U.S. Politics

Dan Rather: Nuclear weapons are not for the petulant, ill-informed ‘king’ to boast—they can end us

NEW YORK - JANUARY 15:  News Anchor Dan Rather attends the Broadway opening night of "Soul of Shaolin" at the Marquis Theatre on January 15, 2009 in New York City.  (Photo by Neilson Barnard/Getty Images)

Dan Rather/Getty Images


Once again, acclaimed political commentator Dan Rather shares, with gusto, his opinion on the menacing Donald Trump — And “he’s not even president yet.” Rather is sucinct (sic) and spot on as he describes how bad it can get with Trump holding the reins of America’s military and nuclear arms. This is no game. This is a “shortcut to the very end of life on earth as we know it.”

Rather also shares his views on the gross faux pas made by Reince Priebus who presumably compared Jesus Christ, the King of Peace to Donald Trump, the King of Hate.

Here are both commentaries by Dan Rather via his Facebook page.

Nuclear weapons are not a game. They are not a toy for the petulant and ill-informed to boast about on off-handed tweets. They are not gaudy hotels and apartment buildings to line up to make yourself feel stronger and more important. They are a direct shortcut to the very end of life on earth as we know it.

I suspect Donald Trump knows very little about our nuclear posture, its history, and the delicate balance our presidents have been walking since the early days of the Cold War. This was a man who in a primary debate didn’t seem to understand our nuclear triad. And that’s “Nukes for Dummies” level. Now recent tweets and comments suggest he’s thinking of a new arms race. When Mr. Trump suggested that countries like Japan and Saudi Arabia develop nuclear weapons during the campaign his apologists told those of us who were worried, he didn’t really mean it. Where are those voices now? Because whether he means what he says, or even knows what he means, really doesn’t matter at this point. Just by Trump saying it, the world order that we have known is at risk.

He’s not even president yet and he’s plunging us into a potential crisis that no one really thought would come. Surely there are many Republican Senators and foreign policy experts who understand the dangers of his rhetoric. Because the stakes with nuclear weapons are so high, that even slight changes in their status are cause for great

Dan Rather spoke of a foreboding doom on Friday. This morning, while apologizing for the timing, Rather touched on another incredibly disturbing story.

I am sorry to break the Christmas spirit, but a colleague brought the issue of GOP Chairman Reince Priebus’ Christmas message to my attention and, even on a holiday – news is news.

The controversial part of the message reads:

“Over two millennia ago, a new hope was born into the world, a Savior who would offer the promise of salvation to all mankind. Just as the three wise men did on that night, this Christmas heralds a time to celebrate the good news of a new King.”

Many on social media reacted in outrage to what they read as an equation of Donald Trump to Jesus. A few hours later CNN reported “RNC spokesman and incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the reference had nothing to do with Trump. ‘Christ is the King in the Christian faith.'”

I am just not sure how one would explain the word “new” in the quote.

Thank you, Dan Rather. During a time of mass deception, we can’t have enough truth.

Related Stories:

Dan Rather: ‘To call Trump a con man is a disservice to the art of the con’—Hillary was prepared

Dan Rather: Trump’s threats towards Hillary were of a despot, tyrant, or monarch – not a president

U.S. Politics

Final Popular Vote Total Shows Hillary Clinton Won Almost 3 Million More Ballots Than Donald Trump


It’s by far the largest margin of victory in the popular vote for a candidate who did not win the election.

Donald Trump is set to be sworn in next month as the 45th president of the United States, despite garnering almost 3 million fewer votes than his challenger.

With the presidential election results now certified in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., Hillary Clinton won a total of 65,844,610 votes ― 48.2 percent ― compared with Trump’s 62,979,636 votes ― 46.1 percent ― according to David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Other candidates took 7,804,213 ballots, or about 5.7 percent of the popular vote.

Clinton’s margin of victory in the popular vote is the largest in raw numbers for any candidate who has gone on to lose in the Electoral College. Her margin of victory is almost six times larger than that of Democrat Al Gore, whose popular vote win in 2000 is now the second-largest in this category. Gore received about 500,000 more votes than Republican George W. Bush, but came up short in the Electoral College after a hotly contested race in Florida.

