HumblePi

This article was published yesterday in the Reno Gazette-Journal by Jon Ralston. Today, Donald Trump claimed that Nevada is his. But Jon Ralston has a differing opinion judging from the very last line under his photo here. http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/05/ralston-how-deep-does-blue-wave-go/93349220/

I just saw POTUS speaking in New Hampshire. "Are you fired up!!" Yes, I am! I'm going to miss listening to him speak, he's one hell of a motivator. I'm sure that Hillary Clinton is going to appoint him to some post so he's not really going to leave Washington. We'll be seeing more of him.

I'm embarrassed to say it but my State of Ct. is usually a Republican State and I see plenty of Trump signs on the lawns around here. Luckily, Connecticut is of little importance in the electoral votes.

I'd really be interested in what State everyone lives in. Just a suggestion but it would be fun watching the results for each State beginning to roll in or any interesting stories someone might have about their voting experience. All voluntary of course. I'm in Connecticut

https://twitter.com/hashtag/election2016

At his rally going on right now, they're chanting "drain that swamp! drain that swamp! Well I have news for them. For calling Hillary the swamp here's what's going to happen when they try.

that would be the case simply because she's female

My husband can't take it when I'm watching CNN and several surrogates are there from both camps like Scottie Nells Hughes, Van Jones, Bakari Seller, Corey Lewandowski, Kayleigh Mcenany, Amy Kremer or Angela Rye are there together it's mayhem and nobody gets a real opportunity to give their clear view without interruption. The messages get garbled and it doesn't help when the viewer is trying to mentally sort out the conversation as it's happening. The only way that it would be possible to hear their viewpoint is if one was allowed to come on at a time OR they were placed in a glass booth and each given 2 minutes to respond then the microphone goes dead in the booth. The most glaring thing I've noticed from the Trump surrogates is the fact that they never answer a question directly, they pivot immediately. Example; "what's your opinion of the video with Trump saying he grabs women by the genitals?" Scottie Nells Hughes would say "I agree that it's disrespectful but wouldn't you agree that Hillary Clinton committed a crime by deleting over 3,000 emails?" I certainly do have a problem with CNN having someone like Corey Lewandowski as a paid commentator because he likely has a non-disparagement agreement with the Trump campaign, was hired by CNN while he was still being paid severance by Trump’s campaign, has continued to do “consulting work” for Trump, and recently joined the campaign for events in Maine and New Jersey. Nearly all of the Trump surrogates are paid by both CNN AND Trump which immediately makes me suspicious of anything they say in his favor (don't diss the boss), The Hillary Clinton surrogates are paid by CNN and not by Hillary Clinton. McEnany defended Trump’s claim that Obama is the “founder of ISIS,” Hughes attacked Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Tim Kaine’s use of Spanish, and both Hughes and McEnany have defended Trump against multiple sexual assault accusations. Is there any wonder why CNN would lean towards the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton? The Trump surrogates have proven time and time again that they have a primary position in the deplorable basket.

I trust He is.

I just watched Fox Business and they had their couch of usual commentators including Chris Wallace. They were bemoaning the new stats that were released on their own Fox poll which showed that voters think Clinton has a better temperament than Trump 60-37%. They couldn't understand it because he's been a good boy these past two weeks, staying on topic and not saying things that infuriate large masses of people. They were all depressed and near-tears. I'm not going to lie, I was enjoying this conversation between them immensely but the pièce de résistance for me came when they faded out to a commercial break and this song was playing......heh, gotta love it http://www.televisiontunes.com/underdog.html

I realize that this probably would be more pertinent on the Donald Trump forum but I'm just addressing your comment. I'm more inclined to believe Pope Francis when he said that Donald Trump is "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not a Christian. This is not in the bible." Donald Trump fired back at the Pope accusing the Vatican of being controlled by ISIS.

I think that the stock spike indicates that investors are no longer fearing a Trump Presidency and are confident that with the election of Hillary Clinton that the economy will become robust in the future.

I'm sure your Republican lawyer is very smart and he's going to vote for Trump because of upcoming Supreme court justice nominations. But, a Supreme Court Justice must be approved by Congress. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the seat left by Antonin Scalia's death. Since Republicans control the Senate they refused to even hold a vote on his appointment. Donald Trump, if he's elected, will do a lot more than threaten to get rid of all the sitting Justices but he's gone even further by threatening to eliminated the EPA entirely, clean out all Democratic leaning FBI agents and build a new FBI force of all agents sympathetic to his cause of erasing minorities from Mexico, banning all Muslims from entering the US and vilifying all remaining US Muslim citizens. Donald Trump would wield tremendous power over this country with the assistance of people like Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani. I have even hear it said that as President, Donald Trump would seek to eliminate all future Presidential elections. Essentially he would systematically erase all pretense of a democratic society in favor of a dictatorship.

