This is why Trump keeps on winning

I am being won over by Trump for a number of reasons.

It has been a reluctant conversion. Mainly because I think he is a bit of a blowhard and promises too much, that I honestly do not think he has a hope of delivering on.

What got me on side was two things his style of trolling crap out of people that try to subdue him and making them freak out, and secondly, his ability to upset the kinds of people I do not like. The perpetually outraged, politically-correct, virtue signalling moral arbiters and social justice warriors. The media was against him and I liked seeing him owning them.

I found myself sticking up for him when people were misrepresenting him. I watched each poll and cheered when he won and sighed when he lost.

But he still had not won me over.

Another thing in his favour is how much better he was to his opposition. It was easier barracking for him without him being the best pick of the three candidates. Him, Hillary or Bernie. A criminal and a social vs a businessman.

But going from best of a bad lot to more of a fan required something a bit more.

In challenging the social justice warriors and media narratives of him (normally edited and misrepresented) I found myself thinking about his policies so much more.

Is there a problem with Mexican illegal immigration in America (and no I am not going to entertain the fact that he either said or meant that all Mexicans – illegal or legal – because it is a dishonest narrative)? Yes. Will build a wall prevent the majority of illegal immigrants? Yes. Will the follow on effects be better for America? Probably. Its certainly a rational and logical conclusion.

Is there some really big problems with open border policies in Europe? Is a lot of the recent issues in Cologne, in Paris, in Brussels as a result of radicalised Muslims and has this been caused through mass and poorly vetted immigration from Muslim dominated countries? I know that feelings can get in the way of logic and reason here but it must be. Was that same ideology behind the San Bernardino attacks or the Orlando attacks? Will Hillary/Obama’s plans to increase Muslim immigration by 500% be better than Donald trump’s plan of stopping Muslim immigration?

Is tough trade deals a good or a bad thing? Are other countries taking advantage of America? I have no idea. IF it is true then Trump is probably making sense again.

None of these things are homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, racist or any of the other bigotries the leftist monkey organ likes to spew.

Now we could rightfully ask the question, does Donald trump have a decent chance to do the things he is wanting to do? Even with the power of the Presidency will he have the ability to make such broad sweeping changes and will it have the impact he is after if he does make them? I honestly do not know but I believe the sincerity of everything he says. He says he is “Gonna build a wall and have Mexico pay for it”. I don’t care if he can or not. I think he believes it and I believe he will do all he can to make it happen. It becomes easy to compare even these things. Would you prefer someone who is trying to pull out stops to reduce the volume of non-citizens illegally entering the country and the various problems associated with this? Or do you want someone who refuses to address it in any way.

Furthermore, I think of the fact that the massacre at Pulse nightclub was on Latin night. I am wondering whether the gay community and the Hispanic gay community and all Americans with gay and Hispanic friends and family could take seriously Hillary Clinton who tries to make this another “gun issue” and has to be pushed into even acknowledging the obvious radical Islamic connection. In some radicalised Islamic countries gays are thrown from rooftops by radical Muslims and so why would a radical Muslim not hold the gay community in such low disregard. She KNOWS what is happening with these radical Islamic immigrant elements in Europe and she is happy to treat the issue as a gun problem (other feminists are trying the “toxic masculinity” trope) and is happy to quintuple the Muslim immigration rates. Only Donald Trump, the man pilloried by the Hispanics and gays alike for being so divisive and sexist and racist and homophobic, is prepared to say “This is bad and its dangerous and we do not want the problems of Europe here in America. We do not want to increase risk by not properly controlling immigration and allowing people like the San Bernardino and Orlando zealots to slip through the cracks”. Reducing Muslim immigration would help in this regard. Placing a freeze on it would be better. increasing Muslim immigration by 500% is not going to do this.

Again it is not racist. Protecting American citizens from future attacks is not a bad thing. “What about the Muslims that are already in America?”. What about them? Him making a decision does not retroactively change the past. It no more changes the status of a Muslim immigrant settled in America than changes the events of these horrible tragedies.

The Judge Curiel case he has got ground to suspect that the Judge MAY (operative word) a little impartial and bias. Unfortunately Trump has done another Trump kind of thing and done himself no favours. The Judge HAS made some terrible decisions. The Judge DID have some questionable associations if one is looking at whether he could possibly be at all biased. Does that mean he IS biased? No. Does that mean IF he WAS biased it was BECAUSE of his ethnicity? Short answer is “Yes”. But it is a bit more involved. I had about half the story from my own looking into it and it certainly seemed reasonable to asked the question on all I could see. Donald Trump knew a lot more than me about it. Did he share it all? Nope. He talks in a collection of soundbytes and doesn’t give the full story or big picture. He mentioned the judge made some “bad decisions”. That means nothing to anyone. (I looked into some of the decision and , DAMN!) He said the Judge could be biased because “he was Mexican”. I mean this is red rag to a bull kind of stuff. He also mentioned the judge had some associations but again did not expand on this and it was after the Mexican statement. Of course it was conveniently dropped and everyone rounded on him for being racist.

