Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 40 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Wed May 14, 2014, 10:47 PM
Number of posts: 2,624

Journal Archives

Hillary supporter says that the truth is a very bad thing.

One of the things in history that always made me shake my head was the stupidity of dictators. One quick example if you would indulge me. Before the Nazi's invaded the Soviet Union, the British got word of the massing troops on the Soviet Border. Churchill who had as a Member of Parliament tried to save the Russians from the Soviets by voting to send British Troops to fight against the Reds sent a letter to Stalin. This letter was rejected by Stalin who focused entirely on the messenger. Then again, Stalin often refused to listen to that message from anyone. The Dictator was convinced it was all a trick by the English to get Russia into the war against the Nazi's who he had a Non Aggression pact with. Stalin was focused entirely on the messenger, instead of the message. Subsequent messages that would cause a wise man to question his conclusion were rejected because they had to be part of the same trick. The messenger was suspect because Stalin didn't like the message.

This has been widely panned in history. Stalin's troops and decisions during the war were instrumental in defeating the Nazi's. But Stalin's decisions in rejecting the messages warning him of the impending attack led to the loss of thousands of miles of territory, millions of lost Soviet lives, and a much harder battle to defeat the Nazi's. I've never read any account of this event in history where people cheered Stalin for rejecting these warnings. No historian says it's a good thing Stalin focused on the messenger instead of the message.

I have said before that I'm a truth whore. I'll take truth from anyone. This is partly because I am determined not to make the mistakes from history if it can possibly be avoided. This is one of the reasons I was willing to point out that my preferred candidate Bernie shared a lot of issues with Trump. Because I did not focus on the messenger, but on the message.

Now, the NY Times Op Ed by Zeynep Tufekci makes me laugh.

You see, who is telling you and why is way more important than what they are telling you. If some foreign power is involved, well that just means you should not only reject the message, but view anyone who does read it with suspicion. If I am a truth whore, willing to take truth from anyone. Is the opposite side of the coin make you a truth celibate? A person with no interest in sex is called asexual. What do we call someone who has no interest in truth except from approved sources?

Manning, Snowden, Ellsburg, and those who send their information to Wikileaks and similar sites are doing us a service. Notice who have I left out? Those who hack phones to steal ill conceived selfies or pictures of lovers in the buff. That isn't truth, it's sensationalism. I've always said that the people who release the truth for us are heroes. They give us the truth we need. We need to know the truth so we can tell our elected representatives what we expect from them. We need the know the truth so we can choose our representatives wisely. Without that information, we are little more than fans at a High School homecoming football game. We're going to win because our team color is blue. Go big blue!

We must have that truth, because without it we can't tell if our representatives are representing what we want them to. We can't decide what our nation is going to stand for, or against. We can't decide if we are good, or bad. Since 9-11, we have done a hell of a lot that makes us bad. Not just Republicans, or solely Democrats, but us. We have kidnapped, tossed people into black prisons, abused people, tortured people, and lied to the people of the world, and been lied to. Obama and Hillary have lied to us about why we are in Syria. Obama and Hillary have lied to us about what we were doing in Libya. We've been lied to about so many things, that I can understand the reluctance of some people to admit that truth matters.

It matters. We saw in Plutarch's Lives that Tigranes lost the war because he killed the first messenger who brought bad news. This had the predictable effect of subsequent messengers bringing only good news, but it wasn't the truth. I'll take the truth, good or bad, because I might make a bad choice even if I am armed with the truth, but I can't make anything but bad choices if I am bereft of truth before making my decisions.

It's not a football game between high school rivals. We are choosing a leader, and the truth matters in making that choice. I'll take that truth from anyone. History has many examples of people who focused on the messenger, instead of the message. Almost universally those examples are considered failures, or fools. Where do you fall in this question? Are you a truth celibate, or are you a willing to take the truth?

Did Hillary have blackmail on Bernie?

That seems to be the implication contained in the released Podesta email from Wikileaks.

This isn't in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good to flag this for him. I could send a signal via Welch--or did you establish a direct line w him?

Now what leverage could they have on Bernie, and is that why he betrayed his stated beliefs to support Hillary?

Hillary knows Globalism is bad, and does it anyway.

Experimentation is when you try something to see what happens. Sometimes the results are unexpectedly awesome. I say unexpectedly because usually the results are disastrous. How many inedible dishes are created trying out new ideas in the kitchen?

