Hillary Clinton went on a tear yesterday blaming everything and everybody for her 2016 presidential campaign failure. Hillary brought up Macedonians not once, but thrice in her rant.
Mr. Spock and Aristotle were not present in her logic as she droned to interviewers Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg,
“And I have a lot of sympathy at this point. Kara doesn’t, but I do [KS laughs] for people trying to make these decisions. I would just urge them to hurry up. Because even if you err slightly more on the curating editorial decision-making, so some voices are going to be cut off, some fake news outlets, the guys in Macedonia are going to be denied entry into your platform, I’d rather see us erring on that side for a while to see what the effects are, instead of being kind of overwhelmed by the challenge, like, “What do you do?” I mean, how do you try and determine who should or shouldn’t be on your site? And so I think it’s a mixed bag.”
Alexander, like Hillary, wanted to be boss. Or, as Alan Rickman’s Hans Gruber famously said in Die Hard,
“And when Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.” Benefits of a classical education.
(If you want to be pedantic about whether Hans Gruber quoted Plutarch correctly, do knock yourself out. This post is about Hillary.)
Instead of antiquity, Hillary was referring to “guys over in Macedonia who are running these fake news sites,” thus checking two items off her pretext list: electoral interference from overseas and fake news.
The message is clear: in Hillary’s mind, we uneducated rubes can’t exercise own own judgement, because, if we had, she would be POTUS.
Unlike Alexander, Hillary wept because she could not conquer. I’m actually relieved she’s not POTUS. That interview leaves the aftertaste, as Scott Johnson put it, that, “To borrow a phrase from Milton, herself is Hell.”
Liberals and members of the mainstream media–okay, other than how they earn their paychecks there isn’t much difference between the two–have many intellectual flaws. But I’m going to zero in on just one here–their predilection to view all events through the sphere of the ’60s. For this discussion I’m going to bend time a bit–and call the ’60s as the years of 1964-1974, the period that covers Vietnam and the anti-war protests, the Civil Rights movement, and the Watergate Scandal. Richard M. Nixon, by the way, was elected to the presidency in 1968.
Older journalists looked back at the first and second Gulf Wars with nostalgia, especially when the anti-war protests broke out and during the pre-surge quagmire of 2005-2007. Younger journalists felt cheated by their absence from that first quagmire, Vietnam, and they didn’t want to miss out on what they saw as a second one.
Very few reporters who were on the job during Watergate are still working in journalism, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward. who is 74, is a notable exception, so those in the biz now are hoping that President Donald Trump’s firing of embattled (yes, embattled) FBI Director James Comey is their Watergate, which of course crescendoed with Nixon’s resignation before his almost certain removal from office by the Senate.
Watergate was of course much more than the break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel, it was the cover up as well as the side scandals, such as the White House Plumbers, the dirty tricks, and the slush funds that made it America’s gravest political scandal.
Trump’s firing of Comey was ham-handed. If he had canned Comey shortly after being sworn-in, there would have been muted criticism from the left, as many Hillary Clinton supporters blamed Comey for her defeat last fall. Comey of course, in 2016’s October Surprise, reopened the investigation of Clinton’s reckless and illegal use of a home-brewed email server while she was Barack Obama’s secretary of state. Many prominent Democrats called for Comey’s resignation. When Trump did fire Comey last week, the White House didn’t know where to find him–Comey was in Los Angeles. And he learned of his dismissal from a television news report. And Trump, in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, contradicted the explanation from his deputy press secretary as to why he fired Comey. Finally, Trump’s hint that he may have taped one of his conversations with Comey doesn’t help the president’s case the public.
The media of course is drawing parallels to Comey’s firing to that of Richard Nixon forcing the dismissal of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox in the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Yes, Trump cited “this Russia thing” as one of the reasons for getting rid of Comey, but what is this “Russian thing?” Collusion? Meanwhile James Clapper, Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence said only a few hours ago that there is no evidence of any Trump campaign collusion with Russia.
And who seriously believes that Russia hacked the presidential election?
So repeat after me. “Russian collusion” is not Watergate. James Comey is not Archibald Cox. Donald Trump is not Richard Nixon. While we’re at it, Black Lives Matter is not the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and the regular anti-conservative riots at Berkeley are not the Free Speech Movement.