Trump’s substantial deficit in the popular vote makes his margin by percentage of votes the third-worst among winning candidates since 1824 (when the popular vote was first officially recorded), according to an analysis by The New York Times published earlier this week.

Thanks to the Electoral College, none of this matters. Trump won 306 electoral votes to Clinton’s 232 on Election Day, securing him a comfortable victory last month. Although many of Trump’s opponents had spent the past few weeks trying to figure out how they could deny the real estate mogul a path to the White House, the Electoral College on Monday further secured his win.

A total of 304 electors cast their votes in favor of the GOP nominee, meaning just two Republican electors defected. Some 227 cast their presidential ballots for Clinton, with five Democratic electors switching their vote. Those seven defecting electors voted for other candidates.

Trump’s team has tried to deflect focus away from the popular vote over the past month, with Trump himself even mentioning what he referred to as a “massive landslide victory” in the Electoral College. PolitiFact ruled that claim “false,” noting that Trump’s win ranks near the bottom in terms of the portion of total available electoral votes won by a candidate.

Nick Wing

U.S. Politics

Clinton Says ‘Personal Beef’ by Putin Led to Hacking Attacks

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

New York Times · 41 mins ago

Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that the hacking attacks carried out by Russia against her campaign and the Democratic National Committee were intended “to undermine our democracy” and were ordered by Vladimir V. Putin “because he has a personal beef against me.”

Speaking to a group of donors in Manhattan, Mrs. Clinton said that Mr. Putin, the Russian president, had never forgiven her for the accusation she made in 2011, when she was secretary of state, that parliamentary elections his country held that year were rigged.

“Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people, and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election,” Mrs. Clinton said.

It is the first time Mrs. Clinton has publicly addressed the impact of the hacks since the intelligence community concluded that they were specifically aimed at harming her campaign.

“Make no mistake, as the press is finally catching up to the facts, which we desperately tried to present to them during the last months of the campaign,” Mrs. Clinton told the group, which collectively poured roughly $1 billion into her effort. “This is not just an attack on me and my campaign, although that may have added fuel to it. This is an attack against our country. We are well beyond normal political concerns here. This is about the integrity of our democracy and the security of our nation.”

In her remarks, she endorsed the proposal of a bipartisan group of senators to investigate the hacking and said the inquiry should be modeled on the commission set up after the Sept. 11 attacks. “The public deserves to know exactly what happened, and why, in order for us to prevent future attacks on our systems, including our electoral system,” she said.

Mrs. Clinton said the hacking was one of two “unprecedented” events that led to her defeat. The other was the release of a letter by James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, shortly before the election disclosing new questions about emails handled by her private server. The letter, she said, cost her close races in several battleground states.

“Swing-state voters made their decisions in the final days breaking against me because of the F.B.I. letter from Director Comey,” she said.

Mrs. Clinton first talked about the impact of Mr. Comey’s letters in a conference call with donors a few days after the election. Since the election she has kept a low profile, mostly appearing on social media in photographs by passers-by who have spotted her walking her dogs near her home in Chappaqua, N.Y.


U.S. Politics

Hillary Clinton Breaks Her Silence On Who She Thinks Is To Blame For Election Loss (DETAILS)

RALEIGH, NC - NOVEMBER 08:  Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during a campaign rally at North Carolina State University on November 8, 2016 in Raleigh North Carolina. With less than 24 hours until Election Day in the United States, Hillary Clinton is campaigning in Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina.  (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images


Everyone had their suspicions as to the timing of FBI Director James Comey’s letter regarding Hillary Clinton’s email server that he later rescinded in relation to the election. In addition, many were fairly certain that Russia had direct involvement in our election. And now, as it turns out, both things definitely did affect the election, and the first person who will agree with that definitely seems to be Hillary Clinton herself.

Breaking her silence while speaking to donors about what seemed to directly impact the election away from her winning, Clinton didn’t hold back and called out Russian President Vladimir Putin by name.

