My two cents on the first Presidential debate

I hate Hillary BUT I love an underdog. That was Donald. Now I am not going to pretend and spin a narrative here. I will call it straight. Pieces fall where they may.

Hillary has been built up by the press and the Liberal surrogates to be this Uber-woman of politics. The pinnacle of Presidential candidacy. The best this to be injected into politics since whenever. In respect to Donald trump, he was unelectable, unpresidential, stupid, boorish, charmless, ineffectual, inarticulate, and a joke.

What they had failed, in their stupidity, to realise is where this sets the bar of expectation for each candidate. Hillary has to annihilate Trump and handle him with utmost ease and Trump has to fail utterly.

I admit I thought it would go precisely either of two ways. Either she was going to be the frail, sickly, unfocused and off form or she was going to be on her game and well-rehearsed, focused and in command of her faculties.

Trump in the last few months has consolidated and gone hard after Hillary’s lead. It has vanished and the battle ground states that were 6 or 7 points down, he is now leading in. The ones that were 13 points down are now in play and some are starting to shift into being in play, that were not considered anything but safe. (Who would have guessed Missouri, Illinois or Massachusetts would have been a consideration two months ago?) But now was the moment of reckoning.

He was taking on Hillary. A frail, unfocused Hillary not in command of her faculties would kill the remaining hope of winning. He was going to roll her if she was like that. I hoped this is what was going to happen. I hoped for a series of coughs,, maybe a seizure and topped off with her excusing herself and then fainting. That could have worked for me. The alternative was that an focused well-rehearsed Hillary would smash Trump and not only stop his meteoric rise in the polls but would start reversing all that work. Then I saw her.

It was healthy Hillary. My heart sank. Trump was screwed.

Then something rather unexpected happened (I should expect the unexpected with Trump), Trump rose to the occasion. He held his own. I still find it strange that I find this so surprising.

Now I promised you honesty and so honestly speaking, Hillary technically was much better. She was practiced. She was focused and by any metric she beat Trump. let’s keep it real. She was polished. She was Presidential and statesman-like. (Believe me I do not like saying this either). Trump? He was not polished. He was not as prepared. He went off topic a fair bit. He was given to a lot of vague meandering nonsense and he interrupted. BUT not a lot. He ALSO took it to her as much as she him and on bigger point. They both left their mark on each other. He was came up with some damn good points and more importantly enough of them.

YES Hillary out-performed Trump but not considerably. The truth is that he stayed with her right to the end. She was SUPPOSED to break past him and leave him in the dust instead of a winning photo finish. HER strength over Donald is an in-depth knowledge of policies and politics from 30 years involved intimately with it. It was her chance to prove how great she could show herself in this and how lacking Donald was in this area. THAT is ALL she has. (Well that, and a Moderator helping her). She could not do it.

Serious questions need to be asked in the Clinton camp. Trump brings hope, a new vision, a persuasive personality, energy, and an ability to talk off the cuff about what he feels with Americans. What else does Hillary have besides the weight of the Liberal press and establishment (that has not stopped the rise of Trump) AND the well rehearsed scripts on policies and political experience (that came to mean nothing in the debate)? She has nothing.

Its actually worse than that though. Hillary was on the top of her game. Trump exhausted her ammunition and kept himself in check. He got the feel of what she was like her measure. I know he will capitalise. Hillary is not an evolving creature. She is the final form. He adapts and evolve and we have seen this throughout the Presidential race. He is unpredictable and she will not be able to get a bead on her. He has her and he will got after her to counter her a little on next debate.

Moreso than this. He was more presidential and in control than he has been any time in the cycle and she was the polished robot. Therefore whilst she has scripted answers, he seemed to go off the cuff. Whilst the prattling was a bit much sometimes it sounded (true or not) honest. She did not sound honest (true or not), she sounded like she had practiced everything she said. With such little between them in the actual debate, this factor will possibly sway the undecided voters to Trump. It would have been absolutely different if she sounded like a robot AND buried Trump….but she didn’t.

I honestly cannot see Hillary capitalising on this debate for the next. The debate was a wash. But it gave the opponents at least a measure of each other. I think Hillary is not going to be able to prepare for the next debate’s Trump. She lost her opportunity to take control of the campaign and take Trump off the chess board and she failed.