So what does Woodward, who along with Carl Bernstein broke the Watergate scandal for the Washington Post, think about the Comey controversy? While conceding on Fox News Sunday this morning that there are some questions on Russia that he wants answered, he also told host Chris Wallace, “This is not yet Watergate. Not a clear crime.”
China’s bid to influence the 1996 election for Bill Clinton stands as one of the most damning examples of foreign interference in the U.S. political process.
Unfortunately, the Chinese connection has largely been forgotten, including its continuation in Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016.
Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign received millions of dollars in illegal contributions from Chinese donor that were channeled through the Democratic National Committee, according to a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Reform.
Johnny Chung, a businessman born in Taiwan, had a partner, Liu Chaoying, a high-ranking military leader and intelligence officer in China. Liu wired hundreds of thousands of dollars, which illegally went to the DNC. The duo also sent campaign funds to U.S. Sen. John Kerry for his reelection bid to the Senate. Liu’s father was one of Mao’s fellow travelers.
Chung visited the White House nearly 50 times—most of them authorized by Hillary Clinton. In one visit, Hillary met with Chung and his visiting delegation of Chinese businessmen from state-run companies. After another visit, Chung paid the DNC $50,000. In exchange, Chung was allowed to bring some of his investors to see the president deliver one of his radio addresses.
Another operative for the Clintons was John Huang, who raised millions of dollars for Dollar Bill in the Asian-American community. In 1996, Huang bundled $3.4 million for the DNC—much of which was returned after a Senate investigation found that the contributions were illegal.
Charlie Trie owned a restaurant in Little Rock that was frequented by his friend then-Governor Clinton. After Clinton won the presidency, Trie went to Washington to cash in on their friendship. He thought his association could help him develop more business contacts in Asia. One of them was Hong Kong businessman Ng Lap Seng. Seng would wire a million dollars to Trie. From 1994 to 1996, Trie directly sent $200,000 to the DNC. Trie provided the rest of the money to other people who later sent that money to the DNC. Trie also helped raised another $640,000 for Bill Clinton’s Legal Defense Fund.
According to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 94 people were called to testify about the illegal campaign contributions to the 1996 Clinton campaign and the DNC. Of nearly 100 people called before the committee, 57 invoked the Fifth Amendment, 18 fled the country and 19 foreign witnesses refused to testify.
But the China connection to the Clintons didn’t end there. A Chinese billionaire gave the Clinton Foundation $2 million in 2013. The Justice Department investigated the payment from Wang Wenliang, a former delegate to the Chinese parliament. No charges were filed.
Fast forward to Hillary’s 2016 campaign and the Wikileaks emails from the DNC.
The Chinese ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, requested a meeting with Hillary Clinton’s top aides in January 2016, according to an internal email circulated among the former Secretary of State’s senior presidential campaign officials.
“Chinese Ambassador Cui invited me over to the residence Tuesday for a coffee and to make a request. He wants to have an informal, private, off the record get together with a few of us to discuss the next year and the current state of US-China affairs,” wrote Clinton campaign aide Kurt Campbell in the Jan. 7, 2016, email to campaign head John Podesta.
“He asked me to host a social meal at my house in the next month. He was fairly insistent and indicated that he wanted to pass along some perspectives. I told him I’d reach out to you all to see about your judgement [sic] on this and possible availability. I’m happy to make some chili and cornbread by the fire but let’s first decide whether this makes sense. Please let me know your thinking,” Campbell wrote.
Somehow these deep connections between the Clintons and the Chinese have gone mostly unnoticed in the current kerfuffle about foreign involvement in presidential elections.
Donald J. Trump’s presidential honeymoon with the media lasted sixteen minutes, which was, not coincidentally, the length of his inauguration address.
Since then, the media, with a few exceptions, has been relentlessly attacking the president, and by media, I’ll use the definition Rush Limbaugh gave this morning to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, which is ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and USA Today.
I’ll add one more–a big one, CNN, sometimes called the Clinton News Network.
The media is striking back with an assault on the presidency not seen since the height of the Watergate scandal.
And Donald Trump is fighting them–and the media can’t ascertain why much of the public, their public, is siding with the president.
Because conservatives don’t like cheaters.