The key to experimentation is obvious. The next step is assessment. To put it simply, you must examine the results and ask did it work? If the answer is no, either you walk away and try something new, or you demonstrate that you are insane by insisting that it will work eventually. Or you can mask your insanity by pretending the failed experiment only needs a few tweaks to work perfectly.

One of the questions I've long been unable to answer is why the Democratic Party abandoned the workers who gave them a long history of success. I knew Bill and NAFTA were a part of it, but couldn't the Washington elites see what was happening?

According to Hillary, yes and they didn't care.

This interview with Hillary is interesting because of an admission from Hillary contained within.

The thumps got harder when Clinton turned to the Democratic Party. In her acceptance speech at the Philadelphia Convention, she said, “Americans are willing to work—and work hard. But right now an awful lot of people feel there is less and less respect for the work they do. And less respect for them, period. Democrats, we are the party of working people, but we haven’t done a good enough job showing we get what you’re going through.” One didn’t often hear that thought from Democratic politicians, and I asked Clinton what she had meant by it.

“We have been fighting out elections in general on a lot of noneconomic issues over the past thirty years,” she said—social issues, welfare, crime, war. “Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, but we haven’t had a coherent, compelling economic case that needs to be made in order to lay down a foundation on which to both conduct politics and do policy.”

In the nineties, President Bill Clinton embraced globalization as the overarching solution to the country’s problems—the “bridge to the twenty-first century.” But the new century defied the optimistic predictions of élites, and during this election, in a nationalistic backlash, many Americans—along with citizens of other Western democracies—have rebelled. “I think we haven’t organized ourselves for the twenty-first-century globalization,” Hillary admitted. America had wrongly ceded manufacturing to other countries, she said, and allowed trade deals to hurt workers.

Clinton has been in politics throughout these decades of economic stagnation and inequality, of political Balkanization, of weakening faith in American institutions and leaders. During this period, her party lost its working-class base. It’s one of history’s anomalies that she could soon be in a position to prove that politics still works—that it can better the lives of Americans, including those who despise Clinton and her kind.

So to summarize, the trade deals that are the foundation of the Clinton political power hurt the workers, and the nation. Worse, Hillary knows this, and hasn't done a thing to mitigate the damage done. She hasn't even turned from the thing she knows is destroying us all and instead offers a few little fixes to make it all better.

Hillary wants to give more tax credits, read that to be cuts, to companies so they will invest in R & D, and manufacturing here while telling the workers that $15 an hour is just too much.

So Hillary wants to give the rich even more, while giving us a crumb. Then she can't understand the populist revolt against her and the oligarchs that she represents.

Being ignorant means you don't know. Hillary knows how bad the trade deals have been. She isn't ignorant. She's evil. Because there is no other excuse available for someone who knows and still will not change.

Now of course the usual suspects will arrive and tell us how awesome trade deals are for Wall Street and how they support Hillary no matter what. But for the rest of you, for those who can think without triggering an alarm bell at the central control office. For the rest of you I ask this. Can you vote for someone who knows they are doing the wrong thing, and does it anyway?

Democrats are fascists.

I'm starting to understand how Whitaker Chambers felt. He abandoned the Communist Party after the Soviet Union signed the secret peace pact with Hitler's Germany. It was his testimony and evidence that got Alger Hiss labeled as a Traitor.

As I've said many times, I was a lifelong democrat who honestly believes in the social policies of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party no longer believes such nonsense.

I know, the childish thing is to say someone is a NAZI and then run away. So I've been thinking, and I'm going to demonstrate that the Democratic Party is in fact Fascist.

1) Using Agitators to manipulate public opinion. Check. The Nazi's did it in Austria.

The Democrats have done it many times.

Before you argue it's nonsense, a lie, or edited. Notice please that several people have already resigned, or been fired. They were careless and talked with outsiders, that was their real crime.

2) Press being little more than a propaganda arm. Check. Nazi's widespread use of Propaganda is well known in history.

The Democratic parties efforts should be as well known, but the Press is working hard, successfully so far, to cover up the effort.

There is a little difference. In the German Reich not going with the Propaganda could be hazardous to your health. In the US, you would be trampled by the press willingly participating in the effort to spread the propaganda.

