Donald Trump

[Peter]

The polls still have Clinton with a 7 to 10 point national lead over Trump, BUT The Quinnipiac University Poll has Donald Trump two points behind Old Hickory Clinton in Florida, which is an improvement. Thanks to Dallas for the link. I see Tony Romo was taken out of the game last night after a big hit in a pre-season game.

From Fox News’ “Hannity Show,” Korben linked a video of Senorita A.J. Delgado sitting with Trump talking about why Latinas should vote for Trump. I didn’t see The Donald checking out her exposed thighs once.

(Good for him, because I did. She was squirming around deliciously looking for an ogle or two. That is a moderately big deal because he was on live TV and KNEW AND ACTED AS IF he were serious about not giving the voters another reason to vote for Gary Johnson.)   

Delgado’s two main points were: Jobs for Latinos and blacks are lost because illegals are taking them. Wages are lower because workers who are here illegally will work for less. It’s the local economy stupid, to paraphrase James Carville.

Trump brought up the fact that he will be best for the economy and the fact that people are making less now, on average, than they did 18 years ago and many need to work two jobs just because of Obamacare.

I have great expectations. Can the home team tweak the electoral college for a win? We have two months plus a few days to go.

Peter

Miscellany: (The Huff Post has a story about Progressive Carville and his conservative consultant wife, Mary Matalin, who were in a piece for Vogue. It's about how they stayed married for 25 years. And that is in spite of the fact that Carville who looks like Golem from “Lord of the Rings” is wrong about most things. Did I mention that genetically he is a troll?)

“The Price Is Right” is showing a rerun with all pregnant contestants. Imagine if they did that back in 1955!

“Latinos” are technically guys while “Latinas” with an ‘a’ at the end, are women.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand Paul on supporting Trump:

 

Michael

[Peter]

Thanks Michael for the video giving the reasons Rand Paul will support Trump and not Gary Johnson. To paraphrase, “The Clintons have made millions off of graft and they should be in jail. Be energized for Trump. The crony Capitalist, graft angle. Supreme Court nominations. The Constitution and our civil liberties. The Economy. A big “sea-change” and a crossroads in American politics. Of course we should only vote for a winner.”  Well said, Senator Paul.     

Will Trump’s “gosh, it almost seems like a flip flop” on illegal immigration cost him any white or conservative votes other than Ann Coulter’s? I don’t think so, if we start to enforce the law and deport the people who have committed other crimes first. So, stepping across the border, getting a job, living in the shadows for years while you pay taxes and SSI, joining the Armed Services, or having kids and raising a family in America . . . well those folks should be the last people deported (or somehow legally integrated, with a slap on the wrist.)

Secure the borders from terrorists and that will keep all illegals out. Keep employers from hiring illegals, and make sure no illegals get local, state, or federal welfare or other benefits, and that will eliminate the economic incentives. Charity in emergencies is still OK. Mr. Trump should not be bringing up a mental image of buses (or boxcars like in WWII destined for a concentration camp) loaded with crying immigrants being sent back across the border. The vote count after the dust settles? I say it will be a net gain.     

Donald J. Trump just wrote me, “I just cleared some time on my schedule for some great Americans like you to join me for dinner.” You only need to give five bucks to be entered into a lottery for a seat at his dinner. Cool, unless I need to wear a tie. Can I order a hamburger and potato salad?

Peter

[turkeyfoot]

Jeez, is it me or did Trump build his stance on immigration saying he would deport all undocumented aliens allowing them to enter legally later? While his Make America Great web site maintained a different policy perspective. One spoken the other written. Why yes he did is the answer and the reason why Trump is sooooooo smart.

August 17, 2015. "Even Trump's approach -- those who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children -- goes a step further than others in the GOP field who believe children of undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S.

"The executive order gets rescinded," Trump said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," of Obama's executive order allowing dreamers to remain in the U.S.

"We have to keep the families together, but they have to go," 

“I will get them out so fast that your head would spin, long before I even can start the wall.”

His oratory allows for a marked contrast and commitment while his written policy allows him to find the in between the lines position and pander to Hispanics but stiff arms those who rallied to his hard line.

“Perhaps it is in our interest to let some of them stay," said Coulter.  "It mostly worries me rhetorically ... I mean, what to do with the illegals already here was never really a big part of it," she said. "We're getting a wall. We're definitely getting a wall. That's the one thing we know about a Trump presidency."

