Pages

Friday, December 30, 2016

Putin takes the high road....

Although we have the right to retaliate, we will not resort  to irresponsible
‘kitchen’ diplomacy but will plan our further steps to restore Russian-US
 relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration.

Yes... cyber security is a concern...

But no, we should not dwell on election hacking.

For those on the left who felt our national security secrets being exposed was an issue that got far too much media and legal play (Hillary emails)... it's disingenuous to continue to claim that the exposure of Democratic Party and Clinton campaign emails requires more.


The President has decided (on his way out) to impose penalties against Russia that he will not be around to enforce or around to deal with the concequenses of. I suppose he felt obligated as it is not clear that incoming President Trump would have offered any consequences.

Trump suggested that he plans to meet with the intelligence community regarding the situation but feels we should "move on" in regards to dwelling on the actual election hacking. This is prudent.

I hate to state the obvious here, but hacking is a reality. We should be more concerned with how to protect ourselves from it, rather than trying to dish out punishment after the fact. Especially when we seem unwilling or unable to provide the proof that the people we are holding accountable actually did it.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Has this guy "ever" been right?


It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?
Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.
Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.

DJIA at record highs since Trump election

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Hillary's popular vote argument proves why she shouldn't have been President...

It's well known that the Clinton team made a specific effort to pad their popular vote total. They ran national advertising, they ran advertisement targeting Hispanic voters in lost cause states such as Texas and Arizona, and actually ran ads in California and New York, where there was literally no chance to lose.

The theory was two fold. They were actually somewhat worried about winning the electoral college vote, while loosing the popular vote. Otherwise, they felt that winning the popular vote by a larger margin would provide them with a larger "mandate" to govern the country moving forward. Both reasons, of course, assumed that they would win the electoral college, making both politically strategic moves (rather than electoral strategic).
_______

So let's start with what we might want in a President. Considering the job is executive in general, you might want someone who understands how to hire the right people, and how to effectively manage those people. In fact, that's probably the "most" important quality for a President. It's amazing to me that she had a billion dollars to spend, but could not afford to find anyone who could offer her the advice that it was much more likely that she would win the popular vote and lose the electoral, than the other way around. I am a full time computer engineer, with two boys, and a small time blog that I run in my limited spare time, and even "I" understood that she needed to probably win nationally by at least two percent to win the electoral college:
It appears at this point that Clinton will probably need to maintain her two-four point polling lead nationally to win the Electoral college vote. On the flip side, it's fairly easy to see how a popular vote victory for Trump would likely secure an ECV win.
Secondly, with deficits growing into the trillions, it might be helpful to find someone who can effectively manage a budget, and make the most impact with the least amount of funds. I would offer that those who are good at budgeting are fundamentally be able to identify what is of value, and what isn't. Donald Trump spent less than twenty five million to win the nomination, effectively using free media to combat the large amount of money spent by others. He managed to spend less than half the money that Hillary did in the general election, by basically focusing on what was important (the battleground states).

Meanwhile, Clinton spent more money than any Presidential candidate in history, and managed to piss much of it away on building field offices, running advertising, and otherwise putting forward resources in areas of the country that were not in play. It was said that she spent more time and resources trying to win a single electoral college vote in Nebraska, than she did making sure she was going to win Wisconsin.

It would take serious effort "not" to conclude that Donald Trump made the most of his funding. He had a better strategy and was able to win in a very economical fashion. On the flip side, Hillary Clinton grossly mismanaged the most important endeavor in her life, and effectively wasted nearly a billion dollars in her loss.
_______

So. when people on the left suggests that Hillary Clinton should be President because she won the popular vote. Quite the opposite. Had she better concentrated her efforts on winning the electoral college vote (the point of the contest) rather than focusing on things that are effectively irrelevant, she may have won. The fact that she didn't suggests overconfidence, lack of effective hiring, lack of strategy, and lack of budgeting her resources. All good reasons she would "not" have made an effective leader, and why she shouldn't have been President. 

Monday, December 26, 2016

Candidate Trump was scary...
President Trump, not so much...

Truth be told, I never really had much issue with the idea of Donald Trump actually becoming President. While no one can be certain whether or not a billionaire with no political experience can be a successful President, if there is someone with a historical track record of accomplishment it was Trump. Trump has had a ton of success in the business and entertainment world, and he certainly looks like he will be a substantial President (regardless of whether you believe it will be good or bad).

Was he my "first choice" to run as a Republican? Lord no. Not even close. That being said, I am less inclined to be wary of him being sworn in as President as I was with him being given the nomination. To be blunt, I felt that others (like Marco Rubio and John Kasich) would provide a much better chance of winning for the GOP. Like many prognosticators, I simply thought Trump was a sure loser, and I did not like the idea of a Hillary Clinton Presidency. 

But as President-elect, Donald Trump has brought many GOP and conservatives into his fold. He's built a cabinet that appears well balanced between successful people outside of politics (business leaders and military commanders) and Washington insiders. His popularity with Americans as a whole has rocketed up from the large negatives he once had, to some polls showing him more popular than not. Trump proved me (and many others) wrong. 

For me, I find myself reflecting on where I got him wrong. How did I so misjudge his ability to convince people that he would be a good President (or at least better than Hillary). Much of it, of course, is our reliance on our own opinions and our bad habit of projecting those opinions unto the general population. But at the end of the day, I underestimated his connection with so many Americans looking for someone to just tell it like it is and not give a bigger shit if the political correctness police took issue. Someone who would be willing to stand up for the forgotten people of this country, who feel lost in the shuffle, and ignored in favor of every other real and imagined aggrieved class of people. 

I thought to myself... what if I was a guy who lost my good job, and was unemployed, underemployed or otherwise working an unsatisfying job, just trying to make it pay check to pay check. What if all I heard about from the current President and his Party was how we had to do better for the Black people, how we had to legalize more Hispanics, and how we had to look out for Gay rights. 

How left out does someone feel if their needs and requirements for a basic fundamental manner in which to support a family seems to take a back seat to gay wedding cakes, global warming arguments, and whether or not a man dressed as a woman should be allowed to take a shower in the lady's locker room, rather than the men's. 

To be perfectly honest, the left's infatuation with an ever increasing list of social demands has gone far beyond tedious by the standards of most Americans. Their desire to placate the millennials with safe spaces and support pets because their feelings are being hurt by people who have the audacity to disagree with them is self absorbed and to a large degree irrelevant to most people. Maybe if they worried more about those who no longer can afford to send their kids to school, rather than worried about whether or not those Beautiful snowflakes in school have the proper therapy offered to them because they were exposed to a Trump political message, they would have connected a little better with these working class Americans. 

