Open Thread

It is said that 2.8 million ballots remain to be counted in California – this is an indication of a government system which is massively incompetent. Suppose California decided the election – suppose we did go to a popular vote system – we’d still be waiting for the results two weeks out.

Meanwhile, Michigan is still not officially called – even though they finished counting on November 10th and Trump leads by 13,107 votes. My guess is that Trump will wind up north of 63 million votes while Hillary will finish somewhere around 65 million. That makes Trump the best vote-getter in GOP history (beating out Bush by about a million votes from 2004), and will make Hillary the second best Democrat vote-getter (getting beat by Obama in both ’08 and ’12).

We GOPers should really press for a revival of the California GOP – first off, because we shouldn’t be just resigning 55 electoral votes to the Democrats, secondly to give us a boost in popular votes so we don’t give our Progressives even the slight satisfaction of their guy getting more popular votes. Back out California’s total, and Trump won the popular vote in the rest of the nation (59.7 million for Trump, 56.5 million for Hillary); let’s move our vote total towards 6 million in CA…even if the Dems win, it would make the difference in the total national vote.

Kellyanne Conway notes that the MSM seems to be suffering from a sort of PTSD about the election.

Don Surber notes that Trump remains expert at trolling the MSM and making them go after things which are trivial.

The main thing about Senator Sessions being made Attorney General is the fact that if we enforce the laws already on the books, a lot of people are going to catch it hot…and that, I think, it what they are afraid of. We’ve kind of done this phony game where we need “Comprehensive immigration reform” in order to figure out what to do about the illegal aliens…thing is, we’ve got it all covered in law, except for any amnesty package. Obama – and, let’s face it, the GOP as well – has refused to enforce the immigration laws because this creates a “crisis” which then requires an amnesty. This is exactly backwards. Sessions, I think, will get it going in the right direction – enforce the laws and once we’ve cleared out the bad guys and got the border secure then we can consider amnesty for those who remain.

Kurt Schlichter, who had his doubts about Trump, is starting to enjoy this:

It’s important to understand why liberals are so angry and so scared. They are angry because they believe they have a moral right to command us, apparently bestowed by Gaia or #Science or having gone to Yale, and we are irredeemably deplorable for not submitting to their benevolent dictatorship.

They are scared because they fear we will wage the same kind of campaign of petty (and not so petty) oppression, intimidation, and bullying that they intended to wage upon us.

And their fear tastes like sunshine puked up by a unicorn.

I was considering being magnanimous in our total victory, but that lasted until a bunch of loving, tolerant, peaceful anti-Trump demonstrators jumped my friend and hurt his dog. So now, their pain is my sugar, and I say let’s spend the next four years having our coffee Sudden Impact-style.

35 thoughts on “Open Thread

  1. Cluster November 22, 2016 / 9:00 am

    First of all I love Kurt Schlichter’s take on this post election hysteria. The fear based contortions liberals are putting themselves through is certainly fun to watch, and here is the most delicious irony of it all. Democrats have been campaigning on “comprehensive immigration reform” for how long now? How long have they used immigration as a wedge issue? How well has the divide on immigration served their political interests over the last couple of decades? Well liberals, this is what immigration reform actually looks like, so just as parents throughout history have told their children to “be careful what what you wish for, you just might get it”, well thanks to the adults in the room, this country is on the verge of immigration reform and the liberals are freaking out.

  2. Retired Spook November 22, 2016 / 10:25 am

    Just when I thought I had heard it all.

    President Obama’s Justice Department is penalizing the Denver Sheriff Department for making U.S. citizenship a requirement for applicants.

    The sheriff’s department will now have to pay a $10,000 fine for its hiring practices in 2015 and 2016. Additionally, the DOJ is requiring them to comb through old applications for those who were disqualified for being a non-citizen and consider those people for future positions.

    This would be a good test case for nullification.

    • Cluster November 22, 2016 / 10:34 am

      Thank God all of this progressive crap is coming to end soon

      • Retired Spook November 22, 2016 / 11:03 am

        I wonder if Congress could pass a law that would allow for deporting anyone who has publicly expressed a desire to move to another country if they don’t get their way or anyone who has publicly expressed a hatred for this country. I’d bet a President Trump would sign such a law.

