Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • What will we see if Hillary wins the election ?

    Posted by Michael Kennedy on October 18th, 2016 (All posts by )

    The election news is starting to suggest to me that Trump may well lose the election to Hillary. What would that mean?

    Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person to get this close to the presidency since Aaron Burr.

    he blamed Hamilton for besmirching him as a candidate, and, eager to defend his honor, challenged Hamilton to a duel. Hamilton accepted, and the face-off took place on the morning of July 11, 1804; it ended when Burr shot Hamilton to death. Though the public cried murder, Burr was let off, and after laying low for a while, he was able to complete his vice-presidential term.

    What then?

    In 1807, Burr was brought to trial on charges of conspiracy and high misdemeanor, for leading a military charge against Spanish territory and for trying to separate territories from the United States. Chief Justice John Marshall acquitted Burr on the treason charge and eventually revoked his misdemeanor indictment, but the conspiracy scandal left Burr’s political career in ruins.

    Final Years

    Burr spent the four years following his trial traveling throughout Europe, attempting unsuccessfully to garner support for revolutionizing Mexico and freeing the Spanish colonies.

    Burr was a traitor after having his ambitions thwarted.

    We all know Hillary’s story. She was a student radical at Wellesley and her senior thesis was on Saul Alinsky.

    The thesis was sympathetic to Alinsky’s critiques of government antipoverty programs, but criticized Alinsky’s methods as largely ineffective, all the while describing Alinsky’s personality as appealing.[4] The thesis sought to fit Alinsky into a line of American social activists, including Eugene V. Debs, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Walt Whitman. Written in formal academic language, the thesis concluded that “[Alinsky’s] power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts” and that Alinsky’s model had not expanded nationally due to “the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict.”

    Her sympathies are clear. What will she be like as president if she wins?

    We know she is dishonest by most definitions of the term.

    She evaded the law on security when she accepted the position of Secretary of State. Her security detail at State, rebelled at her ignoring security rules, and her personal abusive style. The latter was well known from her time in the White House as First Lady.

    During her interview, the agent said Clinton treated agents rudely and with contempt, and was so unpleasant that senior agents typically avoided being on her security detail.

    “[Redacted] explained that CLINTON’s treatment of DS agents on her protective detail was so contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere,” the interview summary says. “Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find senior agents willing to work for her.”

    The same attitude was described in FBI agent Gary Aldrich’s book “Unlimited Access.” From one Amazon review:

    As one of two FBI agents permanently assigned to the White House, one of his responsibilities was to do the background checks on White House staff and advisors. At almost every turn, he was stonewalled and not allowed to do even perfunctory checks of Clinton’s friends and associates… Though it is supposed to be complete within 90 days of the new President assuming office, many people never did get properly “vetted”.

    The White House Travel Office was a bipartisan fixture in the White House until Hillary fired the employees and installed her cousin and cronys.

    Soon after her husband became president in 1993, first lady Hillary Clinton allegedly engineered the firing of seven employees of the White House travel office and the hiring of a firm with ties to the Clintons to replace them. Multiple investigations absolved the president of involvement but Hillary Clinton was found to have made false statements to investigators.

    The dismissed head of the office refused to accept the smears she alleged and went to trial. He was acquitted.

    Billy R. Dale, a White House official fired for allegedly mismanaging staff and press travel arrangements, was acquitted Thursday by a federal court jury of charges that he embezzled $68,000.

    Culminating a 13-day trial, jurors decided in less than two hours that federal prosecutors had failed to prove charges that Dale stole funds paid to his office by reporters and photographers who traveled with the President.

    A White House employee for more than 30 years, Dale broke into tears as the verdict was announced.

    Dale, 58, was at the center of a Clinton Administration travel office fiasco two years ago that resulted in seven employees being fired, and later in reprimands for those responsible for the dismissals.

    The 1993 dismissals were inspired by complaints of mismanagement from Catherine Cornelius, a distant cousin of the President, and Hollywood producer Harry Thomason, a close friend of Clinton’s.

