Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 If done right, this thing is going to hit President Obama hard, not just Hillary Clinton. And I think they are going to do it right. At least they are doing it right so far. 'Dem Operative Who Oversaw Trump Rally Agitators Visited White House 342 Times' #DrainTheSwamp https://t.co/MO4SJaQMzo— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 19, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 btw - For those who want a steady stream of Trump support, that Twitter hashtag Trump mentioned is a great one to keep an eye on: #DrainTheSwamp Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Thank goodness Rush Limbaugh is sending this to his audience. Villain of the O'Keefe Videos Visited the White House 340 Times From the transcript: It turns out that this guy who oversaw the Trump rally agitators visited the White House 342 times and had something like 47 person-to-person meetings with Obama. That's all you really need to know. The fish rots from the head on down. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Trump's own opinion of the debate: That was really exciting. Made all of my points. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016 I agree. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 I swear, I like these kids from TYT. Look what they are doing right after the debate. I hate their political orientation, but I like their guts and refusal to accept spin for fact. Once Trump wins, I hope they hold his feet--and the feet of his administration--to the fire like this, too. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 btw - As a comment from me, Hillary Clinton said in the debate if she wins, she is going to create the job of "Trade Prosecutor." Sounds Randian to me... Maybe Clinton could create it when she issues Directive 10-289... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Chris Wallace asked Trump if he would accept the results if he loses in November. Trump would not commit. He said he'd take a look at it. This is going to be the headlines all tomorrow. Two things to think about here: 1. Wallace's question was heard by many, many people (including me) as: If the Clinton machine and the establishment cheat a crap-load in this election, will you roll over, accept defeat and pretend they didn't? 2. Ann Coulter said it better than I was thinking of saying it: Trump was obsessively asked if he'd pledge to support the GOP nominee. He agreed. They betrayed him.— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) October 20, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Kellyanne is obviously rooting for Trump, but I believe this is accurate: Hearing privately from many reporters that Hillary had a "terrible night" & Trump had best debate. Hope this will make it into print, on air— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) October 20, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 I thought Trump did well. Then my wife said she thought Hillary was very good, a better speaker and articulated her points better. I said "she is a polished liar, years of practice", wife says "she sounds better, I don't like anything about Trump". It doesn't matter because we are in California. But I'm still depressed. Can't sleep. Fuck it all. I'm thinking so few people will pay any attention to all the real dirt being released by wikileaks and the videos of O'Keefe that the proof of corruption will make no difference. "She sounds good"...and besides "Roe v Wade". They've been playing that dead issue for decades. I tell my wife, it's a dead issue, no one seriously thinks the right of a women to abort a fetus is going to be taken away, but people who think it's immoral shouldn't have to pay for it. That's immoral. This is a deal killer for a great many people. That and all the other entitlements and the cheating, I think the game is lost. Is it possible the dems rigged the republican primary so Trump would be the opponent for Hillary? I read that she wanted to run against him, that they planned a run against Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Mike, Don't listen to the media. We are blessed to have an Internet where we can get traces of hard data. We are TOLD BY OTHERS that polling data is accurate, but we have no way to control it. We have to take it on faith. So we listen to a bunch of people say it's accurate and we think they all couldn't be wrong or lying. But what if you had a way to look at something very accurate? The first is obvious. Just look at the videos of rallies. Trump rallies fill stadiums. Day after day after day. Clinton rallies attract flies with an exception here and there. Oh, there's a media myth that says this means nothing, but that's based on other contexts and few rallies. In Trump's case, it's one after another and it's been that way for awhile. Also, there are women galore at his rallies. But here's a very interesting place to look. 1. Go to Amazon and select the Kindle category. 2. Type in the name Clinton in the search field. 3. Notice how many books are pro-Clinton and how many are anti-Clinton. I get 3 pro-Clinton, and 13 anti-Clinton on the first page of results. Let's not forget that Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, is in the tank for Clinton. He owns the Washington Post, so if he can help things along for Clinton at Amazon, it's very likely he will do exactly that. But he doesn't write the books that sell. He can only push the ones that are written. Kindle is very good for getting hard data because nobody can buy more than one Kindle ebook of the same kind. The only way to buy a second copy of the same ebook is to get a different device on a different Amazon account. That makes it very hard to spike the numbers. So let's see some sales numbers. 4. Open the first Kindle book under this Clinton search. It should be Stronger Together and sell for $4.99. 5. Scroll down to "Amazon Best Sellers Rank." The number I get right now is "#16,950 Paid in Kindle Store." So what does that mean? Fortunately there are programs that can help us. For example, this one: Amazon Sales Rank Calculator 6. Type 16950 in the Amazon Sales Rank Calculator field and click on the "Click Here" button. I see that Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, despite over 2,700 reviews, are selling about 13 Kindle ebooks a day. That's right. 