Quote:
Originally Posted by NewNick
That's partially true. Of course people vote based upon self interest.
However people decide what is in their best interests on a whole host of criteria. Being a decent trustworthy person is high on a lot of agendas.
|
Doesn't appear so considering it's Clinton running for president, I'm very curious how this plays out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewNick
As Trump himself said - his people will vote for him whatever. However being a racist pussy grabbing tax dodger does not help your cause in the election battleground of the votes that matter. Women, minorities, and the undecided.  |
That's again the way somebody wants to paint him, and they use every single thing the "politically correct" narrative enables them to use for this determined witch hunt.
Now let's ask a simple question
Given the massive amount of evidence pointing to corruption, deception, incompetence, endangering national security, proven track record of disastrous foreign policy etc. etc.
Wouldn't it be a very easy job to expose Clinton as a candidate that simply can't ever be trusted as a presidential candidate, let alone as a president?
Based on actual facts and documented positions (these are actual facts and positions based on existing evidence, not on speculations or wild allegations).
So there you have it, a candidate admitting holding "a private and a public position", dreaming of open borders in front of the bankers, calling actual Americans "deplorables" in a Freudian slip etc.
It would be an extremely easy job to expose Clinton as somebody who is corrupt and completely untrustworthy. It would be the easiest job ever for the mass media, there's way too much evidence available for that. If they cared about actual journalism. Which they don't.
What's even more absurd we have now news outlets that are officially "endorsing" a candidate, so it's even official! If there was any single piece of journalist code left, MSM would be supposed to report about the election, not to influence the election.