DailyPUMA is asking CBS and the NCAA to Rebroadcast the 2017 NCAA Women's Final Four O.T. Thriller between UConn and Mississippi State during Prime Time.

Near the end of this day you will get a chance to see the NCAA Mens 2017 basketball Championship final between North Carolina and Gonzaga on CBS, during what is known as prime time.

DailyPUMA believes that the NCAA Women's 2017 Final Four Basketball game featuring 111 game winning streak UConn vs Mississippi State should be rebroadcast during prime time on a major channel such as CBS. The final four match-up between UConn and Mississippi State was originally broadcast on a Friday evening on ESPN 2. The game turned into an all time classic that went into overtime and also featured a last second shot in overtime to end UConn's 111 game winning streak.

Unfortunately, Democrats are spending so much time being angry at Donald Trump that they have missed a perfect opportunity to engage Middle America in one of several areas where it counts, Sports. 

DailyPUMA has stated in the past that Healthcare Advocate Hillary Clinton and her perceived lack of physical fitness will most likely derail any future attempt of hers at becoming president. But along with that, DailyPUMA thinks that all of the Female Democrat Leaders who are trying to break the glass ceiling are completely out of the loop when it comes to both physical fitness and sports in general, and Women's Sports in particular. 

While Hillary Clinton drafts yet another speech for another public speaking event, yawn, make that a double yawn, UConn and Mississippi female basketball players played the game of a lifetime. But the game was to some degree buried on ESPN 2. If you didn't have cable, you could not see the game on your television unless you figured out a way to stream it. There are tens of millions of impoverished voters who get FREE HD TV via their antenna set-up, not one of them got to see the UConn vs Mississippi game via their antenna because ESPN or ESPN 2 is not on Free TV, but CBS is. DailyPUMA would not be surprised if Donald Trump picked up 75% to 80% of the FREE TV audience vote for 2016 presidential election.

A crafty, in tune Democrat Party, especially the Women in Leadership positions who proclaim to represent all women and the future of women, should have been asking CBS and the NCAA to rerun the UConn vs Mississippi basketball game in prime time on CBS. The very next night, Saturday Night, might have been the perfect encore night if it could have been squeezed around the Men's final four contests. However, with reruns coming soon to CBS, any prime time night in the very near future would be an acceptable alternative.

I am willing to bet that all the self appointed female leaders of the Democrat Party, Pelosi, Clinton, Warren, are completely clueless about sports and thusly not only did not have the idea to suggest to CBS and the NCAA to rebroadcast the UConn vs Mississippi State overtime final four thriller in prime time on CBS, they also don't have the proper consultants who are truly connected with Middle America to alert them to such a positive idea and proactive idea for all women, and men to.

This is why for every woman the Democrat Party loudly and proudly represents, there is another woman who is put off by the Democrat Leadership talking a good game yet being so out of touch with what would connect them to Middle America.

No Democrat who is attached to Hillary Clinton has ever asked DailyPUMA's opinion on anything, even after DailyPUMA's 8 years worth of topics which culminated with DailyPUMA's Oct. 27, 2017 prediction that Hillary Clinton could win the popular vote by 1% but lose the electoral college vote, and therefore needed to reach out to Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

DailyPUMA is asking CBS to pick up the ball and rebroadcast the UConn vs Mississippi State 2017 Final Four game in the very near future, and to broadcast the game in prime time and give it the pomp and circumstance this particular game richly deserves. Until CBS rebroadcasts the UConn vs Mississippi State 2017 Final four game in prime time, we will continue to be bombarded by the overhyping of men's sports while female sports continue to play a distant second.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Debunking the Claim by The Federalist Papers that Hillary Clinton Won California but lost the rest of the country by a 62% to 38% margin.

The Federalist Papers meme that Hillary Clinton won California by a huge margin but lost the rest of the country by a 62% to 38% margin is simple math gone wildly wrong.

The Federalist Papers just can't throw out 55 electoral college votes for Hillary Clinton and then say that Hillary Clinton did poorly in the rest of the country, it's sheer lunacy and disingenuous.

The Federalist Papers simply forgot to do the other half of the equation in their quest to prove a mathematical point. The Federalist Papers forgot to REMOVE 55 Electoral College Votes from the Trump States that had the highest winning percentage for Trump, afterall, that is EXACTLY what they did with Hillary Clinton's numbers.

DailyPUMA did the calculations and found the top 9 Republican states with the biggest percentage of votes for Trump that also equaled California's 55 electoral college votes.

So what happens we throw out the 9 Trump states with the largest winning percentage and electoral college vote total of 55? Although Hillary Clinton's total popular vote margin of victory dropped by 1.16 million votes, Clinton still remained far ahead of Trump in the popular vote by 1.7 million votes.