    Cornelius wanted a more powerful job in the travel office, and Thomason was seeking a federal aviation contract.

    A pattern was established for Hillary Clinton. It continued during her term as Secretary of State.

    In 2005, Bill Clinton and Frank Giustra visited Kazakhstan. Giustra is a massive donor to the Clinton Foundation.

    Giustra’s goal was to buy uranium mines in Kazakhstan. To this end, he and Bill Clinton met with leaders of the Kazakhstan government.

    As a result of the visit, Giustra got major mining concessions, which were approved by the Kazakhstan government. Kazakhstan got Bill Clinton publicly to praise its alleged progress in democracy and human rights. The Clintons received a $31 million donation to their Foundation from Giustra, along with a pledge to donate $100 million more.

    The deal with Kazakhstan made Giustra’s company, Uranium One, a major player. It proceeded to buy large amounts of holdings in the United States, and became an attractive target for Russia. A Russian company made a hugely attractive offer to purchase the company. Uranium One agreed to the purchase. The Russians bought 20% of US Uranium deposits.

    The deal required approval by the U.S. government, including by the Secretary of State — Hillary Clinton. During the period when the deal with Russia was under consideration, the Clinton Foundation reportedly received $2.6 million from Uranium One. Its contributions were not disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Hillary had reached with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.

    There are so many examples of collusion between the “Clinton Foundation” and donors seeking influence that there is not room for all of them.

    What about Policy Matters ? One is gun control and the Second Amendment.

    She has made different statements to different audiences.

    Unknowingly caught on tape, Clinton supporter and former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold said “there might be executive orders” if a President Hillary Clinton cannot get gun control measures through bipartisan opposition in Congress.

    Conservative commentator David Webb told Tucker Carlson, Abby Huntsman and Clayton Morris on Fox & Friends that the revelation “just goes to show the way [Clinton Democrats] approach things” like gun control.

    What will she do about terrorism ? She says the usual thing.

    We have to defeat ISIS on the battlefield by:

    1. Intensifying the coalition air campaign against ISIS fighters, leaders, and infrastructure;
    2. Stepping up support for local Arab and Kurdish forces on the ground and coalition efforts to protect civilians; and
    3. Pursuing a diplomatic strategy aimed at resolving Syria’s civil war and Iraq’s sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias—both of which have contributed to the rise of ISIS.

    This seems unrealistic. The Russians have just about secured Assad in place. In return they have acquired ports on the Mediterranean Sea, an old Russian aim. Russia has wanted that Mediterranean port for over a century. For a while, Russian success was in doubt.

    The memo filed to the State Department’s “dissent channel” seems to have assumed that Russia would basically remain passive if the United States intervened further in Syria. In a leaked draft of the cable, its signatories caveated their advocacy for military action by saying, “We are not advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia.” They acknowledged “the risk of further deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations” and the possibility of “a number of second-order effects” from military intervention.

    I don’t think that is going to happen. Obama’s fecklessness has convinced the Russians we will do nothing. That is dangerous, especially if a President Clinton thinks she can move them out. That ship sailed years ago.

    What about the Saudis ? They have donated millions to the Clinton Foundation, the usual conduit for bribes. What were they buying ?

    an Associated Press investigation revealing that while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state, more than half of the private citizens she met with during the reporting period had donated to the Clinton Foundation. The AP investigation comes after a three-year battle to gain access to State Department calendars. The analysis shows that at least 85 of 154 people Hillary Clinton had scheduled phone or in-person meetings with were foundation donors. We speak to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept. His most recent piece is headlined “Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?”

    The Saudis were essential allies after Iran fell in 1979. That is undoubtedly the reason we have tolerated their funding of Wahhabi Muslim agitation and terrorism. Now, the fracking revolution, opposed by the Democrats and the Saudis who want to prevent energy independence by the West.

    New shale oil discoveries “are threats to any oil-producing country in the world,” said Prince Alwaleed in an interview with The Globe and Mail. “It is a pivot moment for any oil-producing country that has not diversified. Ninety-two percent of Saudi Arabia’s annual budget comes from oil. Definitely it is a worry and a concern.”

