Donald Trump

And that's just the problem. i remember a buddy of mine commenting on how he liked G.W. because he seemed like the kinda guy you could go have a beer with. Exactly!

 

Nobody mentioning it's Rubio that started the dick talk. Trump being who he is just responded.
You can say we should have a president with more class but you can find some faults that a president shouldn't have in every single person who got 1 percent of any pole in this last election.
Trump had the biggest poles...

 

Funny how this guy reacts to Steins call for investigating the wisconsin votes. She didn't call it anything with certainty yet. She just wants to make it certain. Unlike this clown himself who yelled much more stupid stuff about 'rigged elections!' in advance :-D

 

I do find it strange how Stein doesn't seem to have any interest in recounting in states like Nevada or New Hampshire where Hillary won my a much thinner margin; she's only interested in recounting Trump's states.

Even weirder is she managed to raise $6 million or more for these recount efforts in one week. Which is double what she raised throughout the whole year for her presidential campaign as a Green Party candidate.

 

As i understand it has to do with areas where computers were used. Could be far less the case in the states you mention? Just speculating.

 

From what I understand, Michigan is on that list of states targeted for recount. And that is a paper ballot state where no computerized voting machines existed.

 

As I understand it, the effort was triggered by a report by the Director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and an associated group of computer scientists and election lawyers that some of the machines could have been hacked, because they were vulnerable to that. That seems to have been particularly the case in rural areas of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where the vulnerable machines were used. Allegedly, they were largely insecure and rarely matched against paper ballots. The group noted a statistical tendency for Clinton to have 7% less support in counties where the machines were used--mostly rural counties. Of course an alternative explanation is the folks in the rural counties liked Trump and/or hated Hillary, which would not be beyond the realm of possibility. I don't get the argument for Michigan, where voting is done by optical scan ballots and a tabulator, same as here in Oklahoma--but Michigan''s the state were the experts doing the challenging are based so maybe they know something I don't. Jill Stein took up the challenge based on their info. It's her right as a candidate to ask for a recount. She thinks it would be good to verify the integrity of our electoral system. If the outcome invalidates Trump's victory, we could have a civil war on our hands. But it does seem like quite a long shot. The other possibility is faithless electors--Trump electors refusing to vote for him in the Electoral College. Some Wisconsin electors are talking about doing that, but it's again a real long shot. I think we're stuck with the Donald, for better or (more likely) for worse.

Parenthetically, these are national elections, and I don't think the methods for voting should be so completely left up to the idiosyncrasies of states and counties.

 

And -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS3O5zg290k
Some things never change

 

The remarkable thing is how the critics of the Clintons roll over at the suggestion by our Grifter in Chief soon to be that he will not put his undisclosed holdings in a blind trust and let his kids continue to run the business while he's President. His daughter sits in on heads of state meetings and phone calls and she'll be running Trump Enterprises. He's never disclosed his taxes so we don't really know the extent and scope of his foreign dealings, but the Russian ties of his cronies and his love affair with Putin raise suspicions. "Clean the swamp", my ass. He is the swamp!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIDlFzvk4tU

 

So I was scanning the various questionable news services and ran across this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/29/trump-takes-heat-for-wanting-to-outlaw-flag-burning-but-clinton-wanted-same-in-2005.html

To me this is obvious, Trump's people are searching high and low for "outrageous" crap for Trump to say. After the press and the hard left reach peak freak, it is revealed that the opposition had the same position or said the same thing long ago.

Why would they do this? Because it's classic, textbook trolling.

Maybe it's time to quit worrying what comes out of the carnival barker's mouth and instead pay close attention to the actual show.

 

Going to jail for a year and suffering financial ruin is nothing to sneeze at.

So, if Clinton had her way, and you burned a flag, and I got a couple of my friends to attack you, then it would be said that you burned a flag to incite violence.

There will always be those who have a violent reaction to the burning of a flag.

 

Describe a scenario in which burning the flag is done to incite violence.

 

Right, because underhanded, dirty tricks are so alien to Washington insiders.

 

When it's a rainbow flag being burned.

 

and the stories keep on coming...here is a link about a Pence supporter and hois mind set from Huffington Post about insulting 2 Asians in a diner....racism at its finest.....Yes...make America White again should have been trump's slogan....Don't these people realize that this continent first belonged to the red man....? Uneducated masses at its finest....the Trump/Pence supporters....
This country was always divided, but now, it is more evident than ever....They are coming out of the woodwork....Trump has inspired them all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-supporter-racist-diner_us_583ca1cde4b06539a78a0a1c