The wall, the wall. How long will it take to build a wall, where will it be built, eminent domain will come into play with US residents rights in play

Coulter, however, who just happened to be launching her new book “In Trump We Trust” last night with a party hosted by Breitbart News, quickly changed her tune, taking to Twitter to accuse Trump of promoting “amnesty”:

Katrina Pierson explained the candidate “hasn’t changed his position. He has changed the words he is saying.”  Thanks for the trumped up explanation.

“It’s like he’s built a Trump Tower and now he’s trying to change the foundation just as he realizes nobody’s buying the apartments,” Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the conservative Cato Institute.

It was Trumps signature position, the one no pundit thought would attract droves of Trump stake holders and hes beginning to sound like an ordinary politician, one who goes the way of the blowing wind or hanging chad. Or the Bush, no new taxes pledge. Jeb baby,  "Sounds like a typical politician". Ouwe

"I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me"

Eric Trump, “My father will build the wall so fast, people’s heads will spin.”

Trump understands, “Of the 2,000 (miles), we don’t need 2,000, we need 1,000 because we have natural barriers … and I’m taking it price per square foot and a price per square, you know, per mile,” he said. 

Damn, has he never dealt with government bureaucracy, time tables, finances, authorizations, partisan politics?

If that wall never gets built Trumps seemingly unvarnished brand will be a yoke around family gatherings. ) 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Korben,

Since you originally posted Hillary Clinton's tweet with her ad showing the KKK supporting Trump, let me repost it to make a point.

There's a reason the most hateful fringe of the right wing is supporting Donald Trump.https://t.co/AqB3DM2m0N

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 25, 2016

Looks like Clinton left out Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon, Will Quigg, who supports her and says so on the video below.

This is from a KKK rally last March in Anaheim, CA. (Read about it here, which is where I got the video from.)

 

Michael

[Peter]

The KKK is for Hillary? Will that ever make it to ABC, NBC, or CBS news? And think about this. Who is more likely to split up families and keep black women from marrying? Who will keep them on the “dole?”  Who will talk down to minorities in a condescending fashion, and take their vote for granted? Who will uphold the standard of institutionalized black second class citizenship? Hillary, of course. She will uphold a fifty year tradition of low education and destitution and the older, democratic party’s tradition of slavery . . . but in a new, Progressive mode. If the south had not started the Confederate States of America, they would have stayed democrat, not Republican, the party of Abraham Lincoln.   

Turkeyfoot quoted: “Perhaps it is in our interest to let some of them stay," said Coulter. "It mostly worries me rhetorically ... I mean, what to do with the illegals already here was never really a big part of it," she said. "We're getting a wall. We're definitely getting a wall. That's the one thing we know about a Trump presidency."

Exactly. But not the Great Wall of China, as Trump has also said. The Wall will also be physical but also electronic. In other ways, Trump is portrayed as a more dangerous choice, so is a vote for Trump worth the risk because of his lack of national experience? I say, “Hell, Yes!” even with his “unknown qualities.”  Would you trust Obama over Trump with the nuclear codes? I don’t. So, if America has lived 8 years with a Progressive, Muslim associated President just one touch away from The Nuclear Button, it will be relief to have Trump in office.  If any President were not an ideological Objectivist then I would NOT WANT that ideologue in office. (well, maybe Goldwater or Ted Cruz.)  

To me Clinton is typical but Trump is very different. Clinton is safely in the traditional, corrupt, political mold. Who do you feel safer with? Trump or Lady Macbeth? I think they are equally calculating, but who ya’ gunna trust, the forces of evil or Ghostbusters? Trump. Who will be the more honest President? Who will be better for the economy? Who is less likely to enter into bad trade or national security deals? Who WILL NOT BE a crony Capitalist? Who will defend Americans abroad but not leave our troops to police the bad guys or to nation build? Trump.  

Peter

Michael Barone says Trump is only losing by four points nationally and the traditionally red and blue state combination may be changing .

Some excerpts from ”Is 2016 Redrawing the Political Map?: by Michael Barone Posted: Aug 26, 2016 12:01 AM: Is the political map, so familiar that even non-pundits offhandedly refer to red, blue and purple states, changing before our eyes? Yes, at least to a limited extent -- and it's probably about time. The political map has been pretty static for almost two decades, the longest since the 1880s.

