Boy, Hillary's Probably Hooped Now

Recommended Posts

Just for a bit of fun, I played with the 270towin site posted earlier by great risk, here are some scenarios:

Trump must win Florida or run the table on all other swing states. Here's why:


1. Clinton wins all swing states within reach - Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona, Michigan & Minnesota



2. Some swing states go to Trump, (Arizona & Ohio to Trump)



  3. Most swing states including Minnesota & Michigan go to Trump, except Florida




4. Add Pennsylvania and North Carolina to Trump



5. Trump takes most swing states plus Florida - Clinton takes Minnesota, Pennsylvania & North Carolina, (all likely wins for Clinton)


Edited by Don Hudson
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Said it before... You can lead 'em to knowledge, but ya can't make 'em think.

Personally, I see 3 main reasons for this. First, America's obsession for stardom and celebrity. Second, social media and internet allowing everyone, who has access, to voice their (not very

don: what is wrong with being friends with Russia?   Cold war aside, I suspect we have more commonality with Russia than we do with China.   Ru

Posted Images

Regarding Hilary's supporters ...

Some people seem to have developed natural blinders of sorts that allow them to travel through life 'looking around' the real issues and focusing on fluff instead without walking into walls?

In this case we see the murderous ex gang leader known as Jay Z motivating Hilary's audience to cheer him on as he denigrates blacks, women and other minorities while egging would be cop killers on.

What kind of force motivates the left to honour human filth like this piece of sh!t and the skank wife he regularly cheats on anyway? 

Edited by DEFCON
Link to post
Share on other sites

I said I was done but the posting of this nonsense without taking even a minute to validate it is just too much.



This photograph and video are undeniably genuine: The photograph was taken in July 2004, and the video of Clinton was filmed on 28 June 2010, shortly after Byrd's death.

It's also true that Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s and helped establish the hate group's chapter in Sophia, West Virginia. However, in 1952 Byrd avowed that "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization," and throughout his long political career (he served for 57 years in the United States Congress) he repeatedly apologized for his involvement with the KKK:

"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."

In 2010, even the NAACP released a statement honoring Senator Byrd and mourning his passing:

The NAACP is saddened by the passing of United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, the longest serving member of congress was first elected to the U.S. House from [West Virginia] in 1952 and was elected Senator in 1958. Byrd passed away this morning at the age of 92.

"Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation," stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.

"Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation," stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy. "Senator Byrd was a master of the Senate Rules, and helped strategize passage of legislation that helped millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed."


Edited by J.O.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right. But where was your righteous indignation regarding the blatantly false insinuation above that Trump supports the KKK? Should that be allowed to stand unchallenged?


Edited by Jaydee
Original post deleted
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Some people seem to have developed natural blinders of sorts that allow them to travel through life 'looking around' the real issues and focusing on fluff instead without walking into walls?

Blinders? Wow.

Anyone who has taken Donald Trump seriously since he gurgled up from the bottom of the heap, and believes his propaganda about helping others and making his country great again while watching the thousands of fabrications, hate-filled epithets and inane stupidities that have been fact-checked as really, truly false, has absolutely no basis for accusing others of having blinders on. Seriously. 

Donald Trump is a proven con-man. He is loyal only to one thing: money and getting it from others. He is a deeply vindictive person. He cheats. He gets you onside and pulls the rug out. He will get auto workers, miners, those struggling to make ends meet, on his hook, reel them in to cast their vote and, without a care or thought, toss them back into the sea as a fisherman would toss back a dog-fish.

He has absolutely no loyalty to Americans. He is too needy and self-centred to think of anyone else.

He doesn't mean what he says. He tells you just what he needs to say to get people onside, and NEVER follows through. That is a proven fact, not an opinion.

If one hasn't been able to see that about this man over the past seventeen months, it is not Hillary supporters who have blinders on.

He is utterly unreliable, untrustworthy and is just a gasbag with a shtick.

He is the neediest, most inauthentic hollow person in public life I have ever been embarrassed to watch flop about the deck, trying to get people just to like him.

It is as plain as day. Donald Trump will not now or ever, deliver on anything he says. 

The only thing Donald Trump is going to make great, is himself and his bank account.

He is a man, as Conrad Black has said, "...who's often asinine juvenility has turned half his campaign into an attack against himself." And I agree completely with Black on the last twenty years regarding Bush/Clinton dynasties; it needs to stop. But not with this "Republican" candidate.

Trump deserves to lose this election and get out of the way as swiftly as possible along with Giuliani and his erstwhile gaggle of surrogates so a real conservative can re-start the Republican Party V2.0 and the U.S. can once again get serious about their country and dump the buffoonery that has passed for an election. 