3) Accessing information that is in conflict with the Propaganda was illegal. Check. In Nazi Germany listening to the Allied Radio Broadcasts was treasonous behavior.

In the US today, the reading of Wikileaks has been labeled a crime by Reporters who are desperate to keep from having the truth known. It's only a matter of time before the reading of anything but the authorized propaganda is a crime.

Why am I posting this? Not to convince the Democrats. Those who believe it may be surprised that I'm the one who is posting it. Those who are loyal Democrats won't even consider it. They probably won't read it, they might get in trouble with their superiors.

But the parallels are there, if you choose to open your eyes and see.

The European Union shows the doubters that Brexit was a good move after all.

The people who voted for the famed Brexit did so for a number of reasons, but one of the big reasons IMO was that the National Government of the United Kingdom was becoming little more than the equivalent of a State Government in the US. In other words they could do little more than say Yes sir whenever the true authorities in Brussels mumbled new instructions. Now, the Brexit defenders and supporters have another bit of proof that doing so was absolutely a good thing.

FREE SPEECH CRACKDOWN: EU orders British press NOT to reveal when terrorists are Muslims

MEDDLING Brussels has said the British press should not report when terrorists are Muslims in a slew of demands to the Government to crack down on the media.

That was one of 83 "recommendations" which you can read not a a suggestion, but as a requirement. One of nearly a hundred "or else suggestions" that the European Union Commission on Individual Rights put forth.

Freedom of the Press means that you don't have the Government train the press. The Press is in theory supposed to be the non partisan voice of truth. However the EU said that the Government of the UK must train reporters to not use anything that could be considered hate speech, like the religious affiliation of Terrorists.

Freedom of the Press means dealing with uncomfortable truths. It also means you can put out any opinions, ideals, and principles you believe should be included in the debate. There is a word to describe news that has been censored by the Government. There is a word that describes a Government that would censor the news and "train" reporters on what they are allowed to say.

None of the words are associated with freedom however, and that is the first part of the laudable principle being discussed. Freedom of the Press.

Could this study be the death of the "Ferguson Effect" and the "War on Police" memes?

Many times we've heard the defenders of the Thin Blue Line argue passionately that rising crime rates in cities with misconduct by police are a logical result of the police response to the increased scrutiny. The Ferguson Effect is often described as the police going fetal under increased scrutiny, afraid to take any action that might get them targeted as the next abusive cop. Many of us recognize this as utter nonsense, complete and total propagandized bullshit.

Now, a study has been conducted, and it looks at a larger picture, with far more data points than violent crime rates.

Critics of the idea of the Ferguson effect have pointed out that there is little evidence to support it. But up to this point there’s been none to debunk it, either.

In a recently published study that we conducted with our fellow sociologist David Kirk, we bring fresh data to bear on this issue. The study focuses on what happened to crime-related 911 calls in the wake of one of Milwaukee’s most publicized cases of police violence against an unarmed black man: the beating of Frank Jude in October 2004. Mr. Jude was attacked by several white off-duty police officers — and one who was on-duty — after being accused of stealing a police badge at a party. Officers boot-stomped his face, snapped his fingers and pressed pens into his ear canals. The lost badge was never recovered.

So the result after a man was stomped, brutalized, and beaten to within an inch of his life by cops searching for a lost badge? People stopped calling 911. Why bother if all they are going to do is show up and beat someone to within an inch of their lives.

The result was a reduction during the next year of an estimated 22,200 calls to 911. So the resulting spike in the crime rate had less with the cops going fetal, and far more with the cops never getting the call in the first place.

For those of us who have long doubted the pseudoscience Ferguson Effect nonsense, and the cries of the "war on cops" this study is welcome evidence we've long believed to be true. For the defenders of the Thin Blue Line, this study will be ignored. Like religion, there is little likelihood that the two groups will ever reach any understanding.

Trade is a big issue, and people on the left wonder why.

I've explained before, but to summarize. Trade between roughly equal economies is an excellent thing. This allows the competition that improves the quality of the product. One need look no further than Airbus to see what happens when two major corporations compete. The Boeing product is incorporating many of the same features regarding materials that Airbus pioneered for passenger jets. The features in the high end Mercedes are working their way into regular cars over a period of a few years.