      • Amazona November 22, 2016 / 12:07 pm

        I think expressing such a sentiment would just qualify as freedom of political speech—unless and until it reached the level of sedition, advocating the overthrow of the government, or support of groups that do.

        I think that a law requiring strict adherence to oaths of office would go a long way toward cleaning out the scum of our current government employee pool. It’s one thing to flip off the law and do what you want when there is no penalty, but when this kind of thing means getting fired, it will be a different consideration. To the squishies in the middle, such a law would just call their attention to the fact that there is a legal and moral commitment associated with their jobs. To the hard-core insurgent types purposely using the protection of their jobs to undermine the rule of law, it would balance that ideology with a penalty.

        I think a Trump DOJ ought to prosecute the current DOJ for its efforts to subvert the law. For now, a message to the Denver Sheriff Department that these penalties imposed by the current DOJ will be overturned and an investigation will be initiated to find out if the penalty depends on flouting current law would send a lovely message and send the cockroaches scurrying for cover. For example, how would the demand that the LEO of Denver hire people who are not here legally comply with the requirement for employers to check the legal status of people before hiring them, which is touted by Obama supporters as proof of his commitment to legal immigration? Is the Obama DOJ penalizing people for following the law, and rewarding those who don’t? Do ya think?

  3. Retired Spook November 22, 2016 / 10:59 am

    Not sure how I missed this.

    As the idea of a Donald Trump presidency turned from populist pipe dream to terrifying reality, the anxiety in Silicon Valley was palpable across social media. And while election results were still rolling in on Tuesday night, a few vocal tech titans proposed a dramatic solution: a California secession.


    • Amazona November 22, 2016 / 12:13 pm

      Once federal funding for California sanctuary cities is taken away, California will be wholly dependent on its own resources, and will quickly descend even farther into third-world territory even if it is technically still a state.

      I wonder if these “tech titans” have considered the impact on their businesses if they are suddenly defined as foreign enterprises, part of a different country, and subject to tariffs and so on. And passports allowing people to travel to and from the United States could be dependent on not supporting the overthrow of the United States government. La Raza wants California back, so they would have a welcoming place to go, and a sympathetic government.

      I’m liking the idea.

      A state can secede. Can we kick it out?

      • Mark Moser November 28, 2016 / 10:34 am

        My brother live in CA. He wants me to for a visit. I ask if he thought I’d need a passport. He said, “Only to get out!” Please, let them go! There is no down side.

      • Amazona November 28, 2016 / 11:09 am

        Clearly if we do allow immigration from California it will require serious vetting. While many emigrants from California would really only be looking for a better life, we can’t overlook the high proportion of undesirables, ranging from domestic terrorists and terrorist wannabes such as La Raza to the general population of wild-eyed anti-American Liberals. We don’t want them sending us their rapists, their “protesters” or their vegans.

  4. Amazona November 22, 2016 / 4:36 pm

    Lots of chatter about Trump saying he will not prosecute Hillary on the email thing. I guess now he is in favor of amnesty, for the rich and well-connected, anyway I have heard a couple of radio call-in comments saying to just let it go.

    What a great idea! A guy robs a bank, but gee, a trial is just so, you know, complicated. And some feelings will be hurt. Shouldn’t we just “move on”? Let’s see if the IRS takes that approach when it comes to collecting back taxes. So we have a new motto for the new administration. No more Make America Great Again. Now it’s Just Let It Go.

    So much for “draining the swamp”. Reinforcing the perception that we are not a nation of law, but a nation of laws—-one set for this group, another for another group—-is an interesting way give people renewed faith in the nation. What better way to change the direction of the nation than to continue allowing people of wealth and influence to avoid the consequences of their illegal actions?

    I am disgusted. But then, I always said that Trump will say what he needs to day to get what he wants, and he needed to talk tough about Hillary to get elected. No more business as usual, folks, because we don’t have a politician here, we have a guy who can get things done and is not part of the Establishment. HE TELLS IT LIKE IT IS. “If I were president you’d be in jail”.