Among the damning revelations from the John Podesta emails hacked by WikiLeaks was clear evidence of collusion by some of these allegedly neutral outlets during the 2016 presidential campaign, most notoriously when CNN analyst Donna Brazile twice supplied a planned question to the Hillary Clinton campaign prior to a CNN-hosted debate with Bernie Sanders.
Viewers of those two CNN debates were cheated by CNN, which employed Brazile, as they rightly expected the Clinton-Sanders matchups to be, let’s use a popular term from the time when several Chicago White Sox players conspired to throw the 1919 World Series, “on the square.” Sure, Brazile, was fired, but only after she was caught the second time feeding a debate question to the Clinton machine. That says a lot. Oh, where did Brazile learn of these questions? Did they come from a low-level CNN staffer?
Liberals, with the possible exception of the most ardent members of the growing socialist wing of the Democratic Party, dismissed Brazile’s cheating as just the way the game is played, which is not how White Sox fans greeted news of the 1919 fix broke a year later.
Before there was fake news there was a fake World Series.
Here is my conservative-or-liberal litmus test: If you were angry–or still are angry–about media collusion with the Democratic Party during the 2016 campaign, they you are a conservative. If you are not, they you’re a liberal. It’s that easy.
Which explains why the media, again using the definition I gave earlier, is astounded that Trump not only attacks them millions of Americans are cheering him on.
After dutifully reporting on media collusion immediately after it was revealed, the media promptly ignored the scandal–their scandal–which is not the case with Russian interference, and yes, alleged hacking of the election by Russia of the presidential election, whatever that entails. It probably entails nothing. WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, repeatedly insists that Russia was not the source of the hacked Podesta emails.
Okay, you skeptics out there, you are probably thinking to yourselves that I am citing only two examples of CNN collusion, and that done by an analyst, not a reporter.
When Trump said on the stump “the system is rigged,” the colluders proved him right.
The Forgotten Man and the Forgotten Woman, that is, the people who play by the rules and try to make an honest living under increasingly daunting odds, elected Trump, despite the rigging.
And the cheating media still can’t figure out why most Americans despise them.
You Democratic cynics are probably still thinking, “Everyone does it.” No they don’t. Very few media outlets are conservative ones, so the opportunity simply isn’t there for Republicans to collude. The only instance of GOP collusion in a presidential campaign I can recall is George Will’s vague self-described “inappropriate” role in the 1980 Debategate micro-scandal.
On the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe it’s appropriate to remind ourselves that it was before the image of Our Lady that Hillary committed one of the great cultural gaffes of her time as Secretary of State.
Hillary visited the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and was shown the image of Our Lady kept there and asked this question:
After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”
1. There is no under-sketch or under-drawing on the image.
Infrared photography has demonstrated that there is no sketching on the image whatsoever. Dr. Philip Callahan, a research biophysicist from the University of Florida explains: “It is inconceivable that an artist in the 16th Century would paint a portrait without first doing a drawing on it.” Making an under-sketch prior to painting a portrait goes back to antiquity. Such an exquisite depiction on textile made from cactus fiber is inexplicable given the lack of sketching.
2. The image has lasted and shows no signs of deterioration.
Juan Diego’s tilma is made of a rough cactus fiber which normally disintegrates in 15 to 30 years. Yet, the image of Guadalupe has remained intact for 484 years without fading or cracking. Moreover, it was subjected to candle smoke for many years, which should have accelerated the process of deterioration.
In 1778, a worker accidentally spilled strong nitric acid onto a large portion of the image. To everyone’s astonishment, only slight stains appeared which can still be seen in the upper right side. Additionally, in 1921 a bomb concealed in some flowers was placed on the altar directly under the image. When the bomb detonated, the marble altar rail and windows 150 feet away were shattered, a brass crucifix was twisted out of shape, but the image was left unharmed.
3. The stars that appear on the image are astrologically correct.
In 1983 Dr. Juan Homero Hernandez and Fr. Mario Rojas Sánchez discovered that the stars on the image correspond precisely to the constellations of the winter sky on December 12th, 1531. Incredibly, the constellations are shown as viewed from outside the heavens, in other words in reverse. It is as if we have a picture from someone looking at it from outside the universe, it is a snapshot of heaven and earth from the very moment that Juan Diego saw Our Lady.