That's competition. You come up with a way to improve safety, and I have to design my own version. I come up with a way to make the product more efficient, and you have to adapt to that to stay competitive. Free Trade between those two means that we are able to compete, and are forced to constantly strive to improve our products.

Trade between unequal economies on the other hand, is a horse of a different color. It has been clearly shown through NAFTA that those trade deals merely export manufacturing. This doesn't serve the economy long, it harms the economy in the long run, again as has been clearly shown.

I was once again reminded of these observations when I read this article.

One of the most startling developments of this most peculiar campaign season has been the emergence of trade as an electrifying political issue. We’re used to trade being the dry province of diplomats and academic economists—in large part because, for the past 20 years, trade policy has been a largely settled matter for the leadership of the two parties. On both sides, the signing of new trade agreements was long considered an obvious and unmitigated good thing.

Today, however, public fury over those same trade deals has become volcanic. Precious few Americans had even heard of the Trans-Pacific Partnership a year ago. Now, opposition to the deal is driving populists on both the left and right, and has even been adopted by the non-populist Hillary Clinton, a politician who has supported many such deals throughout her career.

We’re discovering that the consensus on trade was always something of a Washington illusion, propped up by the support of business elites plus the appearance of professional unanimity among mainstream economists. Those who doubted were dismissed as throwback isolationists, or as deluded radicals like the protesters who tried to disrupt the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle in 1999, or as union types who simply “didn’t get it” (to use the favorite expression of the New Economy 1990s), anxious to protect their obsolete Rust Belt jobs.

Even now, you read articles lauding free trade deals. They argue that these reduce barriers to selling our products to other nations. NAFTA has shown that this is a false premise. The average Mexican can't afford an American car, but they are building more of our cars all the time.

The Detroit Free Press is reporting that within the next two years, all the small Ford cars will be built in Mexico.

From an economic stand point, of course they will. With no Tariff's to offset the cheaper labor available in Mexico, why not build the cars there? Tariff's are designed to level the playing field. To make the aforementioned competition fair. Additionally it brings in much needed revenue to the Federal Government that has been running a deficit as long as I've been alive for all intents and purposes.

Competition is a great thing. Look at the Ford and Ferrari battles at Le Mans during the 1960's. Both companies pulled out all the stops, pouring money into new ideas, new technology, and new designs. The design philosophy was on display for everyone to see. Ferrari using the delicacy to make a car lighter, to make it corner faster. Ford using brute force through a huge engine that was nearly twice as large for straight line speed. Ferrari embracing fuel injection to try and gain a couple laps per tank of gasoline to try and minimize lost time in the pits. Ford embracing pure power as the answer.

Aircraft, cars, televisions, and any number of consumer products was affected by competition. Improved, and lacking improvement, left to whither and die.

Fair competition is something we all admire. In sports, and in business, and even in life. Two men who are vying for the attention of a woman are competing. We consider the one who cheats, who uses drugs or other mind altering substances a villain. We consider the one who wins fairly to be a good man for the woman. We penalize those who lie to get our business. We punish those who cheat at cards. We want a fair competition, and we want someone to win honestly.

Anyone who likes fair competition, has to substantially oppose trade deals between economic unequal nations. It's time to pull out of NAFTA. And it's time to slap tariffs on products made in Mexico. Let Ford make their cars in Mexico, and let them pay a 100% tariff for the pleasure. When their small car costs as much as a Jaguar sports car, they can explain to the stockholders why the company is plummeting in value. Competition should be fair, trade must be fair, not free.

Why would Hillary lie about her health? Because she lies about everything.

We joke and point out that some people have a knee jerk response to something. This means that the response is automatic, predictable, and can't be resisted. It's a reflex action like when your knee is tapped with a hammer, your legs jerks. Hence the name Knee Jerk.

In the case of the Clinton's, the automatic reflex action is to lie. You may argue that Politicians lie, but in the case of the Clinton's, they lie when the truth doesn't hurt.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to assume that the reports of Hillary's pneumonia are accurate. If anything, this proves the point I and others have made before. Hillary turns a minor story into a major one with the lie. The reason is obvious to everyone who isn't a Clinton Sycophant. Hillary is a knee jerk liar. It's her character, she will lie about things when the lie is worse than the truth ever could be.

