Recount? -Make My Day -Dems Never Win POTUS Again
- Details
- Created: Monday, 28 November 2016 13:48
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
Hillary Clinton has decided to join the recount effort started by Jill Stein. It's been widely reported that the strategy is not to overturn the election results; but to delay certification of the votes beyond the date of the electors voting (December 19th) thereby denying Donald Trump the requisite 270 electoral votes to be President. They believe this would add to the narrative that Trump is illegitimate having lost the popular vote, and then being "named" President by Congress.
The next Constitutional step would be for the race to be decided by the House of Representatives - but not by simple vote. Each State is allowed a single vote, making Wyoming equal to California.
Republicans dominate House State Delegations 34 to 13 with 3 ties. Obviously Trump wins this vote. But it does tend to turn the process into something of a cluster.
So Be It. - It's a "cluster" that the GOP will win for the foreseeable future.
The GOP has been far to reluctant to fight the Democrats in the gutter where they live. Consequently, they've consistently gotten their asses whipped by refusing to fight. Trump has shown signs of ending that tendancy. Now is as good a time as any to do so.
The GOP response should be:
Go ahead with your bogus recount strategy, you've given us the template to win every future Presidential election. Regardless of outcome, we will file for recounts in enough states to deny the winner 270 electoral votes, and throw the election to the House - where we will win - EVERY TIME.
Check out the chart below, not only do Republicans dominate the "numbers" but every single one of the 12 identified "swing states" is a solid Republican State in terms of Congressional Delegations.
So, Dems, you want to recount?
You want to create a template to have every Presidential election decided by the House?
Go Ahead - Make My Day...
House Congressional Del. | Maj. Dem | Maj. Rep | “Swing” States | ||
State | Democrat | Republican | 13 | 34 | |
Alabama | 1 | 6 | 1 | ||
Alaska | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Arizona | 4 | 5 | 1 | ||
Arkansas | 0 | 4 | 1 | ||
California | 39 | 14 | 1 | ||
Colorado | 3 | 4 | 1 | Rep | |
Connecticut | 5 | 0 | 1 | ||
Delaware | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
Florida | 10 | 17 | 1 | Rep | |
Georgia | 4 | 10 | 1 | Rep | |
Hawaii | 2 | 0 | 1 | ||
Idaho | 0 | 2 | 1 | ||
Illinois | 8 | 10 | 1 | ||
Indiana | 2 | 7 | 1 | ||
Iowa | 1 | 3 | 1 | Rep | |
Kansas | 0 | 4 | 1 | ||
Kentucky | 1 | 5 | 1 | ||
Louisiana | 1 | 5 | 1 | ||
Maine | 1 | 1 | Tie | Tie | |
Maryland | 7 | 1 | 1 | ||
Massachusetts | 9 | 0 | 1 | ||
Michigan | 5 | 9 | 1 | Rep | |
Minnesota | 5 | 3 | 1 | ||
Mississippi | 1 | 3 | 1 | ||
Missouri | 2 | 6 | 1 | ||
Montana | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Nebraska | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
Nevada | 1 | 3 | 1 | Rep | |
New Hampshire | 1 | 1 | Tie | Tie | |
New Jersey | 6 | 6 | Tie | Tie | |
New Mexico | 1 | 2 | 1 | Rep | |
New York | 18 | 9 | 1 | ||
North Carolina | 3 | 10 | 1 | Rep | |
North Dakota | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Ohio | 4 | 12 | 1 | Rep | |
Oklahoma | 0 | 5 | 1 | ||
Oregon | 4 | 1 | 1 | ||
Pennsylvania | 5 | 13 | 1 | Rep | |
Rhode Island | 2 | 0 | 1 | ||
South Carolina | 1 | 6 | 1 | ||
South Dakota | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Tennessee | 2 | 7 | 1 | ||
Texas | 11 | 25 | 1 | ||
Utah | 0 | 4 | 1 | ||
Vermont | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
Virginia | 3 | 8 | 1 | Rep | |
Washington | 6 | 4 | 1 | ||
West Virginia | 0 | 3 | 1 | ||
Wisconsin | 3 | 5 | 1 | Rep | |
Wyoming | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Above Table data excerpted from https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives
Add a commentIs "Losing" a Republican Value?