The beauty of it is the Liberal press and Liberal establishment have helped pave the way for her lose in overrating Hillary and underrating Trump as badly as they have. Had they have been considered equals she would not appear to have done so badly below expectation and he would not have appeared to eclipse all expectation. They screwed themselves and I love the Schadenfreude.

Trump Train has no brakes, it would appear. He will be next President.

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 .

The problem with Liberals in Gamergate…….bear with me.

Think of the word “Liberal”, what does it mean to you?

liberal
adjective
  1. 1.
    willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.
    “liberal views towards divorce”
  2. 2.
    (of education) concerned with broadening a person’s general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
    “the provision of liberal adult education”

Okay got that definition primed?

Are these so-called “Social Justice Advocates” liberals?

Are they “accepting”? “Open”? Are they concerned with “broadening their general knowledge”?

Don’t say “Yes”, as a knee-jerk reaction, look at their every interaction. They do precisely the opposite. The are close-minded to any other viewpoint, have no acceptance and close down discussion, wherever possible through a mixture of censorship, intimidation tactics, shaming, blocking and the like.

They are not Liberals.

But as many of you are well aware, it is actually a little bit worse than that. They leverage ill-gotten social capital to drive a false narrative. Social Justice is what they pretend to aspire to. They are supposed to be looking for the betterment of black people, transgendered people, gay people, females, disabled people, poor people and other people of colour…right? I mean they are good things right?

Hmmm…really? How are they doing this? What culture war do they think they are fighting and winning?

See, I look around and I see a handful of able bodied, cisgendered, middle class, entitled whiny white girls getting a lot of cash to further whine. I see them smear decent people over unproven insulting accusations of bigotry and harassment, then recoil when called on it.

I see a lot of people pandering to their passive aggressiveness.

So how is this actually Social Justice Advocacy? It isn’t.

With Gamergate, we see after a year, clearly there is no demonstrative betterment for any of these groups. If you believe the Gamergate Supporters, there was no need for “progressive values” but if anyone wanted to make a game that had these values, they could and whoever wanted to buy it could. If you further believe the supporters, they will tell you that there is no systematic problem in gaming in respect to biases and bigotries against minorities (certainly the diversity in Gamergate supporters underpins this lack of bigotry). However if you believe in the other side, then the bigotry is epidemic and nothing has improved in the last year, its just got worse. More grim is that, there is no market for Progressive games.

So the upshot is that the betterment for these minorities has either not happened because it is unnecessary, or has got worse because the “Social Justice Advocates” despite telling us that they are “winning the culture war”, have actually failed….by their own admission.

We can see the money flowing into a few select coffers, but what have the other side actually constructively done for their cash? Its a question that should really be asked and answered.

They do get taken seriously despite the obvious dishonesty of their agendas and lust for power/validation/other people’s money/fame. Why? Because liberals….truer liberals believe their bullshit.

If you are a Liberal, you may say “I am an open, accepting person and willing to learn things that I don’t know”. So you see people attacking your Gaming community and you see VERY anti-Liberal practices from the opposition. So you counter this. But because you are an accepting and open person willing to learn from other viewpoints, you can not bring yourself to disavow these people in their entirety.

You reason “Okay, what they did is shitty but not everyone is that bad. Most of the moderates probably can be swayed, besides we have some real bad people in Gamergate and besides I do not like some of the very non-accepting language used by many in our ranks.”

So you decide now that moderating your stance to be “more open and accepting” is the way. You start chatting with some “moderate antis” and some ex-Gamergate supporters. You start tone policing and trying to get everyone to be more open and accepting. You get annoyed with the vitriol and bad language and bad actors in the movement. Maybe you evolve into being opposed to any anti-SJW activity and rail against this , in petulantly demanding Gamergate be about ethics only, maybe you start trying to fight the less moderate and accepting voices in Gamergate, maybe you drop the hashtag and rail against the hashtag or maybe you find you friendships in the Anti-GG camp stronger than those in the GG camp (e.g. Jenny Medina and Randi Harper), or perhaps encourage dropping the Gamergate Hashtag completely and coming to a compromise or even peace treaty with the opposition.