    Those who oppose fracking, seeking to stop it on the unproven assertion that it pollutes ground water or causes need to take a deep breath here. Saudi Arabia has been funding the poison of Wahhabi Islam’s spread throughout the world, building mosques, providing textbooks, and paying for imams to both gain converts and convert existing Muslims to the fundamentalist doctrines of the desert extremists: extreme subjugation of women, deep hatred of Jews, and jihad, peaceful when effective and violent whenever it appears advantageous.

    Thanks to the miracle of fracking, we have in prospect the breaking of the Muslim world’s stranglehold on the world economy, making it possible for Western democracies to grow a spine and stand up to the oil-powered theocrats who want to extinguish other religions and impose their seventh century way of life on the globe.

    I agree. So what will Hillary do ? Mother Jones says she is against it.

    She’s against it “when any locality or any state is against it,” “when the release of methane or contamination of water is present,” and “unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.”

    Until those conditions are met, “we’ve got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking.”

    “By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place,” she added.

    I think the NeverTrump Hillary voters think she is lying and that is a fair assumption since she lies about almost everything.

    What about “Gender Issues?” NPR thinks it is enough to have a vagina.

    “I identify with her immensely; you know, she’s a woman; I’m a woman,” said Chantel Moses, an entrepreneur in New York. “There’s a lot of tasks that’s associated with being a woman — multi-tasking, making sure that you’re not only able to have a career, but also to provide for your family.”

    Moses wants a woman lead the country, but she also wants to ensure a “competent” woman is in charge, she explained.

    I could go through a long list of issues but these seem to be the primary ones. Personally, I think her election would be a disaster but we have to be realistic. Trump has brought out large crowds but so did Romney the last few weeks in 2012.

    On immigration, we have her assurance that opposition to unlimited immigration is “unAmerican.” That is probably the most stark contrast with Trump.

    On healthcare, Hillary’s big issue in the 1990s and the one that cost Bill the Congress in 1994, Phil Gramm has the best prediction, I think.

    The Achilles’ heel of ObamaCare today is the same weakness that felled HillaryCare—the coercion required to force millions of young, healthy people into the exchanges where they can be exploited. Why the Republican majority in Congress has never forced a vote on health-care freedom, giving families the right—promised by President Obama and his Democratic allies—to choose not to participate in ObamaCare and to buy the health care of their choice independent of the exchanges, remains the greatest mystery of the 114th Congress.

    Obama evaded the issue of freedom in 2009 by lying to the American people. “If you like your healthcare….”

    For the ObamaCare of today to be transformed into the HillaryCare of 1993 and finally into a nationalized health-care system, a president is needed who has the willpower to impose the coercive details, nail down hard deadlines and unleash agencies to tighten controls and squeeze the life out of private insurers. In 1993 Hillary Clinton unapologetically proposed to do just that. If she is elected president she will have the unilateral power under ObamaCare to do it. The loss of what remains of Americans’ health-care freedom is an election away.

    I agree.

     

    22 Responses to “What will we see if Hillary wins the election ?”

    1. dearieme Says:

      Still, the Futures markets should perk up.

    2. PenGun Says:

      “In return they have acquired ports on the Mediterranean Sea”

      I’m not sure where this nonsense comes from. They have had Tartus since 1971, as their port.

    3. Exasperated Says:

      I’m not that concerned about the Alinsky thing. I read her paper; well at least 60 tedious, double spaced on an electric typewriter, pages plus the conclusion, for the sake of full disclosure. I thought she was fairly neutral. I don’t think she was yet a radical, but I am willing to be schooled. These are tactics that anyone, who is not too fastidious, can use.

