What was all the hoopla over the reelection of Speaker Paul Ryan? Why did the mainstream media flock to cover a Republican primary that wasn’t even a legitimate race?
From everything I read, I thought Ryan had a real opponent with actual support from the Republican voters in his district. He didn’t. National publications wrote about how this was Ryan’s first real challenge. But it wasn’t.
Ryan won with over 80 percent of the vote. Ryan’s been in office for a while so you have to figure that he’s made some enemies, but if he ran against Mickey Mouse or Darth Vader, it would be hard to get much over the 80 percent mark.
Getting 80 percent of the vote in any election is not easy. It means that his opponent not only got knocked out, but never laid a glove on Ryan, despite all the help from the national media and all the money he spent.
If you figure that 60 percent is a landslide, what is 80 percent? A tsunami? This whole race was totally and completely invented by the media. The media made it up almost out of thin air.
It makes me wonder about the presidential race. What do the real polls show? And where can you go to get accurate information?
I didn’t think that Ryan would lose, but judging totally from the information in the mainstream media, I figured he’d win in something around the 60 percent range. Forty percent would be a very good showing for a first-time candidate and indicate that some of Ryan’s constituents weren’t happy with him.
Getting 80 percent of the vote means that Ryan is incredibly popular with his constituency. As a sitting elected official you can’t do much better.
The whole deal about Donald Trump not endorsing Ryan seemed to be simply payback for Ryan not endorsing Trump until he absolutely had to. In kind Trump endorsed Ryan when he had to. One report called it a tepid endorsement. I don’t know what Trump was supposed to say. He endorsed Ryan, called him a “good man” and said they disagreed on some issues but agreed on most. It was an honest endorsement. Trump isn’t going to say the two agree on everything because they don’t.
This is simply a weird election season. Everything about it is weird, even super-duper landslide victories are covered in a bizarre fashion.
Why on earth would Hillary Clinton have the father of Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, sitting behind her at a speech? And for those who haven’t been involved in a campaign, those seats are carefully chosen. The campaign team wants to have what they determine to be the proper mix of people behind the candidate. You have to arrive early and are escorted to a particular seat, all with the plan to make the candidate look like he or she has the broadest support possible.
You don’t walk in and grab a seat behind the candidate. So there is no way this was an accident and no way that the campaign didn’t know exactly who he was, despite what they might now be saying.
Is Hillary Clinton going after the radical Muslim terrorist vote? It would appear that she wouldn’t need to. Radical Muslim terrorists and their supporters are never going to vote for Trump.
It seems the email issue for Hillary Clinton is going to get worse despite the fact that she wasn’t indicted after Attorney General Loretta Lynch had what was certainly hoped to be a secret meeting with former President Bill Clinton.
The meeting was private but not secret because one local reporter found out about it. The national media wasn’t going to report the meeting whether they knew about it or not, but were shamed into reporting it when they were all scooped by a local television station in Phoenix.
Once the word was out they couldn’t ignore it. But except for that one reporter, who was actually doing his job unlike the national media who were working to protect Hillary Clinton, the meeting would have been kept a secret.
But now more emails released because of a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch show that the Clinton Foundation was calling the shots in the State Department when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.
This is obvious from the decisions Hillary Clinton made to grant special favors from the US government to those who paid Bill Clinton exorbitant speaking fees or made huge donations to the Clinton Foundation, but it is even more damning to get emails that confirm the connection.
It is also being reported that the FBI is turning over the 30,000 or so emails that it recovered after Hillary Clinton had them deleted from her server claiming they were about yoga, her daughter’s wedding and her mother’s funeral. The State Department will then decide which of these emails are personal and belong to Hillary Clinton and which are about State Department business and belong to the public. We already know that some of the deleted emails were about State Department business because they have been found in other email accounts.
So President Barack Hussein Obama admits that he paid the Iranians $400 million in cash and they released the four American hostages the same day, but supposedly the two aren’t connected.
Also, one of the hostages has said that when he was waiting to be released he was told they were waiting for a plane to land before they would be allowed to go. He wasn’t told that it was a plane from the US with $400 million in ransom on board, but what plane were they waiting for on that particular day?
We know that the Iranians had Obama over a barrel. He had promised this agreement and he couldn’t afford for it not to happen over a trifling sum like $400 million. If it wasn’t a ransom, why was it paid in cash? Obama says that the US didn’t have a banking relationship with Iran. It’s an absurd explanation except there may be some truth to it.
The US has sanctions against Iran, not just because they were developing nuclear weapons but because they sponsor terrorism. The sanctions based on terrorism are still in place. So Obama couldn’t legally write a check to Iran for $400 million, but he couldn’t legally send Iran $400 million in cash either.