Donald Trump understood that. As a fundamental principle, he understood that Americans were fed up, not just with the idea of political correctness, but more with the fact that the Government was actually getting involved with these petty social debates in the first place (while they felt largely ignored). He was able to connect in that fashion, and that gave him an in. Once in, he was able to easily move people to where he wanted them with a tremendous ability to persuade and lead. 

So now that he is President, he appears willing to follow through with a new attitude. He will not be throwing any pity parties for those who had their feeling hurt with his election. He will not be working tirelessly for some newly defined aggrieved group made up of seventeen people across the country who feel slighted by something or someone. 

Instead he appears ready and willing to help the forgotten Americans. Help build some new industry and create some better paying jobs. Work towards the goal of making Americans work again. While I am certain that there will be some bumps in the road, and not every proposal will work exactly as planned, he will win over many of these Americans for simply paying attention and proving some plan to help. 

Governing is about priorities. Obama, Clinton and the Democrats had their priorities and did everything they could to promote them. Because they did, they ignored other priorities. Trump took advantage of that. If he follows through, then he will become a very relevant President and quite possibly a very good one as well.  

Excuses are like what Roger calls Rat...


Saturday, December 24, 2016

Rockettes will perform at inauguration in spite of beautiful snowflake throwing a fit....

More Rockettes volunteered to perform at the inauguration than they have slots for

I want to start with a little bit of common sense here. Miss Phoebe "beautiful snowflake" Pearl signed a contract that included performing at the inauguration. Unless she is not very bright, she had to realize that the person "she" voted for might not win. Of course, as a liberal millennial, she probably isn't all that bright.

In my humble opinion the company should have stuck to it's guns, and allowed Ms Pearl the option of opting out of her contract if she didn't want to follow through on her commitment. After all, they have more than enough volunteers and apparently more than enough part time Rockettes who would most certainly be willing to abide by the contract and take Ms Pearl's spot as a full timer. Instead they changed their position to allow full timers to opt out.

As this does is reinforce the belief that "beautiful snowflake" millennials are allowed to have the world revolve around them, and have their own personal feelings be more important than... well pretty much everything else.  A much better life lesson would have been learned for all parties had the "beautiful snowflake" had to make a tough choice between her job and her millennial sensitivities.

The anti-Semite President delivers parting shot against Israel

Proudly sticking it to the Jews on the way out the door! 
President Obama is facing widespread backlash from Republicans and some Democrats after the United States abstained from a vote on a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements, allowing the resolution to pass.
The United States has veto power in the Security Council and has used it for similar resolutions in the past. The Obama administration’s decision to abstain represents a break from the longstanding U.S. policy of shielding Israel from U.N. reproaches.
“Today's passage of an ill-conceived resolution on Israeli settlements marks another shameful chapter in the bizarre anti-Israel history of the United Nations,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in a statement Friday. “The abstention of the United States has made us complicit in this outrageous attack, and marks a troubling departure from our nation's long, bipartisan history of defending our ally Israel in the United Nations.”
Incoming Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the vote “frustrating, disappointing and confounding” and said it will move Israel farther from peace.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) also slammed the vote and expressed disappointment in the White House’s decision. "I am deeply disappointed that the administration set aside longstanding U.S. policy to allow such a one-sided resolution to pass,” Wyden said in a statement. "Actions like this will only take us further from the peace we all want to see."
In a statement released by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, Israel said it looks forward to working with Trump and members of Congress to “negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution.”

This action is bizarre. While we expect the UN (and their anti-Semite views) to continue to side with Palestine on these issues, it's been the United States that has continuously defended Israel on these issues. The Israeli settlements are in an area that has been part of the Jewish community throughout the last ten centuries. The land was forcefully taken by an Arab army in 1948 and then forcefully taken back by Israel a few years later. Now Jewish citizens living in the "Jewish quarter" can be legally arrested for simply maintaining their life long residence.

The President waited till there were no consequences to himself or his Party (short term). But he clearly exposed himself for what he is: an anti-Semite who would prefer to side with the Palestinians and Arab Muslim community than our long time ally in the region. If he had any guts, he would have made his stance and intentions known some time ago. Shameful.

Friday, December 23, 2016

The left still in denial...

Two more articles today on Real Clear Politics from liberals convinced that either the 2016 election was a fluke that ran counter to how liberal and Democratic the electorate really is, or that Democrats really only lost because the voters are too stupid to get that liberal policies are better for them. While they represent a couple different ways of seeing things, they still both miss the point.


Myth: Changing Demographics are turning the country more Democratic
Fact: The Democratic Party is struggling through their worst politically standing in nearly a century. Only once in the past six elections have Democrats increased their percentage of the electorate (when comparing Presidential year to Presidential year and mid-term to mid-term).

Myth: Legalization of gay marriage and corporate pressure on states who pass the wrong sorts of laws prove that the country is moving to the left.
Fact: Thirty six states had passed resolutions or amendments to ban gay marriage in their states. Only a handful had passed similar referendums to make it legal. The courts (not voters) made it legal. Corporations who have chosen to make political statements have come under fire for doing so and are learning that wading into politics only angers half the country. The 2016 election exit polls suggested that a rejection of over the top political correctness was a major factor in the Trump victory.

Myth: The Republicans are becoming a regional Party of southern confederate states.
Fact:  Donald Trump won 2623 counties to Hillary Clinton's 489. Over one third of the Democrats Congressional seats come from California, New York, and Massachusetts.

Myth: Republican voters are not aware that they benefit from the liberal income redistribution policies, and rather believe it goes to people who don't deserve it. If they only understood liberal policies better, they would be in favor.
Fact: Republican voters are more interested in making an honest living from honest employment, than garnering benefits from the Government. They would rather be rewarded for hard work, and believe that being rewarded for hard work has been and still "should" be an American value. This is why they were attracted to the Donald Trump message on jobs, rather than the Clinton message of entitlements and forced minimum wage increases.

Bottom line: The more that your liberals fail to grasp that they have a problem, the less likely it will be that they can resolve it. It really doesn't matter if Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, when we live in a Representative Democracy (or a Republic).  There are still 50 states and the District of Columbia, and Democrats only control a handful of them.

The rules are not going to change, and right now, only one Party seems to be playing the game to win by the rules in place. The other continues to barrel full blast ahead with a strategy that will continue to regionalize their support to pockets that will make it more and more difficult to win in any substantial way at the local, state, or Congressional levels.