4. Mary’s eyes are astonishingly life like.
Of all the characteristics of the image, this is perhaps the most astounding. The microscopic likeness of a bearded man was discovered in the pupils of the Virgin; first in 1929, and again in 1951. The bearded man corresponds to contemporaneous pictures of Juan Diego. No human painter could have foreseen putting infinitesimally small images of Juan Diego in the eyes of the Virgin so that later advances in human technology could detect them. Furthermore, it is impossible for any human to have painted the images because they are simply too miniscule to produce.
Jose Aste Tonsmann, a Peruvian ophthalmologist, examined Mary’s eyes at 2,500 times magnification. He was able to identify thirteen individuals in both eyes at different proportions, just as a human eye would reflect an image. It appeared to be the very moment Juan Diego unfurled the tilma before Bishop Zumárraga.
Dr. Jorge Escalante Padilla a surgical ophthalmologist considers these reflections to belong to the type which have been described by Cherney on the back surface of the cornea and by Watt & Hess at the center of the lens. Such reflections are very difficult to detect. Dr. Escalante also reported the discovery of small veins on both of the eyelids of the image. In the 1970s, a Japanese optician who was examining the eyes fainted. Upon recovering he stated: “The eyes were alive and looking at him.” [Janet Barber, Latest Scientific Findings on the Images in the Eyes, page 90.] Incredibly, when Our Lady’s eyes are exposed to light, the retinas contract. When the light is withdrawn, they return to a dilated state.
You might think she would have known some background and quit while she was behind.
The version in the Mexican press is yet more cringe-inducing: After being told it was an apparition, Clinton apparently persisted, asking, “But who painted the painting, the roses,” before being informed again that God was the artist in question.
For years whenever conservatives referred to the Clinton Foundation as a money mill we were derided by both Clinton’s defenders and the press that assured us that regardless of the number of flights, five star hotels, expensive meals and booze that the Clinton Foundation covered for Bill, Hillary & Company, it was all about good works and that’s all there is too it.
AUSTRALIA has finally ceased pouring millions of dollars into accounts linked to Hillary Clinton’s charities.
What that can’t be right
The federal government confirmed to news.com.au it has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.
But this doesn’t make any sense. We were assured that the Clinton Foundation was doing good works all over the world, are we to believe that the good works that Australia believed was worth an 88 Million dollar investment just ceased or that Australia has decided that their works are good enough any more?
Why anyone would think that the contributions from Australia over the last 10 years were all about currying favor with a Sitting Senator, Sitting Secretary of State, Democrat Nominee and expected president rather than helping others.
Anyone want to bet me a five spot that the Australians won’t be the last big donor to decide to without the greens that the Clinton cash Cow lived on for years?
As the Norwegian newspaper Hegnar points out, Norway is expected to slash their contributions to the Clinton Foundation by 87% now that Hillary has lost the presidency. After contributing roughly $5mm per year to the Clinton Foundation between 2007 – 2013, the Norwegian government decided to boost their donations to ~$15mm and ~$21mm in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Ironically, that boost in contributions corresponded with Hillary’s decision to run for President in 2016…but we’re sure it’s just a coincidence. That said, it is fairly interesting that, since Hillary’s loss, Norway has decided to scale back their contributions by 87% in 2017…hmmm.
I guess that’s better than Australia which went to zero but I’m wondering what Norway’s explanation is? Does the Clinton Foundation do 87% less good than it did before?
Like a twisted version of Santa Claus, the late Fidel Castro had gifts of horror to dispense to the country over which he ruled.
He turned Cuba into a colony of the Soviet Union and nearly caused a nuclear holocaust.
He sponsored terrorism wherever he could and allied himself with many of the worst dictators on earth.
He was responsible for so many thousands of executions and disappearances in Cuba that a precise number is hard to reckon.
He brooked no dissent and built concentration camps and prisons at an unprecedented rate, filling them to capacity, incarcerating a higher percentage of his own people than most other modern dictators, including Stalin.
He condoned and encouraged torture and extrajudicial killings.
He forced nearly 20 percent of his people into exile, and prompted thousands to meet their deaths at sea, unseen and uncounted, while fleeing from him in crude vessels.
He claimed all property for himself and his henchmen, strangled food production and impoverished the vast majority of his people.
He outlawed private enterprise and labor unions, wiped out Cuba’s large middle class and turned Cubans into slaves of the state.
He persecuted gay people and tried to eradicate religion.
