Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Man, this Spirit Cooking thing is giving a whole new dimension to the meaning of the term, "political demonization."

If anyone wants to see more about Spirit Cooking, there's a great Twitter hashtag that is exploding.

#SpiritCooking

For instance, I got the following picture of a delectable Spirit Cook from there.

There are avid Clinton supporters in that hashtag thread switching their votes, asking (about Clinton) "Who is this woman?" and so on.

Let's not forget, if Hillary Clinton wins, Podesta will be in her cabinet.

And so will this stuff.

Michael

[Peter]

Prop·a·gan·da NOUN derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view: "He was charged with distributing enemy propaganda."

In locally produced political ads I detect propaganda if the candidate is touted as being for minorities, women, children, babies, veterans, puppies, and for creating jobs . . . but that job creation is within the government.

One local ad says “she grew her department.” Another guy says when he was a government official it seemed like everybody had a job. What would Milton Friedman say? They are confiscating some people’s money to give to other people and that should be called graft or cronyism. Or even Fascism.

Who will get the jobs? People who are being paid back or who are expected to support the candidate in the future. Who else will profit? Their cronies who get money to create jobs. Who will suffer? The people taxed and those not hired because of their political affiliation.  Friedman would say that this is not only the confiscation of property but overall it creates a net loss to the economy. Fewer jobs will be available overall. Therefor it is propaganda.

Now in contrast a local car dealership owner, I.G. Burton (Dodge, Jeep, Mercedes-Benz, GMC, FIAT, Buick, “Nobody Beats a Burton Deal. NOBODY!”) is saying he will create jobs in Delaware, but he will do it by creating a better environment for business and he will lower taxes. The contrast is amazing. He’s somebody who is telling the truth.

Peter   

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

36 minutes ago, Peter said:

Prop·a·gan·da NOUN derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view: "He was charged with distributing enemy propaganda."

Peter,

I know you weren't talking about the Spirit Cooking thing, but ain't it grand when Hillary Clinton's own people supply the propaganda against them?

The Trump side doesn't have to create anything to demonize them.

They fucking pray to demons and take videos of it.

Michael

[Peter]

I was just listening to Rush and he did not sound enthused about Trump's chances. Not upbeat, not downbeat. Just preparing for the worst while hoping for. . .

I have also noticed how there is nearly zilch coverage of Clinton / Trump policy differences and what each would do to America on NBC, CBS, or ABC. I watched Lester Holt on NBC a couple of days ago and decided I won't watch again for a couple of months. Its selection of stories was propagandistic. I know in depth reporting doesn't attract viewers like "The Big Story" but I am sorry to see the dumbing down of America. I get weary of Fox all the time too but I may be back again after the election. It's the same thing over and over again there.

Peter   

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

32 minutes ago, Peter said:

I was just listening to Rush and he did not sound enthused about Trump's chances. Not upbeat, not downbeat. Just preparing for the worst while hoping for. . .

Peter,

I didn't get that impression.

The impression I got was his drum beat: the polls suck, meaning they don't exist for prediction, but instead for molding public opinion. Now that we are near the election, he has to try to sift through the shit and see what feels real and what feels like spin. It's a nasty job and a morale-killer.

It's not that he doesn't think Trump's chances are not good. (He actually thinks Trump will win due to Trump's bond with his supporters and their enthusiasm. I've heard hammer that point home recently.) It's that he cannot use the polls to predict the outcome--the polls suck as a standard--and that is his focus.

Rush has made no bones about his own choice for president. He's for Trump and he thinks the Never Trumpers who are now supporting Clinton are deeply disappointing.

But prediction-wise, he sits on his opinion. If Trump wins, he can say, "See? I told you the polls suck." And if Trump loses, he can also say, "See? I told you the polls suck."

And, "Clinton sucks either way."

Meanwhile, he keeps his audience...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

On another issue, I think this investigation into the Clinton Foundation by the FBI is more or less a given in the public's mind. I know this is hugely important for Rush and other pundits (and for me), but I don't think the average person who is not tuned into the news cares all that much about the details. It's kinda like, "The Clinton Foundation is being investigated? Duh... What else is new?"

However, I also think that kind of person is going to be completely grossed out and horrified by the demon stuff. Even folks who are not practicing Christians (or other religions) will take pause about electing a dark arts person. Here in O-Land, we don't see it too clearly, but believe me, your average middle class family in middle America will not tolerate that.

I'm just waiting for the first mainstream venue to cover this. Social media is going apeshit over it. Once the first mainstream program does it, the others will follow for no other reason than the ratings.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Expect this video by Paul Joseph Watson (released just minutes ago) about Podesta and the occult to go viral.

