nixluva wrote:

SWAMP CREATURES:

White House Chief of Staff - Reince Priebus - Chairman of the RNC since 2011.

Ambassador to the U.N. - Governor Nikki Haley - Governor of S.C. since 2011.

Senator Jeff Sessions - Attorney General - Senator since 1996.

Representative Tom Price - Secretary of Health and Human Services - House member since 2005.

Elaine Chao - Secretary of Transportation - American politician who served as the 24th U.S.
Secretary of Labor under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009, and Deputy Secretary of
Transportation under President George H. W. Bush. The wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Betsy DeVos - Secretary of Education - Billionaire, School Choice Activist!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Donald_Trump

So far this man is basically bringing in LONG TIME Swamp Creatures and not really new blood at all. Not to mention
that the entire Republican Political structure in State and Federal Government is remaining in place. Where is the
change or new blood??? Trump is the ONLY non Establishment person in this entire regime.

These voters who have done this have once again voted against their own best interests. They have given total and
complete control to the very Establishment that they said they hate!!! It's only going to get worse!

SWAMP CREATURES UPDATE: Unofficial

Steven Mnuchin - Secretary of Treasury - CEO of Dune Capital Management and former partner at Goldman Sachs; movie producer at Relativity Media; Trump campaign finance chair

Wilbur Ross - Secretary of Commerce - investor at Invesco, billionaire specializing in bankruptcy-turnarounds, co-leader of the economic policy advisor team to Trump'16, backed fellow Floridian Rubio'16, privatization advisor to then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani, board member of USAID-funded TUSRIF appointed by the Bill Clinton administration, and former Democrat whose then-spouse was the Republican-party Lt. Governor of New York.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/804038449300959232

And thanks to DJ's TNR article forward — good article by the way — I found this interesting take, worth all of us to read and consider:

The Liberal Response to Trump Is Devolving Into Outrage Porn

https://newrepublic.com/article/138996/liberal-response-trump-devolving-outrage-porn

The outrage over Donald Trump’s election has continued unabated on social media for more than two weeks now. It has been a useful and necessary exercise, allowing many on the left to voice their concerns, fears, and anger about the results. Eventually, however, the outrage must serve a greater purpose if progressives expect to have any say in the direction of their government.

There has been ample coverage of Trump’s outrageous statements and lies for well over a year. Hours upon hours of airtime and thousands of articles have been devoted to declaring him a danger to the republic. Several prominent newspapers abandoned their long-held impartiality to declare him unfit for office. It didn’t work. The people who supported Trump knew the things he had said and done and were aware of his temperament—and still chose him to be leader of the free world.

It is painfully clear that all our outrage didn’t work. And now there’s a danger of getting sucked into a vortex of what I’d like to refer to as “outrage porn.” Trump’s horrific statements aren’t going to stop. He’s going to keep tweeting about every sleight and alleged offense, from Hamilton controversies to unflattering Saturday Night Live sketches to the untold thousands of protests and articles and taunts forthcoming. And he will use these incidents to cement his reputation as a political outsider with his voters. He will weaponize these reactions, holding them up as proof of just how much know-it-all elites loathe his “deplorable” white base.

Far worse, he will use our indignation over cultural kerfuffles to distract from far bigger stories—like his settling of the Trump University fraud suit for $25 million or the sprawling ethical conflicts that have emerged from running the presidency and a business empire at the same time.

Which is not to say that we shouldn’t be outraged about the endless parade of sycophantic cabinet nominees, the conflict of interest scandals, or the possibility that Russia hacked our election. Of course we should. But shouting into an echo chamber will not amplify our voices. To the extent that our outrage forces us to stay vigilant and harness our anger to formulate a plan of resistance, it can be useful. But we must remind ourselves that the television media, especially the cable news networks, will continue to highlight the glamorous if petty squabbles like the one between Trump and Alec Baldwin, while paying almost no attention to issues of grave importance like climate change.

To the media CEOs who care about ratings above all else, Trump’s outrageousness is manna from heaven. Better that we voice our disdain for this coverage by turning it off or by diligently insisting that they shift the narrative to actual policy differences that matter. Other outlets can play a role as well, by reminding the networks that the fourth estate serves a greater purpose than corporate profits. Outrage may keep viewers glued to the screen, but it will not lead to an informed electorate.