According to NBC News:

“Hillary Clinton told donors on Thursday night that her loss was partly due to U.S. election hacks directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and FBI director James Comey’s election-eve letter to Congress related to her use of a private email server.

“Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people…that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this Election,” Clinton is heard saying in an audio recording first obtained by the New York Times and verified as authentic by several sources present at the event to NBC News.”

Clinton also said:

“He is determined not only to score a point against me, which he did, but also to undermine our democracy.”

And as it turns out, Putin was directly involved with the hacks and how the information gained was to be used. In fact, NBC News reported:

“Putin’s objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News. What began as a “vendetta” against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to “split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn’t depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore,” the official said.”

Putin very clearly wanted Donald Trump to win and used information gained to release only what he wanted to skilfully get what he wanted out the the U.S. election.

And now that all of this has been revealed, President Obama is vowing retaliation against Russia, saying:

“I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections that we need to take action and we will at a time and place of our own choosing…some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be.”

And while Donald Trump and his campaign are clearly pleased with the election results and want to peacefully continue a transition while thinking all accusations against Russia are just excuses for a Clinton loss, evidence proves quite to the contrary.

Hopefully, we will get to the bottom of this and justice will prevail.

By Sarah

U.S. Politics

GOP rep: Trump may exceed Obama on ‘violating our rights’


GOP rep: Trump may exceed Obama on ‘violating our rights’

© Greg Nash


Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) says he has concerns about President-elect Donald Trump’s respect for the Constitution.

“President Trump has made clear that he supports a very strong surveillance state,” he said Thursday in Grand Rapids, Mich., according to MLIve.com. “And he may even go beyond what President Obama did in terms of violating our rights.”

“I’ll be supportive when I think he’s right and I’ll be critical when I think he’s wrong,” Amash added of Trump. “I’ve been a critic of the Obama administration. There were many times when the Obama administration didn’t follow the Constitution, and I took them to task. I will do the same with the Trump administration.”

Amash also said he wouldn’t shy away from breaking with fellow Republicans over Trump’s policies, citing government spending as one potential division.

“I will take positions that sometimes the political establishment – my own party – won’t like,” he said. “I will take positions that sometimes the Trump administration won’t like. And sometimes I will take positions that the Democrats won’t like. My job is to be fair.”

“We need to make sure we are keeping our debt under control,” Amash added. “Whenever you have one party controlling all of government, you tend to have less of a check on spending.”

Trump will enter the White House next month with Republican majorities in both the House and Senate behind him.

Many rank-and-file Republicans have rallied around the president-elect after their party’s often bruising presidential primary.

Amash initially endorsed GOP Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and then Ted Cruz(Texas) before Trump earned the Republican presidential nomination.

The Michigan lawmaker has been a vocal critic of Trump, and refused to back either him or Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton before Election Day.


U.S. Politics

How A Single Typo Led To The Unraveling Of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign



An obvious phishing scam and a hasty email allowed hackers into campaign chair John Podesta’s inbox.

One of the worst and most public email hacks in political history began with a typo, a report in The New York Times revealed on Tuesday.

An aide to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta, saw a warning email in his inbox back in March, claiming to be from Google. Podesta needed to change his Gmail password immediately, the email said.

Most adult internet users know by now never to click a link in emails like this ― phishing is fairly common. Even unsophisticated tech types are hip to the scam. So, before responding, Podesta’s aide showed the email to another staffer, a computer technician.

And, well, what happens next should be a lesson to anyone who types and sends emails and texts without reading them first. (That’s everybody who emails and texts.)

From the Times (bolding is HuffPost’s):

“This is a legitimate email,” Charles Delavan, a Clinton campaign aide, replied to another of Mr. Podesta’s aides, who had noticed the alert. “John needs to change his password immediately.”

With another click, a decade of emails that Mr. Podesta maintained in his Gmail account — a total of about 60,000 — were unlocked for the Russian hackers. Mr. Delavan, in an interview, said that his bad advice was a result of a typo: He knew this was a phishing attack, as the campaign was getting dozens of them. He said he had meant to type that it was an “illegitimate” email, an error that he said has plagued him ever since.