Clinton supporters don't have blinders. They just have very tight swimmer's nose-clips on.

Edited by Don Hudson
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don, I think you are right when you said " Clinton supporters don't have blinders on. They just have very tight nose-clips on. " Both candidates give off a bad smell and although Hillary's is not as bad as Trump's, her supporters def. need to wear nose clips when they go to cast their ballot.  Too bad neither party put up "a real" candidate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Don, I think you are right when you said " Clinton supporters don't have blinders on. They just have very tight nose-clips on. " Both candidates give off a bad smell and although Hillary's is not as bad as Trump's, her supporters def. need to wear nose clips when they go to cast their ballot.  Too bad neither party put up "a real" candidate.

The only thing is Malcolm, I don't think that it is a stretch to say that "President Hillary" will be impeached within two years.

Talk about a lame duck President...from the get go.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Last night of the campaign...Packed Auditorium +129 THOUSAND deplorables watching rally in New Hampshire tonight where CNN shows Clinton leading by 3 pts. Trexit?  

Valiant effort but a win is probably unlikely when you are battling the full weight of the US government.





Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites


I have to ask....(and I assume I know the answer)...have you ever met the man? On what basis have you come to the conclusions you so forcefully express....almost dogmatic?

I guess that you've seen video clips from years gone by; audio tapes; read of accusations; and watched at least some portion of news productions (including debates) in which Trump is at least one of the principal actors.

Anything else?

Is what I have recited sufficient to permanently tar beyond redemption? Is it enough to label that person as a " juvenile mendacious buffoon"?

Trump has been preparing for election to public office for how long ? Do you...can you...concede that those seeking election are often groomed for decades and start with local (municipal) office; to County; to State; to Congress etc.? In that process, they become beholden to various special interests but also learn how to "speak for attribution". The message is...they LEARN!

Hillary has been striving for this goal for how long?

And I ask long has Trump "practised" as a politician?

I have repeatedly stated that I neither support nor oppose either candidate. I don't believe the election of either will have much if any impact on the "real politick" but I do think it unreasonable to denounce a candidate because he doesn't (and hasn't) presented as "someone should".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites



I add....I am cynical. I agree with Marshall's all about the packaging and presentation. Therein lies the message. Properly groomed, packaged and presented....Trump would win hands down. But if so packaged...he wouldn't have been Trump. Ah! The paradox.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Don Hudson said:

The only thing Donald Trump is going to make great, is himself and his bank account.

Look, neither candidate is held to high esteem, but that statement is laughable when you compare it to Hillary.

So Don...overall would Chomsky and his ANARCHY be preferable to either candidate?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jaydee said:

You are absolutely right. But where was your righteous indignation regarding the blatantly false insinuation above that Trump supports the KKK? Should that be allowed to stand unchallenged?


Read what Don said, I can't possibly say it any better. Trump says whatever it takes to swerve the endless stream of land mines he and his followers have blindly dropped in his path. He can denounce an endorsement all he likes, it doesn't change the fact that said endorsement was given. That endorsement wasn't given lightly. He asked for it with his thinly veiled racism and shameless xenophobia. You don't invite a bunch of drunks to your home and then expect the liquor cabinet to go untouched.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

....I am cynical. I agree with Marshall's all about the packaging and presentation. Therein lies the message. Properly groomed, packaged and presented....Trump would win hands down. But if so packaged...he wouldn't have been Trump. Ah! The paradox.

Well, not answering for DonH, but since I largely share his appraisal, my $0.02: this probably isn't the place for dissecting McLuhan ;) but honestly, UD', DJT has been a very public figure for decades, and very proprietary about his image. His actions, outside of an initial core business in real estate development, provide much to inform about his character, regardless of his words and presentation, the content of which also inform. And who said anything about "beyond redemption"? (As if he'd ever seek or aspire to that IAC). WYSIWYG was supposed to be one of his principal virtues, wasn't it?

4 hours ago, FireFox said:

The only thing is Malcolm, I don't think that it is a stretch to say that "President Hillary" will be impeached within two years.

Talk about a lame duck President...from the get go.

So the impeachment process may be employed as a vehicle for reversal of a popular election, prior to any opportunities even to allege high crimes and misdemeanors? This from people who claim to revere the US constitution, interpreted as intended by the founders. With any knowledge at all about that history, hypocrisy is laid bare.

