And despite all your posts and all your hatred and all of the reasons Ms. Clinton should not be President of the United States, she is still likely to win and win a rather decisive electoral college victory.
Why would that be?
That's a good question. Let's look to the answers.
She repeatedly said she did not want to run; she told us she was too old and tired and just wanted to retire and be with her friends. Yet, she ran. Did someone make her run? Is she just a puppet in a larger game of some kind?
No one of substance ran against her. Her primary opponent wasn't even a democrat, but is a socialist. He may caucus with the democrats in the senate, but he is adamantly not a democrat. So, why did she run essentially unopposed? Is there a larger game of some kind going on here?
To quote the Director of the FBI, "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." Now, when other people demonstrate evidence of a crime they are generally charged. Director Comey even stated this: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." Why would this be? Surely, they must think the process of identifying classified information is too difficult for someone like Sec. Clinton to comprehend, yes? Well, no. Again, still quoting Director Comey: "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation." So, any reasonable person in her position should have known better, other people would have received some kind of punishment/sanction of some sort, but "that is not what we're deciding now". Could this be because she is part of some larger plot afoot, and is needed for the position?
91% of the press on Trump is negative. Is that the norm, or is the press (known and demonstrably far more liberal than conservative) actually trying to put their Donna Brazile-like thumb on the scales of the election? Granted, it is far more common for the press to love a liberal than a conservative, and do this, but by that lop-sided a margin? No, not that off. So, why is it so different this time? Is there a larger plot going on, trying to make Mrs. Clinton the president for some specific but unknown reason?
You asked a very good question, TJ, but gave a very uninformed, thoughtless, and unimaginative answer. You gave the answer of someone who really doesn't think even one tiny little bit about a bigger picture. Are you actually Pres Obama?
