Monday, August 29, 2016



The opposition is very good at it but they do not have the numbers we do. LETS MOBILIZE!!


See pic below

Shown below are the facts about how people who vote get their information.  
The U.S. turnout in the 2012 presidential election which was 53.6%, based on 129.1 million votes cast and an estimated voting-age population of just under 241 million people.

I realize that on social media that we the “political preachers” are preaching to the political choir of our kind of people! Some choirs are bigger than others!

To win we have to start preaching in other people's churches ( metaphorical! ) The public square. Main Street America.

We have to use fliers and leaflets that are printed on copy machines across the country .. in offices we own or work at.. (so there is no extra cost to the Trump Campaign)

Then we must be bold and march out across the country and hand them out at flea markets, supermarkets, churches, colleges, train stations, subway stations, malls anywhere where cross sections of people move through or congregate!

We the Trump Army must be ready to mobilize in cities across the USA.. and change the minds of those who do not hear the real message.




About nine-in-ten Americans learn about the election in a given week, but they are divided over the most helpful type of source
Vast majority of Americans learning about the 2016 presidential campaign; cable news seen as most helpful source typeNews and information about the contentious 2016 presidential election is permeating the American public, according to a new survey of 3,760 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center. About nine-in-ten U.S. adults (91%) learned about the election in the past week from at least one of 11 types of sources asked about, ranging from television to digital to radio to print.
This is true even among younger Americans, as 83% of 18- to 29-year-olds report learning about the presidential election from at least one stream of information, according to the survey conducted Jan. 12-27, 2016, using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel.
This high level of learning about the 2016 presidential candidates and campaigns is consistent with recent research that has shown strong interest in this election, even more so than at the same point in the previous two presidential elections.1
Americans are divided, though, in the type of sources they find most helpful for that news and information.
When asked if they got news and information about the election from 11 different source types, and then asked which they found most helpful, Americans were split: None of the source types asked about in the survey was deemed most helpful by more than a quarter of U.S. adults.
At the top of the list is cable news, named as most helpful by 24% of those who learned about the election in the past week. That is at least 10 percentage points higher than any other source type. Our past research indicates though, that the 24% is likely divided ideologically in the specific network they watch and trust.
After cable, five source types are named as most helpful by between 10% and 14% of those who got news about the election: Local TV and social networking sites, each at 14%, news websites and apps at 13%, news radio at 11% and national nightly network television news at 10%.
In the bottom tier are five source types named by no more than 3% of Americans who learned about the election. This includes print versions of both local and national newspapers, named by 3% and 2% respectively. It also includes late night comedy shows (3%) as well as the websites, apps or emails of the candidates or campaigns (1%) and of issue-based groups (2%).
As a platform, television and the Web – and even radio to a lesser degree – strongly appeal to certain parts of the public, while print sits squarely at the bottom. As many people name late night comedy shows as most helpful as do a print newspaper.
Age, education level and political party account for some of the differences here. Cable television’s overall popularity is pronounced among those who are 65 and older and also among Republicans, while social media is the clear favorite among the youngest age group, 18- to 29-year-olds.
About a third of 18 to 29-year-olds name social media as most helpful type of source for learning about the 2016 presidential election
About four-in-ten (43%) of those 65 or older who learned about the election in the past week say cable television news is most helpful, 26 percentage points higher than any other source type and much higher than any other age cohort. In fact, only 12% of 18- to 29-year-olds who learned about the election say that cable news is the most helpful.
Instead, about a third (35%) of 18- to 29-year-olds name a social networking site as their most helpful source type for learning about the presidential election in the past week. This is about twice that of the next nearest type – news websites and apps (18%), another digital stream of information. Social media drops off sharply for older age groups, with 15% of 30 to 49-year-olds, 5% of 50 to 64-year-olds, and just 1% of those 65 years and older saying the same. This is consistent with our previous research, which has shown that social media is the most prominent way that Millennials get political news, more so than any other generation.
The data also reveal the weight network television news and local TV news still carry among those 50 or older. Radio, though, shows consistent appeal across most age groups. Between 11% and 13% of those ages 18-29, 30-49 and 50-64 name radio as most helpful (a figure that falls to 5% among those 65+).
The area of difference that stands out most prominently along party lines is cable news. Republicans are almost twice as likely to say cable news is the most helpful than are Democrats (34% vs. 19%, and 24% among independents). Democrats are slightly more likely to name local TV news, but the gap is much smaller (18%, compared with 12% for both Republicans and independents).
Finally, those with a college degree are more likely than those with some college and those with a high school diploma or less to name radio, national papers in print, and news websites or apps as the most helpful type of source. Those who do not have a college degree are tied more closely to a preference for cable and local TV news.