. . . . Current polling, which shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by 4 points nationally, suggests it's possible that all 40 steadfast states will stay in the same column next November. Clinton is actually running stronger in 2012 target states than nationally, perhaps because her campaign has been running reams of television ads in most of them and Trump's hasn't.

But there's also something else going on, some significant though not overwhelming (and to some extent countervailing) trends among identifiable segments of the electorate. Trump has tended to run better than earlier Republicans among non-college-graduate whites and weaker among college graduates, and better among the old than the young. That explains why he's apparently running far behind in purple states Virginia and Colorado, with their young and high-education populations, to the point that the Clinton campaign has canceled ad buys there. Actually, this is an extension of the trend that shifted those two states from safe Republican in the Bush elections to national-average purple states in the Obama elections. At the same time, Trump's comparative strength among non-college whites has left him competitive in Florida, Ohio and Iowa and well ahead in Indiana, with their older, less educated populations. And it's made him at least potentially competitive in the industrial swath from western Pennsylvania to eastern Iowa where, as New York Times Upshot writer Nate Cohn has explained, near-majorities of non-college whites, many who grew up in union households, voted for Obama over management scion Mitt Romney in 2012.

 . . . Goldwater carried the deep South, running even better than Dwight Eisenhower had there. Though the process was delayed by the deep-South-based George Wallace and Jimmy Carter, that region became solidly Republican by 1984 and has been ever since  . . . . Goldwater and McGovern lost the national popular vote by 23 percent margins, back in the years when most voters remembered the Great Depression and World War II and were willing to cross party lines to re-elect a president who seemed to produce prosperity and peace.

Today's polarized electorate, unfamiliar with such disasters, is less ready to cross party lines, and Trump is not 23 points behind. But many voters seem willing to abandon their party: 21 percent say they're not voting for either major-party nominee. That suggests low turnout, as well as more states in play if the race tightens up. In the longer run, questions lurk. If Clinton wins with less than 50 percent, can her party hold onto college grads unable to stomach Trump? Can post-Trump Republicans hold onto non-college whites he's attracted? My guess is that the answers will be no and yes. What's yours? end quote

[KorbenDallas]

How quickly people forget that Crooked Hillary called African-American youth "SUPER PREDATORS" - Has she apologized?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 26, 2016

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, turkeyfoot said:

Jeez, is it me or did Trump build his stance on immigration saying he would deport all undocumented aliens allowing them to enter legally later?

Geoff,

I have always understood Trump's words on immigration in terms of a goal based on different processes. This includes the constantly hammered context of "according to the law." (How many times does he have to say, "Immigrants will be able to enter through the big beautiful gate in the wall... [dramatic pause]... legally," before the mainstream media grok the concept of legality rather than bigotry as his frame?)

Even O'Reilly asked Trump recently about his deportation force. And Trump had to correct him that he doesn't plan on a deportation force.

Do you want to know why Trump supporters are not affected by his different wording and the media spinning the hell out of it? It's because of the "say versus do" thing I have talked long and hard about.

We (meaning Trump supporters) know that Trump will do what he says. If he has to do it one way or has to do it another, he will do it. And what does he want to do? What is his overall goal in this case?

Fix the immigration mess in a manner where American law is respected.

That's what he is about, not destroying the lives of anyone. If anything he considers goes toward that goal, he will think about it, consult about it, entertain it, etc. If anything goes against that goal, he will talk bad about it. This is why he can sometimes be for and against the same thing in a short period. You have to see which lens and context he is looking through.

We (meaning Trump supporters) also know that most of the other politicians will not do what they say on immigration and they have no intention of doing it. They just want to sound reasonable while they fool the public and, basically, attend to the interests of special interests (and take their cut, let's not forget that part ).

This is why Trump can look at the possibility of treating differently the productive peaceful illegal aliens who have been in the US for 20 years or so and it doesn't affect Trump voters, whereas Jeb Bush can say this was all his idea and nobody listens. They know Trump is looking things over to the fix the problem, whereas Jeb is sugar-coating an agenda that goes against what they want. The words may be similar, but the results in reality from these two men are just about as different as they could be. Trump supporters see this.

Now, I mentioned above the idea of goal and different processes. What does that mean?