Ronald Reagan was the last President to truly win in a landslide. He did so because he had a simple message that resonated everywhere he went. He didn't have one stump speech for California, another stump speech for Arkansas, and yet another for Ohio. Truth be told, if there is a real similarity between Reagan and Trump it would be in this basic fundamental principle of staying on a national message.

To take it one step further would be to suggest that in many ways there is a consistency to the Republican message (lower taxes, less Government, strong military, protection of Religious rights) that has been a staple of the Party since I can remember. There appears to be no such staple for the Democrats. Recently it feels like they are throwing stuff against the wall, trying to figure out what will stick. The problem with "Identity politics" is that it's always fluid. (especially when you literally make up new classes of aggrieve people as you go along). You have to constantly be changing your position and adjusting your strategy as new issues come up. The problem being that those who you once advocated for, feel betrayed when you (and your limited political capital) move on to the next group of oppressed Americans.

There is no simple solution for the left. They appear stuck in their own arrogance that they are right about everything, and all they have to do is wait for the Country to come to them. So they continue to argue shifting demographic, young people, etc, etc. rather than focus on any tangible change. Problem is that this is nothing new. We've been hearing about shifting demographics and young people for decades.

Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result?

Thursday, December 22, 2016

A Buzz about fake hate crimes...

There have been several "post election" hate crime stories that have been in the news for being "debunked" as actual stories

  • Black Baptist Church was burned down and the words "Vote Trump" were spray painted on the side of the building. A black member of the church was arrested this week for committing the crime.
  • Muslim kicked off plane for "speaking a different language" turns out to be U-Tube hoaxter who specializes is pulling elaborate pranks.  His U-tube channel provide several videos showing things you don't do on a plane.
  • Muslim women who reported white males forced her to remove her Jihab while yelling "Donald Trump" admits it was a hoax used as an excuse for her being late for curfew.
  • Jasskirat Saini was arrested for committing anti-Semite and racist acts of vandalism including spray painting KKK and Nazi signs around a college campus in Garden City New York. The actions were largely blamed on white supremacists empowered by Trump, but Saini was actually a student of Middle Eastern decent.  

This is one of those things that Hillary supported demanded would happen: people (mostly white males) would feel empowered by the Trump election to be racist assholes who will go around insulting minorities, hassling gays, and grabbing women. It would appear that of all the so-called reports, that almost none of them have any proof, and those where some evidence exists have all pointed to them being hoaxes. 

Just as most of the stuff the left is expecting to happen now that Trump has been officially elected President... it's mostly just overreaction and quite frankly a misreading of what Trump support is really about. Because the left cannot accept that there is any legitimacy to the Trump campaign, the Trump message, or the Trump win, it has to be racism and bigotry. 

Short of any real proof that this is true, they resort to manufacturing the evidence. Fake but true, as Dan Rather once stated. Fake but true, at least in their minds. 

Sad really... 

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

The left in panic mode... What's next?


They couldn't win the election.
They couldn't win selective recounts.
They couldn't win the electoral college vote.

So what's next? Will the progressive snowflakes suck it up and deal with the fact that broader American heartland doesn't agree with the fruits, nuts, and flakes of Hollywood California, NY NY, and other liberal urban centers?

Well, considering most liberals feel that the sun and moon revolves around Los Angeles, Chicago, NYC, or any major city that touches an ocean... it's unlikely that they will suck anything up or deal with anything of the sort. The liberal mass hysteria has spoken, and they believe that the rest of the country are bigoted hicks who simply are not smart enough to see what they see. So, no... acceptance and trying to come together as a country is not in the cards.

So they are in "resistance" mode. First step is to delegitimize the election results by floating one of many different conspiracy theories... starting with the idea that Trump and Putin were in cahoots and that somehow Trump helped Russia "hack" the election. There is no evidence of this, mind you. None presented by anyone. But it won't stop the claims.

The truth is that the very corrupt DNC was doing anything they could to provide Hillary Clinton access to the nomination, including suggesting that they attack Bernie Sanders over his religion. The other truth was that members of the media was coordinating with the Clinton campaign on their election coverage, and they even provided the Clinton camp with advanced notice of debate questions.

This was all exposed by email hacks, that were made possible, in part, because Hillary's own Campaign manager fell prey to a phishing attack that my 13 year old son would recognize. (perhaps Trump and Putin conspired to steal the brains of the Hillary Clinton campaign?) In a comedy of errors, he was even told that the phishing email was legitimate (by Hillary's own IT) and that he should go ahead and change his passwords (which is what the email was asking him to do). Ahem... and these are the people some wanted to actually run our Country. Lord help us.

So... lose the election. Go to court to try to force recounts. Lost recounts. Try to force electors to change their vote. Not succeed at doing so. Allow your emails to be hacked. Blame the Russians?

So I ask again... what's next?

Clinton's mock attack on the FBI

So the FBI found a private laptop from a former Congressman, which contained nine "secret" email chains between the Secretary of State and an Aide who was married to that former Congressman.

By all technical, legal, and otherwise logical reasoning, having such material on a non-secured device is against the law.

But the reaction of the Clinton team is telling:
"The unsealed filings regarding Huma's emails reveals Comey's intrusion on the election was as utterly unjustified as we suspected at time. There was nothing in search warrant filing to controvert Comey's statements from July and truly establish probable cause of a crime. On day when new election data freshly suggests decisive impact of Comey letter, it is salt in the wound to see FBI rationale was this flimsy."
The fact of the matter, is that because Hillary Clinton was not charged for having classified documents on "her" private server, that any idea that having classified documents on a third party laptop being considered criminal is "flimsy".

In other words... we got away with it once, we should be able to get away with it as many times as it comes up? Hillary Clinton actually owes her entire campaign to James Comey. Had Comey done his job as an independent law enforcement officer, he would have followed his own logic and recommended indictment against her. The fact that he didn't recommend indictment allowed her to continue.

If the Democrats want to place blame for the 2016 election loss on Comey, then so be it. But do it for the right reasons. Had he done the right thing, Hillary would have been replaced on the ticket and there would be no October surprises regarding her criminal investigation. Had Comey done the right thing, her replacement might have won.

Otherwise, if Democrats want to blame someone for the last minute reopen of the criminal investigation into Clinton's handling of classified information... they should look in the mirror. Maybe accept the fact that is was more than just a little stupid to nominate someone under criminal investigation as your candidate for President.