& It's certainly not a commendable line of argument. Essentially, one side is saying that, if they lose the election, they will prevent the government from functioning, without regard for the voice of the people, so surrender and elect us. The Republicans can imply this threat because they have a gerrymandered lock on the House majority (hmm, rigged systems?). Our Canadian parliamentary system prevents that particular brand of chicanery, but it's still discomforting to see folks here discuss it approvingly.

1 hour ago, Fido said:

and will make no difference to Canada

If you're suggesting that relations and trade between Canada and the US are headed for a rough patch either way, probably so. How rough? It may matter who wins; not at all sure there's no difference.

IAC, we'll find out in due course. The best odds-makers would give HRC about as much chance as a 40-yard field goal to win in the NFL. Game's not over :P

Cheers, IFG :b:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever happens today and whoever wins will, IMHO, go down in history as the event that sparked the second American Revolution.

Just my prediction of the future.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks had lots of comments re Hillary and her handling of sensitive emails. I am sure there will be a lot of comments re what happened much closer to home.

More than 10,000 document security incidents in Trudeau government's 1st year

Opposition critic says number of mishandled documents is 'shockingly high'

By Elizabeth Thompson, CBC News Posted: Nov 08, 2016 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 08, 2016 9:07 AM ET


Of the more than 10,000 incidents of improperly handled documents reported since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took office, it is not known whether any of the incidents led to security or privacy breaches. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)


Elizabeth Thompson
Senior Reporter

Award-winning reporter Elizabeth Thompson covers Parliament Hill. A veteran of the Montreal Gazette, Sun Media and iPolitics, she currently works with the CBC's Ottawa bureau, specializing in investigative reporting and data journalism. @LizT1

External Links

(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)

There have been more than 10,000 incidents of classified or secure documents being improperly left or stored since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government came to office.

According to a document quietly tabled in the House of Commons, the highest number of incidents took place in Public Services and Procurement Canada, which reported 2,912 cases of documents not handled according to the security level dictated for the documents between Nov. 4, 2015, and Sept. 19, 2016. The Global Affairs Department was a close second with 2,712 incidents.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada's spy agency, came third with 659 cases. The agency said 12 of the incidents were sent for further investigation.

It is not known whether any of the incidents led to security or privacy breaches. Nobody has lost their security clearance as a result of documents being handled improperly.

The full extent of the incidents within the federal government is also not known. While the government's answer to a question placed on the order paper adds up to 10,239 incidents, it did not include answers from either the Canada Revenue Agency or the Justice Department, which have thousands of employees who deal with a lot of sensitive files.

Twenty-four departments reported they had no incidents of mishandling secure or protected documents.

It is not known how the numbers compare with the number of incidents under Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government. The question from Conservative MP Gord Brown only dates back to the day Trudeau's government was sworn in.

Most of the incidents occurred within departments and agencies, the result of public servants doing things like leaving sensitive papers on their desk at night or forgetting to lock a filing cabinet.

Some of the incidents, however, took place in the offices of cabinet ministers.

Among cabinet ministers, Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef's office had the highest number of document security incidents. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Rookie Democratic Reform Minister Maryam Monsef led the pack with 11 incidents of classified or secured documents not being cared for properly. They were among the 161 incidents that occurred in the Privy Council Office.

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale's office had six cases during the time frame covered by the government's answer. In total, the Public Safety Department had 272 incidents.

Transport Minister Marc Garneau's office had two incidents while one occurred in the office of MaryAnn Mihychuk, minister of employment, workforce development and labour.

One common talking point ran through the answers provided by departments — the government's commitment to security.

"The government of Canada is committed to maintaining the highest standards of document security. Security infractions are identified as part of the National Security Sweep Program, which is an ongoing awareness measure designed to continually improve document security."

While many departments provided little more than the numbers requested, some also supplied explanations.

Minister of Health Jane Philpott says employees involved in security incidents receive notices and training. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

Goodale's response, for example, shed light on the kinds of lapses that led to the incidents.

"PS [Public Safety] records show 53 instances, since Nov. 4, 2015, where documents were found unsecured by security during evening patrols. For all instances where a document was left unsecured, the document was removed by security during the patrol and stored in a manner which met the requirements of the security level of the document until it could be retrieved by its owner."

"PS records show 220 instances, since Nov. 4, 2015, where cabinets were found unlocked by security during evening patrols. For all instances where a cabinet was left unlocked, it is impossible to confirm if the cabinet contained any protected or classified documents. As per PS security protocol all cabinets were locked by security during the patrol to secure their content."

In her response, Health Minister Jane Philpott, detailed what happens if an employee is found violating the rules.