Well, if you are the mainstream press, the goal is to make sure illegals have to leave the country, and to them that means the main process of jackbooted thugs busting down doors of helpless families to cart them off in wagons.

But that's not the way a man like Trump works. He knows concepts like priority, context, trades and deals, and so on, and they are not just words to him. So, using the goal of fixing the immigration mess in a manner where American law is respected, Trump starts with a wall and getting the bad illegals out. That has to be done first for the rest to work. Then he will evaluate and figure out the best way to deal with the other illegals, but the frame will always be to get them within this goal of obeying American law.

One thing I believe is fixed in his mind. As he said to Anderson Cooper recently, the only pathway to legalization is for an illegal alien to leave the country and come back in legally. Regardless of how he will do it, and I expect there to be many forms, I doubt he will ever change that part of the process. 

Sarah Palin last night said all this in a different manner, but it was the same conceptually. And she said it in a manner that is so clear, even Media Matters and Mitt Romney will not be able to say they don't understand.

Michael

 

[KorbenDallas]

Protester To Hillary Clinton: I Am Not A Super-Predator:

 

[Peter]

Michael wrote: Even O'Reilly asked Trump recently about his deportation force. And Trump had to correct him that he doesn't plan on a deportation force . . . . Fix the immigration mess in a manner where American law is respected.  end quote

Stop terrorists including “sleeper agents who will commit terrorist acts at a later date, *plus* stop drug smugglers equals stopping illegal immigration .

Look twice at deporting long standing, peaceful, tax payers without due consideration. That is a good policy. What will that do for minorities? I have no doubt many legal, Mexican immigrants know someone who is here illegally and personally they would not want those families deported. Nor would the companies who have hired them. To a Mexican American kid who grew up and was schooled here illegally even if the illegality was known to her or him, well, that forced resettlement and repatriation to Mexico or wherever could lead to a feeling of betrayal and hatred. Shell shocked isn‘t the word for it. The premise for the TV show, “Ugly Betty,” doesn’t cover it. Their world would be much worse for individuals trying to start over in Mexico with the culture shock and “induced” poverty. The least offensive should be the last to go and maybe not even then in a few more years. Let us think about it. I could politically, and morally live with that.

Peter

[Peter]

A closed border would raise wages and decrease unemployment. A closed border would make us safer. A closed border could greatly lessen the drug supply.

Which brings up another point. What fuels the gang warfare and crime in the inner cities? Not protection money, speakeasies, or prostitution like on Boardwalk Empire. Drug money fuels it. I am not suggesting that we totally do away with our “by prescription only” drug policy or our drunk driving policy, but look at the loosening of the drug laws now, with legal Maryjane and medicinal pot stores in states like my own Maryland. What if more drugs were legal? It would put the gangs out of business and diminish inner city violence. The world might actually be a better place.

There are countries that have less restrictive drug laws. I remember sailors were banned from going into Japanese drugs stores when I lived there. And, I recently read that perhaps four percent more people might become addicted and possibly die if all drugs were legal in America. That doesn’t mean we could not educate the population about their risks. Loosening the illegal drug policy is a good platform plank that would disproportionally help minorities.    

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Look twice at deporting long standing, peaceful, tax payers without due consideration. That is a good policy.

Peter,

Having lived in Brazil and gone through a Brazilian form of immigrant control, I can tell you how Trump's model will play out with about 99% degree of accuracy for, say, Mexicans (but this includes other friendly countries). I base this on what I saw in Brazil. I am making an assumption that the law will be similar, I know, but I believe human nature will ultimately guide the law.

I predict it will be something like this:

For undesirable illegals (gang members and so on), the law will be used to get rid of them. Knowing Trump, this will be effective and even brutal at times.

For more desirable illegals (like the peaceful productive ones who have been here 20 years, etc. etc. etc.), there will be some hoops to jump through (fines, paperwork, Mexican police records check, etc.), a trip to the other side of the border, a small waiting period (a day or two), then legal reentry into the USA (yay!  ).

Within the Mexican immigrant community itself, a documentation and trip facilitator industry will pop up out of nowhere.  Prices will vary all over the place.

After illegal aliens see the process work a few times, they will line up in droves to become regularized. Some ONG's will pop up to help them.

Thus, most of the issues will get settled in a simple manner, but there will be some that will be messy. Maybe a few unjust situations will slip through the cracks. But many of those will be solved with recourse.

