Tuesday, January 19, 2016

How Donald Trump defeats Hillary Clinton: Trump appeals to Black voters

politico.com ^ | 01/19/16 05:17 AM EST | Ben Schreckinger 

If Donald Trump becomes the next president of the United States, there will be plenty of surprises along the way. One of the biggest will be the help he gets from black voters.
According to Republican pollsters and Trump’s allies, the GOP poll-leader — who has been dogged by accusations of racism, most recently for tweeting out a chart that exaggerated the share of murders committed by blacks — is poised to out-perform with this demographic group in a general-election matchup with Hillary Clinton.
“If he were the Republican nominee he would get the highest percentage of black votes since Ronald Reagan in 1980,” said Republican messaging guru Frank Luntz, referring to the year Reagan won 14 percent of that bloc of voters. “They listen to him. They find him fascinating, and in all the groups I have done, I have found Obama voters, they could’ve voted for Obama twice, but if they’re African-American they would consider Trump.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/how-donald-trump-defeats-hillary-clinton-217868#ixzz3xhfqSX50
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...

The Truth about Huma Abedin that Media Matters Doesn’t Want America to See

Breitbart ^ | January 18, 2016 | Lee Stranahan 

"Still don't believe Media Matters functions as a propaganda machine to aid and abet Hillary Clinton's political aspirations? Just read its response to a Vanity Fair article titled Is Huma Abedin Hillary Clinton's Secret Weapon or Her Next Big Problem?
The left-wing attack machine wasted no time in posting an article with false information and smears in order to protect the Clinton campaign.
Hillary has stated publicly that she helped "start and support" Media Matters, and that organization has consistently come to Clinton's aid with a consistent campaign of misinformation, half-truths and smears of her critics that can then get repeated by the mainstream media.
The Vanity Fair article must have sent shockwaves through the Clinton camp. It's rare to read mainstream press criticism of Abedin.
Instead, mainstream adoration for Huma by the media is often so over the top that even other outlets are forced to say something. For example, after Abedin's husband, disgraced former New York congressman Anthony Weiner, was once again caught sexting with other women as he ran for mayor of New York City, New York magazine published a piece so gushing that it led the Atlantic to write an article titled New York Magazine Has a Crush on Abedin. New Republic chimed in and said that "Abedin always gets good press, but this piece takes it to a new level" and cited this description of Huma as an example of New York's Silliest/Creepiest Abedin Descriptions:
clip
As Vanity Fair' William Cohan writes Over the years Huma has served in several positions, with increasingly important-sounding titles. She has been Hillary's "body woman," her traveling chief of staff, a senior adviser, and a deputy chief of staff when Hillary was secretary of state. Now, based in Brooklyn, she is the vice-chair of Hillary's 2016 presidential campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Hillary faces Twitter backlash after saying in debate that 'no individual' is 'too big to jail'

Daily Mail ^ | 1/18/16 | Nikki Schwab 


During last night Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton's team quoted their girl in a tweet saying, 'There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail.'

With the FBI still investigating whether Clinton handled classified material on her email server appropriately, a flurry of tweets followed the Clinton quote.

'I can't believe she just tweeted that with a straight face,' one Twitter user said.

Scroll down for video
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

Donald Trump as the modern day Andrew Jackson

The American Interest ^ | January 17, 2016 | Walter Russell Mead 

The biggest story in America today is the roaring return of Andrew Jackson's spirit into the political debate.
Not since he fought with Nicholas Biddle over the future of the Bank of the United States has Andrew Jackson been this controversial or this central in American political life. Jacksonian populism, the sense of honor-driven egalitarianism and fiery nationalism that drove American politics for many years, has never been hated and reviled as often as it is today, and many American academics and intellectuals (to say nothing of Hollywood icons) are close to demanding that Jacksonian sentiment be redefined as a hate crime.
For President Barack Obama and his political allies in particular, Jacksonian America is the father of all evils. Jacksonians are who the then Senator had in mind when, in the campaign of 2008, he spoke of the 'bitter clingers' holding on to their guns and their Bibles. They are the source of the foreign policy instincts he most deplores, supporting Israel almost reflexively, demanding overwhelming response to terror attacks, agitating for tight immigration controls, resisting diplomacy with Iran and North Korea, supporting Guantanamo, cynical about the UN, skeptical of climate change, and willing to use 'enhanced interrogation' against terrorists in arms against the United States.
[snip]
Virtually everything about progressive politics today is about liquidating the Jacksonian influence in American life. From immigration policy, touted as ending the era when American whites were the population of the United States, to gun policy and to regulatory policy, President Obama and his coalition aim to crush what Jacksonians love, empower what they fear, and exalt what they hate.
(Excerpt) Read more at the-american-interest.com ...

