Most analysts earn their daily bread by focusing on a particular subject area and following that direction. However, I rebelled against that established pattern — and as a result, I tend to look between the lines more than many of my peers do. That means when major news media outlets focus on a story, I’m more likely to see what they missed. In the case of both the Clinton email scandal and the DNC email leak — not to mention the various whistle-blower events — what interests me isn’t what’s been covered but what hasn’t been covered.
I think both Clinton and Trump are unfit and not prepared to be President. It's clear the news media is mostly defending Clinton and bashing Trump. I hear more about Hillary bashing Trump then what she would do. I here Trump bashing Clinton and making general statements on issues. Not really doing much more than feeding the fed up percentage of American's. What's even more scary is how little journalists want to be journalists anymore. We have seen obvious news stories about Hillary Clinton's email, security, her health, her history as Secretary of State and her relationship with the Clinton foundation during that tenure. But does any journalists even investigate? The general public should be informed not brainwashed and spoon fed propaganda media news. If you like Hillary or Trump that's great. But do your profession a favor and do your job. The news is out there and yet many are unwilling to do their job. It's like they are afraid to find what they already suspect. It's like confronting your girlfriend you saw her with someone else. But you won't because you don't want to hear the truth. The Clinton's are full of dirt and yet the obsession over crucifying Trump takes up all the media's time.
Re the article, you make it clear that you expect Hillary to win, but you go on to say "(Have I mentioned I plan to vote Libertarian this year?)"
Aside from the fact that listening to interviews with the Libertarian pair running for Prez and Veep, all I hear is a bunch of Ayn Randian blather and ignorance indicating that they are about as ready to run a federal government as Trump is(n't).
But beyond that, squandering your vote on any of the third party wanna-be candidates is encouraging a nonsensical game. Any third party candidate with absolutely ZERO chance of winning is running a symbolic candidacy. If they have a shred of actual responsible awareness, they would know that their purpose is first, get as much attention possible for their points. Then, ask their supporters to vote for the best of the candidates who actually have a chance of winning. In this case that would be Hillary.
Nader showed us in Florida just how much damage a third party no-chance candidate can do by staying in the race all the way to the voting. He gave us GWB, and the eventual destruction of the fragile balance of the ME. While such a disaster is not presently visible in this election, why bother to support the Libertarian Naderandite noodlebrains in their folly? They are not going to be smart enough to ask you ultimately to vote for the best real candidate, so you need to be smart enough to do that yourself.
Loading ...
The Big Tech Election Stories No One Else Is Covering
Posted by: Rob Enderle August 15, 2016 10:29 AMMost analysts earn their daily bread by focusing on a particular subject area and following that direction. However, I rebelled against that established pattern — and as a result, I tend to look between the lines more than many of my peers do. That means when major news media outlets focus on a story, I’m more likely to see what they missed. In the case of both the Clinton email scandal and the DNC email leak — not to mention the various whistle-blower events — what interests me isn’t what’s been covered but what hasn’t been covered.
Re the article, you make it clear that you expect Hillary to win, but you go on to say "(Have I mentioned I plan to vote Libertarian this year?)"
Aside from the fact that listening to interviews with the Libertarian pair running for Prez and Veep, all I hear is a bunch of Ayn Randian blather and ignorance indicating that they are about as ready to run a federal government as Trump is(n't).
But beyond that, squandering your vote on any of the third party wanna-be candidates is encouraging a nonsensical game. Any third party candidate with absolutely ZERO chance of winning is running a symbolic candidacy. If they have a shred of actual responsible awareness, they would know that their purpose is first, get as much attention possible for their points. Then, ask their supporters to vote for the best of the candidates who actually have a chance of winning. In this case that would be Hillary.
Nader showed us in Florida just how much damage a third party no-chance candidate can do by staying in the race all the way to the voting. He gave us GWB, and the eventual destruction of the fragile balance of the ME. While such a disaster is not presently visible in this election, why bother to support the Libertarian Naderandite noodlebrains in their folly? They are not going to be smart enough to ask you ultimately to vote for the best real candidate, so you need to be smart enough to do that yourself.
Please?