The email hack was a huge distraction at the end of the presidential campaign, serving as fodder for Republican attacks and diverting the attention of key players on Clinton’s team. The Podesta email hack was separate from an equally damaging attack on the Democratic National Committee.

(There was some upside: Like getting a peek at Podesta’s risotto recipe. And seeing what an honest badass Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden is.)

Any journalist who’s ever accidentally published a story on pubic policy (sorry) knows that typos can be cruel. But this was beyond that, obviously. “Most consequential typo in human history?” Sahil Kapur asked on Twitter.

Others wondered if this was just someone crying typo instead of owning what is likely the biggest mistake of a career.

If he had meant to type “an illegitimate” email, why did he get the article wrong and write “a legitimate” email, one Twitter conspiracy theorist wondered. Others argued it’s odd that Delevan would advise Podesta to change his password, since the phishing email was obviously bogus.

Still, the advice seems reasonable. If you’re the chair of a U.S. presidential campaign and discover you’re the target of hackers, it seems perfectly rational to immediately change your password. The attackers, after all, could be pursuing multiple ways into your account.

And the “illegitimate email” line could have been confused by the Times’ phrasing. Delevan could’ve meant to write this is a “legitimate attack.”

Also, he included the correct Gmail address to change a password. If Podesta or his aide had used that, no harm no fowl foul.

Emily Peck

U.S. Politics

7 questions about Jill Stein’s recounts


Jill Stein’s recount campaign involves only cursory participation from the Hillary Clinton camp or any official arm of the Democratic Party. | Getty



Donald Trump’s margin over Hillary Clinton in the three states that provided the Republican’s decisive Electoral College majority is only a combined 104,000 votes. But don’t expect that to change.

The odds that Clinton will somehow end up reciting the oath of office on January 20 are extremely low.

Despite pending recounts or audits planned in those three states — Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – the reality is that the results would have to change to such a degree that Clinton would carry all of them. Even Democratic officials in those states insist that the count wouldn’t change that drastically.

Still, Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee who finished fourth in each of the three states, is moving to challenge the election results, citing irregularities in the vote count.

While Stein’s recount campaign involves only cursory participation from the Clinton camp or any official arm of the Democratic Party, it has mobilized progressives seeking to deny Trump the presidency. Stein has raised millions to pay the three states to audit the results or count the ballots again.

But even if recounts in Michigan and Wisconsin, the two closest states, flipped those states to Clinton, the Democrat would still need the 20 electoral votes from Pennsylvania to overtake Trump. And Clinton trails Trump by nearly 71,000 votes in Pennsylvania.

The size of those battleground-state tallies will almost certainly withstand any recount or audit — despite Clinton’s overall lead in the national popular vote, which is approaching 2 percentage points.


Here are 7 questions about the recounts — and why they are unlikely to alter the outcome of the election:

1. What is happening in the 3 states?

Both Michigan and Wisconsin have finalized their vote counts. Stein has filed a challenge to the Wisconsin results, and has until Wednesday to move for a Michigan recount.

The system is different in Pennsylvania. There, the Stein camp has already moved to recount results in more than 100 precincts. It is also pursuing a separate legal effort to initiate a statewide recount by judicial order.

2. What are the questions raised in the states?

In its Wisconsin filing, Stein suggests that the hacking of elections systems and political actors by foreign entities or agents could have been extended to the state’s electronic voting machines. Moreover, Stein said in the filing, “there is evidence of voting irregularities” in Wisconsin, including “a significant increase in the number of absentee voters.”

Stein’s case in Pennsylvania is similar and includes identical supporting materials, including an affidavit from University of Michigan professor J. Alex Halderman, in which Halderman outlines the cyber vulnerabilities he’s discovered in elections systems.

“One explanation for the results of the 2016 presidential election is that cyberattacks influenced the result,” Halderman says in the affidavit.

“The only way to determine whether a cyberattack affected the outcome of the 2016 presidential election is to examine the available physical evidence — that is, to count the paper ballots and paper audit trail records, and review voting equipment, to ensure that the votes cast by actual voters match the results determined by the computers,” Halderman’s affidavit continues.