So when California is removed from Hillary Clinton's electoral college total and from her popular vote total, and Donald Trump's nine largest winning percentage states that also equal 55 electoral colleges are removed from his electoral college total and popular vote total, Hillary Clinton still wins the popular vote in the remaining 40 states by 1.7 million votes. 

The Federalist Papers has put out a ridiculous and misleading claim when they state their 62% to 38% claim.

"But, but, what if we subtracted California AND New York, then Donald Trump would be more popular"…lets do the math there as well.

We now remove New York's 29 electoral college votes and the next three Republican states with the widest percentage of votes for Trump, and that also equal 29 electoral college votes. We get New  York with 1,701,118 popular vote lead for Hillary Clinton minus 1,351,981 votes when the three Republican states with the largest winning percentage that equal 29 Trump Electoral College Votes are added together. Thus Trump gained approximately 350,000 votes against Hillary Clinton's total popular vote.

When California and New York popular total votes are subtracted from Clinton's popular vote total, and when Trumps 12 largest winning percentage state popular vote totals that also equal the exact same number of Electoral College Votes as California and New York, are then subtracted from Trump's popular vote total, Hillary Clinton still wins the Popular vote by 1.3 million votes in the remaining 36 states.

So screw you The Federalist Papers for fabricating a 62% to 38% margin of victory from every state not named California, your math was basic cherry picking 101, pure and simple, and your results were completely misleading. 

Hillary Clinton WON the popular vote over Trump by 1.7 million votes when California and a equivalent number of Republican victories in the states with the highest winning Trump percentage and equivalent electoral college vote of 55 are removed. 

When California and New York are removed from the Clinton win column and a corresponding number of electoral college votes from the largest winning percentages from the Trump State victories are also removed, Hillary Clinton still wins the popular vote by 1,350,000 votes in the remaining 36 states.

If we reverse engineered The Federalist Paper's argument, Clinton supporters could make the following claim, "If Donald Trump had not won Texas, Trump would have fallen short of the 270 delegates needed to win the presidency. So, if we throw out Trump's biggest win, Texas, not only does Trump not win the presidency, but Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead swells to 3.73 million votes".

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

CannonFire Connects the Dots, Nunes to Ryan to the White House to the Drunk Sounding Lady on Fox Warning Ryan.

A perfectly plausible series of events involving Devon Nunes, Paul Ryan, the White House, the Drunk sounding lady on Fox, and Ryan's Swan Song is outlined by Cannonfire.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Lets All Respond in Shrill, Outraged Tones at anything the present Administration or Fox News does or says.

At first DailyPUMA was really offended by Bill O'Reilly's comments about Maxine Water's hair. Then, in the second, DailyPUMA was still offended at O'Reilly's apology in which O'Reilly giggled while he was giving his alleged apology. 

From what DailyPUMA has heard, a female African American's hair is no laughing matter. DailyPUMA recalls hearing a discussion about AA Hair on television and the fear of getting AA hair wet, especially after one has gone to a hair salon and gotten a specific hairdo. So from that perspective, Bill O'Reilly's comments reveal a complete lack of empathy or understanding of what African American women go through when it comes to what they do with their hair, and what they do AFTER they get the hairdo they want, to keep that hairdo intact, or why they may avoid a hair salon altogether and just use a wig instead.

But DailyPUMA also wants to point out that millions have made fun of Donald Trump's hair. 

So then the argument becomes, "but Bill O'Reilly used the hair comment to disparage and dissuade Maxine Water's message while she was making an important political point". And that probably is a distinction with a difference. 

However, by not recognizing that Donald Trump's hair has been made fun of over the years, Democrats may come off as shrill complainers who don't even recognize when those they criticize have gone through the same treatment they now complain about when it happens to a democrat.

This is another example of a Trump Trap. Lets make fun of Maxine Water's hair and watch the same democrats get outraged who over the years have laughed it up whenever a Donald Trump hair joke was made.

The same could be said about Elizabeth Warren when she was shut down for wanting to read from a 30 year old letter written by Martin Luther King's wife, about Jeff Sessions. Once again, the same democrats who would fight to the death to not have a women's past be used against her to defile her present day character (such as in a rape trial), give no ground when Republicans stop a 30 year old letter from being used against a person who has had 30 years to possibly change or augment their own behavior.

Is responding to everything the present administration or Fox News does in a shrill, outraged perspective going to eventually backfire? Or is everything the present administration is doing so outrageous that incredulity continues to rule the day?

The one solid thing that has resulted was Maxine Water's reaction, in which she basically shrugged her shoulders at Bill O'Reilly and simply refocused on the issue at hand.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Donald Trump Changes name of Meals on Wheels program to Meals on Wings.