When we play the outrage game, we are playing on Trump’s turf—and he has already proven to be master of this game. Opposition to Trump should focus far more on opposition to his policies, decisions, and judgment, rather than on calling him out for his every remark or relying on funny but ineffective memes to make our point. While they might make us feel better in the short term, the benefits of feeling intellectually and morally superior to the man who just defied all polls and pundits to become the president-elect of the United States will certainly prove ephemeral.

Better if we defeat Trump on the issues. Force him to defend his ideas and policies. The less attention paid to his Twitter feed, the better. We don’t have to reiterate to ourselves or to the rest of the world why Trump is unacceptable. Far better if we stand up to him by defending our values of decency, honesty, and equality. Far better, when his policy proposals seem at odds with his promises and will likely betray the very people who voted for him, that we point out these inconsistencies vociferously. We have to make the positive case for change from here forward.

DrAlphaeus wrote:Here is the scenario... My immigrantion status is precarious. I know that breaking the law will expose me to deportation even under the Obama Administration — the "deporter-in-chief" as his critics call him. So I and a million others will risk exposing my status and becoming a criminal that could get me deported under any administration... because of Trump.

Doesn't pass muster with me.

What exactly is Obama saying here? He was asked about undocumented immigrants voting.

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Not bad since he isn't even in office yet.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/Carrier/status/803764047300722688

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/29/carrier-says-it-has-deal-with-trump-to-keep-jobs-in-indiana.html

That means they're shipping 2000 instead of 3000 jobs to Mexico, and they get a nice tax deal for doing it. Wonderful.

Who is the president right now? Where is he taking us? Where did he take us? Trump trying to undo some of those horrors.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/under-obama-black-unemployment-back-to-twice-the-white-rate/article/2534597

Talk about switching the topic! When you realize what you were praising Trump for made no sense, you start knocking the current President with almost a 60% approval rating!

Switching the topic? Not sure I understand as Trump isn't even president right now, Obama is. Trump is trying to fix some of what Obama did. Of course the issue crosses.
Trump just saved 1000 jobs and you are criticising him???

I believe that 60% approval rating like I believed the Brexit polls, Hillary Clinton has a 95% chance of winning polls, Hillary Clinton leading polls, etc.
Sounds like more Fake News.

The US election polls were off by less than 2 points and the 538 statisticians gave trump a 1 in 3 shot of winning the EC.

We aren't just talking about election polls. It was all over MSM and Trump is still calling them out for their biased coverage/propaganda. People got the see/hear this daily:

If the US presidential election were held today, Hillary Clinton would have a 95% chance of winning the presidency by a margin of 108 electoral votes, according to the Reuters/Ipsos States http://of the Nation project.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0

From FiveThirtyEight More here: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

And there were online user polls, by CNN that had Trump winning by 20 and then CNN suddenly changed it, but screen shots caught it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4xo296/cnn_conducted_an_online_poll_that_had_trump/

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Here is the scenario... My immigrantion status is precarious. I know that breaking the law will expose me to deportation even under the Obama Administration — the "deporter-in-chief" as his critics call him. So I and a million others will risk exposing my status and becoming a criminal that could get me deported under any administration... because of Trump.

Doesn't pass muster with me.

What exactly is Obama saying here? He was asked about undocumented immigrants voting.

I don't ****ing know what they are talking about here exactly. It was a short clip which I listened to, and Inshut the video down after I heard that whoosh sound because I don't care about these talking heads 3 minute opinion on a sound bite.

But yes, that sound bite sounds bad and I don't like the implications. Look, I don't like the pandering that happens with this issue either. I would expect Canada to throw my ass out of I was up there under the radar.

So what. Show me evidence or shut up about it. Not to be rude but for ****'s sake with the innuendo. I'm getting tired of it. I have offered more than enough thoughts and arguments to be dealt with by your own words and not another ****ing inane YouTube clip.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You say the President in that interview sounds bad, but you want evidence? Ok, it is circumstantial. But the case is still being created. Look for motive. Check A defense lawyer clearly agreed with the host saying The President was saying you can vote illegally and we won't go and check on you. I'll work on that evidence but we all should.

Didn't mean to touch a nerve but that is what cognitive dissonance can do. It is very damning what the President of the US said there and you admitted that. Maybe look for that full interview but that so called "clip", shows the full question as well as coming up to it and a long reply. Hmmmmmm....

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES)(http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/home). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote.

Interesting additional part related to Obama:

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/?utm_term=.59a10ceb0f18

Now, did those who registered to vote above, not do so in 2016? I think we need to look further into this.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Here is the scenario... My immigrantion status is precarious. I know that breaking the law will expose me to deportation even under the Obama Administration — the "deporter-in-chief" as his critics call him. So I and a million others will risk exposing my status and becoming a criminal that could get me deported under any administration... because of Trump.

