Trump supporters a basket of deplorables half full?

Voters don't like the basket of Deplorables comment.

At a fundraiser, she suggested that as many as half of GOP rival Donald Trump's supporters belonged in what she labeled a "basket of deplorables" — that they were racist, sexist, Islamophobic and/or xenophobic. She later said she regretted saying the "half" part but stuck by the crux of her argument: that many Trump backers fit into these unpalatable categories.

 The Washington Post-ABC News survey asked people whether "it's fair or unfair to describe a large portion of Trump's supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities." More than twice as many registered voters said this approach was out of bounds (65 percent) as said it was fair game (30 percent).

 But to lump half of Trump voters together into a "basket of deplorables" and attack voters who support Trump as a class was morally wrong, factually inaccurate and politically stupid. It does not matter whether she meant 50 percent of Trump supporters, or a lower percent. A candidate should not be attacking voters who support her opponent, except for the small number of white supremacists.

This deluge of negative Clinton television ads — which I consider a basket of deplorable television ads — has been continuing for many months. It is not enough for a candidate to perpetually attack an opponent without making a clear, compelling and persuasive case about why voters support the candidate who launches the attack.

 The biggest problem in Clinton's statement is that she said "half" of Trump supporters are racists, xenophobes and otherwise bigots. Half means equal or near-equal parts. There's no data to support such a specific number.

I wonder if she is talking about the Christian half who trust in GOD and not GOVERNMENT?

Clinton’s experience is nothing to brag about

I believe that the Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, is untrustworthy. During her tenure as secretary of State she:



Accepted the obligations contained in the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement.

Received a security indoctrination concerning the protection of classified information (marked or unmarked) and unclassified information, including the procedures to be followed.

Acknowledged that unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention or negligent handling of classified information could cause damage or irreparable injury to the U.S. or could be used to advantage by foreign nations.

Agreed to return all classified materials.

Was advised that breach of the agreement may result in the termination of her security clearance and/or removal from employment.

Recognized that nothing in the agreement constitutes a waiver of the U.S. of the right to prosecute her for any violation.

 The scandalous disclosure involving Clinton’s unauthorized private email servers and thousands of messages resulted in grave concerns, denials and outright lies. The truth is that Clinton demonstrated incompetency, irresponsibility, dereliction of duty and commitment, and a violation of her pledge.

 Simon Vladovich; Oklahoma City

Remember: Trump support tumbles after convention: Gallup

In the wake of the Republican and Democratic national conventions, voters are more likely to support Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, according to a Gallup poll released Monday Aug 1st

 While 36 percent of adults are more likely to support Trump coming out of the GOP’s four-day event, 51 percent are less likely to vote for the real estate mogul. The minus-15 net rating is the worst mark for the Republican nominee coming out of the party’s convention since Gallup began asking the question.

 Last month’s Republican convention  is the only time respondents were overall less likely to vote for the candidate who was nominated. Fifty-two percent of those surveyed said they have a less favorable view of the GOP now.

 Trump thanked “everyone for the wonderful reviews” of his speech and slammed Clinton’s “very long and very boring speech.” But Gallup’s results suggest the billionaire’s remarks were the worst-received in the past 20 years.

 Forty-four percent of respondents said Clinton’s speech accepting her historic nomination was excellent or good. Trump’s acceptance speech yielded similar results on opposite ends of the spectrum and 36 percent thought it was poor or terrible — the highest percentage since '96.

This is what was being reported the first week of August. Now

Quinnipiac University declared the race “too close to call” on Monday, as its latest national poll of likely voters found Mrs. Clinton edging Mr. Trump by a margin of 47 percent to 46 percent in a head-to-head match up.

 Priorities USA, the super PAC supporting Mrs. Clinton, unveiled a new 30-second ad calling for the “Trump Train” to be stopped in its tracks.

Remember: It's hard to stop a train!

Why Hillary Clinton Should not be President

During his 1992 campaign for the presidency, Bill Clinton was promising America, “You get two for the price of one,” indicating Hillary Clinton would act as his co-president.


After the Clintons moved into the presidential mansion, the political scandals multiplied – from use of the IRS and FBI to target political opponents to stalking and harassing subjects of Bill Clinton’s sexual advances and even attempts to loot taxpayer-funded items from the White House. Americans also witnessed capers such as Travelgate, Chinagate, Filegate, White Water and Pardongate.