In a sign of camaraderie and compassion for the American people, Donald Trump has revived the "Meals on Wheels" Program. 

Allegedly overheard by a leaker, Mr. Trump has decided that as long as the Wheels on Meals also have Wings, then the bigly renamed "Meals on Wings" Program should be permitted to continue.

Trump Saves the "Meals on Wheels" Program, which will now be called the "Meals on Wings" Program for Billionaires who eat fast foods on their Private Jets.

Mr. Trump broke wind on the new "Meals on Wings" Program aboard his Private Jet, where he enjoyed the first "Meals on  Wings" dinner. 

Mr. Trump hopes all Billionaire Private Jet Owners will take advantage of the newly created "Meals on Wings" Program as a way for Billionaire Private Jet Owners to show solidarity with the American People.

Some Trump Supporters are calling the "Wheels on Wings" Program a Modest Proposal. Ironically, some of Trump's Detractors are also calling the "Meals on Wings" Program a Modest Proposal as well.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

What if Michael Flynn's contacts with other countries gave him secret terrorist cell intel that Donald Trump used in his speeches right before acts of terrorism actually happened?

During the 2015-2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump seemed to have some uncanny timing about terrorism. Trump would warn about terrorism, and then within a few days there would be an act of terrorism that made international news.

If Michael Flynn had access to both Turkey and Russia, then he basically could have been given secret intel on all kinds of projected terrorist acts that were being planned but perhaps Russian and or Turkish officials did not know exactly what the plan was.

What if Flynn actually got intel that he fed to Donald Trump about impending but unknown terrorist acts, and Donald Trump used them in his speeches prior to the acts of terrorism occurring. Is that a violation of any kind of import? 

DailyPUMA is not well versed in actual political law and campaign rules, but it seems that if Michael Flynn was being fed intel by either Turkey or Russia that Donald Trump then used in his campaign speeches that ended up being predictive and prescient of acts of terror that then actually happened, in essence gaining from insider information from foreign agent Michael Flynn, then what?

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Why is everyone denying that Donald Trump was wiretapped during the presidential campaign?

If Hillary Clinton can be "investigated" by underlings who have lower security clearance then herself, and then have these underlings publicly announce their Clinton investigation TWICE even though no intent to break a law was discovered nor was any intel intentionally leaked to enemy combatants, why can't private citizen Donald Trump who was running for president of the United States be investigated via wiretap when he already had all kinds of controversies swirling around him?

If Hillary Clinton can be investigated, why not Trump? The Trump Wiretapping accusations seems like some kind of inside trap where Trump makes an accusation, everyone in government immediately denies it, then proof is found that Trump was right, and suddenly Trump is the savior of the American people against Big Government. I smell a scam in which the same cronies who handed Donald Trump the presidency by over investigating Hillary Clinton now pooh pooh Trump's accusation that he was wiretapped, until proof appears that Trump was right.

Once Trump refused to not release his income tax returns, he should have been open game to being wiretapped for one simple possibility, Donald Trump may have funded his entire Presidential Campaign with income tax evasion money. Of course the FBI, CIA and Department of Justice need to find out, and they needed to find out before the November 2016 Elections, which they may have, or may not have done.

Even more ironic. I think it was Rand Paul who revealed this morning on Face the Nation that the U.S. can covertly wiretap any international phone call, and if the person on the other end of the international phone call is an american citizen, then by mere association their conversation would also be wiretapped.

So, did Donald Trump fund his entire presidential campaign with income tax evasion money?  Many want to know, and for that reason alone, Trump should have been wiretapped during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Donald Trump's Insane Rant about being Phone Tapped during the Presidential Election.

I wonder if Donald Trump has some kind of imaginary time machine that makes him believe he can intertwine the past with the present in a cataclysmic storm that makes things sound much worse then they were, um, are, um, werare. 

From the man who invited Russian hackers to hack into the DNC (which he probably already knew had been done through his own sources but wanted to use his announcement as ground zero for such a hack that  had already occurred, for one to occur, once again, his imaginary time machine at work), Donald Trump is demanding an investigation into the possibility that as an un vetted private citizen who may have paid for his entire presidential campaign with Income Tax Evasion Money, or who may have had a secure server hooked up to Russia, or who may have bribed IRS officials, and who probably violated FCC rules when he falsely and repeatedly called Hillary Clinton a criminal for personal and political gain, that he was targeted!