      I have no doubt, BTW, that she is disciplined and hard working, a good test taker if you value that sort of thing. In my world, that is damning with faint praise. In your field, what happens when someone can’t solve problems on the fly or think quickly or outside the box?
      So my problem is the Smirkers vrs Workers thing; the willingness to stiff and sacrifice the regular folks at the behest of the Globalists and the Financialists: the Pritzkers, Sussman, Soros, Steyer, Bloomberg, Buffet, et al and heaven only knows what foreign donors. What if they’d had their way on fracking, we would all be on our knees. I don’t think we can overstate the problem with the cost shifting scam, at the behest of the Special Interests. aka the Paymasters. It reaches far and deep; this privatization of gain but socializing the pain, ala TARP.
      Lastly, I hate the “Rules are for thee, but not for ME” approach. She could be the poster child.

    4. Mike K Says:

      Pennie, you are sort of correct about Tartus but its status has not been secure.

      It is now more secure and the Russians are defending it. ISIS is not that far away.

    5. Jonathan Says:

      But she’s a woman. A woman president would be historic. Historic is good. Can’t you haters relax for a moment and feel the love and inclusion emanating from her?

    6. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      What we will see if Hillary is elected is one party rule. The Republicans have not fought the Democrats in decades, and will not now. They are wings of the same Unified Governing Party. This will carry on until somehow, somewhere, someone will have had enough. And in the absence of a rule of law or an electoral alternative, they will take up arms against a government that has neither Constitutional restrictions on its conduct, nor the consent of the governed.

      The first uprising may be suppressed. As may the second, and the third. But the acts of suppression, and the already proven eagerness of Federal LEO’s and thugs to kill innocent women and children will eventually provoke a rising that will not be suppressed. And it will be on.

      In the absence of something overarching to unify the people [and I figure that there are at least 6 mutually hostile “nations” within our borders willing to kill each other] and with the Constitution and law gone, the Former Yugoslavia is a likely pattern. Except that this time there will be no overwhelming outside force to try to impose peace. Note that I have been advised by Spec Ops veterans of my acquaintance that UN baby-blue berets make wonderful targets and those wearing them are just small time thugs with who run if opposed. And in a war in the ZI, nukes are in play.

      Plus, with the Left largely urban in base, with no local sources of food, water, power, etc. that can be protected from interdiction; long pork is going to be on the menu in Leftist strongholds.

      TWANLOC will do what they will do. Americans will do what they will do. And until a new social contract is reached via killing enough so that the rest will lay down their arms and submit, only the Great Blue Sky Tengri Nor knows what the outcome will be.

      And any foreign nation that intervenes does so at the risk of incurring the future, and never ending, wrath of the eventual victor of whatever side.

    7. Mike K Says:

      I knew there was more than on e reason why I like Don Rumsfeld.

      “I’m Republican, I’m endorsing the Republican nominee, Donald Trump,” he tells me. And the former Secretary of Defense doesn’t truck with those who blame him for the mess that is the Middle East right now. “I simply think that’s not true,” he says.

      When pressed about some of Trump’s positions, however, it becomes slightly more complicated. He acknowledges that Trump’s thinking doesn’t always “jibe” (my word, not Rummy’s) with his, saying he doesn’t agree with Trump on everything. Like what exactly? Building a wall with Mexico and making that country pay for it? Banning Muslims from coming into the US? Rumsfeld wouldn’t comment specifically on either.

      “I’ve never met him so I don’t know him,” Rumsfeld remarked. He notes that Trump has a singular way of putting things. For instance: “NATO could benefit from some readjustment,” Rumsfeld says. “When I say it that way, people’s eyes glaze over. When he says it his way he gets the Republican nomination.” As for Hillary Clinton, she “has a history of not being believable,” he says. She is an “unacceptable” choice.

      Like I say. I like him.

    8. PenGun Says:

      “It is now more secure and the Russians are defending it. ISIS is not that far away.”

      The link is very old, nearly 4 months. ;)

      Tartus was never in question, as that wiki points out.

      As for the Russians defending it, I doubt there will be a problem. Now one must keep in mind the primary purpose of the Russian intervention, so if there was a way Putin could sucker a good bit of IS with Tartus, he might try it.

      He is there to either convert or kill all who threaten him. That’s all of ISIS, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda and assorted Sunni Takfiris. He has had to deal with the Caucuses and does not want to have to go through that again.

    9. Mike K Says:

      Thank you for explaining Putin’s thinking to us, Pennie.