3. Is the Clinton campaign involved in these efforts?

Not really. Clinton campaign attorney Marc Elias said last weekend the campaign “intend[s] to participate” in the recount efforts if Stein successfully initiates them.

In a statement posted on the website Medium last Saturday, Elias acknowledged that the campaign has “quietly taken a number of steps in the last two weeks to rule in or out any possibility of outside interference in the vote tally in these critical battleground states.” But, Elias wrote, “that effort has not, in our view, resulted in evidence of manipulation of results.”

Still, Elias said that the Clinton campaign has “an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings to ensure that an accurate vote count will be reported.”

4. What is the timeframe for these recounts?

The clock on any effort that delays finalizing the result is ticking. States have only two weeks remaining, until December 13, in which to resolve any challenges to electors.

It’s an open question whether all three states would be able to complete their recounts by that date, however, without incurring increasing staffing costs.

5. How likely is it that any of the results could be overturned?

Extremely unlikely.

Elias, the Clinton campaign lawyer, acknowledged as much in his Medium post, writing that “the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount.”

Democrats in Michigan — even those who support a recount of the vote tally, which shows Trump ahead by 10,704 votes, or a little more than two-tenths of a percentage point — don’t expect the result to change. Julie Matuzak, a Democratic member of the state’s Board of Canvassers, told the Detroit News on Monday, “I don’t think we’re going to find anything wrong.”

Trump’s lead is larger in Wisconsin: 22,177 votes, or roughly three-quarters of a percentage point. Similarly, Democrats don’t see Clinton overtaking Trump in a recount.

“It may not be 22,177,” state Elections Commission chairman Mark Thomsen, a Democrat, said, referring to Trump’s post-recount margin. “But I don’t doubt that the president-elect is going to win that.”

And in Pennsylvania, where Trump’s lead is even larger, the commonwealth’s Democratic secretary of state, Pedro Cortes, told reporters there is “no evidence whatsoever that points to any type of irregularity in any way, shape or form.”

6. Are there enough electoral votes to deny Trump victory?

Only if all three states flipped to Clinton. Current projections give Trump 306 electoral votes, compared to Clinton’s 232 electoral votes.

Even if recounts in the two states where Trump’s lead is within a single percentage point — Michigan and Wisconsin — were successful in catapulting Clinton to the lead, the president-elect would still maintain an Electoral College majority, 280-258.

Clinton could only overtake Trump by winning all three states. Under that circumstance, she would win, 278-260.

7. Is there a chance that the Electoral College could reject Trump?

This is also very doubtful. After the slates of electors are finalized by December 13, the Electoral College will meet on December 19.

Some Clinton electors are brainstorming ways to deny Trump a majority of electoral votes. The Colorado Independent reported Monday that four of that state’s nine electors plan to appeal to Trump electors in other states to reject their candidate and support someone else. And to back that up, the Colorado Clinton electors will reject their state winner and cast their votes for this other candidate, likely a Republican.

There are myriad obstacles to such an effort, however. The Trump electors are Republicans, many of whom like Trump and want him to be president.

Additionally, twenty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia, have laws on the books designed to punish these “faithless electors” — though the penalties for supporting another individual are often minor.

And even if 37 of the 306 Trump electors defected and denied Trump a majority of electoral votes, it would likely mean that no candidate would win a majority. That would kick the election to the new House of Representatives, with each state’s delegation receiving one vote. Republicans will hold the majority in 32 state delegations in the new House, compared to only 17 Democratic-controlled delegation and one split delegation.

U.S. Politics

White House insists hackers didn’t sway election, even as recount begins


I’m certain that the POTUS had no choice but to put on a unified front for the sake of…if not the appearance of comity within the American political process…


The Obama administration said it has seen no evidence of hackers tampering with the 2016 presidential election, even as recount proceedings began in Wisconsin.

“We stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” a senior administration official told POLITICO late Friday.

“The federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyber activity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on election day,” the official added. “We believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective.”

Green Party candidate Jill Stein on Friday filed for a recount in Wisconsin and has several days to file for recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, two other states whose results she has called into question, citing hacking fears. The three normally Democratically leaning states were crucial to Donald Trump’s victory.

