registration lists for their States for 2014 and for 2016 after the Primary/Caucus in their State. I would like to demonstrate exact precision numbers to show how horrific it is, and to demonstrate these people deliberately chose the weakest candidate.

In any event our election was stolen. Trump would be in fourth, or worse, without Democrats, he would probably only have won New York and considering he would be doing so badly when that election happened it is unlikely even there. We have been tossed to the ground and electorally gang raped by Democrats.

I am willing to talk in general on methods, but not results. I want independent verification of my efforts. This is a challenge to Republican Mathematicians and pollsters.

[Ryan Ruck]

No, The Polls Aren’t Biased. Clinton Really Is Leading Trump

June 24, 2016

The conservative blogosphere is lighting up again with accusations of polling bias against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in his race against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. However, Trump supporters should avoid giving into this temptation to assume unfavorable results must be biased results. Clinton really is leading Trump, and by nearly 6 percentage points.

The blogospherian argument goes something like this: Clinton is leading Trump by 5 to 7 points in certain polls because the pollsters oversampled or over-weighted Democrats by about 5 to 7 points. If the polls are “corrected” to include fewer Democrats then the race is actually tied, they say.

For instance, one blogger argues that a recent CBS News poll inflated the number of Democrats in the poll, comprised of 28 percent Republicans and 35 percent Democrats. Citing one pollster’s calculation, she thinks party identification in the United States is closer to parity, with 28 percent Republicans and only 29 percent Democrats rather than a seven-point Democratic advantage. She reasons that if you erase the partisan gap that would erase Clinton’s six-point lead over Trump.

For Trump supporters, this is a tempting narrative to believe. But this simply isn’t so. The fact is there just are more Democrats out there than Republicans, and this has largely been the case at least since the New Deal. That obviously doesn’t mean Democrats always win, but it’s unwise to assume a pollster is biased because its sample included more Democrats than Republicans.

HuffPollster, which aggregates hundreds of polls across nearly 100 different pollsters, finds that averaging across 2016 polls, 34.8 percent of Americans identify as Democrats and 28.7 percent identify as Republicans—roughly a six-point Democratic advantage. This is very similar to the CBS poll’s partisan composition. Democrats maintain this advantage even among the national electorate. HuffPollster finds on average that among likely voters 38 percent are Democrats and 32.9 percent are Republicans—a 5.1-point Democratic advantage.

Furthermore, not a single major poll conducted since the beginning of June has found Trump ahead. Since May, Trump only led in three of the 24 polls found at RealClearPolitics (RCP). As of today, the RCP polling average shows Clinton with +5.8 percentage point lead over Trump. Thus, Clinton’s lead is not due to one biased poll; polls including Rasmussen (Clinton +5), CBS (+6), Monmouth (+8), CNN (+5), and Fox (+3) all find Clinton leading Trump.

These accusations of polling bias are strikingly similar to what happened in 2012 with “UnSkewedPolls.com” where some folks claimed the polls were unfairly sampling too many Democrats and thus giving an unmerited advantage to Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. But at the end of the day, the polls were largely correct and Obama handily won.

It’s easy to give into the temptation and assume that polls with unfavorable results must be biased. In some elections, polls have been considerably off. But by and large, it’s usually better to assume that results averaged across multiple polls from a variety of polling organizations are probably pointed in the right direction. Thus, if people don’t like poll results, they may find their interests better served by taking action to persuade other voters to their point of view, rather than cry bias.

[Ryan Ruck]

All In: RNC Joins Trump In Effort To Stop “Dump Trump” Delegates

June 27, 2016

Your quote of the day, courtesy of a GOP Rules Committee member: “We’re going to ride the Trump bandwagon into 1600 Penn Ave., or into oblivion. One or the other.” I couldn’t agree more.