Beyond what is most helpful, the majority of the public learns about the election from several types of sources

Almost half of those who learn about the presidential election get news & information from five or more source typesEven as U.S. adults find one type of source most helpful, the majority still get election news in a given week from multiple different source types. Indeed, of those who learned about the presidential election in the past week, just 9% learned from just one stream of information. In fact, almost half (45%) learned from five or more information streams.
TV most common for learning about the presidential electionTelevision sources again rise to the top. About three-quarters of U.S. adults (78%) learned about the election from at least one of the four TV-based source types asked about. Local TV and cable news reach the greatest percentages overall (57% and 54% respectively).
This was followed not by another traditional platform, but instead by digital. About two-thirds (65%) of U.S. adults learned about the 2016 election in the past week from digital source types, which includes social networking sites and news websites, as well as digital communication from issue-based groups and the candidates.
Coming in last: print versions of newspapers. Only about one-in-three (36%) U.S. adults learned about the campaign in the past week from either a local or national newspaper in print. The survey specifically asked about the print version of the paper and does not include the representation of newspapers in the digital space (48% of Americans got election news and information from news websites or apps in past week). This is an important distinction, as newspaper properties make up three of the top 10 digital news entities, according to comScore data compiled for our annual State of the News Media report. But it does speak to the precipitous decline of print as a mode of news – even as print-only consumers remain a key part of newspapers’ audiences.
In fact, more Americans cite radio as a source of election information in the past week (44%) than cite a print newspaper. And U.S. adults are roughly as likely to learn about the presidential election from an issue-based group’s website, app, or email (23%) or from late night comedy shows (25%) as from a national print newspaper (23%). And they are only slightly more likely to learn from their local print paper (29%).
While few Americans say issue-based groups or the campaigns themselves are most helpful, their presence as a direct source of information in the digital space comes through in these findings. At least two-in-ten U.S. adults learn about the presidential election directly from the websites, apps or emails of campaign and issue-based groups.
Level of usage differed notably by political party identification for late night comedy shows. They are a source for three-in-ten Democrats, but only 16% of Republicans and a quarter of independents. About a third of those ages 18-29 (34%) learned about the campaigns and candidates from late night comedy shows, higher than any other age group.
More of those who learned from cable news find it most helpful than users of any other type of sourceAnother way to understand the dynamics of these different types of sources is by examining the portion of adults who learn from a type of source who also find that source most helpful. While local and cable TV news are cited at roughly the same rates overall, for example, cable news is far more likely to be named as the most helpful source. About four-in-ten (41%) U.S. adults who say they learned about the election from cable TV news in the past week name it as the most helpful type of source, while this is true of only 22% of those who got news about the presidential election from local TV. Local TV news, then, may be a common, but not crucial source for viewers. (This mirrors past findings that local TV news is the single most common source of political information in the U.S.)

Sharing about the election on social networking sites is much less common than getting news there

Few share news or info about the election on social networking sitesAs we have seen in the past, getting news from social media is far more common than sharing news on social media. About half (51%) of social networking users learned about the presidential election from these sites. But only about one-in-five social networking users (18%) actually share election-related information on social media, whether by posting about it or by replying to or commenting on a post. That amounts to 15% of U.S. adults overall.
Those who learn from more source types are also more likely to share news and information, as are those for whom social media was most helpful for learning about the election. Almost three-in-ten of social media users who learn from 5 or more source types share something related to the presidential election on social media (29%), compared with no more than 12% of those who learned from fewer source types. And a third of those who name social media as their most helpful source (33%) share news and information about the election on these sites. Comparatively, this is true of only 20% of those who name cable news as their most helpful source type and a mere 8% who name local TV news.
Beyond Facebook, small portions of the public learn about the elections on social mediaFinally, while those with higher incomes are more likely to use social networking sites in general, it is lower income users who are more likely to share election-related content: About 20% of social networking users with household incomes under $75,000, compared with 14% of those with incomes of $75,000 or more.
Though it is common to learn about the election on at least one social networking site, Facebook is far and away the site where that is most likely to happen. This is not surprising, given that Facebook is the social networking site used by the most Americans, and is an increasingly common news destination, especially for Millennials. As we have seen before, there is also evidence that getting news from multiple social networking platforms is common: 41% of those who learn about the election on social media get election information from more than one social networking site.