Many Leftist leaders have blown elegiac smoke up Raul Castro’s backside as they praise the great leadership of his dead brother. And I use the term “great leadership” without irony. We’ve seen them fawn over true dictators before and be silent when that type of leadership produces identical and inevitable outcomes. Every. Single. Time.
Fidel Castro was the epitome of a Great Leader, per the Left, because of the types of outcomes listed above, not despite them.
And even if you’re still giving the side-eye to the president-to-be—and, trust me, I am—get down on your knees and thank God that we dodged the bullet called Hillary Clinton–a true Leftist type of Great Leader.
In the Washington Post, William Wan, Tanya Sichynsky and Sandhya Somashekhar say that “There are Two Americas”—an assertion made famous by the infamous 2004 Democrat vice-presidential candidate Senator John Edwards. All are were correct and the Washington Post writers outline the many ways in which the partitioning has been made flesh.
To Kelcey Caulder, 22, the division is painfully real. The college student from Athens, Ga., feels its looming presence every time she thinks about her grandma, a Trump supporter and ardent opponent of abortion rights.
They haven’t talked much since Caulder’s grandma found out that Caulder was voting for Democrat Hillary Clinton and told her granddaughter bluntly, “You’re going to hell.”
Caulder tried to be understanding.
“I think, in her way, she was trying to be protective of me,” Caulder said. “She wasn’t saying ‘Kelcey, go to hell.’ It was more like she was saying, ‘Kelcey, don’t you know this could send you to hell?’ ”
But when her grandma unfriended her on Facebook, Caulder said, it was hard not to take it personally. Now, she is nervous about Thanksgiving, although she hopes the family dinner could be a chance to reconcile.
Korey, a student at the Georgetown University Law Center, said he is skipping Thanksgiving altogether because of lingering resentments in his family over the election. After he posted an anti-Trump message on Facebook, his father stopped talking to him, and his mother’s ex-husband threatened to write him out of his will.
Korey, who asked to be identified by only his first name to avoid further angering his relatives, said he’s not ready to reconcile. In fact, he said, he plans to confront his father over his willingness to overlook offensive statements by Trump about immigrants, minorities, disabled people and women just to beat the Democrats.
Edward and the authors of the WaPo piece point to several dividing lines, but I’d like to draw attention to another—one to which they seem oblivious.
There are two types of Americans: people who look to flawed human beings to be their Savior and people who do not. Very many Trump supporters and Clinton supporters fall on the same side of that particular delineation.
[W]e are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.
Make America great again!
The implication is that both men will do these things and their followers will be fundamentally transformed and great if we choose them to be our leader. It’s not an accident that mockers have referred to the two as Chocolate Jesus and Orange Jesus, respectively. And it also explains the animosities, even among kin.
By the way, I don’t remember any great overarching slogan from Hillary Clinton. That may be emblematic of her presidential defeats against both men. However, many of her supporters even imbued Messianism into her persona.
This proves that when God is absent, people will create their own gods. Don’t do that.
We’ll (hopefully) know who won the Presidential election late Tuesday. Regardless of who wins, the nation must learn some of the lessons that have come out in this election. Three of them are old items that were highlighted this year. Two aren’t exactly new, but they definitely hit peak importance as a result of this election.
Before we get into the elections, let’s make one important point. At the end of the day, we’re all still Americans (other than those who aren’t really Americans, but that’s another topic). As such, we need to do what we can to bring order. There will be no unity even within the parties themselves. This election has proven to be too contentious to expect any semblance of unity. However, we can all attempt to remain civil. The nation is going to be a powder keg for weeks at the very least. Cooler minds must prevail.
Now, about those lessons…
Early voting must go
Absentee ballots are necessary and righteous aspects of our voting system. Those who are unable to go to the polls on election day should be given an opportunity to vote. That doesn’t mean that early voting should be used to allow us to be lazy or avoid lines.
Early ballot applications should be frowned upon. I’m not suggesting any form of test, but the things that came out for both candidates from the time that early voting opened until election day were pieces of information Americans needed in order to cast an informed vote. Ill-informed voters are a problem without early voting. Add ignorance-encouraging early voting to the mix and the sanctity of the election is no longer beyond reproach.