Anti-Trumpers will be angry that the RNC is meddling behind the scenes to ensure smooth sailing for Trump when (a) the delegates are supposed to work this out among themselves, (b) Team Reince is going to the mat for a guy who’s had trouble lately cracking 40 percent in national polls, and (c) Trump won the primaries by making the case that “the establishment,” of which the RNC is a right-wing embodiment, is filled with corrupt cretins who badly need to be smashed. (That was before the RNC took over Trump’s campaign.) That’s okay, though. Priebus and his team will get their reward this fall if/when Trump fades down the stretch and spends the last month of the campaign at his rallies complaining that the incompetent “establishment” sabotaged him. There’s a real chance come mid-November that pro-Trump Republicans will despise the RNC for having somehow lost the election for Trump and anti-Trump Republicans will despise the RNC for not having fought harder to keep Trump from the nomination when it had the chance.

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or oblivion. Sounds right.

[The Trump campaign and the RNC] are employing hard-nosed tactics, warning delegates that attempting to undermine Donald J. Trump’s claim to the nomination violates party rules, and threatening to deny speaking slots to Republicans they deem disloyal for not backing him…

The R.N.C. and the Trump campaign are also installing loyal party stalwarts in key party positions to help ensure that they maintain control of the convention if rogue delegates attempt a disruption. And they are trying to discredit Republicans who are advocating an interpretation of party rules that would allow delegates to vote for anyone they want on the first ballot…

For its part, the committee is leaving little to chance as it works closely with the Trump campaign in plotting the mechanics of the convention. The two have hired about a dozen operatives to ensure that the nominating vote goes off without a hitch. Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee chairman, has dispatched associates to reach out to first-time delegates.

And lawyers for the committee are advising state party leaders how to beat back the anti-Trump efforts, prompting party chairs from Minnesota to Washington State to issue admonitions to delegates who may be thinking of breaking their obligation to vote for Mr. Trump. Party officials are now gently reminding delegates that in the process of applying to be a delegate, many of them signed statements vowing to vote for the candidate to which they were pledged.

You already know what the Times means when it mentions installing party loyalists to block rogue delegates. That’s a reference to the fact that more than a third of the Rules Committee will consist of RNC apparatchiks, no doubt tasked with defeating any measures designed to unbind the delegates by adding a “conscience” exception to the rules of voting on the nomination. And wouldn’t you know it, after Politico reached out to the 112 members of the Rules Committee, they found little support for the idea of dumping Trump. Of the 32 delegates who responded, 25 said they’d fight to protect Trump’s nomination; another 33 have said before on record that they think the party should stick with Trump; and 33 more on top of that come from states or jurisdictions where Trump won the primary. Anti-Trumpers on the Rules Committee might still be able to force a vote of all delegates on whether there should be a “conscience” exception, but they’d have to do it via a minority report, which would lack the moral authority of a majority vote by the entire Committee in favor of unbinding everyone.

I think the RNC figures, probably correctly, that the likeliest outcome of the eleventh-hour “Dump Trump” is a lot of noise that plays badly on television followed by a wounded Trump being nominated anyway. There’s an argument for dumping him and there’s an argument for nominating him enthusiastically, but it’s hard to see the logic if the party’s trying to win in November of nominating him after making a big public show of how many delegates dislike him. That’s what the anti-Trump minority on the Rules Committee will have to weigh before pushing a minority report. If it looks like there are 800 votes on the floor for a “conscience” exception, which isn’t enough to stop Trump but is enough to give the media a “One-third of delegates revolt!” storyline, is it worth doing? Since it’s being framed as a matter of conscience, maybe the answer is … yes. Maybe the #NeverTrumpers there simply want it on record that they opposed Trump while the rest of the party meekly went along. I think that’s what this RNC effort to squash the anti-Trumpers is really about. No one seriously thinks Trump will be ousted in Cleveland. The question is whether refuseniks will be given a chance to register their dissent formally, whatever that might mean for the party in terms of bad PR.

Here’s Marco Rubio reminding Republicans that Trump’s never going to follow through on mass deportation of illegals or a ban on Muslim visitors, which was true even before Trump basically confirmed it yesterday. Exit question via John McCormack: Do anti-Trumpers who’ve donated to the RNC know that their money is now being used to hire “about a dozen operatives to ensure that the nominating vote [for Trump] goes off without a hitch”? How do they feel about donating to the RNC going forward to support projects like that?

[Ryan Ruck]

And then there's this helping Clinton, improved Obama popularity!

