Thank you for your words. It's great that you have found a candidate to believe in. Please enjoy the feeling that there is a candidate out there who actually *deserves* your vote. But please also do keep in mind the fact that your preferred candidate has feet of clay.
Hillary personally accepted a bribe of $675,000 from Goldman Sachs, an enemy of the Free World that some call the vampire squid because of its desire to install Manchurian candidates in most every national government. The money was supposed to be for “speeches” but Hillary is unable to produce even redacted transcripts for those speeches, nor has anyone come forward to say they attended, likely because the speeches never actually happened. Of course, Hillary is quite capable of giving actual speeches, so she didn’t *need* to lie about what the money was for, but she lied anyway. This “cheating for its own sake” seems to be a repeating pattern with her. Anyway, selling speeches and then not delivering them is fraud, and it is a crime to take a bribe in exchange for protecting banksters from the jail-time that they deserve.
Hillary did not *need* to cheat in order to win Nevada. She certainly didn’t need to have “her” people, supposedly-neutral party apparachiks, blatantly treat the delegates differently based on whom they were pledged to. There was no need to bring in police to protect her cronies from the nonexistent violence of those whom they had just wronged. There was no need for the police to all be dressed in brownshirts, as if the Democratic Party were comprised of Nazis. There was no actual need for any of this; it was all for show. “Vote for me because I’m a corrupt politician who cheats and gets away with it.” There are apparently Republicans who find this behaviour attractive, but I don’t.
Voting in Phoenix was so bad, we cannot know how many delegates Hillary truly deserves. Hillary could have made a show of tut-tutting the people who did this, insisting that everyone should have the right to get their vote counted in this free country. Al Gore might have refused to accept the votes of tainted delegates, but Hillary is not Al.
The City of New York is auditing the Board of Elections because it deleted 126,000 people, overweighted with college students, from the party rolls at the last minute, without notice or explanation or reason, apparently for fear that some of them might possibly vote for Bernie. This is not what one might call “a free and fair election”. This is just as wrong as when Republicans delete Blacks from the voter rolls for fear that some of them might vote for a Democrat. Again, Hillary could have made a statement that what happened in NYC was wrong. She did not. How many delegates from New York does Hillary actually deserve? We don’t know, and Hillary seems perfectly okay with that. I’m not. This is election-tampering. It doesn’t matter that Republicans do it too; I expect better of Democrats. It doesn’t matter that nobody ever goes to jail for it. Interfering with elections is still a crime. Did Hillary give the order to delete those voters? What did she know and when did she know it? If the USA were a free country, we would have the right to expect an investigation. Maybe it was the local office acting on their own initiative, hoping to curry favour with the Clinton-leaning national party establishment; or maybe she’s guilty as sin. I don’t know.
Why no, actually. Donald is a racist sexist pig and I certainly wouldn’t want to be a member of his household. There are reports that Hillary’s mean streak is a mile wide, so maybe her household isn’t a nice place to be, either. I don’t think I would want to have a beer with either of them. But we were talking about which person would make better decisions as president.
You cannot conclude that something isn’t a crime just because a Republican is observed to get away with it. Hillary’s private server was illegal, just like Colin’s. But no one is claiming that Colin ran a deliberately-insecure server that allowed foreign governments to steal classified information. Hillary’s two excuses for this behaviour are basically that she’s ”often confused” (≈ McCain’s “senior moment”?) and also she ”doesn’t know much about computers”. Either of these excuses would explain why the server was insecure when originally set up, but neither explains why it stayed that way for four years. Lots of people tried to get her to fix it, but she told them to never speak of the Secretary’s personal email server again. This is not the behaviour of a person who doesn’t know much about computers and becomes concerned when someone tells her she’s using them wrong. This is not a person having a brief senior moment and then coming to her senses when the next person brings up the same issue. This is a Manchurian candidate who *wanted* the server to be insecure. So who is she working for? Maybe I’m naïve, but I just can’t imagine Hillary as a secret agent for Russia or China. Maybe Saudi Arabia, but most likely Goldman Sachs.( Read more... )