    Or not.

    Evidently now Hillary isn’t so crooked after all.

    We will hear all about how the nation NEEDS TO HEAL. Well, you don’t heal a wound by covering it up and letting it fester. You heal it by cleaning it out, debriding it to get rid of the infection and dead tissue, even when that is painful, and eliminating the source of infection. Of course that takes a backbone.

    • M. Noonan November 22, 2016 / 5:14 pm

      I’m not so sure it will work out quite like that. First off, course, it is an un-named “source”, so far…we don’t know what the facts are. But, that said, here’s how I look at it – really, what I would do if I were magically transformed into the President-Elect.

      I’ve got a lot on my plate – a huge number of campaign promises. I need to prioritize. The most crucial things, as I see it, are the economy and national security. We’ve got to get a lot of reforms through on both those issues, which include things like immigration, refugees, Syria, Iran, Russia, China, military readiness, government regulations, tax reform, etc. Given this, do I spend my first 100 days using my political capital on those issues – which do include a bit of “drain the swamp” in the sense of reforming rules about lobbying, government employment, etc – or do I go to the mat right out the gate trying to get an indictment of Hillary? This, of course, would look like a vindictive pursuit of my opponent in the late election…and if I make rumbles about doing it before I take office, Obama might short-circuit the whole thing by pardoning Hillary…

      Nope, I work on the other stuff first…including letting Sessions get a firm grip on the Department of Justice, including removing or re-assigning anyone who is believed to have played a part in covering up Hillary’s misdeeds under the Obama Administration. Sessions will also have to look carefully into the matter – and he’s just the guy to do it as he was a US Attorney for 12 years, and then served as Alabama’s Attorney General. He’ll be able to determine:

      1. If there was really a clear violation of federal law by Hillary or any of her troops.
      2. If we can really get a conviction in court against her.

      This is very important because the last thing I’d need is a failed prosecution against Hillary – that would be catastrophically bad for me in the political sense because it would make me appear a mean-spirited man who ended up losing. If, however, by about July – after I and the GOP Congress have passed some major reforms and I’m basking in the glow of success – Sessions comes to me and says, “we got her cold – her and a good score of her top aides; including some who were working for Obama in 2016”, then we go ahead…Sessions announces either a Grand Jury to hear the evidence or appoints a Special Prosecutor and I say, “I’m just allowing the judicial process to go forward and, in fact, its best I keep a step away from it as she was my opponent last year”.

      That, at all events, is how I see it playing out – we’ll know in a few months if I got it right.

      • Amazona November 22, 2016 / 7:04 pm

        I don’t know how the subject came up, if he or someone just volunteered this information or if it was an answer to a question.

        I think it would be foolish to jump to the term “prosecute” in any case. The first step is an investigation, and only after a thorough and independent and unbiased investigation is completed should a decision about whether or not to “prosecute” be made.

        And the president plays no part in this investigation, so what he does or does not have on his plate should play no role at all in his decision. It’s not as if this is something completely new to Trump, and he just can’t take the time to learn about the details, think it through, and weigh the pros and cons of this or that decision. All the president has to do is keep his trap shut, or, if pressed, say that it is not his job to decide yes or no on prosecution, it will be up to his new Attorney General to decide if the matter calls for further investigation. That’s two months away. And no decision would have to be made right after the inauguration, either. What you said makes complete sense, so that is what you tell the people. “One of the most important goals of this administration is to get back to the rule of law, and the idea that no one, no matter how wealthy or influential, is above the law. But there is a lot to do, and not everything can be done immediately. Don’t worry—it’s not going away, it’s not being swept under the rug. I was elected because at least half of the people in the country think we have a lot of very serious problems, and I think you will understand that some have to be addressed sooner than others. It’s on the list.”

        As far as concerns about a “failed prosecution” go, he already has cover if his AG thinks it is a shaky case. Comey has already explained to the world that though she did quite a lengthy list of wrong and bad things he does not recommend prosecution, so a Trump AG could just agree with this.

