Election 2016

Wanna Know Why Trump Won? Here Is Part of the Reason…

Published by Papa Giorgio

This poll explains in part why Trump won…

The DAILY WIRE explains the rejection by normal people of Leftist ideals:

A new poll from CATO Institute demonstrates in living color just why President Trump won the 2016 election. According to the poll, 71% of Americans “believe that political correctness has done more to silence important discussions our society needs to have.” Only 28% of Americans think political correctness has bettered society.

That’s an amazing statistic, and shows just why the Left was bound to fail in 2016. They continue to maintain that intersectionality is a path to glory — that a philosophy that prizes shutting down certain viewpoints based on ethnicity and class will help them cobble together a winning coalition. But broad majorities of Americans reject that view. What’s more, Americans who reject that view seem most likely to keep their views to themselves, possibly skewing political polls: 73% of Republicans and 58% of independents say they self-censor in order to avoid political blowback.

President Trump ran on an anti-PC platform. He won on that platform. This poll shows why.

[….]

But there is some good news: people aren’t quite as offended as they seem to be on others’ behalf. A vast majority of blacks and Latinos don’t find typical “microaggressions” particularly offensive.

This means that if Americans saw each other as individuals, rather than as stereotypes of political views they hated, they’d be more likely to calm down and engage rather than increasing the vitriolic tenor of today’s politics. But that would mean moving beyond reactionary politics — and that would, in turn, require the Left to stop promoting the regime of political correctness and intersectionality. That seems unlikely, given the poll result that 61% of Democrats say it’s hard for them to be friends with Trump voters. But the more Democrats alienate Trump voters, the more they’re setting up Trump’s re-election effort.

It Looks Like Trump Won New Hampshire – Voter Fraud

Published by Papa Giorgio

Click To Enlarge

It is looking like New Hampshire may need to be in the Trump column for the 2016 Presidential election.

….Donald Trump lost to Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire by 2,736 votes out of 745,000 cast. Republican incumbent Sen. Kelly Ayotte lost her seat to Democrat Maggie Hassan by a mere 1,017 votes out of 739,140 cast.

[…..]

Wonder how Mr. Bissonnette will spin the news about those 5,526 out-of-state voters who never bothered to get New Hampshire driver’s licenses?….

(WASHINGTON TIMES)

So instead of Trump being at 306 in the electoral college, he may be at 310. And Hillary should be lowered to 221.

Oh, and don’t think CNN would miss an opportunity to “racialize” this.

 

2016 Election Mantras

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here are some 2016 Election Mania Responses:

SOME OF MY FAVORITES:

The Cry Baby Party Boycotting Trump’s Inauguration (+ Flashback)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(The count is now at 50+)

GATEWAY PUNDIT notes the percentage involved in skipping the inauguration:

So far more than 40 DEMOCRATS have announced their intention of boycotting the peaceful transfer of power. After eight years of Obama there are only 194 Democrats left in the US House of Representatives. That means more than 20% of Democrats are boycotting the Trump Inauguration. The Cry Baby Party is having a rough time adjusting to the fact that they have become a coastal minority party.

Some of the reasoning behind this choice can be found here at WCYB 5-NEWS.

I love this.

These actions by Democrats will further split the Democrats and ensure them becoming MORE of a municipal party in 2018 and 2020 — keep it up! As an aside, John Lewis uses so much rhetoric, he forgets what he has done/said in the past.

Lewis vs. Lewis

Mind you, this isn’t the first time he has lied and been caught…

This video tears many aspects of the “racial slur” incident said to of happened by Tea Partiers towards two black congressmen. There has been some back and forth going on on this topic over at POWER LINE BLOG that will enlighten the reader here to what is still going on with this story.

More Unfaithful Electors Defected from Hillary Than Trump (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

GATEWAY PUNDIT did what I wanted to do… and GP notes the following: “…Hillary Clinton lost more electors than any politician in the last 100 years. Not since 1912 has a candidate lost more electors.” The Final Count:

8 Clinton defectors

  • 4 WA (successful)
  • 1 HI (successful)
  • 1 MN (attempted)
  • 1 ME (attempted)
  • 1 CO (attempted)

2 Trump defectors

  • TX (successful)

Gateway Pundit goes on to list past “unfaithful electors” of the past, a great summary of our history in this regard, here’s the list:

The popular belief was that many electorates were going to defect (called, “unfaithful”) from Trump. In the end, more “unfaithful electorates” defected from Hillary Clinton than from Donald Trump. I find this HILARIOUS! Why? Because Trump even came out a winner in this arena as well. As Powerline notes, only two electors were “unfaithful” to Trump. Four ignored Clinton’s win in their states. In fact, there would have been more unfaithful electorates for Hillary if state law didn’t prohibit it, like the “chaos” over state rules in Colorado:

Here are Democrats showing support for this Republic in Wisconsin:

…and Pennsylvania:

US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT notes:

President Barack Obama’s election was supposed to be the kickoff of a new progressive era. The Democrats were in line to win everything, pass anything they wanted through Congress, run the table in most of the states and leave the Republicans holed up in a redoubt somewhere between Idaho and Utah.