"Should an infraction be discovered, the document is seized by security and responsible management is advised of the infraction," wrote Philpott, who reported 81 incidents at Health Canada and 20 at the Public Health Agency of Canada.

"A notice of security infraction is left behind at the workstation indicating the nature of any discovered infraction. Training is provided in cases where there is a low rate of compliance."

"Additionally, certain business areas are targeted for sweeps if high levels of non-compliance are detected or a blitz approach is deemed useful."

While the Communications Security Establishment, which conducts electronic monitoring and surveillance, reported 491 incidents, it was quick to point out that its operations are carried out in a high-security zone and none of the documents left the building.

'It's amateur hour,' says former Treasury Board president Tony Clement.

Critics, however, are concerned by the number of incidents since the Trudeau government took office.

Former Conservative Treasury Board president Tony Clement said cabinet ministers have to send a strong signal about the importance of handling classified and protected documents.

"We're a G7 country, and when we do not handle these kinds of documents in the appropriate way it's amateur hour. It might be a signal to our allies and our partners that we cannot be trusted. This is very concerning."

Clement could not recall how many such incidents occurred when the Conservatives were in power.

NDP Treasury Board critic Daniel Blaikie questioned whether the problem was training or whether the problem was documents being needlessly classified as secret.

Either way, there are too many incidents, he said.

"It's a shockingly high number."

Link to post
Share on other sites


"What kind of force motivates the right to honour human filth like the KKK who promote hate, and have endorsed the Republican candidate?"

I can't recall a single honour, or accolade being directed towards David Duke and or the KKK from the Right, much less any quarter since the election campaign began, do you?

Can you imagine the outcry from the Left if Donald Trump, or any of his supporters were to get up on a stage and 'actually' refer to people in the style of Jay Z?

I ask again; what form of psychology blocks the Left from recognizing the two faced approach it demonstrates when it comes to the denigration of minorities etc.?

Look at the theme of several of the last few response posts as a for instance. While rightfully condemning the KKK, your response purposely avoids the question posed? In similar fashion, Don and supporting cast intentionally dodged a difficult question by redirecting the discussion. In the meantime, because public debate is stymied by the Left's refusal to conduct any kind of up-front examination of the issues, so-called performers like the sh!theads in question remain free to spew their vitriolic slime to the adoring masses, which is without a doubt one of many factors confounding any honest attempt to heal societies wounds.



  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


Nothing justifies JayZ's "performance", period.

I cannot imagine the job parents have today, with a ripe internet and ubiquitous electronics opening pathways to horrible Stromboli's everywhere.

Regarding your question to deicer, (and PMFJI), please don't assume it is being ignored just because you don't get the response you want right away. This is writing and as we all know, life and mood drives it as much as any formal debate process. Let it be...

I have searched numerous sites, (the subject won't be in any books yet), and can't find occasions on which the Republican Party have endorsed David Duke or the KKK in this election cycle.

But, in accord with Republican history, we need to keep firmly in mind that this was not always so.

The Republican Party was, and remains the party of white Protestants.

The excrescence David Duke, like the polyp JayZ, is an apostrophe of extremism which does not define Trump or the Republican Party, nor does JayZ define Clinton or the Democratic Party.

There are sufficient outliers and hypocrisies everywhere to highlight what one wishes to convey; guilty-as-charged at times, but not alone.

In a tardy response to your question above, and without diverting the conversation any further,  ;-)   maybe the following helps:

From, "White Protestant Nation - The Rise of the American Conservative Movement":



"By the 1920s a gulf had opened between Americans still devoted to a national identity defined by late-nineteenth-century Victorian values and those tied to the increasingly pluralistic cultural forces of the twentieth century.

"Anti-pluralists joined with leaders of business to forge a new conservative consensus in the 1920s that locked together support for private enterprise and white Protestant cultural values. The conservatives who dominated American politics in the 1920s established most of the enduring ideas and institutions that would ground the modern political right. Taken together, the prohibition of vice, anticommunism, conservative maternalism, evangelical Protestantism, business conservatism, racial science and containnment, and the grassroots organizing of the Ku Klux Klan formed a stout defense of America's white Protestant, free enterprise civilization."

- Ch.1 - The Birth of the Modern Right, 1920-1928, pp.9-10


For UD:

14 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

On what basis have you come to the conclusions

 On the basis of his performance.

That is what election campaigns do: help an electorate judge the candidate's character, capability, capacity, resilience, stamina...all those qualities that make someone electable for high office; Or not.

Initially I watched Trump's performance from June 2015 to the present. He was an obvious demagogue with little regard for people and history, and I said so at the time.