DailyPUMA started a Change Dot Org Petition requesting Donald Trump be "Reaudited" BEFORE he took office. Of course Donald Trump needed to be vetted, and if took wiretapping his phones to make sure he did not have a secret server hooked up to Russia, or possibly bribed IRS officials with escorts and other amenities such as staying at Trump Hotels for free or next to nothing, or was accepting Russian Intel to discredit the DNC and Hillary Clinton, or funded his entire presidential campaign with income tax evasion money, or was fraudulent using the airwaves to call Hillary Clinton a criminal when she has never been convicted of a crime, then of course the FBI / CIA and the Department of Justice had the right to wiretap private citizen Trump.

Trump  has somehow created the fantastical Jesus Persecution fantasy that as president, Trump was wiretapped by a prior president while he was still pre-president. The mind snaps not only at the level of such incredulously mind numbing interplanetary time warped string theory imagination, but that conservatives are somehow taking seriously the man who repeatedly called Hillary Clinton a criminal and demanded the fourth person in line for the presidency be put in jail for maybe, maybe declassifying intel that was within her right to declassify.

The correct answer from the FBI and CIA and the Department of Justice should not have been to deny wire tapping accusations, but to simply state that "anyone who may be breaking the law is subject to investigation, if Mr. Trump feels he broke the law while he was running for the presidency, than it is possible he was wiretapped. If Mr. Trump wishes to elaborate any illegal activity he may have been involved in while running for president or before he ran for president, the FBI / CIA or Department of Justice can conduct a search to see if he was wiretapped regarding illegal activities Mr. Trump may have participated in".

The idea that the same entities who overly and improperly vetted Hillary Clinton, costing her the 2016 presidential election, may have also wire tapped private citizen Trump for illegal activities, yeah, that's outrageous in Trump's mind, and that does concern DailyPUMA. 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Cannonfire with Explosive Revelation, Hillary Clinton had the Power to DeClassify anything, therefore the entire Email Scandal was a Scam.

Quoting Cannonfire… 

"The "illegal leak" bit is a reference to the Obama "tapp" claim. The counterargument here would be that Trump has the authority to declassify anything he likes. 

You know who else had the authority to declassify material (within her department)? Hillary Clinton. Thus, even if she had sent messages containing classified information -- which she did NOT, despite Mike Pence's recent repetition of that false claim -- so what? She had the authority to declassify. " - End of Quote.

DailyPUMA hinted at the same concept last year but did not make it in such a clear and concise manner. DailyPUMA's point was that the sending of any email by Hillary Clinton can only result in an investigation if the email information is either intentionally sent to someone who then acts on the information for the singular purpose of personal gain, or the info is used to damage the U.S., AND the S.O.S. had to know that that was the intent of the intel they were sharing.

DailyPUMA also made the point that the sending of email could simply be a ruse to fool others that might be trying to hack info from the U.S., that the FBI was actually the entity giving out classified intel by claiming that all email transactions are 100% truthful, and if the FBI knew that all email transactions are not necessarily truthful, then the FBI falsely investigated Hillary Clinton by conveniently forgetting the possibility of false intel being transmitted via email for the purpose of tricking prospective hackers.

DailyPUMA also made the point that Hillary Clinton, as a woman, had a smaller circle of independent female thinkers who had worked as S.O.S. accessible to her than if she had been a man, and by now ostracizing her over basically nothing, aka attempting to have her own inner circle people to learn from, it was sexism at play because if Hillary Clinton had been a man, she would have had a much bigger pool to pick from. 

An SOS cannot take all of their enrichment from the FBI and the President, they need to have some level of independence so that they can present outside the box thinking, and for that, the Male dominated political system made Hillary Clinton pay.

And therein lies the irony of Cannonfire's premise, Hillary Clinton was fourth in line from the presidency when she was Secretary of State, since when do we allow underlings to have status over the Secretary of State? Imagine owning a donut shop and the head chef fires you for giving away a recipe of theirs that is not even going to a rival! The chef has other options available to them, they can sue, or they can quit, or ask for a raise to compensate the loss of intellectual property, but they cannot fire the owner. Hillary Clinton was the owner, but being in a male dominated echelon, the males were able to keep her off balance regarding this salient point, and Hillary Clinton had no female inner circle to draw upon.

In the TV Show, "Castle", there is an episode in which Kate Beckett, (played by Stana Katic) is interviewed for the position of Commander of her precinct. The interview goes horribly as she is basically "manhandled" by the men interviewing her. She walks out of the meeting basically petrified, then suddenly she has a revelation, comes back into the interview room, and basically tells the men to eff off. It turns out that was the test, to see if she would cowtow to the male establishment, or not. By not cowtowing to the male establishment, she proved her mettle and was awarded the promotion to commander. wow.