Bottom line: Outside of California, New York, and a few selected coastal and urban areas... the American public overwhelmingly didn't want Hillary Clinton to be President. They did not want her to be President so badly, that they favored business Icon, and reality television show star Donald Trump.

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Obama vows to...

do nothing after China openly steals an
 American Drone from international waters

 take action against Russian for supposedly
 hacking the DNC and Hillary Campaign emails

Begs the question:

Do his loyalties lie with his Country or with his Party?

Monday, December 19, 2016

Two acts of terror?

We die in Aleppo, you die here!
Don't forget Aleppo, Syria!

Nine Dead - Fifty plus injured as truck rams into market
Terror attack suspected! 

Electoral College Votes today...

Update: Trump over 270 !!!

256- Trump
143 - Clinton
3 - Powell
1 - Faith Spotted Eagle 


The last gasp of the disgruntled Democrats? Perhaps... but if the intimidation and hate speech directed at the electors was any indication, they will just move on to the next step. 

I wonder... how many different reasons can they come up with to "impeach" the President? 

Democrats now feel entitled to be poor losers

The Democrats lost and they lost big. Lost across the board. Have been losing. Will likely continue to lose. They are the people's Party of losers right now. The saddest thing about all of this is that they have suddenly become not only the Party of losers, but the Party of poor losers.

Could anyone really imagine the outrage...

If it was Trump supporters threatening to put bullets in the heads of Electors who were pledged to vote for Hillary Clinton?




But it's apparently perfectly acceptable if you are a Clinton supporter to threaten the life of a Trump pledged Elector.  After all, it's all the fault of Vladimir Putin.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

The hypocrisy of the left!

So you remember this little disagreement between Obama, Clinton, Lynch and James "I cost Hillary the election" Comey? How many calls from Democrats were there for James Comey to step down or be fired? How many different names was the FBI Director called for drawing and releasing conclusions that didn't shed the best of light on the Democratic Candidate for President. Do you remember how his judgement was questioned. Do you remember how reports from "officials" about many things (many that turned out to be true) were discounted by people as propaganda and lies.

You remember how the FBI was brought smack dab in the middle of a Presidential election? At one time or the other pretty much pissing off everyone involved? How the entire FBI was questioned and accused of having partisan interests.


Well apparently not everyone does... because the left seems to believe that somehow Donald Trump is behaving inappropriately for not accepting as gospel the claims that have been "leaked" to the Washington Post and Politico in regards to the CIA investigation. Not only that, but apparently they want to argue that the idea that Trump (as an important political figure) might not accept as "settled fact" stuff that is being leaked in the press... is "unprecedented".

I guess they must mean "unprecedented" for Republicans... because the Democrats (led by the Clinton camp) can hardly stop attacking and questioning the intelligence community even today.

The reputation of the Justice Department and the FBI has been tarnished over the past couple of years because they their actions bled into National politics. Perhaps it's only fitting that the CIA is now "leaking" information to well known liberal fake news organizations Washington Post and Politico to throw themselves into the political mix as well. They must have felt left out. Lord forbid we have any intelligence communities that can keep themselves out of the political muck.

According to the left. This is all Donald Trump's fault. And of course, in spite of not being able to throw a rock without hitting a liberal willing to attack the intelligence community... it's also unprecedented.

Saturday, December 17, 2016

MIchelle Obama - no longer proud

 "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country" - 2008
“We are feeling what not having hope feels like" - 2016

Friday, December 16, 2016

Russia pushes back...

So the President has determined that there will be "consequences" against Russia over their alleged hacking of the DNC and Clinton campaigns. Russian officials have pushed back, demanding (rightfully so) that the President and the United States provide the international community with their evidence that the Russians are to blame.


It's one thing to make an internal determination that your best guess is that the Russians did it. It's one thing to provide the crybaby left with another scapegoat to blame for their election loss. It's another to tell the world that you are planning to retaliate.

So far, there is scant evidence that the new found CIA assessments are anything more than loosely pieced together theories based on circumstantial evidence. I wrote before that in some ways it is more the CIA's job to determine possible scenarios and the chances that these scenarios are real. But it's the FBI's job to evaluate the evidence and make a more solid determination based on what they can prove.

When it comes to threatening Russia with retaliation, I would argue that our President should take heed and follow the FBI lead, rather than jump the gun and move forward and take action based on the CIA assessment. This should be fairly simple common sense.

From what we can gather (and this is because the CIA is not cooperating with calls for transparency) the argument sort of goes like this:
  • Nobody "other" than the Russian government is sophisticated enough to pull this off. They claim there is evidence of hacking technology consistent with the Russian Government.
  • Since someone within the Russian government had to provide the technology to whoever did do the hacking, then Putin must have signed off on it. 
There are several problems with this logic. First, how do we know that this technology wasn't sold, stolen, or otherwise copied by someone else? It's sort of naive to assume that since a particular technology has been used by one Government, that this fact would remain static for any real length of time. Secondly, how can we be sure that it was coordinated by a member of the Russian Government, that this person wasn't acting rogue? Lastly, how do we know that a more sophisticated hacker (not-Russian) didn't purposely leave obvious false "foot prints" to throw off would be investigators and pin it on Russia? Since almost all hacking can be done without leaving any evidence, the fact that there are signs (footprints) suggests that it could have been planted.

There would appear to be almost an infinite amount of alternate theories that would provide a problem when your entire argument seems to be based on the process of elimination.

Also, what exactly can this President do when he is only in office for a few weeks and the man replacing him is on record as stating he agrees more with the assessment of the FBI than the CIA? What sort of possible consequences can he dish out without Trump's ultimate backing? Should he even make such a statement without consulting the person who would likely have to follow through?

Lastly... should the United States Government retaliate on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton Campaign? Technically neither of these organizations were Governmental. They are technically private political organizations. Is it the President's place to use the resources of the federal government to retaliate for an attack on his Party?

I think this was a fundamental blunder on the Part of President Obama. He doesn't have to move forward dealing with the relationship between the United States and Russia. His actions at this point, may well work to undermine anything that the new Administration might be trying to accomplish in those regards. The only way this was not a blunder is if straining relations was the ultimate goal.

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Even the Washington Post agrees

Fact Checker:  Trump’s claim that ‘the president can’t have a conflict of interest’

The Pinocchio Test
While spoken in classic “Trumpese” that fails to capture the nuances of the law, the president-elect did rightly point to an exemption for the president and vice president in conflicts of interest laws. And while such an exemption exists, the theory was that the presidency has so much power that any policy decision could pose a potential conflict. The law assumed that the president could be trusted to do the right thing and take actions to avoid appearance or presence of impropriety — not that the law is “totally” on the president’s “side” or that it would allow the president to use the exemption to his favor.
Trump’s statement does not quite rise to the level of a Geppetto Checkmark, nor does it qualify for a Pinocchio. So we will not rate this claim. Trump, nevertheless, should be more careful about his wording on this point. It’s quite possible he will face a number of conflicts of interest during his presidency. The law may offer an exemption for the president, but political reality — and perception— often does not.

So while the Washington post suggests that Trump's statement is technically inaccurate, at least they acknowledge that from a legal front, Trump is correct that the President and Vice President are exempted from conflict of interest laws.


Even is someone wants to push the envelope and try to prove that there is some law somewhere that does not so obviously exempt the executives, the recourse (as we all know) is that Trump would have to be impeached. For more reasons than I care to offer, this would not happen. I would start with the obvious. The American public is fully aware of Trump's business and his name brand, and still elected him President. Trying to impeach him for being a businessman who was elected President is just downright silly.

Step through this logically...

So, the House Intelligence Committee requested a briefing regarding the Wikileaks election hacking from the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Director of National Intelligence. The reason for the request was that recent reports being "leaked" are in conflict with official reports from these agencies regarding the election hacking.

To be fair, the FBI, NSA, and the Director all are still on record as stating that they have not found any direct ties between the hacking of the DNC and Hillary Campaign, and the actual Russian Government. The only party involved that apparently has changed their tune is the CIA, which has now been ordered by the President to do a full review of their intelligence.

Ironically, the only agency that refused to indulge the Intelligence committee was also the CIA, stating that they wanted to focus on the full review they are providing for the White House, and do not want to divulge any information until their review is complete.

Director Jame Clapper himself had stated previously in these committee briefings that the intelligence community lacked any strong evidence tying Russia to the WikiLeaks Disclosure. A briefing providing this very conclusion was last submitted to Congress on November 17th, nine days after the election was completed.

Obviously if these agencies (and the director) all stated less than a month ago that there was no direct link between the Wikileaks and the Russian Government, and now there are media outlets claiming that Putin himself is involved, that's a fairly substantial difference between the official information provided to Congress and the new unofficial conclusions being floated by the media.

The committee wanted to know if these differences come from new information gathered since Nov 17th, or if this was a matter of fresh eyes looking at existing information. The better question may be whether or not there really is either new evidence, fresh eyes, or anything of any substance that actually changed the conclusion.

Either way, they are entitled to the new evidence or new reasons for floating these new theories. Since the only people floating them is the CIA it would be logical that they come brief the Congressional Intelligence committees. This is nothing short of their constitutional duty to keep Congress informed (especially when they are leaking information involving specific allegations about Vladimir Putin). Their reasoning for not attending this briefing (when they attended all others) does not pass the smell test.


What the "she won the popular vote" crowd isn't telling you.

In California, Hillary Clinton literally leads by an almost two to one margin (8.7 million to 4.5 million). That's a 4.2 million margin for Hillary coming specifically from the land of the fruits, nuts and flakes. Take away California, and Trump won the rest of the country by a fairly wide margin.

So, why is this relevant? Isn't California part of the United States?

Sure, and if this was a popular vote election it would matter. But if this was a popular vote election, Hillary Clinton would not have won California by over four million votes. I can say that with a fair amount of confidence.

What most people know (and will not tell you) is that California had a very unique situation this year. First, this was an off year for their Governorship. There was no statewide election for the Governor. Secondly, there was a state-wide Senate race, but there was actually no Republican in the race. The race, quite literally was one Democrat running against another Democrat.

What this means, ladies and gentlemen is that there was little (if no incentive) for Republicans to come out and vote in the 2016 California election. The Presidency was a lock, most of the congressional districts are locks, and there was literally no Republicans running in any important statewide race. On the flip side, there was definitely incentive for Democrats to come out and vote, if for not other reason than to determine which Democrat wins the Senate seat.

This is the equivalent to suggesting a late season game between a playoff team resting all their starters, and a team making a drive for the playoffs is an actual indicator of how a real contest would go between the teams. One team has no incentive to win, while the other has all the incentive.

Donald Trump garnered about four million "more" votes than Mitt Romney in the 49 states and District of Columbia. He garnered about a half million "less" votes than Mitt Romney in California. This certainly would not have happened had there been incentive for California Republicans to come out and vote.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Who's afraid of change?

One of the favorite rhetorical arguments you hear from people on the left is that liberals are open to change, while conservatives are prone to fight to keep the status quo. This is part of why they want to label themselves as "progressives" as in they are always looking to push the country forward. On the flip side, they deem this resistance to change as showing a lack of open mindedness and fear of the unknown. Like clockwork, every two three years, there will be some liberal psychologist who will put out some study showing some wonderful forward thinking traits associated with liberals, versus destructive close minded resistances from conservatives.

However, what is being left out of much of this discussion is that these liberals generally judge people on whether or not they agree with "liberal policies" that would offer change. Not just change as it pertains to change. The truth is that societies are always evolving and changing, and historically speaking, this evolution and change is not always positive. Right now it could be argued that there are many many different cultures and societies spread out on the globe at many different stages. Some might be seen as forward or advance, while others might be seen as backwards. Some may be on their way up, while others are probably on their way down. Historically there has always been an ebb and flow to these things. Culture and society has not progressed on a linear basis (building on previous mistakes and knowledge). But rather dominant societies have risen and fallen throughout history.

There is really no reason to believe that twenty first century society will be any different.

So we just had what most analysts suggested was a "change" election. People have been fed up with business as usual. I don't believe that this is "just" the fact that we have had a Democrat in the White House for eight year, but rather it goes deeper than that. This thirst for change likely goes back over the past sixteen years of the past two administrations that were largely different sides to the same coin. Obama certainly offered "hope and change" but really gave us neither. Bottom line: the 2016 election was not just a rejection of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but also of George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Mitt Romney, John Kerry, John McCain, Harry Reid, Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi and everyone else in the so called "establishment".

This is why we ended up electing a Billionaire with no political experience, who promises to drain the swamp, and has packed his cabinet with many non-conventional choices of people "not" from within the political establishment. He has tapped a media mogul, several former Generals, other Billionaires, with only a spattering of mainstream politicians. Nearly all of his nominees are controversial.

This, ladies and gentlemen is real change. Not just the same old same old liberal policies (that cannot pass through normal political means) being pushed at the stroke of a Presidential decree or a court order that is being pegged as change. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and the change we are talking about is "not" within the comfort zone of the so called "progressives"... isn't it amusing how these open minded forward thinking people are reacting to real honest to goodness change?

  • Liberals demanding recounts to prove Russian hacking.
  • Liberals demanding the Electoral College voters break their pledges.
  • Liberals threatening to move out of the country.
  • California threatening to secede from the union.
  • Liberals demanding they can no longer have sex or date because Trump is their President.
  • Liberals who claim that they no longer want to leave the house because Trump is their President.
  • Liberals demanding (as they did with Bush) that Trump is not "their" President.
  • Liberals getting upset because Lynyrd Skynyrd plays in public places. 
  • Liberals not knowing what to tell their kids. 
  • Etc, etc, etc... 

Trust me when I say that these are not the sort of reactions you would expect from a group of people who claim to be open minded (by nature) and demand that they are more open to real change than their political opponents.  They are not actually any more open to change (probably less so). They are (as most conservatives are) open to their "own" change, while being completely resistant to any change they disagree with. 

One of the things that liberals will have to learn is that just because they offer something as change, doesn't mean it's good change. Take diversity for instance. Diversity is Diversity. As a fundamental principle, it's neither good or bad. It simply "is". In fact, if viewed through a historical lens, the more homogeneous a society is, the stronger those societies tend to be. The more diverse they become, the weaker they become. There is no historical precedent that shows "multiculturalism" can actually survive long term in a society. Yet, liberals arbitrarily "celebrate" diversity as if it actually means something in and of itself. It simply doesn't, and saying it does doesn't change that.

Likewise, globalization is just a modern day term for imperialism. Brexit is simply the political version of resistance that autonomy driven people throughout history have generally achieved through the tip of a sword.  Whether it's the real life William Wallace, or the fictional Katniss Everdeen or Luke Skywalker, the people resisting centralized control have always been viewed as the hero. According to modern day liberals, they were all just bigots who were afraid of the wonderful change offered by a centralized authority and wanted things to go back to the way they were.

Bottom line folks. The election of Donald Trump is currently the testing the ability of people to accept and adjust to real change. I would offer that those liberals (who demand it's their forte) are failing this simple test in alarming fashion. 


Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Wisconsin Recount over

Donald Trump (who picked up a net of 162 votes out of approximately 1800 changes) was certified the winner in Wisconsin. It only cost $3.5 million and hundreds of man hours to prove that the voting machines were not hacked, and that the Russians did not steal the election for Trump.



Now it's time for your sore loser liberals to see if they can't undercut the election process some more by trying to disrupt the Electoral College vote.

More on the fake Russian "hacking" story...

One of the main reasons that the FBI may have drawn a different conclusion from the CIA is that the FBI had already investigated the so called ties between Donald Trump's campaign and the Russian Government.

According to reports, these investigations went on for several weeks prior to the election and concluded sometime in late October. The FBI found no evidence of a correlation between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government at all, much less any link that tied Trump to any Russian hacking.


Based on this extensive investigation, the FBI also concluded that there was little evidence that the hacking was done with any intention "other" than to disrupt the process. They found no evidence that anyone was specifically intending to help Donald Trump. Moreover, these investigations led to the conclusion that the hackers themselves were not directly tied to the Russian Government, but rather they were simply hackers who most likely were Russian.

The reality is that there is nothing immoral, unethical, or illegal about the fact that Donald Trump has openly pondered the possibility of working "with" rather than "against" the Russians. Nor is is wrong for Trump to want to open up a better line of communications with Putin than we have had in the past. None of this suggests that there was any collusion in the election process, much less actually proves anything of the sort.

Ultimately all members of the CIA will report to the Director chosen by Trump (at this point Mike Pompeo). I would hope that they have some concrete evidence to back up their reports that appear designed to call the election of their new Boss's Boss into question. Otherwise, I am guessing some heads will roll.

UPDATE: Another intelligence agency (independent of what Donald Trump states) has also broken ranks with the CIA:
The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.
While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

Monday, December 12, 2016

Pennsylvania recount request shot down..

A federal judge on Monday issued a stinging rejection of a Green Party-backed request to recount paper ballots in Pennsylvania's presidential election, won narrowly by Republican Donald Trump, and scan some counties' election systems for signs of hacking.  
 In his 31-page decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said there were at least six grounds that required him to reject the Green Party's lawsuit, which had been opposed by Trump, the Pennsylvania Republican Party and the Pennsylvania attorney general's office. The Green Party has been successful in at least getting statewide recounts started in Wisconsin and Michigan, but it has failed to get a statewide recount begun or ordered in Pennsylvania. 
Six Grounds for dismissal:
  • Her claims border on irrational
  • No evidence to back claim
  • Lack of Standing
  • Lack of federal jurisdiction
  • Unexplained "wait" before filing
  • Jill Stein is insane

H/T caliphate4vr 


Minnesota guy on the short list of Scalia replacements.

The Powerline Blog put in a good word for local Justice David Stras. One of the major advantages of Stras is that while he is as conservative as any of the nominees, he generally enjoys popular bipartisan support in Minnesota. Both Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar (who sit on the Senate Judiciary committee) might have issues voting against him

I think he even looks a little like a young Scalia

All it would take is for a handful of Democrats to be on board with a conservative Trump pick, and confirmation would be a foregone conclusion. Make no mistake, avoiding a long drawn out battle over Trump's first pick should be a priority.

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Fake News about Russian Hacking?

Let's start with this:
[I]ntelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees.

So technically the CIA has no evidence that the Russian Government was actually involved in any hacking. All they have is the fact that some of the hacking (associated with the wikileaks of DNC and John Podesta emails) was likely done out of Russia.

Moreover, without solid evidence that the Russian Government itself was even involved, it's pretty difficult to suggest that the CIA can decipher any sort of motive to the hacking. So the concept that the Russians did so to help Trump win the Presidency is little more than National Inquirer style reporting (or fake news as it is called today).

Secondly, the FBI is on record as holding an alternate viewpoint. The FBI intends that while some of the hacking probably came out of Russia, there is not enough evidence to support the broader claim that it was the Government who pulled the strings or that there was any specific motivation to help Donald Trump.

 As pointed out by the Powerline blog this morning, this disagreement likely stems from the fact that the FBI is used to having to actually "prove" an allegation before making it. The CIA is openly citing the "opinion" of some agents who are under no obligation to "prove" anything. When you use the term "consensus" to describe your findings, it's clear that there was no actual concrete "evidence". Otherwise  you would have seen the CIA replace the wording regarding "consensus" with wording regarding "evidence".

Wisconsin Recount Update

2,826,909 ballots have been recounted, or approximately 95 percent of all presidential ballots cast (2,975,313) - that leaves 148,404 left. Dane County and the City of Milwaukee have completed their counts - but Milwaukee (in spite of completing Thursday night) has not yet "reported" their results (which may make up much of what is missing). It's being said that they are counting their absentee ballots at a central location and will present updates when that counting is completed. It's also been stated that they have not run across anything differently than anyone else during their recounts (in other words just a few votes here and a few votes there).

The numbers so far:
  • Trump/Pence +628
  • Clinton/Kaine +653
  • Castle/Bradley +17
  • Johnson/Weld +76
  • Stein/Baraka +68
  • Moorehead/Lilly +14
  • De la Fuente/Steinberg -14
With less than 150K left to add into the totals, it would appear that there was very little change to the actual results. Certainly no signs of hacking or other large scale election fraud. Once again, it was the skewed exit polling that was incorrect, not the vote counting. Although I find it consistently curious that no matter where a recount is done, that it is always the "Democratic strongholds" that are last to report and always ends up doing something unusual or different than everyone else. 

Saturday, December 10, 2016

The left is "still" out of touch with what is going on...

The left is absolutely howling over the Trump cabinet picks. Of course, the louder they howl, the more it becomes clear that they must believe Trump is making good solid conservative choices who will follow a solid conservative agenda.

The disingenuous thing about it is that they want you to believe that conservatives are somehow as upset as they are about the choices. With the exception of George Will (who is slowing falling into a anti-Trump induced logic coma) most of the conservatives I tend to read and listen to have been more than pleased about the picks. Once again, it appears that the left is "still" completely out of touch with why Trump got elected and why his approvals have been growing in leaps and bounds.


Over the past eight (or really sixteen) years, we have had our Executive branch run by lawyers and academics. Going all the way back to the many "neoconservatives" who infiltrated the Bush administration we have had leadership that were long on theories and ideas and short on practical experience to get things done. Can anyone really argue that the neoconservative theories were any more than marginally successful when brought into practice? Can anyone really say that the neoliberalism attitudes of deferential globalism and leading from behind left the world a better place?

Trump (on the other hand) appears to be bringing in people who seem to have one or both of the following characteristics. People who specifically share specific political believes on a particular subject (DeVos, Pruitt) and people with a history of being in charge and getting things done (Generals and business leaders). Yes, he seemed to "reach out" a little with his picks of Haley, Carson, and Chao, but overall it appears that most of these picks serves a very specific purpose.

While I think Newt Gingrich could have added an interesting flair to the executive team, I am personally glad neither Giuliani or Christie were added to the roster. I don't believe they were "owed" anything for being loyal campaigners. In fact, providing them with jobs would have seemed like the very cronyism that he was trying to avoid.

I don't believe that Generals and business leaders are considered part of the political establishment that Trump promised to do away with. He picked a school-choice advocate to run education department and someone who has sued the EPA multiple times to run it. To suggest that he isn't draining the swamp would suggest that he would be conducting business as usual. Hardly.

Bottom line. Of all the possible situations I might have imagined with Trump picking a cabinet, I cannot come up with too many that would have exceeded what we are seeing right now. Most all other scenarios would have been drastically less functional in my humble opinion. Trump is proving himself to me that he is serious about running a good solid conservative administration. Remembering, of course, that I am someone who hasn't generally been much of a fan.                                                                                                                                                                          
And don't kid yourselves, folks. The left isn't really afraid that Trump will have a disastrous Presidency. They are afraid he will be seen as successful with the core of Americans. This (more than anything else) is ultimately why they don't like these picks. Because these picks can probably help get him there.
                                                                                                                                 

Friday, December 9, 2016

Hillary Campaign in meltdown mode

So Hillary Clinton is at it again. She simply cannot just go away and be a graceful loser here folks. Just yesterday she proclaimed: 
The epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year -- it’s now clear that so-called fake news can have real world consequences
The real world consequences, of course, was her losing the election. Just another in a long line of conspiracies and excuses for why she was beaten like a drum by Donald Trump on election night, as he cruised to a 306-232 shellacking of the former Secretary.


To date:
  • The election was lost because of "FBI conspiracy"
  • The election was lost because of "alt-right racism"
  • The election was lost because of "fake news"
  • The election was lost because of "media bias"
  • The election was lost because of "Russian hacking" 
  • The election was lost because of "Electoral College"

The other day, at a post election get together at Harvard, the Clinton campaign representatives openly suggested that the Trump campaign won because they appealed specifically to "White Supremacist". As if somehow the estimated five thousand Klan members, and all those Aryan Brotherhood folks in Prison put Trump over the edge.

They also disingenuously suggested that they would rather lose the way that they did, than win the way Trump did? Apparently losing because you couldn't convince enough un-American deplorable voters that Trump was a rabid, out of control, sexist, racist, bigot, who wasn't qualified to run a lemonade stand is somehow more dignified that winning by promising to make our country great again.. Did these people loose their ability to reason, or was it never really there?

It's time for all of you Clinton supporters to put on your big girl panties and get the *&^% over it. Trump won, fair and square... and it wasn't even that close. He's the President elect, and Hillary is now a private citizen who can now focus on running what ever is left of the Clinton Foundation (now that there is no longer any political influence to be had).

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Recount Updates

Michigan: Federal Judge who ruled recounts must go on, set aside his decision after the Michigan state courts decided that Stein did not meet the qualifications of an aggrieved candidate. Apparently given there was no chance she could (with 1% of the vote) win a recount, she was not eligible to request the recount.

This effectively ends the recounts barring an overrule by the Michigan State Supreme Court. At this point, there is no longer an order to count, and there is a standing decision that Stein was ineligible to request one in the first place.

Wisconsin: More than seventy percent of the ballots have been counted in Wisconsin, and nearly half the counties are completely done. At this point, there has been a net change from the original total of less than a hundred votes.

This is looking like a rather large exercise in futility here folks. With about 900,000 of the three million votes left to count, the odds of seeing any substantial change has dwindled down to almost zero.

Pennsylvania: Still waiting for a Federal hearing that will apparently determine whether or not the State is within it's rights to ask for a million dollar bond to request a recount. Not even sure how this helps the overall case, as logically Stein never actually went to court (as she was supposed to) to show cause (probable fraud) to have a recount done. I guess she is trying to get a Federal Court to "order" the state of Pennsylvania to do a recount, based on the concept that it's unfair to place a burden on the request for a recount.