Of course, the American people could ask to look at the receipt Obama received from Iran and see if it says, “Ransom, $400 million: Paid in Full.”
Obama and Hillary Clinton have both told the American people that the Iranians can be trusted to be honest and keep their word. So if you believe that Obama is being honest with the American people about that then you have to believe that the $400 million was a ransom because the Iranians have said that it was.
So either Obama is lying to the American people about the Iranians being honest and trustworthy or he is lying about paying $400 million in ransom.
By paying $400 million in ransom for four hostages, Obama endangered the lives of all Americans living in the Middle East and troubled nations around the world. For Obama, spending $400 million is pocket change; for a lot of countries that would be a windfall.
And for some tin pot dictator, what’s the downside of taking some American hostages? He might get a big payday, and he knows that whatever happens Obama is not going to use the military might of the US to do anything. Taking American hostages may not be a win-win situation, but it is a no-lose situation.
Now we know what Hillary Clinton calls lying. She calls it getting “short circuited.”
When she said that the FBI said her statements about her emails were truthful, what she meant was her statements to the FBI were truthful, not her statements to the public. However, Hillary Clinton says that her statements to the FBI were consistent with her statements to the public.
Since her testimony to the FBI was not recorded, no one can prove that she is lying again, but they can’t be consistent because she lied to the public repeatedly.
Watching her first press conference about the email scandal, she stood there and said there was no classified information sent or received from her private email account. In fact, thousands of emails containing classified information were sent and received.
She was forced to change that to nothing marked classified, and FBI Director Jim Comey testified under oath before Congress that that wasn’t true.
Hillary Clinton said the State Department didn’t have a problem with her using her own private email server and that is not true. The State Department did have a problem, but she was secretary of state; her employees couldn’t stop her from doing something really dangerous.
I think both sentient Democrats and Republicans can agree that the presidential primary system is a disaster. This election is absolute proof. You have a Democratic candidate whose disapproval rating is off the charts, only topped by the disapproval rating of her Republican opponent.
Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate because, according to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), it was her turn, and the DNC worked hard to make sure she got the nomination.
Donald Trump is the Republican candidate because he looked at the bozos, losers, liars and nothing-to-write-home-about candidates who were running and correctly decided that he could beat the tar out of all of them.
A good portion of the Democratic Party is furious that Hillary Clinton is their candidate and a good many Republicans feel the same about their candidate. There are party stalwarts on both sides who say they can’t vote for the party’s nominee.
So how did we get here?
The presidential primary system makes no sense. The two most important states in the primary race are Iowa and New Hampshire. The people of Iowa and New Hampshire get to see the candidates in small venues, coffee shops, union halls, living rooms and the like, while the rest of the nation only has the chance to see them on TV or in huge arenas. The candidates who win Iowa and New Hampshire have huge momentum and are difficult to beat.
South Carolina is the first state with a significant minority population to vote, but it’s not nearly as important as the first two.
Party primaries are not mentioned in the Constitution. We have the system that we have now because it grew into this. We couldn’t have a worse slate of candidates if we went back to the system where the national conventions actually picked the candidates.
In fact, it seems that when compared to the system that we have now, coin tosses, random selection, cage fighting, any method of picking presidential candidates would be superior.
It doesn’t take a constitutional amendment to change the primary system, but it would take a concerted effort by Congress. Maybe after this election Congress will decide that something needs to be done. Maybe the first primaries should be in four states in four different regions of the country: the South, the Northeast, the Midwest and the West. It could rotate so each four years four different states went first. Maybe each week for five weeks, 10 states should hold primaries. There are a lot of possibilities, but the system that we have now, devised by the political parties, isn’t working.
Trump and Obama have a lot in common when it comes to presidential primaries. According to those who were working for the Obama campaign, early in the process in 2008, he hoped to get his name out there to get in line for a run in 2012 if Hillary Clinton lost and 2016 if Hillary Clinton won. It wasn’t until after New Hampshire that Obama and his team realized that not only could they win, but as long as they didn’t mess up, they had won.
The whole primary was over after South Carolina, when the black voters of that state chose the charismatic black candidate over a stuck up, aloof, rich white woman who nobody liked.
Trump is a little different. I think Trump looked at who was running and knew that with his name recognition, his ability to use television and his money, that he could beat the field. Nobody else thought he could, but Trump did.
Look at who the front-runner was before Trump became the front-runner – Jeb Bush. It may be true that Jeb Bush is a really nice guy, but he is a terrible candidate. His entire campaign fell apart because of one phrase, “low energy candidate.” Trump pegged him with that and he couldn’t shake it.