Obama’s Approval Rating At Highest Level Since Killing Of Osama bin Laden

June 26, 2016

President Obama’s approval rating is at its highest level in more than five years, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Sunday shows.

According to the results of the survey, conducted in the aftermath of the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., two weeks ago, 56 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of his job as president, compared to 41 percent who disapprove.

The last time the president’s approval rating was this high was in May 2011 following the killing of Osama bin Laden in a nighttime raid led by U.S. Navy SEALS in Pakistan.

According to the Washington Post, Obama is more popular now than Presidents George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush were at this point in their presidencies, though not quite as popular as Bill Clinton in 2000.

The results of the survey are in line with a recent CNN/ORC poll that found 52 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s performance as president, up 5 points since January.

And according to that survey, also conducted in the wake of the nightclub massacre, Obama “ranks as the most positively viewed recent second term president.”

Both Clinton and Ronald Reagan were viewed favorably “by just under half of adults in the spring or summer of their final years in office.” George W. Bush’s favorability rating, by contrast, was just 38 percent at this point in 2008.

All of this is good news for Hillary Clinton, who was endorsed by Obama earlier this month.

The president plans on campaigning for the presumptive Democratic nominee in the coming weeks and has already begun to take aim at her Republican opponent, Donald Trump.

In Seattle on Friday, Obama offered a preview of his anti-Trump stump speech while speaking at a Democratic fundraiser for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee.

“We don’t have time for charlatans, and we don’t have time for bigotry,” Obama said. “And we don’t have the luxury of just popping off and saying whatever comes to the tops of our heads. Don’t have time for that.”

[American Patriot]

I hate to be the pessimist but I think he's going to end up more like Mondale than Reagan.

Well, there is that - haha. There was NO President Mondale.

I hope it's the other way around. We don't have a lot of choices either. I mean Romney is whining and complaining that we "can't let Trump in", but what is he going to do? No one else is going to be nominated. And if they are, they will certainly lose. The people of this country are fed up.

No one wants Clinton in but rabid, drool dripping Progressives. (By the way I know one. In person he's a nice guy, on the Internet he's a fucking jerk). lol

[Ryan Ruck]

Well, there is that - haha. There was NO President Mondale.

I hope it's the other way around. We don't have a lot of choices either. I mean Romney is whining and complaining that we "can't let Trump in", but what is he going to do? No one else is going to be nominated. And if they are, they will certainly lose. The people of this country are fed up.

No one wants Clinton in but rabid, drool dripping Progressives. (By the way I know one. In person he's a nice guy, on the Internet he's a fucking jerk). lol

That's why I'm pulling for Giant Meteor! REAL change we can believe in!

[American Patriot]

lol. I've seen that one floating around (pun not intended)

[American Patriot]

Chapter and verse, Clinton's actual words......

1) "Where is the God damn flag? I want the God damn fucking flag up every morning at fucking sunrise". Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day 1991. From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244

(2) "Fuck off! It's enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day! I'm not going to talk to you, too! Just do your Goddamn job and keep your mouth shut." Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good Morning." From the book "America Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p.90

(3) "If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags!" Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident. From the book "The First Partner" p. 25

(4) "Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck back away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say, Okay!!?" Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail. From the book "Unlimited Access" by Clinton 's FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldridge, p.139

(5) "Where's the miserable cock sucker?" (otherwise known as "Bill Clinton") Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer. From the book "The Truth about Hillary" by Edward Klein, p. 5

(6) "You fucking idiot" Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event. From the book "Crossfire" ~pg. 84

(7) "Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those fucking sunglasses! We need to go back!†Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while in route to Air Force One. From the book " Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72

(8) "Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't fuck her here!!" Hillary to Gov. Bill Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female. From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 243

There it is ........book, chapter and page.......the real Hillary Rotten Clinton!

Additionally, when she walked around the White House, NO ONE was permitted to look her in the eye, they all had to lower their heads with their eyes towards the ground whenever she walked by. Clearly she is a class act!

This ill-tempered, violent, loud-mouth, hateful and abusive woman wants to be your next President, and have total control as Commander-in-Chief of our Military, the very Military for which she has shown incredible disdain throughout her public life .