      I’m just amazed at all the mind readers and future predictors coming out of the woodwork these days.

      Here, on the other hand, is a pretty good argument.

      I wonder how many NeverTrumpers who have been regaling us with virtue signaling will have a crisis of conscience in the voting booth?

    10. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      I wonder how many NeverTrumpers who have been regaling us with virtue signaling will have a crisis of conscience in the voting booth?

      You are assuming the existence of a conscience. I think that most, if not all, of the remaining #NeverTrumpers are actually Hillary’s operatives working for her directly. Kind of like POLITICO submits articles to her campaign manager Podesta for approval before publication, but is still “non-partisan” and “unbiased”.

      They are her partisans now, and by their studied silence and acquiescence in the face of the growing Democrat violence, they are now complicit. Which will be remembered no matter who wins the election.

      GMTA, or at least run into the same things. I already have that “pretty good argument” article bookmarked and intend to make at least one T-shirt from the images there. ;-)

    11. Mike K Says:

      I am not so sure that the virtue signalers might think again when voting. They don’t have to tell us.

      Ricochet seems to be a hangout for NeverTrumpers.

      I wonder why I joined again.

    12. Brian Says:

      NeverTrump, to the extent that it exists, is a class thing. A chunk of the GOPe & conservative establishment can’t accept that the filthy voters, who they think of as poor, dumb, and easily led just as much as the Dems and MSM do, want something other than the free trade, open borders, etc., policies that both “sides” in DC insist are beyond reproach. Don’t the hicks know who are the deciders and who are the followers? There’s always been a subset of voters in each election who choose to sit it out, but this is the first time that those sitting out have strong media platforms.

    13. TimL Says:

      Bloomberg poll: Hillary 47-38, Hillary now leads men 46-44, white women 46-45, whites w/o a college degree 48-44, whites with a college degree by 13 points. Most of these are traditional Republican groups. This is going to be the mother of all landslides. Maybe the Drudge/Coulter/Kennedy set will please sit out the next election? I know I linked you, myself, before the Convention articles contending that Trump could not win a general election. It was obvious if you had eyes to see. You missed a free throw with Romney. Now, not only have you missed a layup but you have made a 3-point shot for the opposition.

      –And still Trump spends most of his time running against Republicans. Look for Trump to get billions from Hillary in Government money afterwards.

    14. Mike K Says:

      NeverTrump, to the extent that it exists, is a class thing.

      Just as BREXIT was. Those poor dumb English voters didn’t know what was good for them. The same, I think, is going on with the Trump thing.

      What depresses me is the assumption by the NeverTrumpers that Hillary is lying to all her leftwing voters and she will be a moderate, or at least tolerable, president.

      Bill was always the one with no moral compass. He was a politician who could swing with the wind in 1994. She has always been the radical leftist like Obama.

    15. Brian Says:

      Tim: Just one quick question–if those numbers and crosstabs are correct, how is Trump leading in OH?
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5970.html
      There’s no way. The polls are fundamentally at odds with each other, far beyond statistical sampling issues. Hillary by 4 or so is plausible. Hillary by 9 is silly.

    16. Brian Says:

      Tim: Do I believe this?
      http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-leads-clinton-by-one-point-going-into-debate-in-ibdtipp-tracking-poll/
      Nah, not really.
      Clearly these polls are making massively different assumptions about turnout, etc. I think that someone wrote a story last month or so where they gave the exact same polling answers to several different pollsters and the spread between what they said the numbers meant for the result had a spread of something like 5-6%. That shows there are large systematic differences in how pollsters get their numbers. Systematic differences are unlike statistical differences in that you can’t average them out. Someone is right about their turnout model and someone else is wrong. Very, very wrong.