Whilst I really could expand on why this there is grounds on the Judge recusing himself, this guy does a better job than I could ever do. What trump said again was completely reasonable.

It is again, a constant theme. He is allowed to be attacked. That is perfectly fine BUT should he fight back he is a bigot. If Rosie O’Donnell or Megan Kelly want to attack him then he can’t fight back because he is sexist if he does.

If he is being hard done by the Judge Curiel then him bringing attention to this is because he is racist.

If he fights hard against his other Republican contenders in the primary race he is a bully.

No. Enough of all of this. His policies are good and his want to fight back is fine. I say he should do more of it. In the press. Against the Liberal and Conservative haters. No matter what they identify with. He should try to implement these policies of his and should push his message of border and economic security for America.

I can put up with his foot in mouth moments because he has more substance than Hillary. Hillary has nothing to offer and will only hurt America. People are waking up. He keeps winning. He will keep winning.

 

Advertisements

Damn Hillary – Found in the comment section

This is from Hunter Brooks a commenter in the comment section

Full credit to Hunter Brooks.

Spread this far and wide people.

The law says that no one has to use email, but it is a crime (18 U.S.C. section 1519) to destroy even one message to prevent it from being subpoenaed. Prosecutors charging someone with obstruction don’t even have to establish that any investigation was pending or under way when the deletion took place.

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the prosecutor “need only prove that the defendant shredded the documents, at least in part, to make life more difficult for future investigators, if and when they eventually appear.”

Legal commentators call this “anticipatory obstruction of justice,” and the law punishes it with up to 20 years imprisonment. The burden of proof is light. The Justice Department manual advises that section 1519 makes prosecution much easier because it covers “any matters” or “’in relation to or contemplation of’ any matters.” It adds, “No corrupt persuasion is required.”

Other problems for the scandal queen was to immediately turn over ALL the docs and emails when leaving office – she never did until the courts made her…3 years later

Unsecured Server – NEVER using a GOV secured device

Classified and Top Security Docs stored in unsecured server

The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.

FOIA is designed to “improve public access to agency records and information.”

The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained “by the agency,” that they should be “readily found” and that the records must “make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress.”

Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. “Knowingly” removing or housing classified information at an “unauthorized location” is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

The Federal Records Act
Clinton did not use an official government secure email account while serving as the country’s top diplomat. Instead, she used a private email account and kept all of her emails on a private server in her home to fly under the DC radar. SO noone would know whats shes doing as a head of state.

and MAYBE you should research The clintons taking in hundreds of millions with their pay for favors = Clinton TAX FREE Scam Foundation is all ok -Influence peddling to money laundering = Corrupt

There are many problems with the Clinton charity and ethics. In fact, the Clinton Foundation is so unlike a real charity that even charity watchdog group Charity Navigator refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because of its “atypical business model.”

One of those problems is the fact that the Clintons put big donors and close pals on the board for reasons that are hard to fathom. In fact, at least four of these “board members” have either been charged or convicted of serious financial irregularities, crimes including bribery and fraud and they help run the foundation?. Having a Code of Ethics is not in the Clinton’s scandal queens past which proves the Clintons dishonest character.

The Clinton Foundation has raised more than 2 Billion of TAX FREE Dollars and is a money machine “a cash cow” to hide the money the Clintons take in from wall street, special interest groups, lobbyist, oil, tech, pharm companies and even foreign Governments even while she was head of state.

Partial list

Overall foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative jumped 73% to just over $102 million from 2013 to 2014, the period when Hillary Clinton was prepping her run for the presidency.

Last February, the Wall Street Journal identified “at least 60 Companies that lobbied the State Department during (Hillary Clinton’s) tenure (which) donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation.”

Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.

Silicon Valley giant Cisco was the biggest foundation contributor nominated in 2009, giving the Clinton charity between $1 million and $5 million. The company then won the award in 2010 when eight of the 12 finalists and two of the three winners had donated to the foundation.

The other Clinton contributor to win that year, candy-maker Mars, Inc., had given between $25,000 and $50,000.

Coca-Cola was the most generous foundation donor to be honored as a finalist in 2010, giving a $5-10 million donation.

Tiger Machinery, a 2011 finalist, is the Russian dealer of Caterpillar, Inc. tractors and other heavy equipment. Caterpillar gave between $1,000 and $5,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Intel, another Silicon Valley giant, was nominated for an award each year of Clinton’s time in office, winning the award in 2012. The technology company donated between $250,000 and $500,000.

Five of the eight finalists and one of the two winners were foundation donors in 2012. A finalist that year, Esso Angola, is an international subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil, a prolific contributor to the Clinton Foundation. Exxon-Mobil gave between $1 million and $5 million.

Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.