Doesn't pass muster with me.

What exactly is Obama saying here? He was asked about undocumented immigrants voting.

I don't ****ing know what they are talking about here exactly. It was a short clip which I listened to, and Inshut the video down after I heard that whoosh sound because I don't care about these talking heads 3 minute opinion on a sound bite.

But yes, that sound bite sounds bad and I don't like the implications. Look, I don't like the pandering that happens with this issue either. I would expect Canada to throw my ass out of I was up there under the radar.

So what. Show me evidence or shut up about it. Not to be rude but for ****'s sake with the innuendo. I'm getting tired of it. I have offered more than enough thoughts and arguments to be dealt with by your own words and not another ****ing inane YouTube clip.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You say the President in that interview sounds bad, but you want evidence? Ok, it is circumstantial. But the case is still being created. Look for motive. Check A defense lawyer clearly agreed with the host saying The President was saying you can vote illegally and we won't go and check on you. I'll work on that evidence but we all should.

Didn't mean to touch a nerve but that is what cognitive dissonance can do. It is very damning what the President of the US said there and you admitted that. Maybe look for that full interview but that so called "clip", shows the full question as well as coming up to it and a long reply. Hmmmmmm....

It's pandering and ****ed up on his part if I grant you that was the intent. Did he understand what she was saying? Was his point just that the elections process isn't a part of a police state and mixed status families won't get hunted down? I can be generous but I give two ****s about this WB actress saying "I call them citizens" — that's nice, but poetic license isn't the law. So even if I grant you that Jane the Virgin has the power to instill fearlessness in the hearts of millions...

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE

Don't get dragged into this BS distraction!!! This is just garbage BS being used to try and trick people into thinking there is something this this nonsense. There is no evidence that MILLIONS of People voted illegally.

nixluva wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Here is the scenario... My immigrantion status is precarious. I know that breaking the law will expose me to deportation even under the Obama Administration — the "deporter-in-chief" as his critics call him. So I and a million others will risk exposing my status and becoming a criminal that could get me deported under any administration... because of Trump.

Doesn't pass muster with me.

What exactly is Obama saying here? He was asked about undocumented immigrants voting.

I don't ****ing know what they are talking about here exactly. It was a short clip which I listened to, and Inshut the video down after I heard that whoosh sound because I don't care about these talking heads 3 minute opinion on a sound bite.

But yes, that sound bite sounds bad and I don't like the implications. Look, I don't like the pandering that happens with this issue either. I would expect Canada to throw my ass out of I was up there under the radar.

So what. Show me evidence or shut up about it. Not to be rude but for ****'s sake with the innuendo. I'm getting tired of it. I have offered more than enough thoughts and arguments to be dealt with by your own words and not another ****ing inane YouTube clip.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You say the President in that interview sounds bad, but you want evidence? Ok, it is circumstantial. But the case is still being created. Look for motive. Check A defense lawyer clearly agreed with the host saying The President was saying you can vote illegally and we won't go and check on you. I'll work on that evidence but we all should.

Didn't mean to touch a nerve but that is what cognitive dissonance can do. It is very damning what the President of the US said there and you admitted that. Maybe look for that full interview but that so called "clip", shows the full question as well as coming up to it and a long reply. Hmmmmmm....

It's pandering and ****ed up on his part if I grant you that was the intent. Did he understand what she was saying? Was his point just that the elections process isn't a part of a police state and mixed status families won't get hunted down? I can be generous but I give two ****s about this WB actress saying "I call them citizens" — that's nice, but poetic license isn't the law. So even if I grant you that Jane the Virgin has the power to instill fearlessness in the hearts of millions...

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE

Don't get dragged into this BS distraction!!! This is just garbage BS being used to try and trick people into thinking there is something this this nonsense. There is no evidence that MILLIONS of People voted illegally.

I know, nix. I guess I'm just proving to myself dj's article...

But... it could happen because... well... Jane the Virgin and Obama...

DrAlphaeus wrote:Incidentally this is why I think DACA is part of good policy, along with rigorous immigration enforcement. Because I could easily imagine myself in a "Dreamers" shoes. The "anchor baby" thing may be somewhat a real thing... hell, I think I was one except as a way to insure I had an escape hatch from the draft since Vietnam was going on... that all said, this is not a goddamn game. Trump made a claim and from all I can see it's bull****, and EMS: if you just can bring yourself to admit that... have fun with all that. I just think it's sad. I'm getting emotional but **** it... if it's ok for the future "leader of the free world" (can we please retire that hackneyed phrase?) then consider this my righteous tweetstorm of the day.