Man, is this going to get a whole buttload of your average religious people motivated to get to the polls on Tuesday.

Don't forget, Sunday is church day. I wonder what the sermons are going to be like across America this Sunday...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Expect this video by Paul Joseph Watson (released just minutes ago) about Podesta and the occult to go viral.

I just took a screenshot of Paul Joseph Watson's YouTube channel. See for yourself.

At the moment of the screenshot, the video had only been available to the public for 41 minutes. There were already 22,509 views (including a view by me  ).

I predict this is going to be one of his most viewed videos of all time (his most viewed video on the YT channel has 11.5 million views).

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The crack opens (from Ricochet).

An Open Letter to the NeverTrumpers from a Sympathizer
by Paul A. Rahe

This guy is a Never Trumper. He is now giving a moral sanction to the Never Trumpers so they can vote for Trump.

His article has a simple outline:

1. Trump is horrible (small list of beefs).
2. Clinton is far worse (long list of beefs).
3. The choice is the lesser of two evils, with one of the evils (Clinton) being too much of a danger to tolerate. So they must hold their noses and give it up for Trump.
4. Trump might do some good in office.
5. Snarl snarl...

I'll take the Never Trumper votes, but it's not going to be free.

This guy basically said Clinton was worse than death and listed why. Well is he stupid or just playing political games? There's not one thing on his list he was unaware of all during the heyday of Never Trumper grandstanding after the conventions. So was he playing us back then or is he playing us now? 

In my view, he's hollering, "Uncle!" and trying to play us now.

If it looked like Clinton would win, I have no doubt he would be singing a different tune, talking about how principled he was and saying, "I told you so." Then he would get busy jockeying for control of the Republican party.

Now it looks like he won't have a seat at the table, not now nor in the future, unless he gets on board. So he's getting on board. Where the hell did his principles go?

Big frigging group hug for this jerk.

I'll take his goddam vote.

But nothing else.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm just waiting for the first mainstream venue to cover this. Social media is going apeshit over it. Once the first mainstream program does it, the others will follow for no other reason than the ratings.

One down, albeit not yet on broadcast. Just now from Lifezette:

WikiLeaks: Clinton Campaign Chair Participated in Occult Magic
Emails reveal Podesta attended 'Spirit Cooking' event that has been described as Satanic

Lifezette is Laura Ingraham's thing. She didn't write the article, but she tweeted about it.

WikiLeaks: Clinton Campaign Chair Participated in Occult Magic https://t.co/HC5SK6IZCh via @LifeZette

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) November 4, 2016

I'm a bit concerned that all mention of this has dropped from Drudge, but I imagine this is due to an emergency injunction from the courts. He did what he had to do, though. Neither Podesta, Clinton or the DNC donors have enough money to silence everybody on the Internet.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I've never seen Obama lose control of his crowd like this:

Things are cookin'...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I've never seen Obama lose control of his crowd like this:

Things are cookin'...

Michael

Who was he talking about?  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Who was he talking about?  

Bob,

Protestor.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Podesta No. 30:

RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 30 #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails30 #HillaryClinton #imWithHer https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm pic.twitter.com/gsLwYQcQRz

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 4, 2016

Man, this is getting tiring...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

43 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm a bit concerned that all mention of this has dropped from Drudge, but I imagine this is due to an emergency injunction from the courts. He did what he had to do, though. Neither Podesta, Clinton or the DNC donors have enough money to silence everybody on the Internet.

This is no longer on the Breitbart site, either.

It must be a good season for lawyers.

 

Michael

[Peter]

Hello, I’m Donald Trump and I want to be your next President. Oh. The teleprompter is saying I should start with a joke. OK. I was at a yard sale on my way to speak in Orlando, and I bought an authenticated manuscript of “Death of a Salesman.” Yeah, folks. It was a Miller Genuine Draft. Baboom! Wow, that sound affect was loud. I’m glad I am not a paid strategist working for Trump Enterprises. You have to get me to win or you don’t get paid. I’m kidding, I’m kidding . . . sit back down, Kellyanne and Katrina. Enough of the jokes. How should the next few days be handled? Softball? Go to places and talk, let the various Clinton scandals percolate or go hard ball like the following?   