Remember her most vile comment about Benghazi: "What difference at this point does it make?"

Now it will be clear why the crew of "Marine One" helicopter nick-named the craft, "Broomstick ONE "


Now, my take on this (I didn't write that, I stole it from someone else) - I have friends who remained in the WH after I left and the Clintons came in. I heard several horror stories about how she treated the military personnel in uniform there. Most of the men and women will never come out publicly and say anything about her or Bill because we all prided ourselves on keeping things inside quiet. One thing the USSS does is refuses to reveal things said inside on the outside. Until they got in office.

While I certainly can understand the need to keep their "inside voices" private, it makes NO sense to keep it a secret when the abuse taken by the "little people" inside will eventually be used on the rest of us. We are, to her "subjects" and she believes herself to be "ruling class". Just like she believes there is a rich class, poor class and "those blacks over there". She's a racist bitch who shoulD NEVER HOLD ANY OTHER PUBLIC OFFICE EVER.

[American Patriot]

Guests starting to arrive to Hillary Clinton event in Beaumont. Her plane scheduled to land at 1 pm

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Sources close to Hillary Clinton's Beaumont fundraiser say it was one of her highest moneymakers

Posted: Jan 20, 2016 1:40 PM EST




BEAUMONT - Sources close to the private fundraiser held for Hillary Clinton in Beaumont Wednesday afternoon tell 12News it raised hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Some estimates put the amount collected at half-a-million dollars, making it one of the top five private fundraisers Clinton has had in this country.
Pakistani businessman Tahir Javed hosted the reception for Clinton at this home in West Beaumont.
Former U.S. Representative Nick Lampson, who attended the event, says 250 people were there.
Lampson says Clinton spoke about education, healthcare and individual freedoms for people of all backgrounds and faiths.
Many of the Pakistanis at the event were pleased with Clinton's vocal support of the Muslim religion.
Aisha Zahid said, "Talking about Muslims and favoring Muslims,so I really appreciate her whatever effort she is making against Islamaphobia, so I really think she needs to be the next President of the United States."
Also in attendance, congress people from the Houston area, Sheila Jackson-Lee and Al Green.
But not everyone was a fan. A handful of protesters demonstrated near the event, over Clinton's response to the Benghazi attack and her email controversy.

[American Patriot]

12 Ways To Use Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals Against Liberals

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnh...ainst_liberals


John Hawkins
|
Posted: Apr 13, 2012 12:01 AM
Share (10K) Tweet

Trending

• Walter E. Williams
  Multiculturalism: A Failed Concept
• Michelle Malkin
  Outsourcing Security Is Dumb and Deadly
• Ed Klein
  Why Hillary Is Stalling Her FBI Interview

Saul Alinsky was a brilliant man. Evil, but brilliant. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, everyone on the Left from the President on down is playing by his rules in the political arena. Not all liberals have read his book or know his name, but his tactics have become universal. Sadly for conservatives, when two evenly matched forces go head-to-head outside of a fairy tale, the side that tries to play nice usually ends up with its head in a box. So, don't lie or become an evil person like Alinsky, but learn from what he wrote and give the Left a taste of its own medicine.Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people.
…The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
…the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
…the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
…the sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
…the seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
…the eighth rule: Keep the pressure on.
…the ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
…The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
…The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
…The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. — Rules for Radicals

CARTOONS | GLENN MCCOY
VIEW CARTOON


1) Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. Boycotts have fallen out of favor on the Right because the Left has used that tactic to target conservative radio. This is a mistake. That's because there are a lot more conservatives than there are liberals and we're much more capable of using the tactic effectively. There are roughly 120 million people who identify with conservatism in this country and almost twice as many Christians. When there are threats that Christians and conservatives will refuse to go see movies, stop buying products, or cancel subscriptions, it will scare some people straight. That threat should be used and carried out much more often.
2) Never go outside the experience of your people. Want to know why Republicans are so terrible at reaching out to minorities? Because identity politics works really, really well and conservatives tend to oppose it on principle. So, white Republicans are constantly trying to go outside of their experience and reach out to minorities who are generally disinclined to listen to them because they have the wrong skin color. When the GOP accepts reality, adopts the tactics of the Democratic Party, andstarts paying off our own Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons to reach out to minority groups and call Democrats racists, we'll start making inroads with minorities for the first time in decades.



3) Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. The GOP often foolishly retreats from social issues. This is a huge mistake in an era when 76% of the country is Christian and most liberals find sincere Christian beliefs to be repellent. We don't have to preach at anyone, wag our fingers, or turn into legions of Ned Flanders, but we shouldn't be afraid to talk about our Christian beliefs, stick up for Christians who are under attack, and hammer the Left for its anti-Christian bigotry. Conservatism is a pro-Christian ideology and liberalism is an anti-Christian ideology. We should never be afraid to drive that point home.
4) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. This is something conservatives have gotten much better at in the last few years, but we seldom take it far enough. If we did, a tax cheat who advocates higher taxes could certainly never be our Treasury Secretary, Barack Obama would be afraid to associate with race hustlers like Al Sharpton or one percenters like Warren Buffet, and Al Gore would have either given up his mansion or his status as the leader of the cult of global warming.


4A) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. Conservatives have a tendency to try to win every debate with logic and recitations of facts which, all too often, fail to get the job done because emotions and mockery are often just as effective as reason. The good news is that liberals almost never have logic on their side; so they're incapable of rationally making the case for their policies while conservatives can become considerably more effective debaters by simply adding some emotion-based arguments and sheer scorn to their discourse. This has certainly worked on Twitter, where conservatives keep making the Obama campaign look like buffoons by taking over its hashtags.


6) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. Sometimes Republicans get too serious about politics. Why not hold a fund raiser at the gun range? What's wrong with having Kid Rock or a bunch of popular country musicians play at a massive voter registration drive? How about building some giant puppet heads of our own, featuring Nancy Pelosi injecting botox into her face or Barack Obama punching the Pope in the stomach? A little controversy and fun draw in the eyeballs and gets people excited.
7) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. This one seems self-explanatory, but in practice, it can be tough to keep things on a timeline. This is what happened to the Occupy Movement, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Republican race for the presidency, too. If it goes on too long, people sour on it whether it’s a war, an election, or a tactic.
8) Keep the pressure on. Conservatives fall down on this one all the time. Just when Obama's SuperPac was starting to feel real pressure over taking a million dollar donation from Bill Maher, conservatives eased up. This is also why liberal film stars feel so comfortable trashing conservatives, Christians, and Americans -- even right before their film comes out. It's because we get offended, shrug our shoulders, and then almost immediately let it go. Sometimes, an apology doesn't fix everything. How often do liberals accept an apology at face value and let an issue go?
9) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. How about we treat the Left to some of its own medicine? Libs throw a pie at a conservative author on campus; then we promise to shower every liberal speaker on the same campus with garbage. They post a conservative address online; we post two liberal addresses online. They hold a protest at someone's house; then we hold a protest at someone's house. They hit one of our politicians with glitter; we hit one of their politicians with coal dust. Liberals have a mentality that says, "Everything we do is harmless, but everything conservatives do is potentially dangerous." Yet, we're usually too well behaved to copy their tactics. Mimic those tactics once or twice and the Libs will freak out so hard that they'll start declaring it to be off limits for everyone, including their own activists.
10) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. When you launch an attack, tie it in as part of a theme and never stop hammering the theme as long as it's true and it works. John Kerry is a flip-flopper, Bill Clinton is a liar, Barack Obama is bankrupting the country and wrecking the economy -- tie your attacks into themes that can be picked up on social media, talk radio, cable TV, and in the blogosphere over the long haul. Why does McDonald's keep running ads? Because it may be that 50th ad or 100th ad you see that gets you to go buy a Big Mac, just as it may be the 50th or 100th time someone hears that Obama is bankrupting the country and wrecking the economy before it sticks.
11) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside. The winner in politics is almost always whoever is on offense. Liberals understand this in an intuitive way that most conservatives don't. We think because we have this wonderful, honest, logical response to a charge that we're scoring major points -- but, except in rare cases, it's not true. If you're spending all of your time refuting the charges that you're extreme, racist, hate women, and despise the poor -- you're losing. That's because some people will assume where there's smoke, there's fire, and disbelieve you no matter how good your explanation may be. Additionally, if you're busy defending yourself, you can't go after the other side. Defend when you absolutely have to, but make sure most of your time is spent attacking relentlessly attacking.
12) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Honestly, this is more of a liberal problem than a conservative one, since liberals always seem to be clamoring to rip out some functional necessity of American society so they can replace it with an ill-defined hodgepodge of ideas that they think will shift power their way or be less "mean." Our ideas work; so coming up with a constructive alternative is seldom a problem.
13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Conservatives tend to do well with this one until they get to the last part. Polarization is at the core of the Left's strategy. According to liberals, if you're conservative, you hate blacks, Hispanics, gays, Jews, Muslims, women, the poor, the middle class, the environment, and probably a half dozen other groups I've forgotten. Even when something is in front of our face, conservatives shy away from polarization. What's wrong with pointing out how hostile the Democratic Party has become to Christianity? Why not point out the truth: that most white liberals are racists who think black Americas are too stupid and incompetent to compete with white Americans, which is why they push Affirmative Action and racial set asides? Why not note that liberals want poor Americans to stay poor and dependent, because as long as they do, they'll keep voting for the Democrat Party? There's a reason Barack Obama bows to foreign leaders, is constantly apologizing for America, attended an anti-white, anti-American church for 20 years, and it's why his wife was proud of the country for the FIRST TIME because she thought it was going to elect her husband. The sad truth is that these are people who hate and despise this country. Why do you think "hope and change" appealed so much to Obama that he made it his theme? When you look at America as an evil, racist, unfair, horrible place to live inhabited by ignorant trash and "bitter clingers," what else would you do other than hope for change? If you love this country and the values it represents, the people in the White House not only don't share your values, they hold people like you in utter contempt.