I compared him to the only thing I know well and have experience with, and that is the kind of person who belongs in command of an airliner. Most certainly, not Donald Trump.

I spent some time in Berlin earlier this year and recognized similar patterns in the many places where German history between 1933 and 1945 is publicly told. I was taken aback at the similarities, social circumstances and the one-dimensional, shrill personality that was asking for a nation's trust and belief.

There is never a precise concurrence, but there remain disturbing similarities which needed discussing and still do in my opinion, even after the election process has been completed.

Nothing that came out of his earlier history, actions and portrayals by numerous business people, authors and, importantly, other Republicans, changed my perception and conclusion that this was a dysfunctional loner who was not suited or qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief.

If Donald Trump follows through with his stated threat to not accept the results of this election if he loses, that may actually a good thing, because the RNC will simply proceed with conceding the election as it should, which will render Donald Trump historically irrelevant and hopefully an aberration. His participation will perhaps be good material for future academic theses.

With either Democratic candidate, this was the Republican Party's election to lose. The Party didn't do it's homework by reading its own internal audit on why and how it lost the 2008 election.

As "White, Protestant America" and many other sources discuss, they are a whites-only, reactionary party that now has an autopsy and not just an audit on their hands - if they want to survive at all.

We'll see what they do with what the electorate hands them today. My bet is that they won't learn a thing and, unfortunately for the country, dynasties like we have seen and as Black has mentioned, will continue.

"Conservatism" by it's DNA and cultural definition, pronounces rather than learns. I prefer learning from mistakes; clearly the Republicans do not, as Mitch McConnell has pledged to continue to lead a dystopian political process.

Perhaps younger, more informed and optimistic conservatives will emerge, assuming the "Republican" in this political process survives.

Which brings me to the Democrats who have openly admitted that they too, are elitist and out of touch with people.

Somehow, I think that the party that learns the fastest and is open to, and actually listens to blunt self-criticism, will be the one with the greater chances for survival of the mess to come.



Edited by Don Hudson
Link to post
Share on other sites


Forget the election for the nonce. My tv isn't even on and it's 8:10 pm.

I read and then re-read your post. What did you actually convey of your long-considered and heart-felt thoughts? I do not intend that as disrespectful but it seems as though you measure out your words in dollops.....almost canned homilies.

On one hand you suggest that had the Republicans studied the "playbook", they would easily have won the election. What playbook, Don? What about what one intellectually believes to be " right"?

To my mind, you are espousing "same old; same old". If you get votes supporting a swimming pool.....promise them a swimming pool!

There is a very real and substantial question in to cope with illegal immigration and as a corollary, how to deal with those here illegally.

Allegedly, the hispanic vote.....the vote of those most impacted by the collective answer to that question....will go to Clinton because she opposes (publicly) expulsion of illegals and restrictions on entry. win election, you pander to the electorate who actually support the " path to citizenship" of those who broke the law.

Where is the justice or rationality in that process?

And if one objects to the inability of south floridians to communicate in English, they are racists? I'm not kidding. A few years back at the Miami tourist office, there wasn't one person....not one....who could effectively communicate in English. But you can't object because you will then be cast as a racist.

I'm telling you....there are problems culturally and otherwise here in the south and it will require honesty and committment to resolve....not "pandering"!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning, UD;

First, I accept the results of the election and congratulate Donald Trump on winning. 

The American people have voted for change. Like everyone else I look forward to seeing how that change comes about and what it looks like. 

Thank you for engaging the discussion. I do understand your point regarding "same-old" and pandering. This election was more Janus-faced than most. I kept hammering at a "conserving" point of view for all the reasons stated in my various contributions. I had expected that at some point the American people would come revolt against powerful public and private interests but didn't think it would come this way.

But it has, and now the world must work with the outcome. 



  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was clear from the get-go that most everybody was so focused on the behavior and antics of “the Donald” that they overlooked his ”message” and to whom he was speaking.  The anger and frustration of American voters with their government was/is palpable and yet (until today anyway) it was overlooked and/or dismissed by the establishment media, by the pollsters and most significantly, by the Democratic Party itself.

There has been a lot of fear-mongering about Trump but as I’ve said before: the US Presidency is not a one-man show. His challenge is to now shift gears and surround himself with people with whom he can entrust the implementation of his "message."

Donald Trump is not a politician but he is about to find out what being a politician entails. As for all those who supported and voted for him, I am reminded of that old saying: “Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.” Interesting times lie ahead. I wish him well - for the sake of us all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.