That's really hard to believe that a twice-abused woman would support a man that has no respect for women. But rather than women like your friend being attracted to abusive men, I tend to think of it the opposite way. Abusive men are attracted to women exactly like your friend. But a women being vulnerable, either as a result of a recent occurrence or through her natural disposition, she will be drawn in by the abuser. It's as if they feel at a lower place in some way, inferior and lacking self-esteem. It is then only natural for them to be attracted to a male that appears to posses that which they don't have. In order to attract a man who is not abusive, it's important for women like that to let go of what they associate as something familiar and therefore safe. Maybe your friend sees a father figure, one that may be familiar to her in her childhood, and maybe that father figure wasn't all that nice.

Okay, this bullshit just got funny last night on Sean Hannity's show. He put up the graph of the United State electoral map. He went rambling around State to State pointing out and highlighting those States that Trump is projected to win. Then he went to the 'must win' States that are up in the air, like Florida, North Carolina, Nevada and Pennsylvania. He continued with "let's say that Nevada goes Republican" and "what if Florida...." "suppose that the North of Maine". Essentially the so-called victory of Donald Trump was based entirely on the 'what if's and let's say' rather than actual polling and on the ground estimates. I wanted to get a video from that display last night just to illustrate how utterly desperate Sean Hannity and Fox are, but it hasn't been uploaded to YouTube yet. But I did find this video posted on October 26th. You can't even imagine how creative and inventive Sean Hannity got with his map last night. It was visible desperation.

Today is the last day, the very last moments we'll have to reach out on social media and make our support of Hillary Clinton unfailing. I've already been to CNN Politics, Mike Huckabee, Fox & Friends, and of course Donald Trump twitter and Facebook. I didn't go to argue talking points or dispute false accusations. I post for one thing only and thats to make the numbers of advocates for Hillary Clinton be visible and heard as robustly. Trump supporters are extremely vocal about their distaste and vitriol for Hillary Clinton, so I feel I need to lend a voice in favor of her. Last day, shout it out!

I read the entire article and the most telling paragraph in the article was this one; "But offline, Mr. Trump still privately muses about all the ways he will punish his enemies after Election Day, including a threat to fund a “super PAC” with vengeance as its core mission." This actually sums up his mentally disordered personality in one sentence. He borders on psychopathy and how he ever got this far is a sad commentary on exactly how many people in this country have played into the darkness and evil in his personality. The second observation was what author Tony Schwartz has said from the very beginning. "he's a dark hole." And he is struggling to suppress his bottomless need for attention.

They were half right. Comey is a registered Republican.

'Clinton Cash' and 'pay-for-play' the real story behind this witch hunt of the Clintons Throughout her campaign, Hillary Clinton has battled accusations of fostering a “pay for play” culture at the State Department, giving undue access to major Clinton Foundation donors. So far, Republicans have failed to find a smoking gun, but the narrative has served its purpose: tarnishing the public perception of the Democratic nominee and her family’s namesake charity. Peter Schweizer wrote the book 'Clinton Cash. The controversial, mostly discredited book has been held up by many as irrefutable proof of wrongdoing, or at least common venality, by the Clintons. It also found plenty of eager readers within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, The Wall Street Journal and New York Times report, galvanizing a number of F.B.I. agents to launch an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, based mostly on assertions made by Schweizer in the book. But guess what? This guy Peter Schweizer is editor-at-large of Breitbart! The argument is certainly a compelling one. Even Schweizer—whom the Journal reports was interviewed on several occasions by the F.B.I. agents interested in the Clinton Foundation—has conceded that he does not have any “direct evidence” to prove that the Clintons have done anything beyond the pale. Despite a questionable source and orders from the Justice Department and senior F.B.I. officials to “stand down,” F.B.I. agents reportedly continued to investigate the Clinton Foundation. This entire pay for play accusation has been the result of the alt-right Brietbart in complicity with the Republican party to take down the Clintons. It all makes me sick. I hope the Republican party is demolished beyond repair and maybe all those old farts will get kicked out of Washington and the Republican party can begin to rebuild and repair itself. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/fbi-investigation-clinton-foundation-peter-schweizer-breitbart

That's downright appalling and I'm going to complain to Fox about that.

I think that in one way this has been good. This has fully exposed those dirty Republicans that have conspired to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning this election. I have no doubt that once she's sworn into office on January 20th that there will be retributions coming for many of these scoundrels and heretics within the FBI and Congress. She's been taking names I'm sure and those people are shitting their pants today dreading the fact that she's going to win on Tuesday and they're day of reckoning is coming. The first head I want to see rolling down the road is Rudy Giuliani's.

First comment from Donald Trump on Comey's announcement today. "You can't review 650,000 new emails in eight days. You can't do it, folks," Trump said, adding, "Hillary Clinton is guilty. She knows it, the FBI knows it, the people know it, and now it's up to the American people to deliver justice at the ballot box on November 8." http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/comey-tells-congress-fbi-has-not-changed-conclusions/index.html He's right, 650,000 emails are almost impossible to review in just a few days, BUT this investigation of those emails began when they started the investigation into Anthony Weiner, and 300,000 had already been reviewed. Most of the work had already been done and thanks to computers, the rest wasn't that difficult to complete. Like Stephen Colbert said about Weiners emails "at least 300,000 of them are spam for boner pills".

I copy and paste the URL address on top of my page for that particular video, I don't use the embed code

next time you copy a link don't try to embed it, just copy and paste it right on the blank page, it will open as the video