Voter ID should be considered by every state
If you have to show identification to buy cigarettes, board a plane, enter a bar, or get a Costco card, you should show identification to help decide the leaders of this nation. Any arguments of racism or voter suppression are feeble and completely untenable. The risk of voter suppression is far lower than the risk of voter fraud. Every state should consider it (and no, it is not a federal issue even for national elections).
Third parties have no idea what they’re doing
Love them or hate them (or both), these two major party candidates are arguably the two weakest in modern history. If there was ever a time when third parties should have been able to make a significant impact, this was the year. The Libertarian Party decided to put up a leftist VP candidate to run with an uninformed Presidential candidate. The Green Party stayed true to their goals of having bark with no bite, a position in which they thrive. If they ever had actual power, they would trip all over themselves trying to give it to someone else.
The Constitution Party was unable to find 55 people in the state of California to fill out a form so they could at least be a write-in. On down the line, we see a combination of poor strategies and poor choices from every party, top to bottom. This is why I’m so invested in forming a Federalist Party, but that’s a whole other topic.
Issues must make a comeback
In 2012, there was a lot made of the fact that the press focused so much on Mitt Romney’s personal shortcomings. Oh, if we knew then what we know now about how low campaigns could go. The press and the voters paid so much attention to the character flaws of both candidates that most voters can only speculate about where they stand on actual issues.
We need to be talking about issues. We need to be talking about how to solve problems. We need more than a tidbit or a Tweet and until society is ready to go all-in on internet research, the media still has to deliver information on television and radio. They need to start doing that. The only question is the source of this gossip-mag journalism. Do the people guide the media about what interests them or does the media tell the people who they want to be interested in?
Change everything about the debates. Everything.
I’m not going to dwell on this lesson. You all say them. Moderators were generally awful. Questions were baiting and irrelevant. Time was too short for the answers. Many candidates in the primary had no opportunity to shine.
I’d love to see completely different debate format. Imagine questions (on the issues) asked of one candidate at the time without the other candidates present. They’re given ample time to answer it: 2-10 minutes, depending on the question. No audience. Not played live. After all of the answers are recorded, the candidates are brought together to hear all of the answers to the same question played to them for the first time. Then, they’re given 2 minutes to respond. They could attack one particular candidate. They could attack several. They could defend their own position or even change portions of their answer depending on what they heard from others. It’s far. It’s based around the issues. It’s informative. It would be fantastic.
There are other important lessons to learn from this election, but these give us plenty to work towards in 2018 and particularly in 2020.
One thing is certain: this campaign season got out of hand and it wasn’t entirely the candidates’ fault. The media played their standard leftist decoy role. The people obliged and rewarded them by tuning in 24/7. Twitter and its 140 characters became the venue for serious discussions. This election turned into a debacle. Thank the Lord it’s almost over. Hopefully.
SHREVEPORT – It is almost over. The voting part of this, anyway. The divisiveness and hostility we have developed for each other will probably linger, sadly. Some observations going into Election Day 2016:
In Louisiana over half a million voters turned out for early voting which surpasses the record set in 2012 which was 350,000 voters. Make of it what you will. Are the large numbers because of the presidential election or just because people want to go vote against David Duke? No idea.
As we close in on election day the media still holds tremendous sway over public perception. I wonder how much attention people pay to all of these polls and then say, “Oh well, Candidate A is ahead three or four points in the polls so why should I go vote?” I believe there are a great many people not being quite truthful with pollsters, but that’s just my opinion. I don’t pay much attention to polls; I favor those that support my own point of view, which is, of course a completely useless practice.
Julian Assange says that “Trump would not be permitted to win” this election. Take that with a grain of salt.
And Hillary says any Wikileaks bombshell coming out in the days before the election is likely to be false. Does that mean that the other leaks were not false?
With Hillary Clinton still so highly favored (IF you believe polls), that indicates that the general American voting population does not care that she left men to die in Benghazi, that she was cavalier with classified material to the point that she let her maid print classified documents for her, and that she takes money from governments that fund ISIS. They discount all the other baggage as well. If Bill was impeached over Monica Lewinsky, Hillary’s future impeachment will at least give them a matching set. We will have the first impeached husband and wife presidential team in the history of the world. How proud we must be.
Oh and we also have new warnings for potential terror attacks.
Stay strong, America. Whichever candidate you favor, whichever way this election goes, we are almost through with this part of it.