Likely primary voters tend to have wider mix of source types

Those most likely to be primary voters learn from more types of sources and are more likely to share on social mediaThere are a number of ways that the election news habits of Americans who are most likely to participate in the upcoming presidential primaries and caucuses stand apart from those who are less likely to participate.
Overall, those who say they are very likely to participate in their state’s primary or caucus are more likely to learn about the election from multiple source types. Half of those who said they are very likely to participate learned from five or more source types, compared with 40% of those who are less likely to participate.
Cable TV is a more prominent source type for likely primary voters Among those who learned about the 2016 presidential election in the past week, % who say the most helpful source type is …Within this mix of information streams, there are also differences between the two groups in the source types deemed most helpful. While cable ranks first among both groups, those who are very likely to participate show somewhat greater tendency to name both cable (27% vs. 22%) and radio (12% vs. 9%) as most helpful. Conversely, they have a lower tendency to name local TV news (10% vs. 17%) and social media (11% vs. 16%) as most helpful than those who are less likely to participate in their state’s primary or caucus.
Even though those who say they are very likely to participate in their state’s primary or caucus are less likely to name social media as their most helpful source type, they seem to be more engaged in that space: 21% share information about the election on social media, through original posts or replies to content posted by others, compared with 15% of those less likely to participate.

Obama and Kerry Kickbacks from Iran exposed!

                       ARE WE THE PEOPLE SO DUMB ??
                         ARE THE MEDIA SO CORRUPT
                  HAS OUR COUNTRY BEEN CO_OPTED ??

                         THE ANSWER IS YES!


Here is Another brick in the wall...
Obama is Stonewalling on Details of the $1.7 Billion in Iransom Payoffs. I KNOW WHY.. I THINK YOU KNOW WHY! BUT THE LEFTY PRESS AND THE FOOLS IN CONGRESS PRETENDS THEY DO NOT KNOW WHY!!
The structured transfers of $1.3 billion from a Treasury slush fund remain shrouded in mystery.
Confidentiality”? MY ASS!! BUT Yes, that’s the State Department’s story on why the Obama administration is stonewalling the American people regarding the president’s illegal and increasingly suspicious Iransom payoff. 

The administration refuses to divulge any further information about the $1.7 billion the president acknowledges paying the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. 

Grilled on Wednesday about how Obama managed to pay the final $1.3 billion installment — particularly given the president’s claim that it is not possible to send Tehran a check or wire-transfer — State Department spokesman Mark Toner decreed that the administration would continue “withholding this information” in order “to protect confidentiality.” Whose confidentiality? The mullahs’? That of the intermediaries the president used? Whose privacy takes precedence over our right to know how Obama funneled our money to our enemies? The closest thing to an answer we have to the latest round of questions comes courtesy of the perseverance of the investigative journalist Claudia Rosett. (You weren’t expecting the Republican Congress to be minding the purse, were you?) Recall that we have been asking about the $1.3 billion payment since the first revelations about this sordid affair. After all, if, as Obama and his toadies maintain, the payment is totally on the up and up — just a routine legal settlement involving Iran’s own money — then why won’t they answer basic questions about it? Why are such matters as the administration’s process in tapping a congressionally appropriated funding source for the settlement — a settlement Congress did not approve and seems to be in the dark about paying for — being treated as if they were state secrets so sensitive you’d need have a Clinton.mail account (or be a Russian hacker of a Clinton.mail account) to see them? 