        But Trump ran as an outsider, not beholden to anyone, independent, tough-minded and determined to set things right. Backing off on this would get him off to a rocky start with many of his supporters. He didn’t get elected because people thought he would cave under pressure. And really, who cares about the rest? Does anyone think that not pursuing the investigation will make any of the Trump haters pause for a moment and think “Wow, he’s not so bad after all”? At this point, if Trump were to step aside and hand Hillary the presidency, those people would still hate him. So why let them dictate what he should do? No, what he has to do is convince those of us who voted for him that we did the right thing, that he can be trusted, that he is the same guy after the election as he was before. Once he loses ground here, it will hard if not impossible to regain it.

      • Retired Spook November 22, 2016 / 8:01 pm

        To expand a bit on your theory, Trump has said on numerous occasions that, unlike Obama, he would not telegraph his intentions to the enemy. He was referring to ISIS, but I don’t see why the same strategy couldn’t apply to anyone in the previous administration who it could be proved broke the law. But in the end the investigation and prosecution would have to at least have the appearance of applying the rule of law to someone in the elite class on the same basis that it would to anyone else, not simply getting even with a political opponent who said some things you didn’t like. In the end I will be disappointed if Hillary is not prosecuted, but his promise to investigate her wan’t the main reason I voted for him.

      • Amazona November 22, 2016 / 8:31 pm

        It wasn’t the main reason I voted for him, either, but once he made that a part of his campaign it is a mistake to back off on it. When you break down all the various parts of the American angst that led to his victory, the core is that we need someone to believe in. Along the lines of “You only get one chance to make a first impression” I think it is important to start off going in the direction you want to end up in, so you don’t have to keep explaining why you said one thing and did another.

      • Amazona November 22, 2016 / 9:25 pm

        OK, this is from Politico, but it seems to include actual quotes along with the opinions, and I have cited four quotes that quite literally turn my stomach: Two from Conway, one from Trump, and one from Giuliani. emphasis mine

        Conway, the senior adviser who successfully managed the final iteration of Trump’s campaign, said Tuesday morning the president-elect will not push for further criminal investigations into potential wrongdoing by Clinton, suggesting he has chosen to “help her heal” from the bruising defeat her campaign never saw coming.

        “And I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that a majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest or trustworthy, but if Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that’s a good thing.”
        He also said the Clintons are “good people” and that “I don’t want to hurt them.”
        Either way, Giuliani continued, he would support Trump’s “tough choice.” “You could go either way. If he made the choice to unite the nation, I think, all those people who didn’t vote against him, maybe, could take another look at him,” he said.

        And there you have it. There is a belief that looking away from Hillary’s crimes might make Trump’s enemies like him, some goofy New Age crap about “helping Hillary HEAL” and of course Donald’s personal belief that in spite of all he knows about the Clintons he still thinks they are “good people” and gee golly whiz, Beav, let’s not “hurt them”.

        Un-freaking-believable. We thought we were electing a strong man dedicated to leading the nation out of the swamp, and now he and his cronies are talking like he is some New Age mushmouthed dippy trippy hippy guru who just wants to help good people recover from their psychic traumas and maybe buy the world a Coke so they will all love him.

      • Amazona November 22, 2016 / 9:31 pm

        I’m wondering, if Giuliani was quoted accurately, if his comment was a Freudian slip, as he said that maybe “…all those people who didn’t vote against him, maybe, could take another look at him…”

        That is, the people who voted FOR him might be taking another look at him. Maybe Rudy’s subconscious is butting in a little there, because he has to know that a decision like this will have a lot of people who did vote for Trump (“…didn’t vote against him…”) will be seeing him in a different light.

      • M. Noonan November 23, 2016 / 12:10 pm

        We’ll have to see how it comes out. I’m just thinking that immediately trying to prosecute Hillary will fire up the left and might end in failure. So, give it time…

      • Amazona November 23, 2016 / 12:35 pm

        Not my point, but OK.