That's about it.

I believe most of the politicians talking about the impossibility of Trump's deportation force, busting families apart, and all kinds of melodramatic grandstanding know all this, too. These elitists just want cheap labor (Republicans) or a government handout dependent voting block (Democrats). So they say fixing it within the law is impossible and bloviate all over everyone.  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just saw Anderson Cooper's interview with Trump.

Cooper pushed Trump hard.

For those who like to look at words instead of deeds, listen to Trump say clearly illegals will have to leave the US and come back in to get legalized. Also, his first priority toward fixing this problem will be to get rid of the bad illegals and build the wall.

Kinda like what I said he thinks.  

 

 

He doubled down on "Hillary is a bigot, too."

I've read around about this and I came across a thought I think is hilarious--and true, for that matter.

When Clinton went after Trump as a racist, this would have worked in the past. It would have eroded his support like nothing else. But by Trump calling her a bigot, too, he turned it into a food fight. This is very similar to what goes on in reality TV.

 

And that's the point. What's more, I think he did it on purpose. Hell, people are arguing over Picklegate right now. Clinton opened a pickle jar on Kimmel the other night to prove she was healthy and now there's a controversy all over the friggin' place--one the size of the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories--over whether this was staged or real. You have to see it to believe it. And unless you are a monk, you've seen it. 

That is pure pop entertainment, not politics. 

Back to racism. What is mudslinging and calling each other racist by exaggeration other than food-fight on reality TV? Trump could have become defensive and outraged and postured with dignity or "taken the high road" or whatever when she called him a racist. Instead he happily joined the mudslinging and moved the discourse from the presidential campaign to a reality TV battlefield. The rules are different there. Nobody takes a food-fight seriously, but it's fun as hell to watch.

 

Trump knows how to make reality TV a success. Clinton doesn't. Her time was when the media had gatekeepers and she had a talented pitch man out front (Bill). And that time has passed.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

"King on examining candidates' platforms for minorities":

 

[Brant Gaede]

This new style of OL formatting, up and running for quite a while now (4 - 5 months?) has pretty much negated much of the site's value by burying most threads under mega postings on one or two or three only. Back in the primaries this particular thread sometimes was all there was to see unless you went beyond two pages of "Activity." If this is really a problem, I have no idea of anything that could be done. Maybe after the coming (rigged) election things will improve. This is the political year to top them all except, maybe, 1860. (We can't know until we know WWIII won't be a consequence.)

If Trump is elected the electorate will still feel bound to the country politically. If not we're going blue state-red state divide and the country will effectively fragment into three or four parts: west coast, NE coast, upper midwest and everything else. Nobody in Washington, D.C. will retain much if any moral legitimacy.

Personally, I think evil Hillary, if elected, will lack so much support she'll make Obama look like the King of Consensus. She'll probably drop dead or go simply nuts. That will make her veep the prez. WTF is he?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

This new style of OL formatting, up and running for quite a while now (4 - 5 months?) has pretty much negated much of the site's value by burying most threads under mega postings on one or two or three only.

Brant,

Over to the right at top (a little down underneath your name) is a button marked "Unread Content." That only gives you one entry per thread no matter how many new posts are on it.

Burying solved.

Boom!

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Over to the right at top (a little down underneath your name) is a button marked "Unread Content." That only gives you one entry per thread no matter how many new posts are on it.

Burying solved.

Boom!

 

Michael

Buttons! We don't need no stinkin' buttons! I don't have to show you any stinkin' buttons!

--Brant

think I'm happy?

rather be a victim--it feels soooo goooood!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's what happens when a powerful person like Hillary Clinton calls out someone like Alex Jones.

He digs in and makes a shitstorm.

I honestly think she sent a covert warning message to Alex to get him to shut up because of his backstage connections with WikiLeaks, Roger Stone, and so on, but she couched in public as a criticism of Donald Trump. Now the only problem she's got, if there is something to the Clinton Body Count, is how to pull off killing Alex Jones without it coming back on her. I don't think there's time enough before the election without totally blowing her chances to hell. 

I think she misfired this time. I believe Alex's stink is going to sway some independents, not because they love Alex Jones or even take him seriously, but because they are now induced to look at what Alex is saying for the first time. And he seems reasonable in the video below, not at all like the hater with a "dark heart" she made him out to be.