AchillesRB wrote to objectivism  atwetheliving on 4/25/2005. Here is my favorite quote of 2005 (so far): Liberals “are people who believe you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and ‘pronounce that a Constitutional right has just been exercised.’ That really says it all. You don't want such people to like you.” -- Ann Coulter as quoted by John Cloud in Time magazine, 4/25/05. end quote

Wow. Ann can drive it home, can’t she? And she looks good too. Or I could bring up that cannibalism and witchcraft Podesta story, but it might be a fake and it grosses me out. So, I will keep plugging away with the slow pitches and hope the people are watching something other than the lame stream media. Our great nation’s future is at stake. The teleprompter is saying I should end with another joke. Do you have that drum sound effect ready? OK. Remember the 60’s or remember reading about them? What do you call the Hippy Movement? The hula. Baboom! Good night, everybody. Go vote. And drive safely.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Man, is this going to get a whole buttload of your average religious people motivated to get to the polls on Tuesday.

Don't forget, Sunday is church day. I wonder what the sermons are going to be like across America this Sunday...

Looks like it's going to get worse before it gets better, too.

Hillary and Huma are big buddies with the creepy Spirit Cooking lady.

You know the preachers across America are going to be asking what they are cooking together.

Hillary and Huma meeting with #SpiritCooking Marina? pic.twitter.com/cMlNOKyTGa

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 5, 2016

Michael

[Peter]

Fox’s Bret Baier was speculating convincingly tonight that there could be a tie in the electoral college vote of 269 to 269. He ran down the exact combinations but I was not taking notes.Then it would go to the House of Representatives to decide and the VP selection would go to the Senate. But so many Republicans are “Never Trumpers. ” So, is it a sure thing Trump will be selected? And would the Senate support Kaine or Pence? What are the odds of a split ticket, or of Hillary Clinton winning in the House? How many Republican Representatives would abstain rather than vote for Trump?

Peter

Notes. From Kansas City’s KCTV CBS News on channel 5.

How likely is it we actually get a tie? The total number of electoral votes is 538, so 270 are needed to win. A tie is incredibly unlikely, but it has happened - in the movies and on TV. It happened in the Kevin Costner movie Swing Vote (he actually needed to break a state-wide tie that would resolve the election) and in the HBO show Veep.

How does that get resolved? The House of Representatives votes among the top three vote-getters, but rather than being a straight vote of every representative, each state's representatives caucus, then collectively cast one vote per state - which means Alaska, with three members of its congressional caucus, would have the same amount of power as California, with 55,  The Senate will vote for the vice president, among the top two vote-getters. The 12th Amendment implies only electoral college votes matter in determining the top three.

We have 50 states and 100 senators, so that vote could end in a tie, too, right? Yes.

Well, then what happens? If the House ties, whoever the Senate elects as vice president will become president until the House can break its tie. If both the House and Senate tie, the sitting speaker of the House becomes president, until either chamber can break its tie. (The vice president can break a Senate tie on general votes, but the Constitution requires a majority of senators to elect the vice president, so it's unclear if the sitting vice president would be allowed to break that tie.)

Has any of this ever happened? A tie has happened, but not in terms of electoral votes. In 1800, the Electoral College tied on its official vote. Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, but when the Electoral College voted, Jefferson tied with Aaron Burr. Jefferson was supposed to be president and Burr vice president but both received the same number of votes. It went to the House of Representatives, which voted more than 30 times before naming Jefferson president. (This can no longer happen. Back then, they voted for two people as president and whoever had the most votes was president and the No. 2 vote-getter was vice president. As a result of this election, the 12th Amendment was passed separating the official votes for president and vice president.)

In 1824, Andrew Jackson had the most votes with 99, but 131 were needed to win. The House of Representatives elected John Quincy Adams in what Jackson termed the "corrupt bargain."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Peter said:

Fox’s Bret Baier was speculating convincingly tonight that there could be a tie in the electoral college vote of 269 to 269.

Peter,

What happened to all those people Fox (and other channels) interviewed over and over and over a short time ago who said the election was over? That Trump had no path to winning in the Electoral College? Jeez, you couldn't turn on TV news anywhere without someone saying that...

What happened?

   

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And here we go for another daily dose of Podesta.

Podesta No. 31:

RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 31 #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails31 #HillaryClinton #imWithHer https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm pic.twitter.com/nTBT5I3YZk

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 5, 2016

Drip... drip... drip...

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Illery obviously cannot become President through the House of Reps. Donald, however, could but it would tremendously weaken his presidency, at least out of the box.

Illery would be such a weak President regardless. Out of the box and in the box she'll never get out of. Claims of voter fraud and media corruption would helm her in--and that's without all Her and His previous criminality. The country would divide, seriously--so far it's only a little, into red and blue states. What's characteristic of the red states is they mostly clump together while the blue states are west coast, north-east coast and upper mid west.

