Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

[williatw]

Ted Cruz endorsement of Donald Trump forthcoming: Report

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

It seems like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has determined where his conscience is leading him, and it’s toward Donald Trump.

The endorsement could come as early as Monday, unnamed sources, close to Mr. Trump’s campaign, told Lifezette.

“Those sources noted that Cruz has become seriously concerned about the long-term threats to the Constitution and conservative priorities, should Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton win the White House,” the online political site, founded by conservative pundit Laura Ingraham, reported.


The endorsement would come after some warm exchanges between the two on the U.S. government’s planned end in its role as managing a group that oversees Internet domain names. The issue is Mr. Cruz’s top legislative priority, as he’s been leading the charge to maintain the U.S. control over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

This week, Mr. Trump said he supported Mr. Cruz’s effort in a statement.

“Appreciate @realdonaldtrump’s support of our efforts to stop Obama’s Internet handover & keep the #Internet free,” Mr. Cruz tweeted regarding Mr. Trump’s statement.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ming-repo/

...The development that broke the ice between the two men was Trump’s support of Cruz’s effort to derail President Barack Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international group. Cruz contends that the move would give authoritarian regimes such as Russia, China, and Iran undue influence over the Internet. A number of supporters of the move, including many tech companies, dispute this assertion.

Cruz is also said to have become increasingly concerned about what the constitutional effects of a Hillary Clinton victory would entail. Clinton would have the ability to appoint a number of left-wing justices to the Supreme Court who would proceed to upend common understanding of what the Constitution means, eroding a number of civil rights.

What form the endorsement will take is currently a work in progress. The way that would likely suit Team Trump the best would be a public event where Cruz announces his support, perhaps with Trump present so they could shake hands and make a show of unity. Also, unknown is whether Trump will apologize for savaging Cruz’s wife and father during the primaries. Even absent an apology, Cruz, a devout Christian, can always fall back on his faith’s tradition of forgiving those who trespassed against him.

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/09 ... 39373.html

[williatw]

Professor who correctly predicted last 30 years of presidential elections says Trump will win

While most of America sees the current presidential race as still undecided, American University Professor Alan Lichtman says he knows the winner.

Lichtman, who has correctly predicted every presidential election since 1984, says he uses a 13 question true/false method which he calls the "Keys to the White House."

Lichtman says the answer of "true" always favors the reelection of the party currently holding the White House.

And if 6 or more of the answers are false, it points in the direction of another party taking power.

Lichtman says that based on his system, Donald Trump is the favorite to win and says, "We have never before seen a candidate like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump may well break patterns of history that have held since 1860."

http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/09 ... /21478061/

[Teahive]

With the help of selected tweets from Deepak Chopra’s Twitter account, researchers from the University of Waterloo and Sheridan College identified certain traits that made people more susceptible to B.S. They included religious or paranormal beliefs, an embrace of alternative medicine, an interest in conspiracy theories

An odd way to put it. These "traits" aren't causes, they're examples.

Lichtman, who has correctly predicted every presidential election since 1984

Even random guesses between the two big parties mean you could expect one in 256 people to get it right eight times in a row. Given the significant amount of prior information from polls, I'm sure you could find a few hundred "American University Professors" who can claim the same predictive accuracy.

[Diogenes]

[Diogenes]

Diogenes, as HILarious as that is, you might stop and think just how that whole (hole?) Lewinski thing worked out. A fellow I used to consider bright and thoughtful, Newt Gingrich, got his teeth in that and shook, attempting to impeach Slick Willy with it. And what happened?

All of the might of the New York Union Democrat Controlled Media came down on him with both feet and slanted the story into being about "sex" instead of lying under oath. Yeah, I saw what happened.


What did I learn from this? I learned that nothing gets fixed until that pit of slime is drained of power and influence. The nation literally needs to initiate a war on the Democrat controlled media and wipe it out.


I want to see RICO prosecutions. I want to see owners and "journalists" thrown in jail for collusion and fined for not abiding by FEC regulations on "in kind" contributions.