Stein’s campaign began fundraising efforts to file for recounts in those states following a report from New York magazine that said prominent cybersecurity experts were urging Hillary Clinton’s campaign to contest the results there. The leading voting security specialist from that group later clarified that there was no actual evidence of hackers meddling with the vote tallies, and said they were simply encouraging an audit just to be sure.

On Saturday, the Clinton campaign broke its long silence on the issue with a statement from the campaign’s general counsel, Marc Elias.

In a post on Medium, Elias confirmed that independent experts had briefed the campaign on potential irregularities that could be the result of hacking, but he said that ultimately the campaign found no “actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology.”

The senior Obama administration official reiterated the government’s accusation that Russia had directed its hackers to go after U.S. political organizations and political operatives’ email accounts with the goal of interfering in the election.

Moscow, the official said, “probably expected that publicity surrounding” leaked emails and documents “would raise questions about the integrity of the election process that could have undermined the legitimacy of the president-elect.”

The official had earlier provided the statement to The New York Times.

U.S. Politics

America Elected A Man Who Said ‘Grab Them By The P***y’ Over The First Female President

FRED PROUSER/REUTERS | Donald Trump won.


It really happened.

Donald Trump openly bragged about using his celebrity status to sexually assault women. And multiple women accused him of actually doing so.

He said he was in favor of banning people from entering the United States based on their religion.

He believes that women he finds physically unattractive or overweight are lesser people.

He thinks that many Mexican immigrants are rapists.

He mocked people with disabilities.

He encouraged violence against protesters at his political rallies.

For years, he was the most notable person pushing the conspiracy theory that the first black president was illegitimate because he was supposedly not born in the United States.

And now, he will be America’s 45th president ― a position of power and prestige, meant to be the role model for children all over the country and offer the best of the best to the rest of the world.

Democrats and the Republicans who couldn’t stomach the idea of Trump were not prepared for this outcome. Even as the polls tightened, Democrats were confident in public and private that they had this. There was no way Trump was going to get elected.

Trump’s win also means that America lost a chance to make history by electing the first female president. Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye as a Hill staffer, an activist, a first lady, a U.S. senator and secretary of state. She’s been on the cover of Time magazine 30 times and has been named America’s most-admired woman a record 20 times in Gallup polls.

As it became clearer that Clinton wasn’t going to win, some of her supporters began crying and leaving what was supposed to be a victory party at the Javits Center in New York City.

“I brought my 12-year-old daughter here to witness history,” Sarah Alexander said, walking out of the Javits Center looking stunned. Her daughter Natalie was in tears. They came up to New York from Washington, where Alexander had been working on the Clinton campaign for the past 14 months.

“We’re in total shock. … Everything he stands for is something I disagree with,” Alexander said, as her daughter listened with sad wet eyes.

There was a similar scene at a nearby block party for Clinton supporters, with a steady stream of people leaving the bars, holding hands, with tears in their eyes and American flags in their pockets. Many of them said they were too distraught to give their thoughts on what was happening.

“I don’t understand what [Clinton] projects that people find so hateful,” said Benjamin Morse, 45, as he teared up.

Over the years, Clinton has, in many ways, been the case study for sexism in politics and a reflection of the changing role of women in modern society. She has faced intense scrutiny over what kind of a woman she is: her hairstyles, her clothes, her lifestyle choices, the sound of her voice, whether she’s likable enough.

Her candidacy became a rallying cry for many women, both Democratic and Republican, who had faced their own glass ceilings.

For her supporters, she’s always had to work harder and live up to standards that her male counterparts didn’t. And so it was particularly infuriating for them that she went down against a man who had made so many sexist comments over the years and that so much of the campaign focused on these issues.

But as a presidential candidate, she failed to excite many voters who said they just didn’t quite trust her.

Trump is now the face of the GOP, whether establishment Republicans like it or not. Many Republican lawmakers didn’t want to get too close to him, but most of them stuck by their endorsement of him nevertheless. That stance alienated many Republican women, who said they spent years defending their party against Democrats’ accusations of a “war against women” only to see those accusations come true.