- Details
- Created: Thursday, 27 October 2016 12:24
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
In the past months we've heard much of "Republican Values." The NeverTrump crowd seems obsessed with claiming moral superiority based on their rejection of the GOP nominee - based on "Republican Values."
They might be right.
Because the only consistent underlying "Republican Value" of the last 30 years is LOSING.
Yes, this is the unshakable value to which, at all costs, Republicans cling. They may waiver or falter on other common Republican interests, you'll find much disagreement on immigration, foreign policy, abortion, gay marriage, or spending priorities - but they all universally agree - they MUST Lose.
This is the point at which the establishment GOP parts with Donald Trump and his supporters, who seem diametrically opposed to losing. Yes, they've even had the temerity to cheer for WINNING! This is not to be tolerated by the GOP elders and the elites of Conservatism Inc.
Hyperbolic?
Maybe. But lets look at some history....
In the 40 years prior to 1994, the House of Representatives was dominated by Democrats. During that time "The House" dominated public policy and often even foreign policy. During that time, Republicans won the White House about half the time, but almost always yielded to a Democrat dominated House, often citing the "power of the purse,' to which they were irrevocably bound.
In 1973 the Democrat Congress denied funding for any further military operation in Viet Nam. A compliant Republican President declared he "had no choice" but to order the immediate evacuation of Viet Nam. This required the U.S. crash it's own helicopters into the sea and abandon thousands of Vietnamese allies to be slaughtered by the North, or risk drowning.
But hey, what could they do? Congress controlled the budget - right?
Then came 1994. The Republicans took control of the House. Now they could control the purse strings. Not exactly. Newt Gingrich came to blows with Bill Clinton over the budget and a "shut down" ensued. After weeks of being pilloried by the media, the "shut down" was on the verge of being "won" by Gingrich - when the Bob Dole interceded and demanded a loss. Rather than getting a balanced budget, the GOP settled for a 7 year plan to get to a balanced budget.
But wait, there's more....
In 2000 Bush was elected President, Republicans won the House, and Republicans tied in Senate seats - which would give the tie breaking vote to the Republican Vice President. Yes. Republicans held both the legislative and executive branch of Government. But, the GOP value of "losing" kicked in. Elected Republican Jim Jeffords announced he was leaving the party and would caucus with the Democrats. Once again - the Republican value of "losing" prevails.
But wait, there's more...
In 2004 the GOP had an opportunity not only to gain ground in the Senate, but to gain in ideological strength. The sitting leftist Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, faced a strong and credible challenge from the far more conservative Pat Toomey. Sitting President GWB, The RNC, and sitting Senator Rick Santorum ALL campaigned vigorously for Specter and Specter managed to win his primary challenge by less than 1%.
The ensuing GOP Senate Majority was largely muted by the left leaning Senators that consistently opposed George Bush, and finally due to losing the House in 06 - maintaining once again, the party value of "losing."
Yep, still more...
When opposition to ObamaCare seemed to invigorate Republican energy - even leading to the special election of a Republican Senator from Massachusetts - the previously mentioned Specter, decided he must switch parties and become a Democrat. ObamaCare passes, and the Republican value of "losing" prevails.
Since that time, Republicans have dominated State House and Governor elections. Almost as quickly as they were won, much like the GOP Congress, those institutions have largely receded to irrelevancy. Republican State Governments are consistently subservient to pressure from Federal authorities above, and seem to always allow liberal City governments below to institute leftist policies. Those that resist (Indiana, North Carolina), are pilloried, and eventually abandoned by the GOP.
Then comes Trump. He says three things.
-Immigration is out of control - I'll stop it.
-Stupid trade deals are bad for us - I'll end them.
-Pointless foreign wars are, pointless - I won't get into them
This resonates overwhelmingly with a segment of the electorate that has been dead to the GOP for two generations. He gains more popular support than any GOP candidate, ever.
Then adds one over-riding thing above all.....
When they attack me, I'll fight back - and I'll win.
This my friends, is not consistent with Republican Values.