It is hardly surprising that Progressives/Social Justice Warriors/Social Justice Advocates find support in Liberals generally, in the community, and so when comes to Liberals in the Gamergate community….

Guys, I want you to know that regardless of your political identification, or whatever, I know most of you are not that stupid. Those of you succumbing to any of that wrongthink, take account of yourself and see whether what you are really supporting is deserving of the support you are giving it. Then back away slowly with your hands in the air. Kick your own arse and get back supporting, and not undermining Gamergate. Remember it was Liberal identifying people that went after you in the first instance. Never give them credit or acceptance. Liberal does not equate to dupe, or at least does not have to.

Social Justice Warriors are phonies and only the stupidiest of them don’t realise

The reason that Social Justice Warriors “Progressives” have such power is because they are social parasites. They pertain to be a lot of good and virtuous things but are con artists.

Social Activism Sure! Ha, these guys are online keyboard warriors and NOT social activists. What the Hell do they do to make society better? I actually admire social activists and social activism. But perhaps you need an example of what I mean.

I frequent follow, help petition and sometimes donate to different social activist causes. One month I remember well.

1. One case of an African family petitioning the government to bring over their son. They had fled a war zone and had been separated from their son and thought him killed. They had got word that he was still alive and these years on, was alive in a refugee came. They were now settled in Australia. They wanted the government to reunite them.

2. A lady had been gang-raped and the compensation she was due from the government was being held up by bureaucratic red tape for years and in this time (due to rules that changed in the meantime regard such compensation) her entitlement would reduce.

3. A Father dying of terminal cancer had an aneurysm burst in his brain, leaving him a vegetable, requiring 24/7 care. Their insurance (due to different applicable clauses) would not cover this expense and they looked to lose the family home over this.

4. The Great Barrier Reef is an Australian icon and beautiful to beyond. In recent year is under extreme threat from an invasive starfish and from general pollution. The government decided to do an under the table deal with coal miners in the region to set up a coal mine close by and to dump waste from the coal mine in the reef ecosystem.

Okay so you up to speed with social activism and the kind of things I support. There is no denying that they are very much social activism. Good, because this is what I also got that month. See if you believe it the same as the other four.

5. I had a campaign requesting that “Grand Theft Auto 5” be removed from Target stores. The Adult classified game made for adults and restricted to adults, was to be taken off the shelves because the petitioners did not personally like the content of the game. The solution if they did not like it apparently was not that THEY did not buy it or play it, but rather that NO ONE play it.

“Progressiveness” What exactly do they progress? As far as I see, they are regressing things. They stymie, bog down and censor. They eat their own on a regular basis. Fall the wrong side of their hivemind and you will be beset upon with voracity. Everything is though a very fine ideological lens. There is no debate or expanding ideas or questioning. It is the kind of zealous conduct that would do the Puritans proud. They do not create they destroy and censor and co-opt for their own. There is  no progress in doing this.

Liberal These people are not Liberal or Left. Think of what Liberal thought means to you. Do you think “free”, “inclusive”, “open”, “accepting”, “unrestricted”? These people are not THAT. They are a lot of things but will never be those things. They will of course state that they are open and accepting. Try saying that ANYTHING they say is incorrect and you will find how accepting and open they are. Worse still they claim to support gay people, people of different races, women and other “minorities. What happens if someone in that minority disagrees with anything they say, what kind of support do they bestow on that person? Its pretty ugly.

I could go on…no seriously I really could, but from this alone, you see what they are doing.

They see something as considered as a moral or social good. Whether it be  support and inclusiveness of minorities or whether it be social activism or anything else and they PRETEND to be about that. Feminism too, Liberal ideologies, whatever.

The problem is that they do not actually do these things or in any way that furthers things things. Yet they steadfastly associate themselves with these things. Furthermore IF you disagree they will say that because THEY are Liberal, Feminist, Social Activists, Inclusive, Progressive, and YOU disagree with them, will have you labelled as Conservative, Anti-Feminist, Racist, Non-inclusive, and Misogynist.

Who wants to be labelled that? More importantly who REALLY doesn’t want to be? It is what allows them to manipulate people and act with dishonesty and impunity

They are con artists leeching off the morality, credibility, credulity, fame and finances of decent people in society. All they are zealous, ideological social parasites.