Trump broke every rule in the book: He didn’t release his tax returns, he lied all the time, he suggested he would jail his opponent and he encouraged a foreign country to interfere in the election process.

Because he won, more candidates will now be willing to break these rules as well. And they may come to the conclusion that alienating large swaths of the population works just fine.

“The reason I’m so upset because I’m aware of the implications of a presidency like this to people like us who are minorities,” said Moani, 25, who was also at the Clinton block party and started to cry while speaking. “We thought we were on the rise with Obama but now we’re just being pushed eight years back. It’s hard to see.”

Emma Gray, Emily Peck and Alanna Vagianos contributed reporting from New York.

U.S. Politics

Media critic Jay Rosen on 2016 campaign coverage and the rise of Trump: “That’s the way authoritarian societies work”

Did Donald Trump insult Jay Z? 5 unhinged right-wing moments at the end of the campaign trail

(Credit: AP)


There is no telling what Donald Trump might say in the final days before Election Day. Two things we do know, it will be whiny, and it will bear no relation to reality. Trump doesn’t understand why all the cool celebrities like Jay Z and Beyonce don’t like him. And projection? No one projects better and more hugely than the Donald. No one.

While campaign manager Kellyanne Conway is likely begging him to stick to the teleprompter, there are already signs that Trump is going far far off script to a place that exists only in his orange little head.

Some of the nuttier moments in the final days are here.

1. Trump’s greatest single piece of projection ever

On Friday, President Obama generously gave Donald Trump a perfect little object lesson in civility and graciousness. At an event for Hillary Clinton in North Carolina, a pro-Trump protester had infiltrated the crowd and was trying to disrupt the proceedings. When the crowd began to boo, President Obama chastised them. When they ignored him, he scolded them some more, urging them to focus on what’s important. “We live in a country that respects free speech,” Obama reminded the crowd. “Second of all, it looks like maybe he might have served in our military and we have to respect that. Third of all, he was elderly and we have to respect our elders. And fourth of all, don’t boo, vote!”

This objective and documented reality is, perhaps not surprisingly, what Donald Trump observed. First, he wasn’t quite sure why President Obama was campaigning for his opponent. After all, no presidents, current or former, are helping him out. What gives? No fair!

Trump told his apparently insanely gullible crowd in Tampa, Florida: “He was talking to the protester, screaming at him, really screaming at him.” And now, commence whining. “By the way, if I spoke the way Obama spoke to that protester, they (the mean old media) would say, ‘He became unhinged!’”

He was on a roll: “He spent so much time screaming at this protester and frankly, it was a disgrace,” Trump bellowed.

Yeah, that’s not unhinged at all coming from a man who has urged rally goers to get rough with protesters, called them thugs (when they are black), talked about the good ole days when security could actually beat them up, and just out and out said he would like to punch them in the face.

Students of abnormal psychology behold your textbook case of projection run amok.

2. And now a message from a man you hoped to never hear from again

Not content to sit upon the dust heap of history, John Sununu, former Governor of New Hampshire, and former Bush Sr. chief of staff, hit the campaign trail in his now contested home state. Sununu did not waste his moment in the campaign sun. He immediately used it to elevate the presidential discourse.  “You think Bill was referring to Hillary when he said, ‘I did not have sex with that woman?’” he said referring to Bill Clinton’s notorious denial of an improper dalliance with Monica Lewinsky.

Way to connect with women voters, though, amirite? Of course, insulting Hillary Clinton sexual attractiveness to aging, paunched out lecherous white men is a staple of the Trump campaign, so Sununu fit right in. After all, it wasn’t so very long ago when Trump helpfully offered his “not impressed” assessment of Hillary Clinton rear view after creepily stalking behind her in the Town Hall debate. And of course, obscenely sexist signs, mugs, t-shirts and other paraphernalia about Hillary are all staples of Trump rallies and will fill the world’s landfills for years to come.

Sununu’s son (nunu), Chris, is attempting to follow in his father’s oh-so-classy footsteps in a bid to be New Hampshire’s next governor. He had no comment on the important matter of Hillary Clinton’s imagined bangability.