Unfortunately, if Hillary Clinton had had the "balls" to tell everyone to fuck off, that she was fourth in command and an underling cannot have supremacy over her, the media would have gone nuts and declared her a power hungry bitch. It would have taken Hillary Clinton having her own media channel to defend her for her to have fought back in the manner that she should have fought back.

Meanwhile, we now have a power hungry super bitch in the oval office who is declassifying everything in sight even after condemning Hillary Clinton by convincing his "Gullibles" that it was illegal for her to do back then what Trump is now doing at supersonic speed.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

President Trump Full Speech on USS Gerald R. Ford 3/2/17 Equates War with Sports, and "Winning".

Donald Trump equated War with Sports, promising that America would either prevent War, or Win when engaged. When Sports Heroes equate playing football with War, they are admonished. 

Is it any different when our president equates War with Sports by claiming we would win? War should never be equated with sports since the goal of war is to kill the opposing side, not outscore them.

The video link below is basically cued up at the four minute mark once the commerical finishes or you click skip commercial. I can't figure out how to make it stop after his winning comment so you will need to hit stop unless you are a glutton for punishment. 

Keep in mind that Robotics and Drones are the future of War, so I'm not exactly sure how building more and more aircraft carriers makes us safer when in a couple more years a well placed drone or two with a bomb on it will probably be able to cripple an aircraft carrier.

https://youtu.be/S4MAjNfqVZk?t=4m

And lets also remember that the next war may be fought in space in which satellites are either hacked or attacked.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Donald Trump has a Conflict of Interest Issue when it comes to curbing the EPA.

Regarding the EPA, Donald Trump, You can't gut this.  

If Donald Trump cuts EPA funding or regulations in any way, Trump basically risks a conflict of interest charge regarding his business relations with China. 

China struggles with making U.S. EPA compliant products on a daily basis. I can attest that I have noticed a foul smell that permeates at least some products that are made in China that are black in color. Be it fabric, plastic, or metal, if it is black in color and made in China, it possibly has a foul odor. Put another way, if that same product was same in the exact same way in the U.S., that product would possibly be sanctioned, augmented or rejected until whatever was causing the foul smell was fixed.

If Donald Trump rescinds any part of the present EPA regulations, he makes it easier for China to pass EPA inspections. This can only be seen as a quid pro quo simply because Trump has business interests in China.

Trump would be better off maintaining EPA policy and simply enforcing that China follows the same policy for any product they plan on importing into the U.S.

By lowering EPA standards, Donald Trump catapults China much closer, or into suddenly being compliant regarding future products they plan on importing into the U.S.  

Ironically, Lowering EPA standards will make China MORE Competitive with U.S. Manufacturers, who will still face legal action for production methods and products that are known to cause cancer.

If Donald Trump has any debt or business dealings with China, rescinding the EPA, or weakening the EPA, becomes a conflict of interest because China benefits if EPA regulations are relaxed. I have read that presidents cannot be accused of conflicts of interest, I doubt that applies to the trading of the health and welfare of U.S. citizens so a president's Chinese / International business dealings thrive.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Donald Trump's Twisted Plan to "be better than China" by relaxing EPA guidelines even as China realizes their environmental mistakes.

Donald Trump appears to be salivating with the idea of besting China to the point that he is willing to relax EPA guidelines so that America can be Great Again. 

Trump refused to apologize for his McCain not being a War Hero comment because Trump "gained seven points" in the Republican presidential race after he made his McCain comments.

If Trump is fueled by numbers, then he will probably feel emboldened to relax EPA standards just so a year or two from now he claim victory in creating American Jobs and besting China. I routinely return products made from China that are black in color. The black products from China seem to all emit a foul odor. I don't know for sure that that means the product has toxins in it, but I doubt that a bad smell is a good thing. 

So I guess in the future when I proudly buy a Made in America product, I can expect more of the same foul smell? Or maybe the foul smell will be muted with some other chemical compound that makes the bad smell, smell good?  Either way, Trump's promise to bring jobs back to America may really be nothing more than bringing China's overly toxic practices back to America.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

In Donald Trump's World, being a POW is not Heroic, but dying for one's country is.

In Donald Trump's World, being a POW is not Heroic, but dying for one's country is. And the Media ate it up last night and today. 

But wait, didn't Mr. Trump rise to prominence during the Republican debates when he chided John McCain for not being a War hero because McCain was a POW? 

Did not Donald Trump previously state that not being caught was the goal?  Trump Proudly crowed on the Don Imus show that he gained 7 points in popularity when he disagreed that John McCain was a War Hero? So now Mr. Trump gets to flip flop on his position and declare William Ryan Owens a War Hero, but John McCain is not?