[American Patriot]

ABC news just reported that Bill Clinton Accidentally (on Purpose) ran into Lorretta Lynch in (her airplane) an airport and had a "social meeting" (Met privately aboard her aircraft to try to smooche things with the Justice Dept) and might have mentioned the fact Hillary is under investigation (by the FBI) and everything was quote "cordial".

Cocksucking motherfucking corrupt assholes and elitist motherruckers in Washington need to fucking die of horrible lead poisoning and flesh eating alien viruses......

[Ryan Ruck]

Christie Being Vetted For Trump VP, Source Says

Christie receives official paperwork for process

June 30, 2016

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie -- a former Donald Trump rival turned top defender -- is being vetted as a possible running mate for the presumptive Republican nominee, a source confirmed to CNN on Thursday.

Christie has received the official paperwork for the vetting process, according to a source with knowledge of the process.

Trump has said he intends to announce his vice presidential nominee at the Republican National Convention in July in Cleveland.

The New York Times was first to report Christie's vetting.

Though Christie ran against Trump in the GOP primary, the two have been long-time friends and Christie quickly endorsed Trump and became a reliable presence at his events after dropping out of the race. The New Jersey governor has not only been one of Trump's highest-profile surrogates, continually defending him against critics, but also one of his closest behind the scenes advisers, according to sources familiar with the relationship.

Trump, speaking with Concord, New Hampshire-based CNN affiliate WBIN-TV on Thursday demurred when he was asked whether Christie or former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown were on his running mate shortlist.

"Well, they're both good guys. I don't want to say shortlist but certainly they're great people," Trump said. "Scott was a very early supporter and Chris was very early after he got out. And they're certainly people I want involved."

For Christie, it has been quite a departure from what he initially sought out to do in 2016: win the GOP nomination. Blunt, with a big personality and a history of electoral success in a reliably blue state, Christie was once seen as a -- or perhaps the -- front-runner for the GOP nomination. Wounded by the fallout from revelations related to top aides deliberately closing lanes on George Washington Bridge as a form of political retribution, Christie still mounted a 2016 bid. In it, he wasn't afraid to take a few shots at Trump, though he was always quick to point out that he and his wife, Mary Pat, were long time friends of the New York billionaire.