Each of the companies listed appear to have made at least a portion of their donations before 2013. However, the Clinton Foundation’s vague listings prevent a more thorough review.

Saudi Arabia has donated between $10 and $25 million, with the most recent contribution coming in 2014. Other unspecified donations have come from the state of Qatar, Kuwait, and the Sultanate of Oman, some of which, as reported by the Washington Post, were made while Clinton was Secretary of State.

Six banks under government investigation or in litigation were listed as public sponsors of the Clinton Global Initiative’s Annual Meeting, even after the investigations were widely publicized. The most notable of these was the Swiss banking giant HSBC, whose $81 million donation came at the same time that the bank was being investigated for money laundering. A former Goldman Sachs executive, Robert S. Harrison, is the CEO of the initiative

In 2014, the Goldman Sachs Group donated $1 million to $5 million to the Clinton foundation; Barclays, the Bank of America Foundation, and Citigroup each coughed up $500,000 to $1 million that year.

Four of Clinton’s top five donors since 1999 have been Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley. Ending Wall Street greed is difficult when you’re funded by these interests.

Harry S Truman once said – “”You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook.” Yet the Clintons have made hundreds of millions using their title and power = Influence peddling even money laundering = corrupt .

I have a theory

Hillary is ahead on the general election polls.

She has beaten Bernie and his supporters have not got the result they are after. They are unhappy now and will be more angry after tomorrow and more angry after July convention when she becomes the Nominee.

Then what you will find is that the percentage difference between her and Trump will increase as she secures her base and starts winning over the disenfranchised Bernie supporters. (many will NOT vote out of principle and a few will drift to Trump).

If you are a Trump supporter, this consolidation will be a HUGE hurdle.

There is an unconventional answer. It is a little bit left field. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. It is a strange choice. I third party neither democratic nor republican. It will draw heavily from the democratic party and a little bit from the Trump side. In actuality their policies are about 75% Sanders. They are also likely to have a base of around 10%.

If we are to break this down into approximate terms then at present we would be nationally looking at, maybe:

5% donkey votes

10% Libertarian

41% Trump

44% Hillary.

If we concluded that few in the pro-Sanders would drift to Trump and that MOST would not vote with the next greatest majority casting their vote at the democratic nominee, then you are seeing that the benefit to Trump is minimal.

IF you convince the Bernie supporters to vote for the man who is pushing 75% of their man’s policies, it is like a watered down way to keep their dream alive somewhat AND be a thorn in Hillary;s side. It would not mean they would be forced to discard their vote or put it into a candidate that they actively disliked. What is more, at 10% base BEFORE Bernie supporters, it would have the potential to shake up the campaign.

If Hillary slightly edges out Bernie in total votes and Hillary slightly leads Trump, then what would a slight deficit (Bernie) PLUS 10% look like?

I am thinking that would look more like:

5% donkey votes

25% Libertarian

34% Hillary

36% Trump

Remember Libertarians steal votes off Trump at a rate that is LESS than Democrats. It would be a much more exciting race and would make the Libertarian party a force in America. No more two party system, Donald Trump for President, Hillary denied the chance to be the criminal President she wanted to be, a weakening of the Liberal base.

IF you ARE a Trump supporter, consider this. Libertarians WILL NOT win. No more likely than Sanders winning. Though 3% seems like a small percentage lead, when you talk in terms of millions of voting Americans, it is HUGE. 2% difference may be a protracted scandal. The percentage gains within a primary race will NOT happen in the general election especially along political differences.

Therefore you need a third alternative that will rob your opponent of more percentage points than you. The obvious choice is the Libertarian Party and the obvious source is the most easily converted voters, are the disenfranchised

THIS is the kind of comment “I” will peddle:

Get the word out. IF Bernie is robbed, then don’t reward Hillary, don’t not vote. There is a third alternativehttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/31/libertarian-presidential-candidate-i-agree-with-sanders-on-73-percent-of-the-issues/
It may sound left field, BUT Gary Johnson represents the Libertarian movement that can already lock in 10%. of the election vote. Imagine if every Bernie voter after the election DID NOT go to Hillary and did NOT abstain in protest or waste votes in donkey votes?

Do the numbers Donald Trump is just shy of Hillary. Bernie just shy of Hillary.
Now add “just shy of Hillary with 10% in the bag and you have a three way contest!

But more than this. Libertarians are NOT establishment and are NOT republicans. Gary Johnson is right about three quarters of the policies align with Bernie.

Bernie pushed so very hard even though it looks as though everything was against him and rigged, because he wants attention and consideration to his policies.

Support Johnson after the primaries (Bernie WILL lose the establishment WILL make sure of it) and allow the majority of his policies to survive the lose through Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party. Get the numbers up and make the other two parties bend the knee to them, to Bernie’s policies!

Vote for Gary in the General election and keep team Bernie alive. Do it for Bernie

Up to you guys. Tell me what you think.