The Media really has lost its compass and Donald Trump now sees that whether he chastises John McCain and claims McCain is not a War Hero, or Trump eulogizes a deceased soldier as a War Hero, thanks to the media, his popularity rises.  This is not a good thing.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Reason Number 16 for a Clinton Media Channel, Trump Invokes "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Regarding his Income Tax Returns.

DailyPUMA finds Donald Trumps Invocation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" regarding his own past income tax filing a direct betrayal to Trump's ongoing claim that the Clinton brand did nothing when they were in the Oval Office.

Reason number 16 why the Clintons need their own media channel, to point out the hypocrisy of those who condemn the Clintons while borrowing from past Clinton successes.

Could you imagine if Hillary Clinton had responded to Donald Trump's condemnation of her 30 years in public service by reminding him that he was using "Don't ask, Don't Tell" as "the" reason to ignore his Income Tax Returns.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

How Democrats become Republicans, Students violently Protest Anaheim Officer who fired Warning Shot.

Another reason why Progressives should not lead all Democrats down the path of crazy, they cause life long Democrats to suddenly turn Republican. Check out the Warning shot story, How an off-duty cop telling teens to stay out of his yard escalated to gunfire, protests and outrage, if you don't believe DailyPUMA's warning about Democrats shifting to vote Republican over these types protests.

What is now emerging, in DailyPUMA's opinion, is a travel and immigration movement that does not respect property rights. This will simply shift 10% of Democrats to vote Republican in 2020 while present Trump supporters stay the course.

Besides the link above, many interviews were done with the Anaheim protestors, the main thing they cared about was that the off duty home owning police officer fired a warning shot. Absolutely no importance was placed on property rights by these protestors, even though the background to this story includes a neighborhood history of graffiti on homeowners fences and simply invading people's yards and messing them up, as just being no big deal.

The mindset to simply want to walk on people's property and deface it is disturbing. When I went to school and it had just rained, I would throw worms that had gotten stuck on the sidewalk back onto the grass so they would not die. The idea that youngsters nowadays simply want to damage the property of those they walk by, destroy rather than nurture, is basically the act of a future criminal.

Once the Trump Administration figures out how to better align their message, that illegal and rampant immigration is creating a society that disrespects home property rights, Trump will regain his footing.

This is just another reason why Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton need to re-establish their own successful record of the 90's rather than fall in line with the progressive crazies of today.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

The Clintons at the Crossroads.

The rift within the Democrat Party (yes, its democrat, not democratic, and gasp, DailyPUMA heard the democrat vs democratic take on Rush Limbaugh's show several years ago, the one time every six months DP listened to him) could produce a second Trump term. Already Progressives are bandying about names for 2020, Biden, Michelle Obama, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to name the frontrunners.

The problem is Clinton Supporters may not take kindly to Hillary Clinton not being given another chance in 2020, IF SHE IS UP TO IT.  

DailyPUMA would probably vote Trump over Sanders in 2020, since Sander's prolonged screeds against Hillary Clinton in 2016 damaged her just enough to make her vulnerable to the on going fake news attacks she endured. 

Plus, Sanders had a way of publicly supporting Hillary Clinton while using body language that seemed to say "what a tragedy that I did not win" even as he was supporting Hillary Clinton.

There are several things the Clintons should do if Hillary Clinton wants to run again in 2020. 

1. The first is for Hillary Clinton to get in bad ass shape. I mean run a half marathon shape, or at the very least, exercise on an elliptical exercise machine for half and hour to 45 minutes and be able to do a phone interview at the same time. The jury is out as to why Hillary Clinton was never shown being physically active during the 2016 campaign. Surely Hillary Clinton's personal videographer must have suggested some type of millennial recognized and approved physical activity, no?
2. Hillary Clinton needs to stop being seen in all the right places and instead focus on Jimmy Carter style of social interaction. Use Clinton Foundation opportunities and meld into the U.S. and into the red states with projects that help people and communities.
3. Debunk the fake Clinton Derangement Syndrome news stories. Explain Haiti. Make documentaries that show why several policies from the 90's were the best move for that time period.
4. Fund documentaries that will establish the success of the 90's. 
5. Learn to not fall in love with the perfect 30 second political ad and instead learn to blitz the opposing side with literally dozens upon dozens of political commercials.
6. Start a Clinton Media Channel.

If the Clintons don't initiate some of the preceding suggestions and somehow Hillary Clinton gets another chance in 2020, she may lose again to Donald Trump because she will just come off as an even older version of the same candidate who isn't physically fit enough to handle being president. 

If Hillary Clinton does not run in 2020, Donald Trump may win again as it will take a mere 10% of the Clinton voters from 2016 to protest and either stay out of the 2020 race or vote Trump out of spite to the inevitable 2020 Democrat Progressive Candidate.