Drudge just mentioned this (screencast from today):

 

The link goes to here:

SPECIAL REPORT: ALEX JONES ASKS HILLARY CLINTON NOT TO KILL HIM
Hillary and Bill Clinton have left a trail of dead bodies amid their ascent to political power
Alex Jones | Infowars.com - August 29, 2016

The following video is at that link:

Alex said in that video that he has no intention of committing suicide. 

The reason he did that is because he has interviewed several whistleblowers over the years who stated on air they had no intention of committing suicide, but then were "suicided" shortly thereafter.

As Rush Limbaugh asked, do you (reader) personally know anyone who died under mysterious circumstances or committed suicide? If you are like most people, you don't know any or know very few.

The Clintons personally knew and associated with a whole lot of such people who are no longer walking the earth. Oodles of 'em. Coincidence? Until a smoking gun is found, coincidence has to be on the table as a possibility. I don't find it plausible, though.

Apropos, I am just as creeped out today as I was when I first saw Hillary's famous laugh-line about Gaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died... yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk..."

People who kill and find it funny are not people I want near me, much less in the White House.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

55 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

The Clintons personally knew and associated with a whole lot of such people who are no longer walking the earth. Oodles of 'em. Coincidence? Until a smoking gun is found, coincidence has to be on the table as a possibility. I don't find it plausible, though.

Michael

Fortunately matters of guilt and innocence of wrong-doing  is settled in court on the basis  of evidence,  not on the basis of hunch or plausibility..

[turkeyfoot]

On 8/26/2016 at 2:15 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The Clintons personally knew and associated with a whole lot of such people who are no longer walking the earth. Oodles of 'em. Coincidence? Until a smoking gun is found, coincidence has to be on the table as a possibility. I don't find it plausible, though.

 

Hesus Christie owe oh we owe oh, owe oh we owe oh. Is there a list of hundreds of people who died suspiciously before leaving the govenorship and literally HUNDREDS MORE who died suspiciously afterwards? I could ONLY find 53.

Am I on OL. OL! 

My favorite expression, You cannot be serious.

Alex should do movie voice overs but nothing will top "In a Woooorld, In A woooorld." Don La Fontaine.

I found this uh connection tenuous. You cant make this up until you realize this lady was the wife of the Solicitor General Ted Olson who, never mind. He actually married a democrat in '06, it literally save his life. ;)

 On September 11, 2001, Barbara Olsondied when the airplane she was flying incrashed into the Pentagon. American Airlines flight 77 was reportedly piloted by a suicidal terrorist whose cohorts financed by Saudi Arabia also crashed planes into the World Trade Center in New York city and in Pennsylvania. Barbara served as the Republican chief counsel for the congressional committee investigating the Clintons’ involvement in Travelgate and Filegate. She also authored two books, “Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” a scathing expose of Hillary Clinton, and “The Final Days: A Behind the Scenes Look at the Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House.”

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't care about this other stuff.

I do care about how this is going to affect the election.

From where I sit, it will gain voters for Trump and lose voters for Clinton.

So let me chime in:

Please, Hillary, don't kill Alex Jones! After all, we are supposed to have free speech in this country...

Outside of that, let's put it this way. If Alex Jones were murdered or committed suicide, I think Hillary Clinton would laugh with glee. I don't think Alex would find it funny if the same happened to her.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Then again, there are those who criticize Alex Jones and his support for Donald Trump.

They think he's foolish:

 

(I just couldn't resist that one.  )

Michael

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

People who read me know I believe the following re this election (besides supporting Trump  ):

1. Alex Jones is an important source for Trump. (This has been proven by Hillary Clinton talking about Alex's "black heart" when she was ranting against Trump.)

2. Sarah Palin is one of the forces behind the Trump force, and she is a strong one at that.

Well lookee here. Sara just posted Alex on Facebook.

The fact that she did this tells me far more than what the article is about.

Maybe she is going to start coming out of the shadows for the rest of the election.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

Make all drugs legal.  It would wipe out the cartels and destroy gang warfare.  End of border problem.

[BaalChatzaf]

13 minutes ago, Jules Troy said:

Make all drugs legal.  It would wipe out the cartels and destroy gang warfare.  End of border problem.

It would also increase the slaughter that already takes place on our highways....