It didn’t happen. In fact, it is almost as though the reverse is true. Under Obama, the Democrats lost control of both congressional chambers and more than 800 state legislative seats, with the result that more states will be under unified GOP control than at any time since the 1920s. Not that you’ll hear much about that, as it runs counter to a narrative that reached a fevered pitch during the last election.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was supposed to win the presidency, ensuring the progressive tilt would continue despite opposition from a Republican-led House of Representatives. The U.S. Senate was supposed to flip too, something the pundits started saying right after the last election, because so many Republicans were up in swing states in what was going to be a bad year for the GOP.

The icing on the cake was New York real estate developer Donald Trump, who almost everyone (specifically with the exception of me) wrote and said time and again was not just “unelectable,” but was so unqualified he’d take the rest of the party down with him like the Nixon legacy of Watergate did in 1974.

[….]

The GOP has fissures it will need to address over the next few years. Not everyone in the party is behind what Trump wants to do on every issue. But that’s nothing compared to the way the Democrats, whose national leadership has said it sees little reason to change the party’s overall approach to government or its underlying philosophy, are falling apart. In several states “the party of conscience,” as the Democrats have been casting themselves during a week and a half of earnest lobbying of Trump electors, needed to have “faithless electors” of their own removed from the Electoral College and replaced by Clinton loyalists who would vote as directed….

CIA vs FBI – Russia and the U.S. Election

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here are some related articles… the first one in the list below is the one Dennis Prager is reading from:

YOUNG CONSERVATIVES have this clip from TOWNHALL:

…Contrary to claims made by Democrats about Russian interference helping President-elect Donald J. Trump, there is no definitive proof that the Kremlin ordered such cyber attacks. It’s all based on circumstantial evidence, innuendo, and anonymous sources that are bound by an apparent inter-agency feud between the CIA and the FBI. On December 10, The Washington Post reported that both agencies were not on the same page, which seemed to have angered Democrats:

Sitting before the House Intelligence Committee was a senior FBI counterintelligence official. The question the Republicans and Democrats in attendance wanted answered was whether the bureau concurred with the conclusions the CIA had just shared with senators that Russia “quite” clearly intended to help Republican Donald Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton and clinch the White House.For the Democrats in the room, the FBI’s response was frustrating — even shocking.

During a similar Senate Intelligence Committee briefing held the previous week, the CIA’s statements, as reflected in the letter the lawmakers now held in their hands, were “direct and bald and unqualified” about Russia’s intentions to help Trump, according to one of the officials who attended the House briefing.

[…]

The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.

Our intelligence agencies don’t all agree that the Kremlin is responsible.

The talking point that 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia was behind the hacks is not accurate….

More YOUNG CONS… “Here are the top 5 reasons why it isn’t accurate to definitively say Russia interfered in our election process. From Breitbart“

  • There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion. The New York Timesreports: “The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.” In other words, someone only decided after Trump won that the accusation was worth making.
  • The “evidence” that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive. The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA’s conclusions about Russia’s motives. “While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia’s motives, according to The Post,” The Hillreported on Sunday.
  • Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.The most that the CIA is alleging is that the Russians may have helped hack of the Democratic National Committee emails, as well as (possibly) the emails of Hillary Clinton campaign chaiman John Podesta. There is zero evidence Russian hackers messed with voting. Ironically, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount has eliminated any doubt about the integrity of the results.
  • Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures. Of the Democratic National Committee emails, Assange said: “That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released.” Assange made similar denials about the Podesta email leaks later in the election.
  • What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly? Would we yield primacy in Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin? Would we give up our plans for missile defense? Would we make deep unilateral cuts in our nuclear arsenal in exchange for flimsy concessions ? Would we tolerate a Russian land invasion of a friendly, pro-Western country? Would we cede the Middle East to Russian hegemony? Because Hillary Clinton and Obama already did that.

The Hillary Campaign Tried to Have Mika Brzezinski Censored!

Published by Papa Giorgio

Did the Hillary Presidential campaign prove Time Warner CEO, Jeff Bewkes’s, contention that the Democratic Party poses a greater threat to the First Amendment than from Donald Trump. (CNBC & DAILY CALLER)

(H-T YOUNG CONSERVATIVES)

On Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski reveals that after she had warned that the Clinton campaign needed to stop arrogantly assuming that the race was over, “NBC got a call from the campaign that I had done something that was journalistically inappropriate or something and needed to be pulled off the air.”

Trump Appointments Better Than With Rubio or Jeb

Published by Papa Giorgio

The bottom line is that Jeb or Marco wouldn’t have nominated these folks!

MARK HALPERIN: Who is going to drive policy in this administration in education and EPA and Attorney General and DHS? He’s nominated very sharply ideological activists who Ted Cruz I don’t necessarily think would have had the follow-through to nominate.

[….]

JOE: Exactly. I have a story I’ll tell off-camera about telling somebody I wasn’t ready for something [and they said], well that tells me that you are ready for it. But anyway, but again. How fascinating that the Never Trumpers and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Bill Kristols, and all the people that were rightly the most skeptical of Donald Trump during the primary, have to sit back going, wow, I would not have gotten this with Jeb or Marco.