3. Trump complained about quite possibly the stupidest thing about Jay Z

Licking his wounds over his lack of celebrity firepower in the final days, Donald Trump just could not believe that Jay Z and Queen Bey had joined up with team Hillary. The royal couple of hip hop and pop played a mini-concert for adoring fans in Cleveland at a get-out-the-vote event for Clinton in Cleveland that was said to be one for the ages.

For his part, Trump was shocked, shocked I tell you, at the language Jay Z used. The would-be “pussy-grabber” in chief, who enjoys boasting about such activities thought that Jay Z had a bit of a potty mouth.

“I actually like Jay Z,” Trump told supporters in Florida Saturday morning. “But, you know, the language last night. He used every word in the book.”

Finally, he got back to his well-worn practice of whining about how very unfair everything is. “I won’t even use the initials, because I’ll get in trouble. They’ll get me in trouble,” they being that mean nasty old press that is always picking on him by reporting things he has actually said and done.

It was almost as rich as Melania impassioned plea this week about fighting cyber bullying, which reminded many people of those horror movies where you want to tell the pretty girl that the monster is actually right there in the house with her.

4. Trump surrogate outdoes even his certifiably insane self

In their infinite wisdom, CNN has hired one of the most odiously bizarre Trump apologists on the planet. While a laundry list of possible candidates just flashed through your head, we are talking about Jeffrey Lord, the world’s weirdest and most racist pseudo historian. Lord has staked out the position that the KKK was created by progressive leftists, and that modern Democrats should be spending more time apologizing for slavery which they alone caused.  Poor Van Jones has expended considerable brain power trying to talk sense into this hateful nutjob without achieving one iota of progress for his trouble.

So naturally, Anderson Cooper invited Lord on to shed intelligent light on the enthusiasm the KKK has expressed towards Donald Trump this week In fact, Lord wasn’t even the only Trumpian on the panel. Georgia Republican Jack Kingston was happy to kick things off with a little typical disinformation about how Democrats are playing the “race card,” by just pointing out the whole KKK thing.

Note: Democrats only play the race card when they cannot play the woman card, fyi.

“Congressman, you don’t want to deal with race…”, fellow panelist Bakari Sellers shot Kingston down. “You support Donald Trump. Why don’t you apologize to the Central Park Five? Why don’t you apologize to Miss Mae Wiggins, who was discriminated against –”

Enter Jeffrey Lord. ” When is Bakari going to get around to apologizing for slavery? I’m still waiting on that.”

Wait, wa-a-ah?

Bakari and the rest of the sane world buried his face in his hands and said, “Oh, my God.”

Truth reversal complete: A white idiot has now asked a black man to apologize for slavery.

5. Trump surrogate comes up with brilliant new strategy to insult Beyonce’s mother

Clueless actress Stacey Dash has been admirably performing her duty as head of Trump’s black outreach, a position she shares with Omarosa Manigualt. Together, they have found all two of Trump’s African American voters.

In a brilliant piece of strategy, Dash decided to pick a fight with the mother of Beyonce, quite possibly one of the most adored performers in the universe, who performed on behalf of Hillary Clinton on Friday.

It seems that Dash was miffed when she caught sight of Beyonce and Solange’s mom, Tina Knowles, posing with former Destiny’s Child member Kelly Rowland — who was dressed for Halloween as the character Dash played in Clueless, pretty much her sole claim to fame.

“This is my baby Dione last night of course she is prettier and more smarter than the one from the movie, but I was confused cause she kept saying something about her pager,” wrote Knowles.

Dash, who, quite honestly might have already been relieved of her post as head of black outreach for the Trump campaign and therefore might have some time on her hands decided this required a response on her blog. “Beyonce’s mom just threw some shade at me? Here’s my unedited response,” she wrote. “First of all, if you’re trying to throw shade about someone’s intelligence, maybe use ‘smarter’ instead of ‘more smart,’” she pettily pointed out.

Ah well, it’s all pretty petty, but the internet swarmed in response. Nothing gets by the fanatical “bey-hive” which stung ferociously in response. Read some of the tweets here.



%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this: