Box 13 Scandal

[ZNPaaneah]

Box 13 scandal

Refers to a Federal civil rights lawsuit, that was ultimately “decided” by Supreme Court Justice Judge Black who issued an injunction. It is a very well researched, documented and confirmed case of election fraud.

It is not a political issue, it is not a platform of any political party, nor is election fraud part of the legitimate political process. This was not a political reference, it was a reference to fraud.

The result of this fraud was that Lyndon Johnson became senator. That is not politics, that is history. US News and World report traced the change in US politics from respect and trust in our presidents to the point where we lost trust and consider them to be crooks back to this scandal. It is a pivotal moment in US history.

I mentioned that the people who took Johnson’s money in return for giving him the election may also have had children killed in the Vietnam war. That is not politics, that is math. 1948 to 1963 is a span of 15 years. If they had a child that was born between 1938 and 1957 they might have been drafted into the war. We know for a fact that Salas, one of the key figures in the scandal, did have children born during that time. His complete and thorough account of the entire scandal was given so that “his children could understand why he did it”. His testimony is an excellent example of the work of faith James refers to when he talks about Rahab.

This scandal also illuminates the idea that James gives concerning a “double minded man”. They exemplified “uncertain and unreliable and untrustworthy” people. During the trial those involved testified that they had lost critical election documents that could have proved the case, they had lost the box that contained the votes, they lost the keys to the boxes, and their testimony was nothing but a bald faced lie. For example, Salas testified that when he went to the newspaper office to report the election results he did not report them. Years later he admitted that was a complete lie, why else would he go to the office, that was the reason he went, of course he reported them. So then, unstable here does not mean they are vacillating, it means they are doing everything in their power to be deceitful.

Box 13 scandal is also an example of one of the most cunning and crafty legal strategies. The lawyer who came up with Johnson's legal strategy is considered one of the most brilliant lawyers to come out of Yale. Part of his strategy involved them writing a brief that would result in them losing the appeal as quickly as possible. Yes, the first part of Johnson's legal strategy was to lose his first appeal in a matter of hours, which is what happened. Understanding this case is crucial for anyone who "does not want to be ignorant of Satan's devices". If Christians are going to rule and reign over the nations it would be a very valuable lesson to be familiar with the Box 13 Scandal.

James 1:8 says that a double minded man, a man of two souls, is "unstable" (unreliable, untrustworthy, uncertain) in all his ways.

The word that James uses is unique to the New Testament and we should not assume that it is equivalent to other portions that refer to people who are "otherwise minded", or "vacillating". In other portions of the NT it is talking about the turmoil that goes on inside of us as we try to follow the Lord while being tempted. Here it is talking about how to identify a double minded man. He is unstable, he is unreliable, he is not trustworthy, he is uncertain. Not because they are vacillating, rather The indication is that these people are committed. They have sold themselves. Lyndon Johnson would joke about this event, make a mock of the sin, and he even kept a photograph of himself with 4 others holding the "missing" box 13. There was no shame in having stolen the election. Balaam was a prophet for hire. He spoke the word of God, refused to speak anything that was not the word of God, but he also was motivated by money and a house full of gold. He is famous for "being rebuked by a donkey" indicating that he also was amoral. Likewise with Judas. These are the two examples of false prophets. Peter tells us a false prophet is covetous. He tells us they will make merchandise of the saints. Jesus tells us that "you can't serve God and Mammon". A false prophet is one who has these two souls, one to serve God and the other to serve Mammon. They are not on the fence, they are committed.

Barnes' Notes on James 1:8
A double minded man - The word here used, δίψυχος dipsuchos occurs only here and in James 4:8. It means, properly, one who has two souls; then one who is wavering or inconstant. It is applicable to a man who has no settled principles; who is controlled by passion; who is influenced by popular feeling; who is now inclined to one opinion or course of conduct, and now to another.

Is unstable in all his ways - That is, not merely in regard to prayer, the point particularly under discussion, but in respect to everything. From the instability which the wavering must evince in regard to prayer, the apostle takes occasion to make the general remark concerning such a man, that stability and firmness could be expected on no subject. The hesitancy which manifested on that one subject would extend to all; and we might expect to find such a man irresolute and undetermined in all things. This is always true. If we find a man who takes hold of the promises of God with firmness; who feels the deepest assurance when he prays that God will hear prayer; who always goes to him without hesitation in his perplexities and trials, never wavering, we shall find one who is firm in his principles, steady in his integrity, settled in his determinations, and steadfast in his plans of life - a man whose character we shall feel that we understand, and in whom we can confide. Such a man eminently was Luther; and the spirit which is thus evinced by taking firmly hold of the promises of God is the best kind of religion. (Albert Barnes, Notes on the whole Bible)

[OBW]

Interesting. But it seems that there are competing accounts as to the details and the certainty of direct involvement by either candidate in that election (both Johnson and Stevenson). No matter what anyone says, there is not some "well documented" truth here. There is no box or ballot samples. There are competing stories from insiders, though they do have overlaps, therefore some leaning toward "truth."

There is no doubt that there was something seriously wrong with precinct 13. But it was far from the only place. As the votes came in over days (common in '48) the race went from 20K against Johnson to only a few hundred, back to a couple of thousand, and then just over the line when this one notorious precinct came in with 200 more votes than was originally thought to have been cast. Multiple ballots in the same handwriting and same ink, in alphabetical order (and other clues) — according to some accounts afterward.

But no one can investigate it. The ballots probably didn't survive more than a very few days beyond the "official" recording of them. Even the box, full or empty, is not to be found.

Both candidates were "stealing" votes. And if the margin had been too great, Box 13 in Alice, TX would have been irrelevant. But given the size of the margin, it was just the last part of a fully corrupt election.

Landslide Lyndon. Won by 87 votes discovered days after the election.

. . . .

But given that Lyndon was not really much of a professing anything, how does this help with defining or explaining the double-minded man? James was not talking about the world, but about the Christians. Lyndon was not making some great claim of faith juxtaposed against the sins of Box 13 and everything that came afterward. He was just a corrupt person. Did he actually have any faith? Don't know. Other than some claim of a religious affiliation, I don't believe it was much of a factor or topic of discussion.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Interesting. But it seems that there are competing accounts as to the details and the certainty of direct involvement by either candidate in that election (both Johnson and Stevenson). No matter what anyone says, there is not some "well documented" truth here. There is no box or ballot samples. There are competing stories from insiders, though they do have overlaps, therefore some leaning toward "truth."

There is no doubt that there was something seriously wrong with precinct 13. But it was far from the only place. As the votes came in over days (common in '48) the race went from 20K against Johnson to only a few hundred, back to a couple of thousand, and then just over the line when this one notorious precinct came in with 200 more votes than was originally thought to have been cast. Multiple ballots in the same handwriting and same ink, in alphabetical order (and other clues) — according to some accounts afterward.

But no one can investigate it. The ballots probably didn't survive more than a very few days beyond the "official" recording of them. Even the box, full or empty, is not to be found.

Both candidates were "stealing" votes. And if the margin had been too great, Box 13 in Alice, TX would have been irrelevant. But given the size of the margin, it was just the last part of a fully corrupt election.

Landslide Lyndon. Won by 87 votes discovered days after the election.

1. Johnson and his team never denied or provided any evidence or testimony to deny the allegations except for Salas testimony. From 1977, when Par died, the man that Salas had promised to always stand by, he testified that his testimony was a lie and he provided a detailed account of everything that went on.
2. Johnson kept a photo of himself with 4 other key men including Salas with the "missing" box 13. Salas also had a copy of that photo and the NY times published it.
3. Box 13 was merely the most egregious case -- it was estimated based on the testimony of Salas and other evidence that the total number of votes stolen were much closer to 30,000 and that there was absolutely nothing like that perpetrated by the other side.
4. Box 13 refers to a "recount" that was provided 6 days after the election. At that time Johnson was behind by 87 votes and all of a sudden the count of 795 became 995. They claimed that the 7 was actually a 9. The last 200 votes were voted in alphabetical order (if it were to be believed those 200 voters all came in to vote in alphabetical order). The names were written in the same handwriting and they all voted for Johnson except for the last 2 votes. It isn't true to say that this list was never seen or examined, it was examined and seen by the Stevenson campaign, who then had 65 witnesses who said that they had not voted. In addition, the last person on the list prior to those 200 names claimed that they were the last one to vote and that the poll closed after they left. Not only so, but another man involved in this scam was in prison for murder. He sent Stevenson a letter saying he had the box 13 that was in question and would like to talk to Stevenson. As a result Stevenson drove down to the prison only to learn that this man had committed suicide in his cell that very morning.

As for both sides doing the same thing there was absolutely nothing even remotely similar done. In the counties that were bought by Johnson the vote count for Johnson was typically 99%. There was nothing even remotely similar in any other counties.

I will respond to the 2nd part in another post.

What happened was the legal strategy of Johnson was brilliant. They applied for an injunction to stop the court case in appeals court to a judge that had previously ruled he did not have authority to issue an injunction with less than 3 judges. They wanted him to rule the same way, denying their appeal and do it quickly because their real goal was to appeal to Justice Black with the Supreme court.

The appeal to Black was that he had to stop the court case because if the democrats didn't supply a name for the ballot by Oct 3rd they wouldn't have a candidate and that would be a worse harm. Black agreed, due to the time constraint that a federal court did not have jurisdiction in a State election and felt that the Senate could do an investigation themselves.

However, once Johnson was elected he was able to put a kabosh on a Senate investigation and on the FBI investigation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But given that Lyndon was not really much of a professing anything, how does this help with defining or explaining the double-minded man? James was not talking about the world, but about the Christians. Lyndon was not making some great claim of faith juxtaposed against the sins of Box 13 and everything that came afterward. He was just a corrupt person. Did he actually have any faith? Don't know. Other than some claim of a religious affiliation, I don't believe it was much of a factor or topic of discussion.

A campaign is like a gospel message. The candidate is proclaiming peace and prosperity. They are railing against sin. They are calling for a turn. In this particular campaign the biggest issues were peace as a result from preparedness for war with the communists and the Taft Hartley act. Johnson claimed that Stevenson was in the pocket of the unions, and Stevenson was endorsed by the unions. However, this was a total deceit. Johnson had cut a deal with the unions and asked them to endorse Stevenson because of how unpopular they were. He then used their endorsement as "evidence" of his claim that Stevenson had cut a deal.

This election was a major turn in US politics with the amount of money that Johnson spent (unlimited funds from Brown and Root). First time a helicopter was used and he filled the radio with ads. Stevenson was able to fully refute Johnson and even expose him as a liar. The problem was that Stevenson used a tiny fraction of the money. So for every word Stevenson might speak Johnson could speak 100. The strategy was "if you say it enough people will believe it".

If you look at Johnson's legacy his civil rights legislation is certainly the centerpiece. That would be one soul. The second soul is a person who stole elections beginning with some trivial election in college. He bragged of this.

If we wink at people buying elections and using fraud to get elected then the result is our entire democratic system is undermined and sold to the highest bidder. The highest bidder will be the one with the most to gain, whether it is war in Vietnam or oil in the Middle East.

When I look at past presidents like Washington and Lincoln, I see men who walked by faith. No one would say that today, but it was true in the past. I don't see how you can divorce your life from faith. I don't see a distinction in my own life.

Today I see the corruption that comes from money in our political process. How did this happen. If you trace the thread back it leads you to this election. When they elected the cheat it opened the door.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. Johnson and his team never denied or provided any evidence or testimony to deny the allegations except for Salas testimony. From 1977, when Par died, the man that Salas had promised to always stand by, he testified that his testimony was a lie and he provided a detailed account of everything that went on.
2. Johnson kept a photo of himself with 4 other key men including Salas with the "missing" box 13. Salas also had a copy of that photo and the NY times published it.
3. Box 13 was merely the most egregious case -- it was estimated based on the testimony of Salas and other evidence that the total number of votes stolen were much closer to 30,000 and that there was absolutely nothing like that perpetrated by the other side.
4. Box 13 refers to a "recount" that was provided 6 days after the election. At that time Johnson was behind by 87 votes and all of a sudden the count of 795 became 995. They claimed that the 7 was actually a 9. The last 200 votes were voted in alphabetical order (if it were to be believed those 200 voters all came in to vote in alphabetical order). The names were written in the same handwriting and they all voted for Johnson except for the last 2 votes. It isn't true to say that this list was never seen or examined, it was examined and seen by the Stevenson campaign, who then had 65 witnesses who said that they had not voted. In addition, the last person on the list prior to those 200 names claimed that they were the last one to vote and that the poll closed after they left. Not only so, but another man involved in this scam was in prison for murder. He sent Stevenson a letter saying he had the box 13 that was in question and would like to talk to Stevenson. As a result Stevenson drove down to the prison only to learn that this man had committed suicide in his cell that very morning.

As for both sides doing the same thing there was absolutely nothing even remotely similar done. In the counties that were bought by Johnson the vote count for Johnson was typically 99%. There was nothing even remotely similar in any other counties.

I will respond to the 2nd part in another post.

Don't get your panties in a wad. While not as complicated, it is a little like the Warren Report v the conspiracy theorists on the death of Kennedy. I suspect that none of them are "right." There is truth to the idea that America "needed" the case settled so they gave us one. And there are too many personal connections and loose ends to buy it as the entire truth. Yet almost none of the conspiracies seems plausible beyond maybe a point here and there.

Same on box 13. I agree that Johnson never denied anything. But he was never really charged with anything. One of the classic responses to charges that can't be proved is to ignore them. And the problem with ignoring them is that it is impossible to declare the lack of response as meaning anything.

One of the reasons that nothing came of it was that it is somewhat established that this sort of thing was going on quite a lot in those days in certain parts of Texas, and Lyndon was not alone in it. Stevenson was almost certainly engaged in the same tactics. Johnson lost a race years earlier by not realizing that looking at the early results and stopping was not a certain victory. Once one side quits looking, the other would keep digging for "uncounted" votes. Real and imagined.

Does it make Johnson OK? Not in the least.

But the real point of my question was not whether you think that anyone has really documented evidence and proof of what happened (doubtful since nothing came of it), but what it was supposed to have to do with James' discussion of the double-minded man.

And I'm not trying to be difficult. I just don't see a story about political fraud by a politician who had little claim to faith (other than naming a denomination) as a good object lesson related to the double-minded man.

Maybe Jimmy Swaggert and his thumbing his nose at the AOG who took away his credentials over sex scandals while he continued to run his television evangelism without stop. That would be a good one.

Or certain LCM leading ones who openly scoffed at the idea of giving any aid to anyone who was not a good LCM member.

Or feeling free to do business in less that truly honest ways because they felt that being in the ultimate Christian group made them exempt from the "law."

And more people know about those than about Landslide Lyndon.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Don't get your panties in a wad.

Is this really how you fellowship?

Originally Posted by OBW

While not as complicated, it is a little like the Warren Report v the conspiracy theorists on the death of Kennedy. I suspect that none of them are "right." There is truth to the idea that America "needed" the case settled so they gave us one. And there are too many personal connections and loose ends to buy it as the entire truth. Yet almost none of the conspiracies seems plausible beyond maybe a point here and there.

Same on box 13. I agree that Johnson never denied anything. But he was never really charged with anything.

Completely false. Yes he really was charged with a federal case of civil rights violations in election fraud. Supreme court justice Black issued a court injunction, stopping the procedure, because it risked causing the democrats to not have a person on the ballot and he saw that as a greater harm. He felt it would be a very bad precedent for the federal government to interfere with state elections.

Originally Posted by OBW

One of the classic responses to charges that can't be proved is to ignore them. And the problem with ignoring them is that it is impossible to declare the lack of response as meaning anything.

The simplest way to have proven these charges false would have been to produce Box 13 or the key election documents. Johnson never did this, instead he employed a very risky strategy to stop the procedure coupled with delay and obfuscation. That was my point and James point, a double minded man is unstable in all his ways -- unreliable, uncertain, untrustworthy. This response by Johnson is the "classic indicator" of a double minded man. Imagine an election official losing the key documents that decided the entire senate race, documents you knew would be questioned since they were "changed" 6 days after the election. Not only so, they lost the box with the ballots that decided this election. Not only so but they denied things to be true that everyone knew were true. These are documents that every reasonable observer knew were suspect (99% of the votes went to Johnson). If you were a reliable, true person you would have made sure you could produce that evidence to prove you weren't lying. Instead Johnson's strategy is to delay (lose the key, lose the box, lose the documents, etc) while trying to get another judge to stop the proceedings.

Originally Posted by OBW

One of the reasons that nothing came of it was that it is somewhat established that this sort of thing was going on quite a lot in those days in certain parts of Texas, and Lyndon was not alone in it. Stevenson was almost certainly engaged in the same tactics. Johnson lost a race years earlier by not realizing that looking at the early results and stopping was not a certain victory. Once one side quits looking, the other would keep digging for "uncounted" votes. Real and imagined.

You have confused Stevenson with Pappy O'Daniels (AKA "Pass the Biscuits Pappy")

Originally Posted by OBW

Does it make Johnson OK? Not in the least.

But the real point of my question was not whether you think that anyone has really documented evidence and proof of what happened (doubtful since nothing came of it), but what it was supposed to have to do with James' discussion of the double-minded man.

Johnson's response to the charge illustrates perfectly what James meant when he said "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways". Every way that Johnson employed to counter the lawsuit was "unstable". Not mentally unstable, but unstable in the sense that it is unreliable, untrustworthy, uncertain. Doesn't it bother you when these top corporate executives, the ones making millions of dollars a year, are questioned and they "can't recall" as a response to hundreds of questions? That is uncertain. That is a double minded man. That is why I chose this example, that is what happened here, but even more important it seems to be a watershed moment in US politics and a pivotal moment in US history. If you are bothered by our current government atmosphere and wonder how this all got started, I think this is a critical factor in where we are today. Perhaps if Justice Black could have seen the future he would have ruled differently.

Originally Posted by OBW

And I'm not trying to be difficult. I just don't see a story about political fraud by a politician who had little claim to faith (other than naming a denomination) as a good object lesson related to the double-minded man.

Maybe Jimmy Swaggert and his thumbing his nose at the AOG who took away his credentials over sex scandals while he continued to run his television evangelism without stop. That would be a good one.

Or certain LCM leading ones who openly scoffed at the idea of giving any aid to anyone who was not a good LCM member.

Or feeling free to do business in less that truly honest ways because they felt that being in the ultimate Christian group made them exempt from the "law."

And more people know about those than about Landslide Lyndon.

All of those may be good examples. But my interest in Witness Lee and the Local Church is not limited to the boundaries of an insignificant sect of Christians representing less than 0.01% of all Christians on this planet. Nor do I agree with your premise that James is limited in this way. For example I was reading a book on FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt last night and I was reminded of an incident. London had been bombed, the Luftwaffe had destroyed 6 radar sites in England, and England was probably at its most vulnerable of the entire war. The US called for a national day of prayer. Then inexplicably the Luftwaffe changed their focus, and Hitler decides to invade Russia. You can argue that faith did not play a role, but I find that highly unlikely. If England had fallen would the US have even entered the European theater? It may be that the national day of prayer in the US, before we even entered the war, was the pivotal moment in the war.

On the contrary, I feel that this book is crucial in helping us identify a false prophet, that could be in your little sect, but it can also be in business or government.

Some people may think it doesn't matter, not important. I think the cautionary tale of Landslide Lyndon proves that wrong.

If you consider the political process important, and this is something that we have learned from our experience in the LRC that the process of selecting elders is very important, just as important as the process of excommunication, then how do you wink at this?

1. 6 days after the election is over they find 200 more votes.
2. These 200 people walked into the polling station in alphabetical order.
3. These 200 all have the same handwriting and used the same pen.
4. These 200 all came in after the person who voted saying they were the last person to leave the poll before it closed.
5. Many (65) of these 200 when contacted testified that they had not voted. Many others were unable to be located, even though a month earlier they voted?
6. These 200 votes decided the election.

How can you not want to see the documents around this. Yet when the court asks to see the documents they have been "lost".

1. There are two copies of these documents, both of which have been lost.
2. The only other copy is in the box of votes, which has also been lost.
3. The keys used to open the boxes has also been lost.

Yet someone has the effrontery to argue that it was never proved.

The burden of proof should have been on the people claiming these votes were legitimate. They are the ones who never proved their assertion.

[awareness]

You guys are old, old, old. I wasn't keeping up with politics back then. I was born in November of 1948. I don't think I could even count back then ... except maybe my suckles on my moms breast.

But I was aware of politics when LBJ was behind killing JFK? He was a single-minded man by then ... to be president.

[awareness]

By the way ZNP ... welcome to Alternative Views.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You guys are old, old, old. I wasn't keeping up with politics back then. I was born in November of 1948. I don't think I could even count back then ... except maybe my suckles on my moms breast.

But I was aware of politics when LBJ was behind killing JFK? He was a single-minded man by then ... to be president.

What is interesting is that the killing associated with LBJ's quest for power began with Box 13. I referred to the man who supposedly committed suicide the day after asking to talk to Coke Stevenson about it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

By the way ZNP ... welcome to Alternative Views.

I was wondering where you were. Good to see you are still here.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was wondering where you were. Good to see you are still here.

I'm the M.O.T.A. Moderator Of The Age.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm the M.O.T.A. Moderator Of The Age.

You've been deified!

[awareness]

Anyway ZNP what's your point with Box 13? Does it relate to today?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Anyway ZNP what's your point with Box 13? Does it relate to today?

My point is that:

1. Everyone is going to have to recognize a false prophet and if you don't, you will pay for it. The book of James is "the" book on recognizing them. His term "double minded man" is, from my experience with Witness Lee, tremendously insightful.
2. The indicators of a false prophet are given to us by James (I have gone through this book carefully, the analysis is in the thread "Carry Up My Bones from Here". The entire book is posted on that thread.)
3. Our experience with Witness Lee will work out for good, we can count it joy, because it is working patience in us, and you can't have a perfect work without patience. It is God's sovereignty that we experience the likes of Witness Lee, Lyndon Johnson, Adolf Hitler, Bernie Madoff, etc. Christians need to be matured to rule and reign with Christ and you can't do that if you cannot overcome a false prophet and Jezebel.

As for today I think it is very helpful in understanding our current political climate.

1. Because it was 60 years ago you can go over that campaign and learn how they lied. You can learn about the psychology they were using. You can learn about how the money influenced the race. You can see how someone could have the gall to think they could get away with stealing an election in plain sight, even get away with murder.

There are parts of the campaign that just sound so much like today. At times I am fully reminded of Hillary Clinton, at other times I am fully reminded of Donald Trump.

Donald Trump -- "crooked Hillary" = Lyndon Johnson "calculating Coke".

Hillary Clinton has a long resume of public service with little or no accomplishments to show for it. For anyone else her resume would indicate she was a dismal failure. Lyndon Johnson had a very similar resume at the time of this election.

I could say a lot more, but it would look like I was being political or partial.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is that:

1. Everyone is going to have to recognize a false prophet and if you don't, you will pay for it. The book of James is "the" book on recognizing them. His term "double minded man" is, from my experience with Witness Lee, tremendously insightful.
2. The indicators of a false prophet are given to us by James (I have gone through this book carefully, the analysis is in the thread "Carry Up My Bones from Here". The entire book is posted on that thread.)
3. Our experience with Witness Lee will work out for good, we can count it joy, because it is working patience in us, and you can't have a perfect work without patience. It is God's sovereignty that we experience the likes of Witness Lee, Lyndon Johnson, Adolf Hitler, Bernie Madoff, etc. Christians need to be matured to rule and reign with Christ and you can't do that if you cannot overcome a false prophet and Jezebel.

As for today I think it is very helpful in understanding our current political climate.

1. Because it was 60 years ago you can go over that campaign and learn how they lied. You can learn about the psychology they were using. You can learn about how the money influenced the race. You can see how someone could have the gall to think they could get away with stealing an election in plain sight, even get away with murder.

There are parts of the campaign that just sound so much like today. At times I am fully reminded of Hillary Clinton, at other times I am fully reminded of Donald Trump.

Donald Trump -- "crooked Hillary" = Lyndon Johnson "calculating Coke".

Hillary Clinton has a long resume of public service with little or no accomplishments to show for it. For anyone else her resume would indicate she was a dismal failure. Lyndon Johnson had a very similar resume at the time of this election.

I could say a lot more, but it would look like I was being political or partial.

I think there's two baskets of deplorables. Hillary is in one of them, and Trump in the other.

Trump keeps saying it's rigged. He would know. He's got history playing the rigged system -- he's been part of the rig. But then, it's been proven that the DNC rigged the game against Bernie.

LBJ was 60 years ago. Do we need to look at his model to discover our model today? I don't think so. We're pretty much considering two plutocrats. Especially Trump -- unless he's lying about his wealth -- doubtful, he's a successful con man ... think of a different kind of Madoff.

I'm worried about America. We're in a real predicament. Is this the best the greatest nation in the world can do? I don't want any of them to win.

There's four, but only two have a chance. And they're both great accomplished liars. It's to be expected. It's politics. In the end, I'm going for the one that's least likely to use the Nuke codes. LBJ had the Daisy ad, attacking Barry Goldwater's advocacy of nuclear weapons. That's similar to today, I suppose, since Trump says, "We got 'em, why don't we use them?" That leaves Hillary. Not good either, but she'll just pickup where her husband, Dubya, and Obama left off.

I'm just not ready for Armageddon. I'm still a work in progress.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think there's two baskets of deplorables. Hillary is in one of them, and Trump in the other.

Trump keeps saying it's rigged. He would know. He's got history playing the rigged system -- he's been part of the rig. But then, it's been proven that the DNC rigged the game against Bernie.

LBJ was 60 years ago. Do we need to look at his model to discover our model today? I don't think so. We're pretty much considering two plutocrats. Especially Trump -- unless he's lying about his wealth -- doubtful, he's a successful con man ... think of a different kind of Madoff.

I'm worried about America. We're in a real predicament. Is this the best the greatest nation in the world can do? I don't want any of them to win.

There's four, but only two have a chance. And they're both great accomplished liars. It's to be expected. It's politics. In the end, I'm going for the one that's least likely to use the Nuke codes. LBJ had the Daisy ad, attacking Barry Goldwater's advocacy of nuclear weapons. That's similar to today, I suppose, since Trump says, "We got 'em, why don't we use them?" That leaves Hillary. Not good either, but she'll just pickup where her husband, Dubya, and Obama left off.

I'm just not ready for Armageddon. I'm still a work in progress.

Wow, we have come a very long way to finally be in agreement.

It really turns me off to have a candidate describe 39% or at least 19% of the US electorate as a "basket of deplorables". That alone, to me, seems to disqualify anyone from representing the entire country. Imagine, the same person said, during one of the debates, that the "republicans" are the enemy she is most proud of. Can't people see that this process has become so ugly someone has to say enough? Of course, the only reason I would even consider her is because the other candidate is worse.

I have decided I won't vote for either one. Yes, one of them will probably still win, but if the vast majority do not vote for either the people who bought the election will wind up with a president without any legitimacy or mandate.

How did we get here? We allowed people to buy elections and steal elections and even murder people to hide the theft. Once you go down that path this is where it leads.

Getting back to this scandal, Justice Black ruled that the democrats not having a candidate would have been a greater harm, but would it? Imagine for a moment that this is what happened. People would have been very upset. There would have been a thorough investigation. Johnson's stealing the election would have been fully investigated and prosecuted. Brown and Root's influence would have been thoroughly rebuked.

I would argue that the greater harm was robbing our entire election process with a the Supreme court's approval. Letting corporations steal an election and then ruling that we can't solve this harm, that is when everything went south. Would a republican senator from Texas serving for 6 years from 1948 to 1954 have been worse than what actually has happened?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It really turns me off to have a candidate describe 39% or at least 19% of the US electorate as a "basket of deplorables". That alone, to me, seems to disqualify anyone from representing the entire country. Imagine, the same person said, during one of the debates, that the "republicans" are the enemy she is most proud of. Can't people see that this process has become so ugly someone has to say enough? Of course, the only reason I would even consider her is because the other candidate is worse.

I can't agree with your conclusion.

For me, the race is between a school yard bully and a syndicated crime family. People mysteriously die all the time after getting too close to the Clintons, and a bunch more this year. Never heard of one person dying mysteriously at the hands of the Donald or his people.

Suspicious "hit jobs" destroy the very fabric of democracy. A fearful press is not an honest press.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can't agree with your conclusion.

For me, the race is between a school yard bully and a syndicated crime family. People mysteriously die all the time after getting too close to the Clintons, and a bunch more this year. Never heard of one person dying mysteriously at the hands of the Donald or his people.

Suspicious "hit jobs" destroy the very fabric of democracy. A fearful press is not an honest press.

Fair enough.

I came to that conclusion based on his suggestion that torture would be a cornerstone of his foreign policy, his apparent cluelessness that Russia had already invaded the Ukraine and his arrogance in claiming that he knows much more about ISIS than the military generals and experts on the subject. It was not based on him being a "schoolyard bully".

However, my ultimate conclusion with him is that there is far too much smoke concerning his relationship with Russia for me to vote for him without seeing his tax return. I cannot have a president who is indebted to Russia.

Which brings me full circle to the outrageousness of this election. Clinton's emails probably put lives at risk since she was secretary of state and privy to classified information received from overseas. The idea that either Clinton or Trump could become president without going through the standard vetting procedure that everyone else who sees classified material must go through is just outrageous. Who could trust their life to either one of these people?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Fair enough.

I came to that conclusion based on his suggestion that torture would be a cornerstone of his foreign policy, his apparent cluelessness that Russia had already invaded the Ukraine and his arrogance in claiming that he knows much more about ISIS than the military generals and experts on the subject. It was not based on him being a "schoolyard bully".

However, my ultimate conclusion with him is that there is far too much smoke concerning his relationship with Russia for me to vote for him without seeing his tax return. I cannot have a president who is indebted to Russia.

Which brings me full circle to the outrageousness of this election. Clinton's emails probably put lives at risk since she was secretary of state and privy to classified information received from overseas. The idea that either Clinton or Trump could become president without going through the standard vetting procedure that everyone else who sees classified material must go through is just outrageous. Who could trust their life to either one of these people?

Also, the right for 8 years has claimed Obama is a socialist ... while if Trump gets in he'll bring a communist wife into the Whitehouse.

And who lies the most :
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...gn=pubexchange

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Fair enough.

I came to that conclusion based on his suggestion that torture would be a cornerstone of his foreign policy, his apparent cluelessness that Russia had already invaded the Ukraine and his arrogance in claiming that he knows much more about ISIS than the military generals and experts on the subject. It was not based on him being a "schoolyard bully".

However, my ultimate conclusion with him is that there is far too much smoke concerning his relationship with Russia for me to vote for him without seeing his tax return. I cannot have a president who is indebted to Russia.

Which brings me full circle to the outrageousness of this election. Clinton's emails probably put lives at risk since she was secretary of state and privy to classified information received from overseas. The idea that either Clinton or Trump could become president without going through the standard vetting procedure that everyone else who sees classified material must go through is just outrageous. Who could trust their life to either one of these people?

Obama promised to balance the budget. Do you hold that campaign commitment against him? How about all the other promises he made. And, btw, did you ever see the actual and professional forensic evidence concerning his birth certificate and selective service ID? I have.

A very long time ago I stopped listening to actual words of politicians. Is it really a "lie" when a politician reads deceptive information from a teleprompter? Is it really a "lie" when a politician says false things not under oath? Is it really a "lie" when a politician perjures himself under oath, but did so for "good" reasons?

Concerning her "damn" emails. The only reasonable solution for doing what she did, the way she did it, was to accept that she purposely made national secrets available to foreign nations. That, by definition, is treason. How in the world does Huma Abedin get access to national secrets? Was her "husband" your congressman? And Colon Powell said Trump was a national disgrace. I cannot have a president indebted to China, Saudi Arabia, and who knows who else.

Both candidates have said many stupid things. Talking day in, day out, in the heat of political campaigns seems to do that. Trump may be an egotistical wild card, but the Clinton team are known criminals with so much power they will never be convicted. Comey, for one, made sure of that.

Trump will never show his tax return. Why should he? Romney did, and it cost him. Americans on the public dole hate success. Isn't the IRS auditing team enough vetting for you? Look what they got away with during the last election with the Tea Party non-profits.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obama promised to balance the budget. Do you hold that campaign commitment against him? How about all the other promises he made. And, btw, did you ever see the actual and professional forensic evidence concerning his birth certificate and selective service ID? I have.

A very long time ago I stopped listening to actual words of politicians. Is it really a "lie" when a politician reads deceptive information from a teleprompter? Is it really a "lie" when a politician says false things not under oath? Is it really a "lie" when a politician perjures himself under oath, but did so for "good" reasons?

Concerning her "damn" emails. The only reasonable solution for doing what she did, the way she did it, was to accept that she purposely made national secrets available to foreign nations. That, by definition, is treason. How in the world does Huma Abedin get access to national secrets? Was her "husband" your congressman? And Colon Powell said Trump was a national disgrace. I cannot have a president indebted to China, Saudi Arabia, and who knows who else.

Both candidates have said many stupid things. Talking day in, day out, in the heat of political campaigns seems to do that. Trump may be an egotistical wild card, but the Clinton team are known criminals with so much power they will never be convicted. Comey, for one, made sure of that.

Trump will never show his tax return. Why should he? Romney did, and it cost him. Americans on the public dole hate success. Isn't the IRS auditing team enough vetting for you? Look what they got away with during the last election with the Tea Party non-profits.

I don't know what your point is. I agree that Clinton's email scandal is unconscionable.

When Trump attacked her foundation the simplest and best way to respond would have been to itemize all the wonderful good works done. Instead her husband says "what about Trump's foundation, they were fined $25,000". That just proves they are both frauds.

I am very clear, and in my mind it is not up for debate, I will not consider Trump if I can't see his tax returns first.

As far as "stupid things" I would put the Allepo remark by Johnson in that category. I would be willing to excuse that. But saying that Russia will not invade Ukraine, and then when he realizes his mistake he corrects it by saying he would recognize Russia's seizure. That is not a dumb mistake, that is a window into his leadership. Combine this with the close ties his campaign manager had to Russia, the involvement of Russian hackers in destroying Clinton's campaign, and even Trump's praise of Putin and encouragement for them to hack the Democrats, it becomes imperative to see his tax returns.

Yes, his claim to make torture part of his foreign policy might not be fulfilled, but it follows a pattern (KKK endorsements, etc) that suggest he is pandering to the absolute worst among us. It is a window into what he is willing to do to get elected.

Finally, his comment about how he knows more about ISIS than our generals and military experts reveals his arrogance.

If the purpose of the campaign is to let the voter get to know the candidates I would be without excuse if I did not take notice of these things.

[ZNPaaneah]

To return to this question of faith with regards to Johnson and Black.

1. The argument was that the harm done from not having a democratic candidate for Senate was greater than the harm of having someone steal the election, a harm which could be remedied later.

But this is really faithless. It is like Abraham offering up his child on the altar. Which is our altar, having a candidate for the Democrats, or justice. As a Supreme Court Justice Black should have determined that Justice was preeminent, even if it meant sacrificing Isaac. Instead he decided that having a candidate, even if they were guilty of fraud, was preeminent.

2. Black's second argument was that the harm from the Federal government interfering in State elections would set a bad precedent.

But this also is not true. The Federal government was not asked to interfere in the election, they were asked to protect human rights afforded by the constitution.

Black could have issued an injunction that allowed the Democrats to place a name on the ballot without stopping the court case. That would have resulted in the following risks:

a. Johnson's name is put on the ballot, he is found innocent, no harm.
b. Johnson's name is put not the ballot, he is found guilty, but too late to change the name. In this case all of the blame would have been on Johnson -- he could have resolved the issue immediately by presenting the key documents.
c. He also could have agreed to have both his name and Stevenson's name on the ballot. (This compromise was already offered and rejected by Johnson). In this event the results of the court case would have been in before the election. So even if Johnson were found guilty Stevenson could still be elected and there again is no harm to the Democrats or the election.

In the end all harm caused to the election and the democrats would have been due to Johnson and not the court. Regardless how it played out on the second option, the integrity of the election process would have been preserved, Corporations would have been warned and perhaps fined for their involvement, and those involved in fraud would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent.

Black's lack of faith resulted in the corruption we now see in our election process. This is a key point in US history where justice took a back seat to politics.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am very clear, and in my mind it is not up for debate, I will not consider Trump if I can't see his tax returns first.

If you saw his returns, you would not consider Trump, since your mind is not up for debate.

In my mind, one who sells the Presidency is far worse than one who buys the Presidency. The Latter may do it for totally selfish motives, but the former is both a traitor and also motivated by totally selfish motives.

But, hey, you and Donald are New Yorkers. As Ted Cruz said, not a lot of conservatives come out of that place.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If you saw his returns, you would not consider Trump, since your mind is not up for debate.

In my mind, one who sells the Presidency is far worse than one who buys the Presidency. The Latter may do it for totally selfish motives, but the former is both a traitor and also motivated by totally selfish motives.

But, hey, you and Donald are New Yorkers. As Ted Cruz said, not a lot of conservatives come out of that place.

After watching the debate I have softened on this view.

I now feel that Clinton and Obama could, if they wished, put pressure on the IRS to complete the audit with time enough to spare for Trump to honor his promise to release it once it is completed. Instead she is using the "unknown" return for political gain.

I also can understand why a lawyer would not want him to release it until the audit is done, that does make sense to me.

So then, if they complete the audit by Oct 15th I expect him to honor his promise, if they take longer than that I will put the blame on Clinton and Obama for the delay. I feel that if there were anything the American voter should know about then it would be shameful that the IRS did not release it.

Also, I am far more concerned with who he owes money to than what his tax rate was. It seems he is willing to reveal his debt structure prior to the end of the audit. I expect both the media and Democrats to follow up on that claim.

I will say this, my skin crawls every time I see Clinton obfuscate.

In the end I will vote my conscience and hope that millions of US voters will demonstrate a collective wisdom.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

After watching the debate I have softened on this view.

I now feel that Clinton and Obama could, if they wished, put pressure on the IRS to complete the audit with time enough to spare for Trump to honor his promise to release it once it is completed. Instead she is using the "unknown" return for political gain.

I also can understand why a lawyer would not want him to release it until the audit is done, that does make sense to me.

So then, if they complete the audit by Oct 15th I expect him to honor his promise, if they take longer than that I will put the blame on Clinton and Obama for the delay. I feel that if there were anything the American voter should know about then it would be shameful that the IRS did not release it.

Also, I am far more concerned with who he owes money to than what his tax rate was. It seems he is willing to reveal his debt structure prior to the end of the audit. I expect both the media and Democrats to follow up on that claim.

I will say this, my skin crawls every time I see Clinton obfuscate.

In the end I will vote my conscience and hope that millions of US voters will demonstrate a collective wisdom.

--- Amen ---

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. The argument was that the harm done from not having a democratic candidate for Senate was greater than the harm of having someone steal the election, a harm which could be remedied later.

Where would this comparison come from? The election in question was the Democratic primary, not the general election. There was going to be a Democratic candidate for the Senate either way.

The only question was which Democrat was going to be the candidate. And Johnson learned that only the cheats got anywhere in statewide Democratic elections (in the 40s and 50s) and since he intended to be somebody, he joined in the game. Not an excuse. Just a fact.

(When I was younger, I thought that the win was in a general election and wondered why there was not a larger federal interest. It was only later as I began to understand the history of Democratic politics in Texas, especially in certain areas, that I realized it was a primary election.)

Of course, some will declare that only the liberal are true Democrats, so the ones who have declared themselves to be Democrats for generations, but that are not so liberal, and sometimes even fairly conservative, are simply not really Democrats?

BTW. To those who do not understand Texas politics of that era, for many races other than local or the President, in Texas, you won many of the state-wide races (both state and national) by winning the democratic primary. Whoever the Republicans put on the ballot was little more than a punching dummy. My parents voted in the Democratic primary then pulled the Party lever for "Republican" at the general election.

So other than a very few local elections where there was a large local majority of Republicans, there was always a Democratic candidate.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Where would this comparison come from? The election in question was the Democratic primary, not the general election. There was going to be a Democratic candidate for the Senate either way.

No, the deadline for the democrats to put a name on the ballot was going to happen before the trial was going to end. So it was possible that they wouldn't have anyone, or that the person they put on their would be convicted of fraud prior to the election.

Originally Posted by OBW

The only question was which Democrat was going to be the candidate.

Not true. The deadline for putting the name on the ballot for the general election was the first week of October. Stevenson had appealed to the courts for an injunction and was given one. Hence Johnson's name could not be put on the ballot until the trial was over. Johnson was delaying the proceedings so it was highly likely they would not resolve the issue in time. The judge proposed a compromise that both names go on the ballot. Stevenson agreed but Johnson rejected that.

Originally Posted by OBW

And Johnson learned that only the cheats got anywhere in statewide Democratic elections (in the 40s and 50s) and since he intended to be somebody, he joined in the game. Not an excuse. Just a fact.

Not true. Johnson was well documented to have "joined the game" from his very first election when he was in college. Johnson boasted to all who knew him of cheating on every single election he was in. This was due to him feeling his father was a putz as a politician.

[ZNPaaneah]

It appears we are witnessing the fulfillment of the Lord's word that the things you say in private (Trump or Clinton) will be shouted from the rooftop.

[ZNPaaneah]

Prior to the Box 13 scandal men of character were able to win elections. Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington.

But when people and more importantly corporations, saw that you could steal an election, everyone knew it and yet no one would do anything about it, then it was open season.

Jeremiah 5:31 the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

I think this election is showing what "the end" looks like.

[ZNPaaneah]

This latest wiki leaks data dump indicates that the data dumps are getting "worse" or revealing more culpability. This last one indicating a $10 million gift to Clinton from a foreign power as a quid pro quo is criminal if confirmed.

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims... but accomplices”
George Orwell

[ZNPaaneah]

Recent WikiLeaks are a very clear testimony of felonies.

1. There is now evidence of "Pay to play"

and

2. There are also emails indicating that the Clinton staffers were plotting on how to not release all of the emails.

As a result there have been a range of responses.

On one end of the spectrum some (democrats) see this as Russia influencing our election. This may be true, and if so is certainly something we want to mobilize our national defense to deal with. However, this is a very clear demonstration that Clinton's cavalier attitude towards setting up her private server was reckless and grossly negligent.

On the other end of the spectrum some are calling for the impeachment of Clinton. I heard someone say it was preposterous to discuss impeachment before she is elected, so for the sake of clarity I would say they are calling for the prosecution of Clinton to the fullest extent of the law.

Now both of these issues raise another issue, that of risk. Clinton's campaign has played the idea of a Trump presidency as being too risky, but that concern should also be balanced with the concern that a Clinton presidency also comes with major risks.

Now if someone says that they are not for Clinton, rather they are "against Trump" I am fully sympathetic with that. But there are two other candidates. Get behind one of those. You don't have to vote for Clinton, you are choosing to. Be honest with yourself that you are supporting Clinton.

[ZNPaaneah]

I am very excited that Wikileaks may be the missing ingredient that our democracy needed. A bright light that can shine in the midst of the corruption, allowing us to know the truth and this truth will make us free.

This astounding victory by Trump was not due to him being some kind of genius, look at how many votes he got. He received fewer votes than Romney who he mocked for being an idiot campaigner.

Clinton's loss was not due to Comey or Obama. It was due to Wikileaks.

So whether you like Trump or not, that is not the point, he is not really the winner. The winner in this election is the truth. We now have a promise, a hope that you can believe in, that going forward we will know the truth, the truth will shine a bright light on what used to be a very corrupt political process, and this truth will make us free.

[ZNPaaneah]

I find it interesting that when you read the behind the scenes accounts of the two campaigns you learn that both the Clinton and Trump campaigns realized how close this election was going to be.

Yet the public was completely misled into believing it was all over but for the result.

One has to wonder what is going on with the media?

To make things worse two of the prognosticators with the best record both picked Trump to win and even so the media just treated that like a blip.

[OBW]

I'm just not so excited about unaccountable sources muddying the electoral process. I don't care how correct it turns out to be. It is uncorroborated assertions by lawbreakers. What they provide is not only illegally obtained, it is not a certainty that it is actually what they say it is.

[OBW]

And I'm not really impressed by how close the election was. I make my decisions based on information I can gather and assess for reliability. Whether the election was going to be close or not close was really only important to the campaigns and the pollsters. I don't decide based on trends or the patterns of even similar voters.

I do note that both Donald and Hillary said some pretty nasty things about each other. And it appears to have been entirely true. From both sides.

Made deciding which write-in I was going to choose more important.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I find it interesting that when you read the behind the scenes accounts of the two campaigns you learn that both the Clinton and Trump campaigns realized how close this election was going to be.

Yet the public was completely misled into believing it was all over but for the result.

One has to wonder what is going on with the media?

To make things worse two of the prognosticators with the best record both picked Trump to win and even so the media just treated that like a blip.

I think the pollsters were fooled by PC responses. Thats what they deserve!

Since the media picked up on the false polling reports, the Clinton supporters stayed home assured of victory, which was completely out of character since the weather was so nice election day.

I know some people who said the best part of it all was watching the liberals cry on TV. So much for shattering the expensive glass ceiling.

[ZNPaaneah]

"Prediction professor" Allan Lichtman has correctly named the winner of every presidential election since 1984, and now he's willing to hazard a guess about how a presidency will end. "There's a very good chance that Donald Trump could face impeachment," Lichtman told CNN's Erin Burnett on Erin Burnett OutFront on Wednesday.

A presidential historian at American University in Washington, Lichtman has his own system for determining the outcome of the presidential election based on true or false statements. As for Trump's impeachment, there is no data other than Lichtman's own hunch. "First of all, throughout his life [Trump] has played fast and loose with the law," Lichtman explained. "He has run an illegal charity in New York state. He has made an illegal campaign contribution through that charity. He has used the charity to settle personal business debts. He faces a [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] lawsuit." (http://theweek.com/speedreads/662318...presidency-end)

If Trump and Pence are both impeached would that make Paul Ryan the President?

[ZNPaaneah]

“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities, we could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” John Ehrlichman, White House Domestic Affairs Advisor — 1969-1973

More evidence that false prophets abound and that learning to deal with Witness Lee has far wider applications than just dealing with this tiny sect.

[ZNPaaneah]

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., House Judiciary Committee chairman. (Photo: Reuters/Yuri Gripas)
In a closed-door meeting Monday night, House Republicans unexpectedly voted to all but destroy an independent ethics group that investigates them for wrongdoing. The move immediately drew intense criticism from Democrats and watchdog organizations, which portrayed the vote as a betrayal of the incoming Republican president’s campaign vow to “drain the swamp.”

Reminds me of Wiley's dictionary -- Washington -- 2,000 pounds of dirty laundry.

[ZNPaaneah]

Did anyone see Trump's press conference? Is he really going to make it to inauguration? He is thrashing out at the press, the intelligence community, and every single politician. His only friend is Putin and he has already had to disavow that. How is he going to govern?

Also, he must take us for complete morons, he is going to put his entire business into a "trust" (not a blind trust, he is not going to divest), his children run the empire and they won't do foreign deals. That is the protection?!

This is idiotic, if Clinton used her foundation as a cash register, and we saw that as corrupt, well Trump takes this to a whole new level.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did anyone see Trump's press conference? Is he really going to make it to inauguration? He is thrashing out at the press, the intelligence community, and every single politician. His only friend is Putin and he has already had to disavow that. How is he going to govern?

Also, he must take us for complete morons, he is going to put his entire business into a "trust" (not a blind trust, he is not going to divest), his children run the empire and they won't do foreign deals. That is the protection?!

This is idiotic, if Clinton used her foundation as a cash register, and we saw that as corrupt, well Trump takes this to a whole new level.

I missed the presser. I heard there were fireworks. My satellite TV got cut off Monday night. (I guess they want more money. ) The last program I got to watch was the BCS championship. What a game!

There's no way Trump can match Billary's corruption. So far nobody has died because of Trump, and though he may have thin skin, at least he is a patriot. I'd like to see how Hillary would react to a Press that treated her that way too.

I thought everyone in NYC acted like Trump.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"Prediction professor" Allan Lichtman has correctly named the winner of every presidential election since 1984, and now he's willing to hazard a guess about how a presidency will end. "There's a very good chance that Donald Trump could face impeachment," Lichtman told CNN's Erin Burnett on Erin Burnett OutFront on Wednesday.

A presidential historian at American University in Washington, Lichtman has his own system for determining the outcome of the presidential election based on true or false statements. As for Trump's impeachment, there is no data other than Lichtman's own hunch. "First of all, throughout his life [Trump] has played fast and loose with the law," Lichtman explained. "He has run an illegal charity in New York state. He has made an illegal campaign contribution through that charity. He has used the charity to settle personal business debts. He faces a [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] lawsuit." (http://theweek.com/speedreads/662318...presidency-end)

If Trump and Pence are both impeached would that make Paul Ryan the President?

Congress couldn't impeach Bill. The FBI wouldn't indict Hillary.

News Flash: All politicians are thieves and liars!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Congress couldn't impeach Bill. The FBI wouldn't indict Hillary.

News Flash: All politicians are thieves and liars!

I thought they did impeach Bill?

I thought that the whether or not Hillary gets indicted has yet to be determined.

If a politician is a thief in secret then shame on them. If they are thief in front of my face and I do nothing, then shame on me.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I missed the presser. I heard there were fireworks. My satellite TV got cut off Monday night. (I guess they want more money. ) The last program I got to watch was the BCS championship. What a game!

There's no way Trump can match Billary's corruption. So far nobody has died because of Trump, and though he may have thin skin, at least he is a patriot. I'd like to see how Hillary would react to a Press that treated her that way too.

I thought everyone in NYC acted like Trump.

This press conference looked like a principal trying to get control of an inner city school assembly after telling all the students they are stupid, and after news had just broken that this principal had cut a deal with McDonald's to make money off the the kids.

In my life I have never seen anything like it for a president, president elect, or presidential candidate. Even when Nixon was in the process of resigning it wasn't like this.

To my observation the intelligence community is releasing very embarrassing information on Trump to the media which is attacking him like a pack of wild dogs.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This press conference looked like a principal trying to get control of an inner city school assembly after telling all the students they are stupid, and after news had just broken that this principal had cut a deal with McDonald's to make money off the the kids.

In my life I have never seen anything like it for a president, president elect, or presidential candidate. Even when Nixon was in the process of resigning it wasn't like this.

To my observation the intelligence community is releasing very embarrassing information on Trump to the media which is attacking him like a pack of wild dogs.

I never understood how this embarrassed Trump.

Assange at Wikileaks said Russia was not the source of the emails from Podesta. Isn't it amazing that Podesta, Hillary, and the DNC escape all responsibility when the media turned on Trump? Remember the Russian hacking connection followed the Comey FBI scandal, accusations of racism on all white women who voted for Trump, "whitelash," voter suppression, hacking the election results, attacks on the electoral college, fake news, Bernie scandals, Bannon the racist, and your congressman (and almost mayor) -- the pervert Weiner and his wife Huma.

Why wasn't Obama and Clinton shamed for interfering with Israel's election?

Is there a double standard here? Should not Trump call the Press out?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I thought they did impeach Bill?

I thought that the whether or not Hillary gets indicted has yet to be determined.

If a politician is a thief in secret then shame on them. If they are thief in front of my face and I do nothing, then shame on me.

Senate prevented impeachment.

What can you do? What did you do to Billary?

You and I are helpless, but to watch. Our misery is knowing about it. Most Americans are blissfully ignorant.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I never understood how this embarrassed Trump.

Assange at Wikileaks said Russia was not the source of the emails from Podesta. Isn't it amazing that Podesta, Hillary, and the DNC escape all responsibility when the media turned on Trump? Remember the Russian hacking connection followed the Comey FBI scandal, accusations of racism on all white women who voted for Trump, "whitelash," voter suppression, hacking the election results, attacks on the electoral college, fake news, Bernie scandals, Bannon the racist, and your congressman (and almost mayor) -- the pervert Weiner and his wife Huma.

Why wasn't Obama and Clinton shamed for interfering with Israel's election?

Is there a double standard here? Should not Trump call the Press out?

No it is a different story now, apparently Putin and the Russians have some embarrassing dirt on Trump they can blackmail him with. https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-int...174559910.html

Getting mighty leaky on this ship.

It looks ugly and nasty -- Weiner is a pervert, his wife Huma looks like a sham every bit as much as Hillary's marriage. Hillary has not escaped anything, if Trump is inaugurated then there can be a lot of pressure put on him to "lock her up".

I think everyone is in agreement that the DNC should bear responsibility for the hack. Still, it is worrisome that Putin has so much invested in this outcome. That includes "fake news".

Attacks on the electoral college? Up until this point in history we have always had the illusion that our process was a democratic one, even Gore was so close and took so long that it was essentially a tie. 2 million votes is not even close to a tie.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Senate prevented impeachment.

What can you do? What did you do to Billary?

You and I are helpless, but to watch. Our misery is knowing about it. Most Americans are blissfully ignorant.

He was fined, disbarred and impeached by the House, acquitted by the Senate.

So much for the Buck stopping here.

Just because judgement takes a few years to be completed doesn't mean it won't get here.

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/se...10.h473.2x.png

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No it is a different story now, apparently Putin and the Russians have some embarrassing dirt on Trump they can blackmail him with.

It looks ugly and nasty -- Weiner is a pervert, his wife Huma looks like a sham every bit as much as Hillary's marriage. Hillary has not escaped anything, if Trump is inaugurated then there can be a lot of pressure put on him to "lock her up".

I think everyone is in agreement that the DNC should bear responsibility for the hack. Still, it is worrisome that Putin has so much invested in this outcome. That includes "fake news".

Attacks on the electoral college? Up until this point in history we have always had the illusion that our process was a democratic one, even Gore was so close and took so long that it was essentially a tie. 2 million votes is not even close to a tie.

The attack on the electoral college is completely bogus. It's like winning a football game, and the loser then claims they racked up more yardage, so they should have won. You can't change the rules after the game is over.

If we had no electoral college, and popular vote wins, then both the campaigning and the voting would be entirely different, and Republican voters in west coast states might have actually voted!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He was fined, disbarred and impeached by the House, acquitted by the Senate.

So much for the Buck stopping here.

Just because judgement takes a few years to be completed doesn't mean it won't get here.

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/se...10.h473.2x.png

Disbarred? Big deal! He made more money than any lawyer ever made.

Why not banned from all public life? All speaking fees? From being "First Man?"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No it is a different story now, apparently Putin and the Russians have some embarrassing dirt on Trump they can blackmail him with. https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-int...174559910.html

Getting mighty leaky on this ship.

It looks ugly and nasty -- Weiner is a pervert, his wife Huma looks like a sham every bit as much as Hillary's marriage. Hillary has not escaped anything, if Trump is inaugurated then there can be a lot of pressure put on him to "lock her up".

I think everyone is in agreement that the DNC should bear responsibility for the hack. Still, it is worrisome that Putin has so much invested in this outcome. That includes "fake news".

Attacks on the electoral college? Up until this point in history we have always had the illusion that our process was a democratic one, even Gore was so close and took so long that it was essentially a tie. 2 million votes is not even close to a tie.

Hillary people in the CIA can make fake stories about Trump look like the Russians did it. It's like the JFK assassination, we can never know the truth. Notice how they used Biden to disclose this "info."

For Trump to take on the Press was smart, but to take on Intelligentia, before his own people were in place, was not smart.

Blocking Sessions is to save Hillary.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The attack on the electoral college is completely bogus. It's like winning a football game, and the loser then claims they racked up more yardage, so they should have won. You can't change the rules after the game is over.

If we had no electoral college, and popular vote wins, then both the campaigning and the voting would be entirely different, and Republican voters in west coast states might have actually voted!

It is politics. When Obama was elected his supporters were shocked to hear attacks on him, yet prior to his election there were attacks on Bush, but now that Trump is elected there are attacks on him. That is the name of the game.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hillary people in the CIA can make fake stories about Trump look like the Russians did it. It's like the JFK assassination, we can never know the truth. Notice how they used Biden to disclose this "info."

For Trump to take on the Press was smart, but to take on Intelligentia, before his own people were in place, was not smart.

Blocking Sessions is to save Hillary.

He can get rid of Hillary's people once he is in power, if he ever gets there.

Basic rule is you choose the devil you know over the devil you don't, hence if Putin really wanted Trump I have to believe he knew the devil he was choosing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He can get rid of Hillary's people once he is in power, if he ever gets there.

Basic rule is you choose the devil you know over the devil you don't, hence if Putin really wanted Trump I have to believe he knew the devil he was choosing.

Putin was convinced that Hillary would win, and Trump had no chance. That's what the facts tell us. If Putin tried to influence public opinion, it was to damage Hillary and her presidency. I think Putin wanted Hillary to win.

There was nobody, and no world leader, who thought Trump had a chance. The election shocked everybody, including me. I'm still upset with my wife for not waking me.

The whole thing backfired on the liberal elites. They pushed political correctness to such degree, that people lied to the pollsters because they feared backlash if they were honest, especially those in rust belt labor unions, which won the election for Trump.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Putin was convinced that Hillary would win, and Trump had no chance. That's what the facts tell us. If Putin tried to influence public opinion, it was to damage Hillary and her presidency. I think Putin wanted Hillary to win.

There was nobody, and no world leader, who thought Trump had a chance. The election shocked everybody, including me. I'm still upset with my wife for not waking me.

The whole thing backfired on the liberal elites. They pushed political correctness to such degree, that people lied to the pollsters because they feared backlash if they were honest, especially those in rust belt labor unions, which won the election for Trump.

Actually I read some very credible pollsters who were giving Trump a chance.

I think Trump was completely underestimated which is always very dangerous. I always thought he had a chance for the Republican nomination because the way that worked he only need to appeal to about 20% of the nation to become top dog and he was raking in all the free press.

I did think his insulting the parents of a dead soldier was as idiotic as you could get and should have done him in. I hate to say this but the only explanation is that anti muslim sentiment trumped the faux pau.

Also, I think the "liberal elites" have gotten used to "shaping" public opinion by manipulating polls, just like the Bible verse says "deceiving and being deceived". In the end they deceived themselves.

Finally, what I think won it for him was his kids. His kids were impressive in the convention.

I agree that Putin figured he'd win either way, but let's be honest here:

1. We have not seen Trump's tax records

2. Trump fired his campaign manager because of the close ties to the Kremlin

3. Trump has made some very critical cabinet and security picks that have very close ties to the Kremlin

4. Putin is pissed over a billion dollar oil deal that Clinton nixed, we can be very sure that deal will now be fast tracked.

5. If there is dirt on Trump you know Putin has it. (Honestly, is there any doubt over whether there is dirt on Trump?)

Anyway, https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-rus...173940225.html this is what happens when you go up against the intelligence community. They begin leaking reports like this. Don't forget, Obama and Clinton are still in power for another few days. Expect more of the same until the 20th, probably enough to get a Senate probe started.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Actually I read some very credible pollsters who were giving Trump a chance.

I think Trump was completely underestimated which is always very dangerous. I always thought he had a chance for the Republican nomination because the way that worked he only need to appeal to about 20% of the nation to become top dog and he was raking in all the free press.

I did think his insulting the parents of a dead soldier was as idiotic as you could get and should have done him in. I hate to say this but the only explanation is that anti muslim sentiment trumped the faux pau.

Also, I think the "liberal elites" have gotten used to "shaping" public opinion by manipulating polls, just like the Bible verse says "deceiving and being deceived". In the end they deceived themselves.

Finally, what I think won it for him was his kids. His kids were impressive in the convention.

I agree that Putin figured he'd win either way, but let's be honest here:

1. We have not seen Trump's tax records

2. Trump fired his campaign manager because of the close ties to the Kremlin

3. Trump has made some very critical cabinet and security picks that have very close ties to the Kremlin

4. Putin is pissed over a billion dollar oil deal that Clinton nixed, we can be very sure that deal will now be fast tracked.

5. If there is dirt on Trump you know Putin has it. (Honestly, is there any doubt over whether there is dirt on Trump?)

Anyway, https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-rus...173940225.html this is what happens when you go up against the intelligence community. They begin leaking reports like this. Don't forget, Obama and Clinton are still in power for another few days. Expect more of the same until the 20th, probably enough to get a Senate probe started.

Good points.

But didn't Hillary give Putin ownership of uranium?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good points.

But didn't Hillary give Putin ownership of uranium?

Yes, but he is only to use that uranium for peaceful purposes, cross his heart and hope to die.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Expect more of the same until the 20th, probably enough to get a Senate probe started.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/intel-pan...-politics.html

[ZNPaaneah]

This stuff is happening so fast now it is hard to keep up.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-dem...-politics.html

The justice department is investigating Comey's handling of the Clinton investigation -- no doubt under a Jan 20th deadline.

Senate is investigating Trump links to Russia

Democrats are fuming.

CIA is leaking supposed blackmail that Russia has on Trump.

And of course the ethics investigations will probably also kick into gear before the 20th. How does that work? Can you do an ethics investigation on a "president elect" or do you have to wait until inauguration.

And then, to top it off we get to celebrate MLK day by insulting a civil rights legend.

Whoever is writing this script, it has really lost all credibility.

[ZNPaaneah]

Already you can see Trump's brilliance in helping people get jobs with the Ben Carson hearing.

Now although he did say he was hoping that HUD would not help any americans, that is not the point I would focus on.

No, imagine you are going on a job interview, you don't have any experience and they ask you about your experience, what do you say?

"Experience?! Experience!? Don't ask me about experience, I have 100 billion neurons in my brain, I don't need experience!"