If Hillary Clinton takes some of the suggestions outlined above, and shows up in 2020 physically fit, she would still be a viable presidential candidate.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

The Snowden Effect and Hillary Clinton's Emails.

Assuming Russia has access to Edward Snowden's stolen NSA information, what if Russia was able to discover that there were secret agent moles in high Russian places? Rather than simple removing the moles immediately, what if Russia sat on the Russian Mole information and instead started giving out disinformation to the newly discovered Russian moles, actually keeping them in the loop, but in a controlled, disinformation manner?

What if the FBI or CIA, concerned that their Russian moles had been comprised, but unsure, came up with the Hillary Clinton email scandal in an effort to keep the media narrative off of the issue of compromised Russian Moles and onto something that was actually much more mundane?

What if Russia then used their ongoing relationship with Donald Trump and simply started feeding him intel obtained through Snowden's stolen NSA information?

Could the entire 2016 presidential race have been a spy vs spy motif in which the FBI uses Hillary Clinton's emails to subvert discussion about more serious matters while Russia shares their secret intel with Trump, feeding Trump secrets and leaking DNC email in an effort to ensure his 2016 victory?

Was 2016 the year of a Spy vs Spy presidential race? Cannonfire suggests that Trump is in trouble with U.S. intelligence and believes that Trump or persons within his administration gave up several moles within the Russian Government once Trump became president.

Or did those moles outlive their usefulness once Trump was elected president since both Trump or people within his inner circle, and Russian intel already knew they were moles?

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Reason Number 8 Why we Need a Clinton Media Channel, Meet the Press makes Solid Points about the Progressive left leading the Democrats to Doom.

Meet the Press, February 12, 2017 program. One of the final segments of the show basically support the need for a Clinton Media Channel by stating that the Progressive portion of the Democrat party is leading the charge against Trump. Here are portions of the transcript to ponder.

CHUCK TODD:

Welcome back, my next guest is part of a rare and dying breed, a centrist and a moderate. A moderate Democrat. Jim Webb was secretary of navy under Republican President Ronald Reagan. He voted for George W. Bush over Al Gore. But by 2006 he had switched parties to become a Democrat and he won a U.S. Senate seat in Virginia. Jim Webb takes a somewhat more optimistic view of the potential for a Trump presidency. And he joins me now, Senator Webb, welcome back to the show.

FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:

Well, nice to be here.

CHUCK TODD:

So let's put some context to your words when you wrote an op-ed right before, literally the day before the inauguration in the Wall Street Journal. And it was mostly on foreign policy where you were saying, "There's something about his election is a jolt the system needed or a shock that it needed." What --explain.

FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:

Well, you know, in so many words here. I didn't say that the system needed a President Trump. But I've been saying for a long time that the system that we're operating under needs some sort of a, you would call it, jolt. You know, I think both parties have sort of gotten calcified.

And let's remember that if Hillary Clinton had won you would be seeing the same sort of activities that you're seeing now. They would just be focused on different things. There would be people out there saying she belonged in jail. There would be people talking about corruption. Turnstile government, et cetera, et cetera.

So what we're seeing playing out right now, first of all, as the governor mentioned this is a new administration, you know, getting its wheels under it. But at the same time, this is an attempt by President Trump to pull different types of people into the system from the old turnstile government. There's a lot of Republicans that are mad at him who are sitting out there in the think tanks thinking that they were going to come into a Republican administration.

And also he's got a payback I think that he feels strongly about in terms of the people who actually put him over, these voters that were alienated, were not voting. And these issues, controversial issues, that he's putting out in a wrong kind of forum I think are issues of credibility. On the Democrats, first of all, they're looking at 2018. And they don't have a message. They don't have a--

CHUCK TODD:

Speak to them as they, by the way.

FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:

--well, you know.

CHUCK TODD:

You don't say we. Is there a reason?

FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:

I'm not in the system right now as, you know, I'm over here with you right now--

CHUCK TODD:

Fair enough. Okay.

FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:

--bit of my life as a writer and a journalist. And it's a good place to be about making these observations.

CHUCK TODD:

Then welcome back. And finish the observation.

FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:

Well, you know, there is a campaign going on on the Hill, in the media, in the academia to personally discredit not only Donald Trump but the people who are around him. And, you know, the end result of this really is try and to slow down the process, by the way. You and I were talking a minute ago about the confirmation process, it's slow it down so that by 18 when the Democrats are very vulnerable particularly in the Senate they will not be a record of accomplishment that they can run against.