I have said it before and I should repeat it here. I'm not against immigration. Illegal immigration never really bothered me before and I lived in 2 States with Lot's of it. But in this context, illegal voting, we should look into it. What I wanted to really say though, is that with all the wars, droning, etc going on, having relatively open borders is a recipe for disaster.

Regarding Trumps claim, well, the study and the president are a good place to start. Baby steps.

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Incidentally this is why I think DACA is part of good policy, along with rigorous immigration enforcement. Because I could easily imagine myself in a "Dreamers" shoes. The "anchor baby" thing may be somewhat a real thing... hell, I think I was one except as a way to insure I had an escape hatch from the draft since Vietnam was going on... that all said, this is not a goddamn game. Trump made a claim and from all I can see it's bull****, and EMS: if you just can bring yourself to admit that... have fun with all that. I just think it's sad. I'm getting emotional but **** it... if it's ok for the future "leader of the free world" (can we please retire that hackneyed phrase?) then consider this my righteous tweetstorm of the day.

I have said it before and I should repeat it here. I'm not against immigration. Illegal immigration never really bothered me before and I lived in 2 States with Lot's of it. But in this context, illegal voting, we should look into it. What I wanted to really say though, is that with all the wars, droning, etc going on, having relatively open borders is a recipe for disaster.

Regarding Trumps claim, well, the study and the president are a good place to start. Baby steps.

The place to start is not at a baby's feet and their steps... It starts at the 70-year-old mouth the OUTRAGEOUS claim came from.

Speaking of footwork, I think I just like watching you dance.

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

nixluva wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Here is the scenario... My immigrantion status is precarious. I know that breaking the law will expose me to deportation even under the Obama Administration — the "deporter-in-chief" as his critics call him. So I and a million others will risk exposing my status and becoming a criminal that could get me deported under any administration... because of Trump.

Doesn't pass muster with me.

What exactly is Obama saying here? He was asked about undocumented immigrants voting.

I don't ****ing know what they are talking about here exactly. It was a short clip which I listened to, and Inshut the video down after I heard that whoosh sound because I don't care about these talking heads 3 minute opinion on a sound bite.

But yes, that sound bite sounds bad and I don't like the implications. Look, I don't like the pandering that happens with this issue either. I would expect Canada to throw my ass out of I was up there under the radar.

So what. Show me evidence or shut up about it. Not to be rude but for ****'s sake with the innuendo. I'm getting tired of it. I have offered more than enough thoughts and arguments to be dealt with by your own words and not another ****ing inane YouTube clip.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You say the President in that interview sounds bad, but you want evidence? Ok, it is circumstantial. But the case is still being created. Look for motive. Check A defense lawyer clearly agreed with the host saying The President was saying you can vote illegally and we won't go and check on you. I'll work on that evidence but we all should.

Didn't mean to touch a nerve but that is what cognitive dissonance can do. It is very damning what the President of the US said there and you admitted that. Maybe look for that full interview but that so called "clip", shows the full question as well as coming up to it and a long reply. Hmmmmmm....

It's pandering and ****ed up on his part if I grant you that was the intent. Did he understand what she was saying? Was his point just that the elections process isn't a part of a police state and mixed status families won't get hunted down? I can be generous but I give two ****s about this WB actress saying "I call them citizens" — that's nice, but poetic license isn't the law. So even if I grant you that Jane the Virgin has the power to instill fearlessness in the hearts of millions...

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE

Don't get dragged into this BS distraction!!! This is just garbage BS being used to try and trick people into thinking there is something this this nonsense. There is no evidence that MILLIONS of People voted illegally.

It is the President answering a question. Seems quite clear. Don't attack a direct video interview of the President.
I would hardly call this a distraction. You asked for evidence, and the president saying you can illegally vote and not go to prison for it is pretty damning. Not a smoking gun but a nice start.
The study (Doc) is certainly something to look into further. It could lead us to a smoking gun though.

Gunsmoke or pettifog?

It is probably not going to be reported on MSM first. I think we could agree on that. So we have to connect some dots. But there are thousands looking into (and on both sides I'm sure).
So, I'll go with Gunsmoke.

Remember, the revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will definitely be live-tweeted, though.