--Brant

America elects a criminal?

I have spoken--no need for further posts on this thread

[Brant Gaede]

If we're having fun now will we have more or less or just different fun after the election?

--Brant

(more posts are okay if it's me posting)

[9thdoctor]

28 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

What happened to all those people Fox (and other channels) interviewed over and over and over a short time ago who said the election was over? That Trump had no path to winning in the Electoral College? Jeez, you couldn't turn on TV news anywhere without someone saying that...

What happened?

   

Michael

Let's not forget certain people were confident Romney had it in the bag in the week before election day in 2012. 

BTW, on the topic of Electoral ties, looks like we'll have at least one "faithless elector":

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/05/washington-state-elector-says-wont-vote-for-clinton.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a discussion between Stefan Molyneux, Mike Cernovich and Vox Day that is surprisingly good in keeping to the facts.

I'm only at the 15 minute mark and I like it. These guys are correcting each other as they go along.

I'm very interested in the part they are discussing where the FBI cannot call a Grand Jury without approval from the DOJ, but the New York Police Department can. This fact is causing an enormous amount of tension and backstage negotiating right now.

Also, Anonymous is threatening to drop Epstein's videos of the Lolita Express (featuring Bill and Hillary and all their peeps) if law enforcement does not get on its gig. And if pedophilia is actually on those tapes, all hell will break loose.

These three guys are discussing the gross Spirit Cooking stuff, but they are also discussing everything around it, the full context.

This is one of the better videos coming out of Molyneux I've seen so far. Of the three guys, I like Vox Day's comments the best. I hope the rest of this video is as good as the 15 minutes I've already seen.

EDIT: About 25 minutes in, this discussion is taking a religious turn that might not resonate with a predominantly atheistic audience. Vox Day started talking about why he is a Christian. For non-religious people, this is still worth watching, but you will need a grain of salt for that part.

EDIT 2: I saw the whole thing. Vox Day is the Christian. The other two are not. Despite the dark nature of what they discussed, I loved the respect they showed each other. They "made room" intellectually for each other and asked each other to share their perspectives on what the evil means that is appalling everyone right now.

Michael

[Peter]

If anyone has some good, “nearly a sure thing” news, let us know! Spirit cooking and Bill Clinton’s teen dalliances are not breaking through the news to affect the vote as of yet, and may never. Tuesday evening is shaping up to be bigger than a nighttime football game, with beer booze and popcorn. Latest analyses says it could be gloomy for some by nine and crying time by 10 pm. I worry about an undecided Florida by the time I go to bed. Go team Trump!

But my biggest worry is not a last minute November surprise but the voter turnout. Last night a lot of pundits were lauding the Hillary ground game and despairing at Trump’s lack of a ground game . . . and I worry about Republican Never Trumper’s not voting. If the Never Trumper’s ever wanted to wound their party and the Country in the biggest way imaginable, it would be by allowing Hillary to win. If their agenda is anyone but Trump the consequence of their actions could also be a lost Senate and House in 2016 or 2020, and several picks at the Supreme Court which will be a noose around America’s neck for generations.

I would like to see a group composed of people like John McCain and Wisconsin’s Governor Walker giving a spirited last minute urging and boosterism to vote Republican, that appeals to our patriotism.

Peter     

Notes. Yippie! Trump should win in New Hampshire!

Real Clear Politics electoral map: Clinton 216, Trump 164, 158 are a tossup.

What is currently and realistically winnable for the guys in the white hats? Trump can pick up Florida 29, Ohio 18, New Hampshire 4, Maine (1), North Carolina 15, Georgia 16, Nevada 6, Arizona 11, Iowa 6 and that equals 106,

Then 164 plus 106 equals 270.

Clinton is only ahead by 2.5 in Pennsylvania and that is why so much Democrat "get out the vote emphasis" has been in the tribal areas of Philadelphia. She still could lose Penn. Clinton is winning by a small margin in Colorado, and could lose there, (which I did not count for Trump either) but she is currently ahead in Florida by 1.2 percent on average (which I did count for Donald) so her path to victory is more probable than Trump’s. Trump must win Florida.

What else is out there? In Michigan Trump is 4 down. In Wisconsin 5.5. In Minnesota 6. New Mexico 6.6, Penn by 2.5 etc., so forgetaboutit. Penn looks like it almost should be in the tossup column as of now.

The RCP no toss up state map shows Clinton / Kaine with 297 to Trump / Pence with 241.