And at the same time the Democratic Party over the past five or six years has moved very far to the left. You know, when you can't have a Jefferson/Jackson dinner which was the primary, you know, celebratory event of the Democratic Party for years because Jefferson and Jackson were slaveholders, they were also great American in their day, something just different has happened to the Democratic Party.

CHUCK TODD:

You think that they're too focused on identity politics?

FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:

Well, I think that the message that has been shaped by the Democratic Party has been shaped toward identity politics. And they've lost the key part of their base, the people in, you know, my family history goes back to the Roosevelt Democrats, the people who believed that regardless of any of these identity segments you need to have a voice in a quarters of power for those who have no voice. And we've lost that with the Democratic Party. I'm not saying the Republicans have it. But--

CHUCK TODD:

I was just going to say the center's been hollowed out. You can make an argument that the political center in both parties, because right now if you espouse that you were running for reelection, any Democrat were espousing what you just espoused which is, you know what, look, essentially you're saying, hey, start working with him a little bit, accept the fact that he's President, you'd get primaried. And you'd probably lose.

FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:

Well, true. Well, I don't know about--

CHUCK TODD:

I understand you, but I'm saying Democratic incumbent.

FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:

Generally, you know.

CHUCK TODD:

Fair enough.

FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:

That is a danger to people who would say those sorts of things. But the Democrats have not done the kind of self-reflection that they should have starting 2010. And I was talking about this in the '10 elections. You've lost white working people. You've lost flyover land.

And you saw in this election what happens when people get frustrated enough that they say, "I'm not going take this aristocracy." You know, Bernie, good friend of mine. Bernie can talk about aristocracies all he wants. You know, the fact that you've made money doesn't make you a member of that philosophy. Look at Franklin Roosevelt. But there is an aristocracy now that pervades American politics. It's got to be broken somehow in both parties. And I think that's what the Trump message was that echoed so strongly in these flyover communities.

CHUCK TODD:

Let me ask you on the election, you stayed away from saying who you supported in the election. I know that Tim Kaine is somebody you have a lot of respect for. I can't imagine you didn't vote for him.

FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:

I voted for Tim Kaine for Senator.

CHUCK TODD:

For Senator. At the end of the day, are you comfortable with your vote, with whoever you voted for?

FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:

I'm comfortable for my vote and my vote is private to me. But at the same time, you know, I will say that I did not endorse Hillary Clinton. I had a lot of the concerns that, you know, people in my group that I've grown up with have. And the Democratic Party's got to do some real, hard looks at whether or not they are going to expand and get back working people who used to be the core of their party.

CHUCK TODD:

Are you done with politics?

FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:

I'm over here with you right now.

CHUCK TODD:

All right. I will leave it there. Senator Jim Webb apparently coming back to the journalism world. We'd welcome you back--

FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:

Thank you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am somewhat amazed that Mr. Webb did not understand that Hillary Clinton is a Moderate Liberal who was forced to run as a progressive because of Bernie Sanders. She could have picked Warren as her VP, instead she went with Kaine, who Webb likes, yet Webb still wouldn't vote for Clinton. This is just another man who was afraid to support a female president. But the points Chuck Todd made about a hollowed out center are correct in DailyPUMA's opinion, and point to the Clintons needing to protect their 90's achievements and then move forward from there.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Later on, the following was heard….

CHUCK TODD:

And governor (Republican Pat McCrory), I want you to have the last word on this, it's something we discussed in break which is your party pulled you to the right. All right? There's plenty of evidence that says that in some of these things that hit you and cost you your reelection were not things that were priorities for you. But it was priorities for your base. You couldn't-- you felt like you couldn't fight your base. What's your advice to the Democrats?

FMR. GOV. PAT MCCRORY:

I think Elizabeth Warren's doing the same thing to the Democratic Party. I think some of the left-wing protesters, the coordination of a lot of left-wing groups are pulling the entire party to the left. And I agree with the senator that there is a purging.

I mean, look at even the Nordstrom's issue with Trump's daughter where those sales are going down because there was pressure on them not to buy that product. The pressure right now on people even attaching themselves to the president and impacting their business is so strong that it's a heck of a campaign. Whether that's a long-term strategy, I don't think it is. It's not a good one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DailyPUMA agrees that right now what is fueling the Democrats is Progressive Outrage. Moderate Democrats who strongly backed Hillary Clinton quietly delude themselves that the Progressive outrage is over Hillary Clinton losing because of James Comey letter and fake news stories.

Sadly, the Progressives are just wildly angry and thus and will fight for anyone BUT Hillary Clinton in 2020. This in turn will offend millions of Clinton supporters who may rather vote for Trump for a second term rather than vote for Sanders or Biden or Michelle Obama. The present situation just cries out for Reason Number 8, Why we need a Clinton Media Channel.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.