        I do object to fretting about “firing up the Left”—as if there is ANYTHING that any of us could possibly do to calm them down. If that is the only reason to pussyfoot around like this, it is a bad one. One way to look at that would be to do everything that might get them even more frantic all at once, so they burn out quickly, instead of dragging it out and constantly feeding the flames. Dump it all on them, so their protests riots are for everything at once, and then after that everything will seem pretty calm by comparison.

        BTW, I do see some possible reasons for not announcing plans to proceed with an investigation. One might be to not further antagonize not the Left, per se, but Dem and squishy Electors, some of whom are trying to start an Electoral College revolt. One might be to not push Dems into pressuring Obama to issue a pardon. I get it.

        It’s just the hippy-trippy-dippy posturing about HEALING that gets under my skin. But I do still have a teeny tiny bit of “give it a chance” lurking in the back of my kitchen junk drawer, next to the tattered tattered remnants of “it might not be as bad as it seems” and I won’t discard them until further notice.

        Now if only I can get rid of that image of Trump in a headband and Nehru jacket, draped in beads and wearing a big peace sign medallion, preaching to us about deep cleansing breaths and the need for HEALING…………….. The only Trump I ever liked was Eff ’em Trump, and I already miss him.

  5. Retired Spook November 23, 2016 / 8:18 pm

    I heard on an opinion panel several days ago that, in spite of the fact that it looks like Hillary will win the popular vote by a couple million votes, she only won around 300 counties out of a total of 5,000 counties. the 5,000 number seemed a little high, so I did some research. Turns out there are 3,144 counties and county equivalents in the United States. I still haven’t been able to determine how many of those each candidate won, but the red/blue map by county is quite stark.,

    I also ran across this interesting WAPO article.

    Donald Trump delivered on his promise to flip the Democrats’ electoral hold on the industrial Midwest.

    Across swing states — and others previously thought to be safe for Democrats — Trump colored dozens of counties red that hadn’t gone Republican in decades.

    Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump.

    Trump also won 194 of the 207 counties that voted for Obama either in 2008 or 2012.

    Counties Obama won twice 209 for Trump, 467 for Clinton

    Counties Obama won once 194 for Trump, 13 for Clinton

    By contrast, of those 2,200 counties that never supported Obama, Clinton was only able to win six. That’s just 0.3 percent crossover to the Democratic side.

    These are two excellent arguments for not abandoning the Electoral College.

    • Retired Spook November 23, 2016 / 10:58 pm

      I just realized that the number of counties Hillary won can be extrapolated from the numbers in the WAPO article. If Obama won 700 counties and Trump flipped a third of those, then Hillary won 467 counties out of 3,144, or 15% of the counties in the U.S.

      • Amazona November 24, 2016 / 12:10 am

        Spook, do you know if all ballots have been counted? There were all those in California, which probably went to Hillary but they should still be tallied, and of course there are the military ballots which are seldom counted if there is a statistical analysis that they would not change the outcome.

      • M. Noonan November 24, 2016 / 1:54 am

        I think we’ll wind up with Hillary at about 65 mil, Trump at 63 mil – right now, Jill Stein is trying to raise money for recounts in PA, MI and WI…my guess is that it is in partial coordination with Team Hillary; not because anyone with any sense thinks it will change the result, but because by drawing it out they hope to cast doubts upon Trump…delegitimize him; or, it might just be an act of spite by hate-filled people. Hard to say with Progressives.

      • Retired Spook November 24, 2016 / 11:02 am

        I read somewhere a couple days ago that there were still over 2 million uncounted ballots in California. Beyond that I don’t know. I think Mark is absolutely right in that, with as large a popular vote margin as it appears she has, there will be an on-going effort by the Left to delegitimize Trump throughout his presidency. It would be an interesting twist if some enterprising journalist would investigate how many illegals voted, because I’d bet most of Hillary’s margin is from people who aren’t legally allowed to vote. You’ve probably seen the leaked video of Robert Creamer and some other Democrat operatives bragging about busing people from precinct to precinct to vote multiple times. Likely massive cheating and Hillary still lost 30 states.

      • Retired Spook November 24, 2016 / 11:03 am

        it might just be an act of spite by hate-filled people. Hard to say with Progressives.