13 ebooks at $4.99. They are making $65.00 a day off this ebook and it's featured by Amazon, meaning it's the first book you see. Now do this for the other Clinton books. The next one, Crisis of Character, is selling 104 ebooks a day at $13.99. Guilty as Sin is selling 168 ebooks a day at $15.87. Clinton Cash is selling 16 ebooks a day at $11.99. And so on. Think about it. How many expensive ebooks are people buying against Clinton as opposed to how few at a cheap price for her? That's hard data. A great assumption is that people who buy books will turn out to vote. And Clinton supporters who won't even buy her book at $5 are not motivated. There are other things to look at, too. So don't let the anxiety kill you. Now that the debates are done, WikiLeaks will continue the drip drip drip. James O'Keefe promises a different video each day. From the FBI leak, it looks like actual government employees are going to be dripping out stuff. The National Enquirer is being ignored right now, but you can bet it is flying off the shelves. And after a sales run of a few days, you can be sure other media will start reporting on it. Danney Williams is filing a paternity suit in court against Bill Clinton. Let's just say the really good stuff has not come out yet. Like Rush Limbaugh says, you can start looking at the corporate polls and media about 5 days before the election, around Nov. 3. About five days before that, you will start to hear the media pundits say there is "something out there" that they have never seen before. A movement of some sort. Yada yada yada... They will be setting up the change in the polls to reflect reality. They all peg their reputations to being right a few days before the election. They will make excuses for everything else. They can't excuse being wildly off near the election. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Chris Wallace asked Trump if he would accept the results if he loses in November. Trump would not commit. He said he'd take a look at it. For Randians, Chris Wallace was practicing Sanction of the Victim. His framing made it clear that he wanted Trump's sanction even if everyone cheats. Trump refused that sanction and did not discuss it. In other words, Trump made it clear that his own morality is not open to discussion or bargaining and he does not accept cheating as a proper form of election practice. Most Trump supporters know if he loses fair and square, he will concede. But if anyone wants to see what rejecting Sanction of the Victim looks like in reality--and before the entire world, at that--Donald Trump just gave a stellar example. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: For Randians, Chris Wallace was practicing Sanction of the Victim. His framing made it clear that he wanted Trump's sanction even if everyone cheats. Trump refused that sanction and did not discuss it. In other words, Trump made it clear that his own morality is not open to discussion or bargaining and he does not accept cheating as a proper form of election practice. Most Trump supporters know if he loses fair and square, he will concede. But if anyone wants to see what rejecting Sanction of the Victim looks like in reality--and before the entire world, at that--Donald Trump just gave a stellar example. Michael Concession of the election results is NOT a legal requirement. In each State there is an official who will certify the populate and electoral vote of his/her State. That Decision is finals subject to modification by actions brought in the courts. The most Trump could do is to tie up the election until next year with law suits . Provided the courts will hear them (unlikely) the outcome will be decided in the Senate and the House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: Concession of the election results is NOT a legal requirement. Bob, Sanction of the Victim is a moral principle, a spiritual one. Not a legal one. (The idea is: Why conquer with guns when you can get a person to deliver his soul to you on a silver platter?) Since you claim you have no mind, you obviously have no soul (not even in the Randian sense). So Sanction of the Victim discussions kinda fall outside your area of relevance. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 This is a pretty good montage of the phony outrage right now. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Meanwhile, back at the farm, this is what is going on in the backroom of the barn: WIKILEAKS: Podesta Says It’s OK for Illegals to Vote With Driver’s License…. California here I come... Right back where I didn't start from... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: For Randians, Chris Wallace was practicing Sanction of the Victim. His framing made it clear that he wanted Trump's sanction even if everyone cheats. Trump refused that sanction and did not discuss it. In other words, Trump made it clear that his own morality is not open to discussion or bargaining and he does not accept cheating as a proper form of election practice. Most Trump supporters know if he loses fair and square, he will concede. But if anyone wants to see what rejecting Sanction of the Victim looks like in reality--and before the entire world, at that--Donald Trump just gave a stellar example. Michael I thought that was one of his strongest moments where his own affirmation of the sovereignty of the individual American really shined through. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Wow! Last night I made the rounds to vote on who won the debate. Did you know that Breitbart readers believed Hillary Clinton won the debate hands down? There were figures like 70% for Clinton to 30% for Trump with about 50,000 people voting. Man, those Breitbart folks must have been seeing the light... Who knows, maybe Bannon will quit Trump's campaign and hang his head in shame... Now it's getting back to reality (see here) and Trump is winning because Trump supporters are finding the poll. That Hillary spam-bot machine is good, though. Too bad it doesn't know how to pace itself. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 9 hours ago, Mikee said: I thought Trump did well. Then my wife said she thought Hillary was very good, a better speaker and articulated her points better. I said "she is a polished liar, years of practice", wife says "she sounds better, I don't like anything about Trump". It doesn't matter because we are in California. But I'm still depressed. Can't sleep. Fuck it all. I'm thinking so few people will pay any attention to all the real dirt being released by wikileaks and the videos of O'Keefe that the proof of corruption will make no difference. "She sounds good"...and besides "Roe v Wade". They've been playing that dead issue for decades. I tell my wife, it's a dead issue, no one seriously thinks the right of a women to abort a fetus is going to be taken away, but people who think it's immoral shouldn't have to pay for it. That's immoral. This is a deal killer for a great many people. That and all the other entitlements and the cheating, I think the game is lost. Is it possible the dems rigged the republican primary so Trump would be the opponent for Hillary? I read that she wanted to run against him, that they planned a run against Trump. Hey Mike, It's normal for women to be more liberal than men. Making personal allowances for this is what makes for a happy marriage. No matter who wins the election only one fact remains: People ALWAYS get the government they deserve. This election is one of the most historically pivotal political events in our lifetimes... and we are getting to witness it first hand. Man, that's real entertainment! Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 11 hours ago, Mikee said: I thought Trump did well. Then my wife said she thought Hillary was very good, a better speaker and articulated her points better. I said "she is a polished liar, years of practice", wife says "she sounds better, I don't like anything about Trump". It doesn't matter because we are in California. But I'm still depressed. Can't sleep. Fuck it all. I'm thinking so few people will pay any attention to all the real dirt being released by wikileaks and the videos of O'Keefe that the proof of corruption will make no difference. "She sounds good"...and besides "Roe v Wade". They've been playing that dead issue for decades. I tell my wife, it's a dead issue, no one seriously thinks the right of a women to abort a fetus is going to be taken away, but people who think it's immoral shouldn't have to pay for it. That's immoral. This is a deal killer for a great many people. That and all the other entitlements and the cheating, I think the game is lost. Is it possible the dems rigged the republican primary so Trump would be the opponent for Hillary? I read that she wanted to run against him, that they planned a run against Trump. Your wife is right. She is a professional speaker, and obviously articulates better than Trump. If a person is listening to the delivery and not the ideas its a fair assumption she does better speaking in public. She also did better at glad handing after the performance. I used to judge politicians on those superficialities. I identify with the bluesy feelings. But I will bank a Trump win as a repudiation of Clintons' principles even though the reality that voters dont understand their morality is involved is more likely the reality. If Clinton wins perhaps Congress will mitigate. Im still recovering from the unread ACA legislation. Fuckitall was my tell tale condition for which seconall might have been prescribed though not as a remedial. Im already planning for dismal post election results and it will be a time for me to take up old hobbies and passions, guitar and drawing. I dont think I could summon up enough emotional gumption if the wifey took an altogether opposite position. Shes kind of religious but we dont tread there because she doesnt wear it on her sleeves. Rigging on the level you suggest is preposterous. Although I heard Soros has a stake in the voting machines in 19 states. ;) Hang in there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Turkeyfoot wrote about Old Hickory Clinton: Your wife is right. She is a professional speaker, and obviously articulates better than Trump . . . I’m already planning for dismal post election results. end quote Not yet fella. It ain’t Thanksgiving yet! Would this election be more pivotal if Rand Paul or Ted Cruz had won the Republican nomination? Perhaps, but would they have been more likely to win the general election? I don’t think so. Of course Cruz could have artfully spun free market economy and political ideology better than anyone . . . except for some of the more philosophically minded at OL, AS, or ARI. Cruz would be tremendous but some here at OL might have / maybe have, done a better job, but that is nitpicking. If we analyze and combine the entertainment value and possibility of “real change,” then Donald Trump is the man of the hour. I think Trump could more successfully fight the Republican establishment after winning the election . . . more so than Rand Paul or Ted Cruz who would be more prone to compromise. Flaws and all, let us help Trump to win, and then to govern successfully. Which stances might a President Trump lose with a Republican Congress to back him up? He will have an uphill battle with replacing Obamacare (in the form he would like,) trade and treaties, all versions of *pork*, or the use of force in retaliation that exceeds a certain level (of troop involvement, what location, destructiveness, and time spent winning.) So. How do WE win? That first. Then, let us meet back here on Wednesday, November 9th, to discuss how can we help the President to govern. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Bob, Sanction of the Victim is a moral principle, a spiritual one. Not a legal one. (The idea is: Why conquer with guns when you can get a person to deliver his soul to you on a silver platter?) Since you claim you have no mind, you obviously have no soul (not even in the Randian sense). So Sanction of the Victim discussions kinda fall outside your area of relevance. Michael I am not following you here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Trump made a major announcement in an Ohio rally today about accepting the election results. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 How can Hillary Clinton be such a dumbass? Milo's picture covers part of the text. It reads: 4 minute response time? Thanks Hillary! Dayaamm! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Podesta No. 13. RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 13 https://t.co/wzxeh7hZLU #HillaryClinton #imWithHer #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails13— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 20, 2016 Drip... drip... drip... btw - That's truth dripping, not the toady mainstream media. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 54 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: How can Hillary Clinton be such a dumbass? Milo's picture covers part of the text. It reads: 4 minute response time? Thanks Hillary! Dayaamm! Michael I recognized the number when she said it, it's not classified info: http://www.snopes.com/clinton-four-minute-nuclear/ No, @HillaryClinton did not reveal any secret about how quickly we can launch ?. This is widely known, often cited. https://t.co/3z2VQEUlDm— Joe Cirincione (@Cirincione) October 20, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now