"Showtime is over, everybody," Christie said while campaigning in New Hampshire in January. "We are not electing an entertainer-in-chief. Showmanship is fun but it is not the kind of leadership that will truly change America."

For a brief period at the end of 2015, Christie appeared to have righted his campaign, only to see it come apart under withering attack ads in the lead up to the New Hampshire primary. A disappointing finish in the state led to the end of his run, and, a few weeks later, to the endorsement of Trump. It was a move surprised -- and even angered -- many of the players inside his presidential campaign, sources say. One said the move was "such clear careerism -- this wasn't the man I signed up to work for."

Yet Christie has carved out an integral role inside Trump's orbit. He's operated, aides and advisers say, as a sort of all-purpose counselor of sorts to Trump in recent months -- part strategist, part sounding board, part friend, and often (perhaps to the surprise of many in his home state of New Jersey), a calming voice of reason.

"It's fascinating that I'm now the person that can speak my mind without offending anyone," Christie told reporters earlier this month.

When Trump was getting chastised by others in the GOP for his criticism of a federal judge over seeing a Trump University lawsuit, Christie said the billionaire was perfectly justified.

"In the end, there are always going to be conflicts regarding civil lawsuits. People are always going to express their opinions. Those are Donald's opinions, and he has a right to express them," he said. "I can guarantee you that, you know, people who are going to vote today in (New Jersey) and people who are going to vote in November are not going to make their decision based upon this kerfuffle."

He added: "I've known him for 14 years and Donald Trump is not a racist."

Behind the scenes his role was more robust -- he spent hours that day at Trump Tower, helping Trump craft a statement designed to put the issue behind the campaign, and sticking around to help him craft a subsequent speech.

Christie has also been a top recruiter for Trump -- both on the endorsement and fundraising side of the campaign. He's been a regular caller to top GOP donors and activated his own network to try and bolster Trump's moribund fundraising operation. The former head of the Republican Governor's Association, he's also regularly been in contact with GOP governors on the fence -- or off it on the side of #NeverTrump -- regarding Trump's candidacy. The calls and meetings are described as cordial, even in cases where the answers are no. But one message has been clear: Trump is going to win -- get on board now.

It's advice Christie himself took and could now benefit from more than anyone. He was Trump's biggest endorsement at a crucial moment in the campaign and that has sparked talk about any number of possible positions inside a Trump administration. He has been the focus of vice presidential speculation for some time, leaving the possibility open when asked by reporters.

That has led to no shortage of questions about Christie's intentions with that endorsement, both among unaffiliated GOP officials, but also former aides. And it hasn't always been a smooth process. There was the press conference where an entire Twittersphere jokingly wondered whether Christie had been taken hostage. ("I want everyone to know for those who were concerned: I wasn't being held hostage," Christie told reporters afterward.)

There was the moment it appeared his wife -- one of Christie's top political advisers -- appeared to roll her eyes at a Trump attack on Clinton during another press conference. Then Trump, during an event scheduled to help Christie retire his campaign debt, appeared to jab the New Jersey governor about his weight, saying: "You're not eating Oreos anymore, are you? No more Oreos for either of us, Chris. Don't feel bad." There's also been Christie's own political standing -- by May, his approval numbers were down nearly 40 points from their high in November 2013.

Christie for his part, has brushed all of those issues aside and maintained his endorsement was contingent on one thing: Trump represents the party's best chance to defeat presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Whatever his reasons, this much is clear: Christie is all in.

One adviser who spoke with CNN described Christie as a consigliere of sorts. Late night phone calls aren't rare -- Trump bouncing ideas and strategies off of Christie, complaints as well. But he also listens, this adviser added. That, the adviser said, may be the most important takeaway: Donald Trump, as much as Donald Trump can, listens to Chris Christie.

[vector7]

Really, that's the best Rep VP pick?

I can see the SNL skits spooling up now.

[vector7]

General forced out by Obama is on Trump’s VP short list

http://nypost.com/2016/07/05/this-br...t-list-for-vp/

Daniel Halper July 5, 2016 | 2:29 AM

WASHINGTON — A top military adviser to Donald Trump is being vetted to be his running mate, The Post has learned.