Sen. Marco Rubio is simply one more professional politician looking for a promotion. Sen. Ted Cruz is utterly unlikable and, as Trump pointed out, Cruz has a problem with the truth. Gov. John Kasich is a blowhard, who claims to have singlehandedly balanced the budget, dug the Panama Canal, won World War II and who knows what else. He is another professional politician who dropped out of politics for while made big money with Lehman Brothers and then went back to politics.
Imagine that you have a ballot full of professional politicians who have been doing this political thing most if not all of their adult lives. They are supposed to be the cream of the crop and here comes Trump, who has no experience in politics but thinks he can beat them at their own game, where they and their friends have made the rules. And somehow the novice beats them all badly.
Imagine if, instead of deciding to be a politician, Trump had decided that he wanted to win the Super Bowl. So he bought an NFL team and, because he owned it, decided that he would coach it.
He’s never before been involved in football at any level and has no coaching experience, but he thinks he can win against the best the NFL has. Do you think Trump would have a chance of having a season capped by his victory in the Super Bowl?
It is ridiculous to consider, but in the political arena he is playing in the Super Bowl.
It’s an indication of just how bad our top politicians are at being politicians. At one time people became elected officials after being successful members of their community. Now they are just folks who keep running for office against other folks who keep running for office. What they are good at is raising money and running for office; what they aren’t good at is governing.
And as Trump proved when faced with a legitimate challenger from the real world – they aren’t even that good at running for office, but they are good at raising money.
Whenever you read anything in the mainstream media about Trump, remember that at the Democratic National Convention the Democrats handed out signs in the press area and reporters accepted the signs and waved them.
Reporters are supposed to be unbiased. They are not supposed to clap for speakers or cheer. They are not supposed to be at the Democratic National Convention to support Democratic candidates, but to report on the convention.
For a reporter to accept a political sign and then wave it on cue with everyone else is so far from acceptable behavior, it’s hard to describe. But keep in mind these are the people who are reporting on Trump.
One of the inaccuracies that bothers me more than the others is when the Democrats say that Trump has said all Mexicans are rapists and murderers. That isn’t what he has said at all. What he has said makes perfect sense, which is why it is constantly misreported.
Trump said that under our current open border system put in place by executive fiat by Obama, Mexican rapists and murderers are being allowed into the US. Everyone can agree that there are Mexican rapists and murderers, just like there are American, French, Russian, Chinese, Portuguese, Australian – and every other country you can name – rapists and murderers. To say that some Americans are rapists and murderers is not to say that all Americans are rapists and murderers. For Trump to say that the current system has allowed Mexican rapists and murderers into our country is simply a statement of fact, not a condemnation of a people.
As long as we have completely open borders, anyone who wants to can come to the US from Mexico. If we had a system of vetting people who were requesting entry to the US, one would hope that rapists and murderers would not be allowed in the US, but rather good, honest, hardworking people would be.
The system that we have now is dangerous and unfair. If you want to come to the US legally you have to go through a lengthy, complicated and expensive process. I tried to help two Europeans migrate to the US; one has a PhD from UNCG and the other is a graduate of UNC Asheville. I was told they had no chance unless they hired an American immigration attorney and then it would take years.
But if you are willing to come to the US illegally, all you have to do is walk across the border, find a Border Patrol agent and turn yourself in. You will be fed, sheltered and transported to wherever in this country you want to go at taxpayers’ expense.
This policy makes no sense on any level. We are keeping honest, law-abiding people out and letting in some otherwise honest and law-abiding immigrants – except for the fact that they are violating the immigration laws. But we are also allowing thieves, ne’er do wells and even rapists and murderers.
To want to fix the current system is not discriminatory, but sensible.
Hillary Clinton has a history of publicly falling down. For a while she was wearing weird glasses that people who have suffered serious trauma to their brains wear. This doesn’t mean that she isn’t fit to be president, but the American people do deserve an explanation of what kind of brain damage she has suffered and what causes her to fall over.
As long as they are at it, they might as well explain her coughing fits and why sometimes she appears to completely lose control of her head and body. Maybe there is a good explanation for all of this, but if there is, why haven’t we heard it? Some people have equilibrium problems. It doesn’t mean their brain isn’t functioning, it just means that sometimes they get dizzy and fall over.
Hillary Clinton exhibits the signs of having some serious health issues. She needs to tell the American people what health issues are causing her strange behavior before the election, but she won’t and the mainstream media won’t force her to do so.
How can someone running for president go over 250 days without a press conference? Can you imagine how the press would be caterwauling if Trump refused to hold a press conference. It would be the lead story every day.
The New York Times would be running a countdown in big numbers on the front page. It would be the first question Trump was asked every time he sat down for a one on one with a reporter.