Generally speaking, the State, Treasury, and Justice Departments cannot issue press releases fast enough to salute themselves over legal settlements that supposedly benefit taxpayers by billions of dollars — at least according to the same math that brought you all those Obamacare savings. How is it that, in what is purportedly a completely above-board legal case, we are not permitted to know how our own money was transferred to the jihadist plaintiff? With the administration taking the Fifth, it was left to Claudia to crawl through Leviathan’s catacombs. In her New York Sun report on Monday, we learned that she hit pay dirt: stumbling upon a bizarre string of 13 identical money transfers of $99,999,999.99 each — yes, all of them one cent less than $100 million — paid out of an obscure Treasury Department stash known as the “Judgment Fund.” The transfers were made — to whom, it is not said — on January 19, just two days after the administration announced it had reached the $1.7 billion settlement with Iran. They aggregate to just 13 cents shy of $1.3 billion, the same amount the State Department claims Iran was owed in “interest” from the $400 million that our government had been holding since the shah deposited it in a failed arms deal just prior to the Khomeini revolution. So, stacked atop of the pallets of $400 million in foreign cash that Obama arranged to shuttle from Geneva to Tehran as ransom (or, as the administration prefers, “leverage”) for the release of American hostages — via an unmarked cargo plane belonging to Iran Air, a terrorist arm of the mullahs’ terrorist coordinator, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps — we now have a second whopping money transfer that (a) violates federal criminal laws against providing things of value to Iran and (b) looks like it was conceived by Nicky Barnes. 

While “the most transparent administration in history” continues to insist that this transaction is completely legit, Claudia could not find the 13 transfers of $99,999,999.99 by searching for “Iran” listings in the judgment fund. Acknowledgment of payments to Iran is nowhere to be found. Instead, she happened upon this $1.3 billion (minus the 13 cents) by locating cases in which the State Department was a party. And with that, another intriguing wrinkle emerged: a 14th unexplained transfer by Treasury, on State’s behalf, in the amount of $10 million — bringing the total to $1.31 billion. How is it that, in what is purportedly a completely aboveboard legal case, we are not permitted to know how our own money was transferred to the jihadist plaintiff? 

Is that extra $10 million a sweetener for someone in this deal? Who knows . . . the administration won’t tell us. ;-) Ofcourse they wont.. WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK ITS FOR ?? OBAMA KERRY AND THE UNDERLINGS!! 

It won’t even confirm that the string of transfers was for Iran, though that appears undeniable: Not only does the amount fit; the administration has grudgingly conceded in response to inquiries from Representatives Ed Royce (R., Calif.) and Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) that it got the money to pay Iran from the judgment fund. You might think that members of Congress, the branch of government that is supposed to approve all spending by the federal government, would not have to ask where the executive branch got money to pay a government obligation. But in Obama’s eccentric interpretation of the Constitution, there are apparently special Iran clauses. So in this instance, lawmakers have to ask because this is not a bill they ever agreed to pay; and Obama had to try to sneak it by them because he knows that, had he asked for more piles of money — in addition to the tens of billions in sanctions relief — to bestow on an incorrigible jihadist enemy of the United States, Congress would have said “No.”
That’s where the judgment fund comes in. It would be better labeled the “slush fund.” As Claudia reports, Treasury portrays this fund as a “permanent, indefinite appropriation” available to pay legal judgments against federal agencies “where funds are not legally available to pay the award from the agency’s own appropriations.” Really? There is only one reason why funds would not be “legally available to pay . . . from an agency’s own appropriations”: namely, that Congress has not made an appropriation that gives the agency permission to pay the funds in question. In case you’re scoring, that is supposed to mean the agency does not pay. 

Could Congress appropriate a finite fund with respect to which it vests the executive branch with discretion to pay court judgments up to a certain amount without seeking legislative authorization? Sure it could. But a “permanent, indefinite appropriation”? No way. It is one thing to say a judgment fund should be “permanent” in the sense that litigation goes on every year and the government is bound to be on the losing end of some cases, so Congress should make an annual appropriation — just as it does for, say, FEMA, despite the absence of foreknowledge of what emergencies will arise. And it is one thing to say that particular pay-outs from this judgment fund are “indefinite” in the sense that Congress will not know when it passes the budget what specific judgment amounts will be during the coming year. But a fund cannot constitutionally be “permanent and indefinite” in the sense of being an all-purpose, limitless reservoir of money that empowers the president to pay anything to anyone simply by orchestrating a lawsuit and then “settling” it. 

The Constitution requires definite appropriations. That is a key limitation on executive power without which the Constitution would not have been adopted in the first place. And here, that’s not the half of it. Obama has not just orchestrated a king’s ransom — better, an ayatollah’s ransom — for the benefit of the Death to America regime in the absence of congressional authorization. He refuses to tell us how he transferred it to them. Why not a single transfer? Why structure it with 13 payments just under $100 million? And what is the other $10 million about? Is that related to this deal? 

Lets face it.. Obama and Kerry are crooks and they have got a secret Pay out. They do not want us to know .. Period...CAN WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?? YES..!!