The outspoken and brash Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn — who was forced out of his post by the Obama administration in 2014 after pointing out the rising global jihadist threat — has already briefed the Republican presidential candidate on several occasions and is in close touch with high levels of Trump’s staff.

Flynn joins the ranks of GOP politicians being looked at for the high-profile pick, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa.

Trump spent the holiday weekend with two of the contenders.

“Spent time with Indiana Governor Mike Pence and family yesterday,” Trump tweeted Monday morning. “Very impressed, great people!”

Later, Trump revealed he would be visiting Monday with Ernst, a rising Republican star.

The only people who are not interested in being the V.P. pick are the people who have not been asked!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 4, 2016

Although Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, made a name for himself speaking out against his former boss, he is not treating his potential future boss the same way.

“One of the things I expect Mr. Trump would look for in a vice president is discretion,” Flynn told The Post, coyly declining to comment on being vetted by Trump.

“All I would say is that I have been honored to serve my country for the past three decades and look forward to serving in other ways now that I am retired from the US Army,” he said. “I’ve been a soldier too long to refuse to entertain any request from a potential commander in chief.”

Trump praised Flynn in a statement to The Post.

“I have a lot of respect for Gen. Flynn, and his advice is important,” he said.

The general’s debut book, “The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies,” which hits shelves July 12, offers a grim but realistic view of the global jihadist threat.

“We’re in a world war,” Flynn wrote in the introduction of his book, according to early excerpts.

“We could lose. In fact, right now we’re losing,” he wrote. “To make matters worse, our political leaders insist that the war is going very well, and the scores of professional analysts who know better are being censored when they report the truth to their superiors.”

[vector7]

Donald Trump advisers reportedly tell national GOP officials Trump will pick Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as running mate, sources tell New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us...t.html?src=twr

[Ryan Ruck]

Jesus Christ! Ann Coulter is completely off her nut.




I'm really starting to think she doesn't know how to exist without having a Dem president to criticize and that's why she's pushed so hard for loser Republican candidates.

[Brian Baldwin]

Anything to sell her books. Learned that years ago.

[American Patriot]

She looks good on the covers..... but anyway enough about Ann's tits

http://nationalreport.net/fox-news-c...nc-broadcasts/

FOX News Correspondents Will Open Carry During RNC Broadcasts

Posted about 1 day ago | 1 comment

• 
  
  
  

(Image: YouTube)

CLEVELAND, Oh. — Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes is requiring his news correspondents to open carryloaded firearms while covering Cleveland’s upcoming Republican National Convention, sources say.
The order, backed by NRA president Wayne Lapierre, was initiated out of an “abundance of caution.”




Shortly after learning of the New Black Panther Party’s plans to bring guns to Cleveland for their own “self defense,” Ailes sought expedited open carry permits for his employees.


“With the number of violent protests this season,” said an NRA representative, “the convention center environment could become unstable, even with increased security.”


“Conservative reporters and journalists should be cautious of their surroundings, and of course, they should also be prepared at all times,” warned the spokesman. “Open carry is our most logical option.”


“Why shouldn’t we be equally matched?” Ailes reportedly asked. “What’s fair is fair and it’s us versus them in the news business.”


Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, and Chris Wallace are scheduled to anchor Fox’s prime time convention coverage from theQuicken Loans Arena.


Ailes’ personal concern for his employees was expressed in a joint memo co-signed by Lapierre, and hand delivered to several Ohio state legislators.


“There is nothing more precious or more valuable,” Ailes wrote, “than the safety of our most important asset. Can you imagine something happening to Megyn Kelly? There she would be, up front, totally exposed, totally unprotected and totally vulnerable. That’s a chance I was not willing to take. The very thought of it keeps me up at night.”


Ailes added that his concern also extended to every member of his team, “not just the ‘A-list,’ on-air personalities.”


Gun safety and firearms training sessions will be offered to all news correspondents. Firearms will not be openly displayed or visible during broadcasts, but will be “instantly accessible” if the need arises.
Leg holsters, located below camera sight lines will most probably be worn, studio sources say.