Add a comment
WikiLeaks a BlackMail Threat to Hillary - Not a Boost to Trump
- Details
- Created: Saturday, 22 October 2016 14:07
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
-UPDATE 10/29/2016
We believe it is highly likely that the FBI decided to re-open the investigation against Hillary because they've discovered exactly what is described here. That is, that Hillary altered her emails prior to printing them and delivering them to FBI, State, and Congress. If that is so, she will probably be offered the opportunity to withdraw from the race rather than face criminal prosecution.
original post of 10/22 ...
The source of the Podesta emails at Wikileaks is not known. For the sake of discussion, lets assume it's "The Russians," as is alleged by Hillary's 17 intelligence agencies. It seems clear that if this is the case, the Russians are NOT trying to elect Trump, they are showing their hand in a blackmail operation against a future Clinton Administration.
Here's why....
Clinton didn't just delete 33K emails. She deleted ALL emails from "clintonemail.com."
In response to Congressional Subpoena for "electronic correspondence", Clinton provided printed pages of what she claimed were the text of emails. We believe that Clinton altered the bodies of the email text prior to printing them. That is - she committed, fraud, perjury, and obstruction of justice - in a single act. She then, of course destroyed all digital evidence that could prove her criminal acts.
Except, if someone else as digital evidence of the altered emails. Enter "The Russians."
The WikiLeaks "Podesta emails" have been released in 12 separate document dumps to date. Each dump has reached a bit deeper into the nexus between the Podesta emails, and the released "Clintonemail.com" emails that were obtained under FOIA request. To date, in the Podesta emails there are 282 emails that contain reference to "clintonemail.com." The oldest email is dated 10/18/2011 n a date range that spans from 2011 - 2016.
If one searches the Clinton Email database for reference to "podesta", one finds 125 references, with the newest date being 2013 in a date range that spans from 2009 - 2013.
To date, there is not a single email of the 282 Podesta emails sent to "clintonemail.com" addresses that coincides with the published email from "clintonemail.com." It seems almost inevitable though, that the hacked Podesta emails include transmissions that were part of what Hillary submitted as true and accurate representation of "email" - but was in fact, a fraud. It's likely that the Podesta emails contain prima fascia evidence of such fraud.
The clear signal being sent to Hillary Clinton is this:
We have 3 years of Podesta's emails that overlap the period of emails you've turned over to Congress and the State Department.
We hold Prima-Fascia evidence you've committed Fraud, Perjury, and Obstruction of Justice - High Crimes and Misdemeanors by ANY definition.
If we release them, you will be Impeached, Convicted, and driven from office in shame - going down in history as the second Clinton to be Impeached.
If elected Clinton will ALWAYS be either reacting to actual blackmail, or suspected of doing so. Either way, it will make her totally ineffective in dealing with Russian aggression.
The evidence that she committed such fraud?
Simple.
The fact that she was in possession of, and meticulously destroyed, EVERY trace of exculpatory evidence that she didn't.
Seriously, it takes about 30 seconds to "turn over email" evidence. But instead of turning over email as requested by subpoena, she invested thousands of man hours in downloading email files, converting them to .pdf documents, and then printing them. There is NO logical reason to do that unless you wanted to conceal the fact that you've edited the files.
So, there's your choice for President folks, a woman who's negligent handling of communication has made her a prime target of blackmail by unscrupulous foreign governments; or an outspoken billionaire who's committed to control immigration, improve trade deals, stop senseless wars, and has been overheard saying he grabs women by the p***y.
Doesn't seem like a tough choice.
Add a commentTrump's Hot Mic proves: You MUST Vote for Trump
- Details
- Created: Saturday, 08 October 2016 12:34
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
So it seems Donald Trump attempted to seduce the attractive young woman, pictured to the left, by impressing her with his taste in great furniture and wealth to buy it for her. He also was guilty of bragging about how the effort was unsuccessful. He continued his boorish rant of how women rarely rebuffed him because "he was a star." He further bragged that he would just "grab them by the pussy."
Vulgar? - Sure.
Ugly? - Absolutely.
Disqualifying? - Hardly.
Does it prove anything? - YES...
If one desires to have his President held to account by an aggressive press - one MUST vote for a Donald Trump.
If one desires to have any hint of transgression on the part of their President to be hidden, obscured, and excused - only to be revealed if intercepted by international criminals dumping illegally obtained data - then one should vote for Hillary Clinton.
This level of gutter talk is hardly uncommon - especially if you're a Democrat. No, that doesn't make it acceptable; but for the most part it's likely his words are an excessive exaggeration and an effort to impress a sexually obsessed Hollywood group with his sexual prowess.
What most are missing here is that if such embarrassing tapes were in the hands of our country's media of Hillary or Bill Clinton - we would never see them. In fact, the media would help to cover up and destroy such evidence.
For example, the L.A. Times has in it's possession a video of Barack Obama attending an event honoring Palestinian anti-Israel radical Rashid Khalidi. The Times refuses to release the video.
The question is, to whom will we look to hold our governing officials to account?
If we elect a Democrat, especially Hillary: our media will become a Government Protection Syndicate, aggressively knocking down ANY story that reflects badly on Her Highness, and dismissing all opposition as crude sexist attacks.
Similar to the past 8 years. We have a President who's publicist proclaimed (apparently falsely) that he was born in Kenya. But the media, to this day, universally pronounces anyone who alludes to this possibility - a racist - and then argues about who started such a rumor.
Similarly, the media has never asked a simple question of Hillary Clinton:
Hillary, What really happened in Benghazi?
Was Chris Stevens tortured and sodomized as revenge for what you did to Gadaffi?
The accepted and roundly applauded answer is, "At this point, what difference does it make."
Hillary destroyed ALL her electronic communications and substituted (what are likely bogus) printed pages. Why would anyone believe that printed versions of digital data are authentic after the producer of the data moved heaven and earth to destroy every bit of evidence that could verify their authenticity.
Has the media even been so curious as to ask such a question?
No. Of course not. Because they are participants in the cover-up.
Now, on the other side - If there is ANYTHING that exists that could be construed as a negative reflection on Donald Trump, (or any other Republican) - one can expect it to be broadcast wall to wall for as long as it takes to do maximum political damage.
If Benghazi had occurred during the Bush administration, we'd already know every detail about what happened.
If George and Laura Bush operated and international charity fund that accepted $100's of millions from foreign donors and then promoted their interests within the Government - every POSSIBLE conflict would be common knowledge.
If Donald Rumsfeld destroyed digital records of his communications, we'd already have scorched the earth finding back ups, and regaled endless dark scenarios of "what he MIGHT have deleted."
If the IRS had been used to attack liberal leaning groups, there would be a laundry list of prison sentences already handed out.
Alternately if there existed a tape of Bill Clinton saying...
"Man it was classic, I had the State Troopers escort this hot babe up to my room, and she's all nervous and shit, then I sit her down on the bed and when she turns around, I stick my dick right in her face and tell her to kiss it. She gets all scared and starts to run out of the room, I try to catch her but my pants are around my ankles and I almost fall over. - freakin hysterical man."
or...
"Yeah this 22 year old intern bitch was blowing me while I was on the phone and shot my wad all over her, then she wants to fuck but I'm not ready yet - if ya know what I mean - so grab a cigar off my desk and drill her with that. Man you shoulda heard her - she loved it - it was great."
or...
"So this blond babe that runs nursing homes comes to my room to talk about regulations - yeah right - you know that's bullshit, only reason she was there was cause she was horny. Hell, her name was Juanita, you know all those kind are horny all the time... So I grab her and kiss her, she tries to pull away, ya know, like she really didn't want it (but you know she did) - so I push her down on the bed, rip her little panties off and fuck the living shit out of her - the whole time she's yelling NO, NO, wow it was such a turn on - I came so hard I almost bit her fucking lip off. When I was walking out I looked back and told her - better put some ice on that"
Tape or video of the above may or may not exist. We do know, that there's a reasonably good chance that the description provided by the quotes actually happened. We also know, if such video or audio were in possession of the media, we'd never hear it.
Once again, if you missed it the first time...
If one desires to have his President held to account by an aggressive press - one MUST vote for a Donald Trump.
If one desires to have any hint of transgression on the part of their President to be hidden, obscured, and excused - only to be revealed if intercepted by international criminals dumping illegally obtained data - then one should vote for Hillary Clinton.
Add a comment