 In the years since the memorable Clinton presidency, Hillary has brought America Emailgate and the Benghazi scandal, among others.

 But in 2015, America is still apparently suffering from “Clinton fatigue.” Results from a Quinnipiac poll published in April revealed between 49 and 56 percent of voters in three significant swing states – Colorado, Virginia and Iowa – believe Hillary is neither honest nor trustworthy.

When the Clintons left 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2001, they reportedly vandalized and looted the White House. Hillary tried to ship furniture to the Clintons’ personal home in Chappaqua, New York. The Clintons came under fire when they reportedly tried to take $190,000 in gifts and furnishings from the presidential mansion.

 During their time in the White House, the Clintons also reportedly auctioned off and sold taxpayer-financed government goods and services in exchange for political campaign contributions and personal profit. Among the items sold by the Clintons, which Judicial Watch uncovered in various lawsuits, and the media and Congress in their investigations, were: 1) seats on overseas trade missions; 2) export licenses for high technology sales to communist China and elsewhere; 3) commissionerships and judgeships; 4) rides on Air Force One; 5) overnight stays in the White House’s Lincoln Bedroom; 6) graves at Arlington Cemetery; 7) meetings with key Clinton-Gore administration leaders; and other favors.

We can not allow history to repeat itself.

No chief executive at Fortune 100 has donated to Trump

No chief executives at Fortune 100 companies have donated to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

 In comparison, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has received twice as many donations from Fortune 100 execs than President Obama did in 2012, according to the Journal. Just last month, Clinton received checks for $2,700 from Apple’s Tim Cook, American Airlines’ Doug Parker, and Nike’s  Mark Parker. Individuals are capped at donating $5,400 to a candidate.

 The Journal reports that the 11 CEOs that back Clinton have donated more than $30,000 to her campaign. The financial loss for Trump’s campaign is modest, but garnering support from top executives is often a goal for Hillary Clinton, as it gives off the impression to voters that  she is competent, especially on economic issues, according to the Journal.

 According to public records, Clinton gave 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015. Her standard fee is $225,000, and she collected $21.6 million dollars in just under two years. Clinton made 8 speeches to big banks, netting $1.8 million, according to a CNN analysis.

 There is nothing illegal or unethical about former Secretaries of State earning money on the speaking circuit. The standard fee and her demands are outlined in a memo from the Harry Walker Agency in New York. According to the memo, Clinton requires travel by private jet, and even specifies that she prefers a Gulfstream 450 or larger. Her staff requires first class and business class tickets. And two members of her staff require up to three days on site to prepare, with all local transportation and meals included.

The memo states Clinton should be booked into a presidential suite with up to three separate rooms attached. Clinton also requires a flat fee of $1,000 to pay for an onsite stenographer to record everything she says. However, Clinton is not required to provide the host with a copy, according to the memo.

Costs associated with her demands are on top of her speaking fee.

Hillary Clinton Either Lied to the American People or

Hillary Clinton Either Lied to the American People or Broke the Law 

 

Hillary Clinton committed perjury. Or she looked into the faces of the American people and knowingly lied. There is no third option.

 It has become an accepted reality of this presidential campaign that Clinton spins a near-endless series of falsehoods. For months, the media has struggled with this unprecedented situation—a candidate who, unlike other politicians who stretch the truth, simply creates her own reality. Clinton regularly peddles “facts” that aren’t true, describes events that never happened or denies engaging in actions that everyone saw her do. She utters her falsehoods so fast that before reporters have the chance to correct one, she has tossed out five or six more.

 This time, it is different. Clinton can’t skip past her perfidy here. There are two records—one, a previously undisclosed deposition of the Democrat nominee testifying under oath before congress, and the second a Youtube video for the Benghazi attack. In them, Clinton tells contradictory versions of the same story with the clashing accounts tailored to provide what she wanted people to believe when she was speaking.

 No question, these two stories must be investigated if there is ever a President Clinton. In the impeachment of President Bill Clinton for lying under oath about an extramarital affair, Republicans established the standard that failing to tell the truth while testifying—even in the most understandable of circumstances—rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Surely, perjury for pecuniary purposes or to inflate one’s self-image cannot be ignored.