Let's say that Friday Hillary's team came out and said that Secretary Clinton had been diagnosed with Pneumonia. Because of this she was canceling her schedule for a few days, and following the Doctor's instructions regarding rest and antibiotics. What would have happened? If the now stated situation, where she's going to be down for a few days and back on the trail had panned out Hillary would have looked resilient and virile. Shaking off even a minor case of Pneumonia in a few days would have made her look very strong as far as her constitution went.

But take it a step further. On Saturday they could have let the AP pool reporter in and propped Secretary Clinton up and had some pictures taken of her sitting in a big arm chair reading a folder or talking to one of her advisers. Like when they propped up Ronald Reagan after his surgery. The poor man had been shot, had surgery, and was still half zonked out on anesthesia and pain medication and they propped him up and had him smile for the camera.

The next day they had him lean out a window and wave to the crowd to show he was doing fine after his shooting. Yes it was theater, and yes we all knew it, but we also knew he couldn't be doing that bad if was able to be propped up at the window to wave.

My point is now obvious. Instead of going this route, the obvious route, the wise route, the Clinton's lied. Again. They spent all day Friday and Saturday dismissing concerns about Hillary's health. Then Sunday and they not only confirm the rumors about Hillary's health, but again show themselves to be untrustworthy.

I said it before. If you asked Hillary for the time of day, you had better check her answer carefully. I personally wouldn't trust her if she said that night was dark, and day was light without carefully parsing her words and confirming the message is accurate.

The opportunity to demonstrate the health and resilience of Hillary is gone. Buried in the Everest sized pile of lost chances that Hillary has created with her congenital need to lie.

The truth would have done so much for her, and instead her knee jerk response is to lie. Now, she's supposed to get credit for telling the truth when she dropped like she'd been poleaxed outside the WTC ceremony. No Madam Secretary. You don't get credit for being caught. You don't get credit for admitting the truth, presuming that the story we're getting now is true, when the lie can no longer be maintained.

Again, this presupposes that the pneumonia story we're getting now is true. With Hillary there may be another lie on top of the one we were told Friday and Saturday. With Hillary, the first story is never the truth, even when you ask what time it is.

Nancy Pelosi demands that the Republicans ignore hacked documents.

Nancy Pelosi in an unprecedented plea is begging the Republicans not to use the documents hacked from the various Democratic Party servers. This is laughable on several levels. Part of Nancy's letter is interesting.

"It is my hope that you will join me in opposing the NRCC or the DCCC from using any documents from Russian criminal cyber attacks in this campaign," the California Democrat continued. "Democrats and Republicans must present a united front in the face of Russia's attempts to tamper with the will of the American people."

First I'd like to point out one thing about the will of the people. It has to be informed consent. The Consent of the Governed is the principle on which our government operates. We choose our representatives, and our leaders, based upon information. We listen, and we read, and we choose to vote based upon our individual beliefs.

Informing the people about the actions, statements, and corruption of the representatives is exactly what the Press was supposed to be doing from day one. One of the reasons we have such dedication to the Freedom of the Press is the belief that the Press was the Fourth Branch of our government. Not elected like the Congress and the President. Not appointed like the Judges. But representing the people by finding the truth, and reporting the truth to the people. Informing the people, so that the people were able with their votes to give the informed consent.

Without that informed consent, we don't have a clearly expressed will. If we don't know what we're voting for, we don't have a representative republic, but are skirting dangerously close to the type of Governance we rejected. The divine right of some ruler or another.

The Soviet elections were a sham, and everyone knew it. One party was allowed to exist, and the candidates had to be approved by the party. So you were required to vote for who you were told to vote for. Or else.

Without information, our elections are similarly little more than shams. If the press has information, and withholds it, then they are not doing their jobs as intended. If the truth does not come out until after the election, then our so called will is little more than the actions of the duped, the deceived.

Jack Nicholson expressed this arrogance in the movie "A Few Good Men" when he snarled and shouted "You can't handle the truth!"

Tell us the truth. The good, the bad, the inane. The worst that can happen is we find out our representatives need to be replaced in favor of someone who will represent us. Hiding the truth, managing the information that the public gets has a name. Propaganda. Propaganda has no place in a free and open society. We can handle the truth. We can't handle finding out we were victims of a concerted effort to obscure the truth.

Nancy. The attitude of the Elected has been that we the little people have nothing to worry about being spied upon by the Government, if we have nothing to hide. Why are you so worried, how much do you have to hide from the people. It is supposed to be a Government of, by, and for the people.