        Spot on!

  6. Jeremiah November 24, 2016 / 11:57 am


    • Retired Spook November 24, 2016 / 12:17 pm

      You too Jeremiah. This is still the greatest country on earth, and the vast majority of us have a lot to be thankful for.

  7. dougq November 25, 2016 / 3:32 am

    Regarding the 55 electoral college votes CA has: They have a legal and illegal immigrant population of over 11 million. Because congressional districts are given based on both legal and illegal residency, about 15 of those congress critters are theirs because of non-citizens.

    Easiest fix? Add one more state legislature in 2018 to the gop column and pass a constitutional amendment alotting congressional districts and electors based only upon US citizen population.

      • Retired Spook November 25, 2016 / 3:17 pm

        The disjointed thought process of Liberals is entertaining to say the least.

        Really what they did initially was set up the initial representation and came up with the number of representatives that each state would have before they knew how many people lived there and set up a minimum number of representatives that each state could have and the maximum size, which they could be.

        what exactly does “maximum size” refer to? Is he saying that only people of a certain height and weight can run for Congress? Is he referring to the size of the district?

        And “well, for hundreds of years now we’ve had districts?” Who is “we”? We (the United States of America) have had unified, one person districts since the Apportionment Act of 1842, or 174 years.

      • dougq November 25, 2016 / 3:36 pm

        I once had to redistrict but on a more local level and it was eye-opening. We had a federal prison that accounted for a third of the population of the area that was being drawn and the State agency sent us the proposed redrawn lines that we were supposed to rubber stamp.

        Well, they put the whole non-voting prison population into one of the redrawn districts and I kid you not, one of the districts had about 2 dozen eligible voters and the others had 3000 in them.

        I had to call them up and chew them out for their stupidity. It took a fight to get our redrawn districts approved to how we thought they should be because of course they look it at is all the people in each district need equal representation rather than the way we looked at (wow those 24 people sure have a lot of political power – and, how the heck are we going to get one of those 24 to run for office, etc.)

        While there is plenty of argument to be made on the unconstitutionality of allowing governors and mayors to attempt to disenfranchise the rest of us by bringing in as many illegals as they can, I think the 3/5ths compromise makes it something that would need to be a constitutional amendment in order to change.

    • M. Noonan November 25, 2016 / 11:42 pm

      I agree with that – it was a debate the Founders had and they settled it with the total number of persons. I think it should be the total number of legal voters. A case could be made for “persons” when the laws disenfranchised most adults…but now all you got to be is an 18 year old citizen who isn’t a felon.

  8. Cluster November 25, 2016 / 10:59 am

    I have to admit, the continued implosion and infighting of the DNC is fun to watch. Here’s some not so good news for Pelosi, Schumer, Sanders, Warren, etc. In other words, all the old white people that currently lead the party.

    “In my opinion, we don’t need white people leading the Democratic Party right now,” Symone Sanders told CNN.

    • Retired Spook November 25, 2016 / 12:08 pm

      Plays right into the white guilt meme, Cluster. White Liberals won’t be offended in the least, and Conservatives, regardless of skin color just roll their eyes. The implosion of such a destructive force as the Democrat Party is a wonderful thing to behold.

      • Cluster November 25, 2016 / 2:45 pm

        Hey Spook, have a great Holiday weekend my friend and to you to Amazona, Mark, Rusty, Jeremiah, neocon, and even Watson and Mitch. I hope all of you had a great Thanksgiving. My prayer for the new year is that our economy begins to take off, particularly for those in need in the inner cities, and for everyone of us to begin to treat each other as Americans, not as an aggrieved identity group. Let’s stay focused on what really matters – economic opportunity for everyone regardless of race, creed or color, a sovereign nation that put’s it’s citizens first, and a safer world free from radicalism. Accomplishing just those three things will change this world for the better.

      • Retired Spook November 25, 2016 / 3:19 pm

        Have a great holiday weekend as well, my friend. My fondest hope is that Trump ends up being the unifier that Obama could have been but wasn’t.

Comments are closed.