    17. tomw Says:

      As an anecdote, I watched the ‘news’ in the Atlanta area on Monday, 17Oct. There were shots of the start of ‘early voting’.
      I noticed the makeup of the voters, and there seemed to me that there were a high percentage of older Caucasians in line.
      If the GOTV efforts of the D party were effective, I would have expected there to be a higher turnout of the Black vote, as they have emphasized the opportunity to get out the vote that early voting allows.
      There may be a quiet urgency to vote to return to a greater USA, in the ‘Make America Great Again’ crowd who longed for the successes of old, the victory of 1945, and the ‘good old days’ of the 1950’s.
      I cannot be sure that this is significant, but the turnout made me think.
      tom

    18. Mike K Says:

      A good response to the “concede a loss” question at the debate this transcript from an Ohio appearance.

      I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters, and to all of the people of the United States, that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic Presidential election – if I win!

      Now, seriously, the debate last night was amazing and everybody said I won, including every single online poll, some by 90-10.

      The question of voter fraud came up during the debate.

      We want fairness in the election, having nothing to do with me, but having to do with the future of the country.

      John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Chairman, was quoted in WikiLeaks as saying illegal immigrants could vote as long as they have Drivers’ Licenses.

      One of the big issues that came up last night was the fact that the Clinton Campaign has paid people to disrupt our rallies and incite violence.

      This is criminal behavior that violates centuries of tradition of peaceful, Democratic elections.

      A campaign like Clinton’s that will incite violence is truly a campaign that will do anything.

      And a candidate, like Hillary Clinton, who will lie to the Congress and the FBI, destroy 33,000 emails, put her office up for sale, and put our confidential information in reach of our enemies – is a candidate who is truly capable of anything.

      In addition, it was just learned, Hillary Clinton was given the exact questions to a previous debate, word for word, by Donna Brazile – who is now under tremendous pressure to resign.

      Lots more in that transcript. Plus, David Goldman now thinks Trump will win.

      Goldman is one of the people, along with Richard Fernandez, I rely on.

      Only 32% of Americans said they had “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of confidence in the news media in a September Gallup Poll survey. That’s the lowest level in history, and should be no surprise: the major media has to spin a new cover-up every couple of days, before it is finished putting the previous set of lies to bed.

      That’s why Americans don’t simply watch the nightly news and go to bed. They read the rumors on the Internet and circulate them to their friends. They create networks of people they trust in the hope of obtaining an accurate account of what is happening around them.

      That’s why I’m still calling this election for Donald J. Trump. The polls are meaningless. Perceptions are morphing as rapidly as the new-model Terminator in the molten steel vat at the end of the movie. The election will be won and lost a dozen times between now and Election Day.

    19. Brian Says:

      One could suspect, if one were so inclined, that this brouhaha was coordinated by the Dem/MSM complex to prevent Trump from complaining on/after election day. The fact is that now they can be as brazen as they want about fraud and if Trump complains they can point out that he is just whining like he always does. It’s actually quite brilliant. Assuming it’s true. Which it couldn’t possibly be, right?

    20. Anonymous Says:

      Brian,
      Apparently it has and does happen. Most probably in tight elections since it is costly and somewhat risky. If one brings it up, it would be a real good practice to have the goods to prove it and connect it to the DNC and the Hildabeast’s campaign. If you only have antidotal evidence and evidence that is subject to alternate interpretation (no matter how tortured), then you end up with the situation you describe.

      Death6

    21. Mike K Says:

      The talk of Hillary getting us into a war is not idle speculation.

      The world Obama inherited ain’t what it used to be. But not everyone is convinced. David Sanger at the NYT engages in self-examination and admits he feels a suspicious lump but quotes sources which conclude the lump is probably nothing. “Escalating airstrikes in Syria. Sophisticated cyberattacks, apparently intended to influence the American election. New evidence of complicity in shooting down a civilian airliner,” are outwardly worrisome. But “the bigger question confronting American intelligence officials, though, is whether the Russian president has a grander scheme at work. So far, their conclusion is probably not.

      What could go wrong ?

    22. Exasperated Says:

      “If the GOTV efforts of the D party were effective, I would have expected there to be a higher turnout of the Black vote, as they have emphasized the opportunity to get out the vote that early voting allows.”

      I have heard speculation that minority men may not turn out for Clinton. It kinda makes sense to me, because why would they?