Nancy, you ain't Jack Nicholson, and this is real life, not some movie.

I think I've figured out why Trump is doing as well as he is.

Of course there is the fact that the Democrats put up the worst candidate in my lifetime. But the real reason is the Media.

No, it's not that the Media is giving him a pass, or helping him. They are actively doing everything they can to stop him, and it's because of that effort that Trump is gaining.

We all remember the stories from the 1950's. The parents, media, and churches blasting the devils music known as Rock and Roll. Efforts to have it banned. Descriptions of Elvis the Pelvis. Efforts to prevent it from being heard and especially efforts to keep it from being seen. This effort continued through the 1980's, when Tipper Gore and the Washington Wives would read lyrics to the Senate and the House committee's to explain how the radical music was affecting the children.

All these efforts through to today, claims that Satan was hiding messages through backwards masking in rock albums. All of them were absolute failures. As soon as a kid heard that the music should be banned, they rushed out to get the album and play it loud and proud knowing they were thumbing their noses at society. It's the natural human desire to rebel. Alice Cooper reportedly sent a thank you letter to a critic who wanted his music banned. He realized that the demand to ban his music would insure that it was a hit with the people who refused to be told what to do.

Societies have long worked to normalize the children, and at the same time the Children work diligently to define themselves as not their parents. The most determined Liberals are often raised in households where Conservative values were taught. The most adamant anti-religious types are the ones who were raised in the church. It is a check in the rebel block to walk away, and reject the church. It's really cool to mock those who do believe because it shows how smart you were to walk away from whatever.

In other words, if someone tells people not to jump off the bridge, someone will do it just to show that you can't tell them what to do.

I was watching MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning. Everyone was shocked at the CNN poll result that showed Trump up by Two. They couldn't believe it. Every one of the people on the show agreed that no rational American would ever support Trump. This has been the thread for every single time Trump is brought up. I've watched the show many times, and every single time it was shock at the outrageous statements or behavior of Trump. I can't remember how many times I've heard that Trump has jumped the shark. Yet he's still there, and again, growing in the polls.

The pattern is pretty obvious if you look with an open mind. The media insists that Trump is awful, and nobody should support him, then his support grows. SO more media types go out and complain that only Nazi hate filled morons would support Trump. Trump gets more support. The people are rebelling. They are tired of being told who to vote for, what to think, and who to support. The more adamant the media gets, the more support Trump gets.

If this trend continues, Trump may well win the election, while every single person with access to a microphone is screaming that we can't elect Trump because he's awful.

Now, what makes this phenomenon work? Certainly not the mere presence of the Media blowing blood vessels every time Trump gets more support. Hillary makes this work. Because Hillary is in her own right, and by her own actions, a terrible candidate for any office, especially the Presidency.

Sure, some of Trump's support is disgust with the status quo. Some of it is disgust with the state of the nation. The market is up, and the jobs are poor or mediocre. But a fair portion of it is that Trump doesn't meet with the approval of those who approve wholeheartedly with the poor state of everything else.

The pro Hillary people will tell you that the media is biased against her. Nonsense. They want every report of Hillary to sound like this. "Today Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, and the most qualified person to run for the Presidency ever objected to the practice of photo-shopping the halo into her pictures and video. We in the media considered and decided it was truly warranted and have this report from Vatican City where a movement is afoot to have Hillary declared a Super Saint and all other saints previously named will be downgraded to slightly above average in comparison with the awesomeness that is Hillary. One protester objected to this move, but we in the media with full knowledge of the situation took our journalistic responsibility to heart, and beat them to death with our cameras and microphones."

I've said this before. Any other Democratic Candidate we've ever had would be so far ahead in the polls against Trump that they could go on vacation until after the election. Any other Republican candidate in history could have won this thing months ago against Hillary. Both parties put forth their worst. In the case of the Republicans it's because they didn't corrupt the process to eliminate Trump, and with the Democrats, it's because they did corrupt the process to eliminate anyone who wasn't Hillary.

The more manic the media becomes, the more Trump's support will grow. The media doesn't know how to become less manic, and doesn't know how to stop this train. The question that is before the nation is will the media and establishment mania to stop Trump be enough to push him over the edge to victory?

Judging from MSNBC and the other shows this morning, it's a definite possibility.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 40 Next »