The problem with this logic is that states already have laws in place as to when a statewide recount is considered necessary and when it isn't. According to the law, it's necessary when the vote is within a certain percentage (in this case it's not) or when some probable cause (fraud) can be shown in court. A recount for the sake of a recount would costs millions of dollars and hundreds of man hours. One cannot just "expect" that you can just ask for one because it's what you want, and a State has to comply and pay for it.

Enough Said

When Democrats win - everything is awesome!
When Republicans win - everything sucks!


Liberals cry about hypothetical hypocrisy

There were many discussions (both here and in other forums) about the possibility of one candidate winning the popular vote and the other winning the Electoral College. Most of that was erroneously suggested the other way... that even if Donald Trump were to win the popular vote, that there was no way he could crash through the "blue wall" that had brought back to back victories to Barack Obama.

In fact, much has been made over the past couple of elections about that so called "blue wall" and how it was possible that a Democratic President might be a forgone conclusion for some time. How many articles were written about how many states have been "blue" for X amount of elections in a row? How many times did you hear about how many paths to the Presidency that Hillary Clinton had, vs how Trump had to literally "run the table" to get to 270? How often was this attributed to a Democratic advantage in the electoral college?




Certainly the progressive push for an increase in Presidential powers were directly related to the concept that the Presidency would be difficult for Republicans to win "because" of the electoral college and the so called "blue wall". The idea had been to increase Presidential power while simultaneously reducing the power of Congress (especially the House) where Republicans had built advantages.

Looking back, I heard no complaints (either from liberals or conservatives) regarding the "blue wall" or the electoral college. No suggestion on the left that this "blue wall" posed any sort of threat to democracy, and no whining from the right about how unfair it might be that Trump could possibly win a popular vote victory and still not win the Presidency. Certainly I never read either argument being made "here" by anyone on either side.

The current calls for the abolishment of the electoral college are not rooted in any pie in the sky sense of fairness. They are whiny crybaby knee jerk sour grape tantrums that only found their way to mainstream forums "because" the results didn't go as expected for the left. Certainly if the popular vote had gone to Trump, and the Electoral College went to Clinton, nobody from the left would have complained. While I am sure that some on the right would have complained, I personally would not have been part of those complaints. Nor would I expect anyone who lives anywhere other than California and New York to see any advantage to a popular vote election.

Statements being made that there is some sort of "hypocrisy" to all of this is laughable. If you are looking for "hypocrisy" look for all the statements made "here" and elsewhere regarding how dangerous it was to our democracy and our election process that Donald Trump might not have accepted the election results, and would have been willing to possibly even go to court and request recounts. But there are no such complaints being waged when the election results are not being accepted by those on the left. Suddenly, these things that were so dangerous and damaging to the very integrity of our great nation are much needed safeguards that will better facilitate trust and transparency in the system.

Moreover, many on the left are in open defiance of the Presidency of Donald Trump. Calling specifically for the very same obstruction that they railed against when Obama was President. I wonder out loud if these same people don't see the very same "threats" to our election process and democracy, when they are the ones who openly refuse to accept the results?

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Michigan recounts...

Looks like many of the Clinton "strongholds" will not be able to recount their ballots due to a discrepancy between the number of ballots on the poll books, and the number of ballots counted. Apparently, according to Michigan law, when a precinct cannot match up the physical number of ballots with what is in the polling book (number of people signed to have voted) - then they declare that the original vote totals remain in place.



According to sources, there was some problems with several of the counting machines, and they believe it was possible that some ballots were "counted twice" which is why there is a discrepancy (more ballots counted than people signing in). Since this happened in strong Clinton areas, it's likely a recount would lower her figures anyways.

I won't speculate as to whether or not the double counting was done deliberately.

Hillary Gains in Pennsylvania Recount!

Well she gained five votes after approximately seventy five precincts in Philadelphia finished their resident requested recounts. Last time I checked you could count to five using one hand.




At this pace (assuming Philadelphia mirrors the rest of the state) she would pick up approximately six hundred votes state wide if a recount was ordered. I am not sure, but I am guessing that six hundred probably wouldn't be enough to overturn the election results. I am also pretty sure that five votes out of seventy five voting precincts does not qualify for what would be described as systematic fraud.


Monday, December 5, 2016

Wisconsin Recount Totals after Day 4

Trump adds to lead

Day 4 totals
  • Trump gained 356 votes
  • Trump lost 246 votes
  • Trump net gain on day 4: 110 votes

  • Clinton gained 296 votes
  • Clinton lost 225 votes
  • Clinton net gain on day 4: 71 votes

All of this is costing 3.5 million dollars... to find out that Trump is ahead by about forty more votes. Right now that's about  $85,000 per vote. A wise use of money.

Not exactly what Jill Stein expected I am sure... 

The left seems to forget...

That we survived 230 years with out such a thing as Obamacare. Oh, and prior to Obamacare, over 90% of Americans were happy with their health insurance (that number wavers somewhere between 60-80 percent today). Insurance was cheaper, it covered what people wanted, and it had smaller deductibles.

Furthermore, almost all of the decrease in the numbers of uninsured has to do with Medicaid expansion, which is technically a state decision rather than a federal one anyways. Likewise, almost every state had laws that allowed children to stay on their parents policy past eighteen. Many even went further than the twenty six that is now the federal law.

At the end of the day Obamacare really is:

  • Government regulation of what insurance companies must cover
  • Government created insurance exchange sites for said Government regulated insurance options. 
  • Government subsidies for qualifying people willing to purchase insurance through these exchanges
  • An expansion of medicaid

Out of this, what works and what doesn't? Much of the regulation seems mindless. Almost like it was thrown together by a federal task force with little or no market experience in heath care insurance (which of course is what happened). I doubt many people are clinging to those regulations. The exchanges have been a joke, and are well on their way to the dreaded death spiral one way or the other.  The subsidies could be easily replaced by a tax credit of some sort. The expansion of medicaid was ultimately a state decision, with the Federal Government paying for much of it (for a limited time period). Since this is in part now and will eventually totally be on the States, it would make sense to let states make those decisions, just like they always have. 

Seems to me that some reasonable people in the House and Senate could come up with a plan to throw out the bath water, and still keep whatever baby parts are desirable. Of course, that assumes that we have reasonable people in the House and Senate that actually care "more" about the American people and less about winning the Obamacare argument.