We know from the Democratic National Committee emails that the Democrats are controlling what questions journalists ask Hillary Clinton. Those who do get to sit down with Hillary Clinton for interviews are told what they can and cannot ask.
It’s why she won’t hold a press conference. A presidential candidate or a Democratic presidential candidate can offer an exclusive interview and get some concessions. Television is all about ratings and an exclusive interview is good for ratings. But even the Democratic Party can’t control an entire room full of reporters. At a press conference, Hillary Clinton could count on a couple of planted questions, just like Obama does; but eventually someone is going to get a chance to ask a real question and then nobody knows what Hillary Clinton might do or say. She might have one of her fits right there in front of a room full of reporters and not all of them will ignore it.
She is without a doubt in modern times the most protected candidate who has ever run for the presidency. She appears at carefully controlled events and makes carefully crafted speeches. When she does sit down for an interview you can tell that her answers have been written and memorized because she knows exactly what she will be asked.
A freewheeling press conference is her handlers’ worst nightmare.
But whether or not she ever holds a press conference she is going to have to appear with Trump on stage for the debates. Hillary Clinton will, of course, have a lot of control over what questions she gets asked by the newsreaders, but she will have no control over what Trump asks her, and it won’t be pretty.
Trump said it and it’s true: Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the past and Trump is the candidate of the future.
Hillary wants to continue the policies of Obama, which have put the US in the position it is now. If Obama were former President Jimmy Carter, he would be huddled in the Oval Office in a cardigan (well, maybe not a cardigan because it is 90 degrees in Washington), refusing to leave until the war that we aren’t fighting in Syria and Iraq is over.
Obama may go down in history as the worst wartime president since James Madison and the War of 1812. The British, by the way, were able to burn the White House in that war because the US Army refused to fight them. The Army refused to fight because the leadership was afraid it would lose and the British would march on Washington. So the Army lost by not fighting.
It is eerily similar to the war in Iraq and Syria. Obama refuses to fight because he doesn’t want to get the US in a war. The problem is that we are in a war; we are simply in a war where we aren’t fighting. Not only does Obama refuse to fight, he refuses to properly arm the Kurds who are fighting and winning.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has had far more success than Obama in Syria. The problem is that Putin is supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who Obama opposes, or did oppose. Who knows where Obama is now.
Obama created this entire mess himself by refusing to keep troops in Iraq and refusing to make Assad pay for crossing the “red line” Obama drew and then completely ignored.
Instead of losing soldiers on the battlefield, the US and its allies are losing civilians in terrorist attacks. Currently European nations are losing more civilians than the US, but the focus of ISIS could shift at any time.
ISIS can send terrorists into the US through the Syrian refugee program or have them cross the open border Obama has established with Mexico. But currently ISIS is having success with radicalized American Muslims.
Hillary Clinton wants to continue these policies. Trump wants to close the border and stop the immigration of potential terrorists from the Middle East until they can be properly vetted. He also plans to defeat ISIS, something the US could do anytime we choose.
A conservative website, Infowars, is accusing the newspaper The Hill of photoshopping photos of a Hillary Clinton rally in Florida to create a much larger crowd than was actually there. The photo appears to be photoshopped, and if the Infowars photos of the event are real, The Hill created the crowd on a computer.
Considering the fact that even The New York Times is offering an excuse for their reporters to take an anti-Trump stance, it seems entirely possible that The Hill didn’t want to show photos of the 171 people who actually signed in to attend the event in a venue that would hold about 4,000.
Then again, why would anyone go to hear Hillary Clinton speak? She is a terrible public speaker and doesn’t have much to say.
Trump draws crowds because he has millions of staunch supporters and nobody ever knows what he might say.
The media completely missed the intensity and the level of Trump’s support throughout the primary season. The mainstream media reporters can’t believe that anyone would support Trump.
Before anyone dismisses Trump, they should sit down and listen to one of his speeches. He has come a long way as a candidate, and the Trump I see giving speeches is not anything like the Trump I read about in the news.
Some pundits are once again writing Trump off because he is down in the polls. It seems political pundits never learn. They wrote Trump off at least five or six times during the primary season, and when he was polling well before the voting started, the pundits seemed to be in agreement that people would say they would vote for Trump but they wouldn’t actually vote for him. It turned out to be the opposite: More people voted for Trump than told pollsters they would.
This campaign is far from over. In fact, if you’re worried about Trump, take into consideration that he has not started advertising yet. My guess is that is because he is a businessman who is accustomed to spending his own money and he doesn’t throw his own money away. I think Trump is not advertising because he doesn’t think advertising in August is going to have nearly as much effect on the election as advertising in October. When you’re always spending other people’s money, how that money is spent is not nearly as big an issue.