What Are Elections For?

Townhall.com ^ | January 19, 2016 | Thomas Sowell 

After months of watching all sorts of political polls, we are finally just a few weeks away from actually beginning to see some voting in primary elections. Polls let people vent their emotions. But elections are held to actually accomplish something.
The big question is whether the voters themselves will see elections as very different from polls.
If Republican voters have consistently delivered a message through all the fluctuating polls over the past months, that message is those voters' anger at the Republican establishment, which has grossly betrayed the promises that got a Republican Congress elected.
Whether the issue has been securing the borders, Obamacare, runaway government spending or innumerable other concerns, Republican candidates have promised to fight the Obama administration's policies-- and then caved when crunch time came for Congress to vote.
The spectacular rise, and persistence, of Republican voter support for Donald Trump in the polls ought to be a wake-up call for the Republican establishment. But smug know-it-alls can be hard to wake up.
Even valid criticisms of Trump can miss the larger point that Republican voters' turning to such a man is a sign of desperation and a telling indictment of what the Republican establishment has been doing for years-- which they show pathetically few signs of changing.
Seldom have the Republicans seemed to have a better chance of winning a presidential election. The Democrats' front-runner is a former member of an unpopular administration whose record of foreign policy failures as Secretary of State is blatant, whose personal charm is minimal and whose personal integrity is under criminal investigation by the FBI.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have fielded a stronger set of presidential aspirants than they have had in years. Yet it is by no means out of the question that the Republicans will manage to blow this year's opportunity and lose at the polls this November.
In other times, this might just be the Republicans' political problem. But these are not other times. After seven disastrous years of Barack Obama, at home and overseas, the United States of America may be approaching a point of no return, especially in a new age of a nuclear Iran with long-range missiles.
The next President of the United States will have monumental problems to untangle. The big question is not which party's candidate wins the election but whether either party will choose a candidate that is up to the job.
That ultimate question is in the hands of Republicans who will soon begin voting in the primaries.
Their anger may be justified, but anger is not a sufficient reason for choosing a candidate in a desperate time for the future of this nation. And there is such a thing as a point of no return.
Voters need to consider what elections are for. Elections are not held to allow voters to vent their emotions. They are held to choose who shall hold in their hands the fate of hundreds of millions of Americans today and of generations yet unborn.
Too many nations, in desperate times, especially after the established authorities have discredited themselves and forfeited the trust of the people, have turned to some new and charismatic leader, who ended up turning a dire situation into an utter catastrophe.
The history of the 20th century provides all too many examples, whether on a small scale that led to the massacre in Jonestown in 1978 or the earlier succession of totalitarian movements that took power in Russia in 1917, Italy in 1922 and Germany a decade later.
Eric Hoffer's shrewd insight into the success of charismatic leaders was that the "quality of ideas seems to play a minor role," What matters, he pointed out, "is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world."
Is that the emotional release that Republican voters will be seeking when they begin voting in the primaries? If so, Donald Trump will be their man. But if the sobering realities of life and the need for mature and wise leadership in dangerous times is uppermost in their minds, they will have to look elsewhere.

Sorry, Hillary!

9u84Fql.jpg

Fair Share!

marx_Obama_SOTU_2016.jpg

Translation

dSpXiNi.jpg

They Believe!

iBELtLZ.jpg

The empty seat

gFLebdo.jpg

Divided?

174066_600.jpg

Any doubt?

174020_600.jpg

Screwed!

Kqi3MUJ.jpg