One party control of the information streams is a large part of how this country got into such a mess. Till the network media represent something a little closer to the Demographic makeup of the nation, instead of a Democrat Party propaganda agency, nothing is going to get fixed.

The Republicans blew their chance to do some real good, and lost power in Congress.

In 2006! 12 years later! Yes, the reform momentum in 1995 was badly blunted, but it didn't have anything to do with that vile Bastard Clinton. The media was shell shocked in 1994, and so was that lying corrupt sack of sh*t Clinton , but what saved them both is that kook bag Timothy McVeigh blowing up a building.


*THAT* single event is what rescued Clinton. It switched the national focus away from what a sh*tbag was Bill Clinton and his media fluffers, to how dangerous these "right wing "Militia" types" were. The Democrat yap dog media found their voices and resumed barking, and Clinton could then put on his mantle of "righteous indignation" and no longer had to answer questions about his embarrassing behavior in the White House. (For which he lost his Law License, you know, for *LYING* UNDER OATH, not "sex", depending on what the meaning of "is" is. )

They concentrated on that issue instead of real issues. Slick Willy is still apparently d!c#!^g bimbos with impunity. Lewinsky is a shamed butt of jokes. Newt wound up out of a job.

I'm not defending Slick Willy, just pointing out that this is like throwing bricks at a rubber wall, and the wall is the wrong Clinton. Flawed tactics.

Attacking Hillary on that is likely to backfire.

What I am hearing is that the New York Democrat controlled media needs to be nukehammered into pulp, and until that happens, not much is going to get solved.


They control the narrative and steer the stupid herd portion of the electorate, and until the public can get access to the information routinely censored by the propaganda arm of the Democrat party, they won't be able to make any better decisions than those urged upon them by their media brainwashers.

[hanelyp]

What I am hearing is that the New York Democrat controlled media needs to be nukehammered into pulp, and until that happens, not much is going to get solved.

I know people who get their news from online sources and social media, and get the exact same bias. For younger people that seems to be more influential. The silicon valley centered online media needs the same treatment.

[williatw]

What I am hearing is that the New York Democrat controlled media needs to be nukehammered into pulp, and until that happens, not much is going to get solved.

I know people who get their news from online sources and social media, and get the exact same bias. For younger people that seems to be more influential. The silicon valley centered online media needs the same treatment.

Yes but the difference is that everyone pretty much knows that what you see on the internet is only as good as the source; that is you don't necessarily implicitly trust it. The mainstream media on the other hand is still perceived as credible/reliable; people seen to trust them more. Amazing the number of folks I know who think if they hear it on NPR (especially NPR at one point they publically admitted their liberal bias;) MSNBC, CBS, NBC, etc. then it is so. The only news source they regard as biased is Fox news; it is but they fail to make the obvious leap that if one is biased (FOX) than the rest probably are as well, just better hidden. Amazing to see hear the number of folks I know who think that Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC are objective/unbiased; that they don't have a strong leftist/liberal agenda. After Hillary Clinton folds like a lawn chair at the 9-11 ceremony Maddow responds by showing video footage of people "fainting" over the years and basically said it was no big deal, move on folks not important. O'Donnell at one point said Hillary Clinton's health was simply not an issue; look at all the physically infirmed presidents we have had in the past FDR (polio) JFK( Addison disease) etc. Love to hear how they will explain it away if Hillary goes into one of her extended coughing jags on national TV during the debate Monday; to say nothing if she straight up collapses. Heard it was going to be 90 minutes long with few/no commercial breaks; it is going to be a long night for her. If they have her so doped up to mask her symptoms wonder how much her speech will be slurred and/or disjointed/contradictory her answers to questions put to her might be.

[choff]

Apparently Trump has invited Jennifer Flowers for a front row seat at the debates.

If he can push the right buttons on Hillary, maybe we get to watch an old fashioned cat fight.

[ladajo]

So many missed opportunities for Trump in the debate. Someone yanked on his leash hard going into it, and I do not think this served him well.
Hillary did make a good attempt (as usual) to sabotage herself with the smugness. Throughout the debate her behaviour indicated "I seriously can't be required to be standing here debating this idiot." This shows her true colors; She firmly believes she is entitled, and the will of the people does not matter. After all, it was the people who put Trump on that stage. I really hope someone calls her out for that. While I applaud Trump's restraint, I believe it was a distractor for him, and caused him to lose the ability to focus on Hillary's ineptness and corruption, as well as her status as a poster child of the standing corrupt and broken system. He sniffed at it a bit, but never seemed to get a real bite.

I think that the entry statement made by Megyn Kelly was the most accurate thing in the debate: the two worst publicly rated candidates ever.

[Tom Ligon]

Apparently Trump has invited Jennifer Flowers for a front row seat at the debates.

If he can push the right buttons on Hillary, maybe we get to watch an old fashioned cat fight.

Looks like Hillary pushed Trump's buttons. She's been practicing to do so. She was as giddy as a schoolgirl when she got the desired response.

Trump has a lot of buttons, but I think the ones that work best are the ones that trigger his underlying insecurity, which borders on, or is, pathological. He really needs to prep for these debates, and learn to not be baited.

Of course, the skills at mind games in these debates don't actually show us who would be the best President. What we saw last night was two seriously flawed candidates attempting to show each others flaws. But we already knew their flaws. What I don't see is how a candidate skilled at baiting another candidate shows us that they can unite the country, and hopefully much of the world, to address the considerable problems the world faces. We need intelligence, judgement, and respectability. And unfortunately the people who have it are not in the race.

[Diogenes]

So many missed opportunities for Trump in the debate. Someone yanked on his leash hard going into it, and I do not think this served him well.
Hillary did make a good attempt (as usual) to sabotage herself with the smugness. Throughout the debate her behaviour indicated "I seriously can't be required to be standing here debating this idiot." This shows her true colors; She firmly believes she is entitled, and the will of the people does not matter. After all, it was the people who put Trump on that stage. I really hope someone calls her out for that. While I applaud Trump's restraint, I believe it was a distractor for him, and caused him to lose the ability to focus on Hillary's ineptness and corruption, as well as her status as a poster child of the standing corrupt and broken system. He sniffed at it a bit, but never seemed to get a real bite.

I think that the entry statement made by Megyn Kelly was the most accurate thing in the debate: the two worst publicly rated candidates ever.

I thought he should have hammered on the corruption angle. When she said that the private email server which she used to send secret government documents in violation of federal law was a "mistake", He should have said, "No Hillary, it wasn't a mistake. It was a very deliberate act to avoid public accountability for your corrupt and illegal influence selling."


And yes, he should have used the words "corrupt" and "illegal" as often as was practical in describing what she had deliberately done.



As you have said, Hillary is both incompetent and corrupt, and that is why she wrecks everything she touches. Government Health care was in fact her idea long before Obama brought it up.

[Diogenes]

[Tom Ligon]

Diogenes, much as we usually squabble, that last post is a real hoot, and I think quite fair. I don't usually have any use for the New York Post, but I think they earned their news stand price on that one.

I thought so too. There is a lot of funny stuff I see about the election, and I refrain from posting as much of this sort of stuff as I would like, but sometimes ya gotta bring the funny.

Evidently you have now chosen to post it all. I'm sorry to all if you took that as license to post every juvenile meme you see.

[williatw]

Looks like Hillary pushed Trump's buttons. She's been practicing to do so. She was as giddy as a schoolgirl when she got the desired response.Trump has a lot of buttons, but I think the ones that work best are the ones that trigger his underlying insecurity, which borders on, or is, pathological. He really needs to prep for these debates, and learn to not be baited.

Trump's biggest error was his apparent decision on lack of preparedness; thinking he could "wing it", he was both ill prepared for Hillary's attacks and the biases of the moderator.

Of course, the skills at mind games in these debates don't actually show us who would be the best President.

Don't think they are intended to per see; just a chance for folks to see how they do against each other; people are looking for signs of strength, weakness, who comes across better; yes purely subjective but nonetheless important when your dealing with irrational humans.

Or as some might put it:

Clinton won on points. She had more command of the details and the cleaner answers. Trump did a lot of interrupting and he was defensive. If this were a college debate competition, Clinton would be declared the winner. I call that victory on the 2D chess board. But voters don’t care about facts and debating style. They care about how they feel. So let’s talk about that.

For starters, Trump and Clinton both seemed “presidential” enough. That mattered more for Trump. We haven’t seen him off the teleprompter lately. So Trump passed that test by being sufficiently serious.

Clinton looked (to my eyes) as if she was drugged, tired, sick, or generally unhealthy, even though she was mentally alert and spoke well. But her eyes were telling a different story. She had the look of someone whose doctors had engineered 90 minutes of alertness for her just for the event. If she continues with a light campaign schedule, you should assume my observation is valid, and she wasn’t at 100%

Some will say Clinton outperformed expectations because she didn’t cough, collapse, or die right on stage. That would be true if she also looked healthy in general, and her campaign schedule from here on out is full. We’ll know more this week, based on her schedule.

Clinton’s smile seemed forced, artificial, and frankly creepy. I’m already hearing on Twitter that mentioning a woman’s smile is sexist. I understand the point. But when someone goes full Joker-face and tests the uncanny valley hypothesis at the same time, that’s a bit different from telling a woman to “smile more.” My neighbor Kristina hypothesized that Botox was making her smile look unnatural. Science tells us that when a person’s mouth smiles, but their eyes don’t match the smile, they look disingenuous if not creepy. Botox on your crow’s feet lines around your eyes can give that effect. But whatever the reason, something looked off to me.

To be fair, Trump’s physical appearance won’t win him any votes either. But his makeup looked better than I have seen it (no orange), his haircut was as good as it gets for him, and he was otherwise his normal self that some voters hate and some like.


But the most interesting question has to do with what problem both of them were trying to solve with the debate. Clinton tried to look healthy, and as I mentioned, I don’t think she completely succeeded. But Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. Trump needed to counter Clinton’s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that…by…losing the debate.

Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy. And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton’s scandals. In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer.

By tomorrow, no one will remember what either of them said during the debate. But we will remember how they made us feel.

Clinton won the debate last night. And while she was doing it, Trump won the election. He had one thing to accomplish – being less scary – and he did it.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1510077962 ... rst-debate

What we saw last night was two seriously flawed candidates attempting to show each others flaws. But we already knew their flaws. What I don't see is how a candidate skilled at baiting another candidate shows us that they can unite the country, and hopefully much of the world, to address the considerable problems the world faces. We need intelligence, judgement, and respectability. And unfortunately the people who have it are not in the race.

What we need is one thing...how we actually think/feel determines what we get.

[williatw]

I thought he should have hammered on the corruption angle. When she said that the private email server which she used to send secret government documents in violation of federal law was a "mistake", He should have said, "No Hillary, it wasn't a mistake. It was a very deliberate act to avoid public accountability for your corrupt and illegal influence selling."
And yes, he should have used the words "corrupt" and "illegal" as often as was practical in describing what she had deliberately done.
As you have said, Hillary is both incompetent and corrupt, and that is why she wrecks everything she touches. Government Health care was in fact her idea long before Obama brought it up.

Yes he should have hammered her more on the private e-mail server; it wasn't merely a "mistake" it was a crime; in spite of what the FBI said in its report the statute doesn't give a by to blundering "good intentions". Unfortunately the public doesn't seem to care; Trump needs to do a better job of showing how someone with "30 years" experience in government doesn't get a pass for incompetence. He didn't say one stinking word about her incompetent complicity in the Benghazi debacle; he needs to showcase her failures and unwillingness to admit such. He tried to hit her hard on her (&Obama's) complicity in allowing ISIS to grow; mixed results there, she said it was Bush who negotiated the forces withdrawal agreement (true) but sorry you don't get a pass when it (the growth of ISIS) happens on your 8 year watch. The bias (on the media's part) of labeling Trump saying we should have taken (secured) the Iraq's oil fields as "crazy" show what he is up against. Because the sane sober sensible thing is to allow ISIS to control the oil fields; to secure the oil would be "illegal"; whatever that means.