BloggeRhythms

As the mainstream media intensifies its vilification of Trump, the voting public doesn’t seem to be getting or agreeing with the messages.

Today’s USC Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election Daybreak Poll shows Trump still ahead of his rival by 5.6%. He stands at 47.3% and she at 41.7%.

While Democrat leaders shake their heads in wonderment about how Trump’s been able to survive this long in the contest, a couple of items in the news today provide some answers.  

The Washington Free Beacon via FoxNews.com, reports: “Chelsea Clinton opted to travel to a “clean energy” roundtable in this week in a private jet to campaign on behalf of her mother Hillary Clinton.”

After two events in Greenville, Clinton attended a “clean energy roundtable” in Asheville, about a 5-hour drive away. “But instead of driving or flying on a commercial plane, Clinton opted to a take a private jet. The NTK Network posted a tracking video that shows Clinton boarding the private jet on Wednesday. 

“The Clinton campaign pledged last year they would be carbon neutral on the trail and that they would be “offsetting the carbon footprint of the campaign and that includes travel.” The Clinton team has yet to fulfill this promise, however, as the campaign is using private jets to travel to events.” 

While the holier than thou hypocrisy continues on the Clinton’s part, the POTUS has image problems of his own.  

According to Amy Goldstein of The Washington Post @heraldnet.com via Drudge: “The Obama administration is maneuvering to pay billions of dollars the government owes to health insurers under the Affordable Care Act, potentially resorting to an obscure Treasury Department fund intended to cover federal legal claims. 

“Justice Department officials have told several health plans suing the government over the unpaid money that they are eager to negotiate a broad settlement, which would allow the administration to compensate about 170 other insurers selling coverage in ACA marketplaces, according to insurance executives and lawyers familiar with the talks.” 

“The payouts probably would be made from the Judgment Fund, a 1950s creation that is allowed as much money as it needs to satisfy valid claims against the government. Such a move would bypass congressional Republicans, who have criticized certain ACA provisions as industry “bailouts” and blocked the Health and Human Services Department from paying health plans what they are owed.” 

The problem stems from the use of a strategy to help coax insurers into the ACA marketplaces by promising to cushion them from unexpectedly high expenses for their new customers. “This particular strategy, known as “risk corridors,” was for the marketplaces’ early years, when it was unclear how many people would sign up and how much medical care they would use.” 

“The crunch first became apparent last fall, when federal health officials announced that they could make less than $400 million in 2014 risk corridor payments – just 12.6 percent of $2.9 billion overall. About 175 insurers are owed money, according to an HHS list.” 

So here again, taxpayer’s are saddled with another burden resulting from the administration’s move toward socialism. It’s also a glaring example of one of the ways the POTUS, and his ideology, raised the nation’s debt from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to its present $20 trillion.  

Thus, while the MSM tries its best to tell voters otherwise, real world costs arising from real world failures and misrepresentations can’t possibly be outweighed by frothy words on paper.   

 

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

Garrett M. Graff @politico.com titled his article: “What the FBI Files Reveal About Hillary Clinton’s Email Server” 

In his piece, Graff attempts to set the premise that the problems and issues arising from Bill’s wife usage of a private email server was a completely innocent attempt to help simplify a very busy person’s hectic professional life. 

One long paragraph provides his summation: “Together, the documents, technically known as Form 302s, depict less a sinister and carefully calculated effort to avoid transparency than a busy and uninterested executive who shows little comfort with even the basics of technology, working with a small, harried inner circle of aides inside a bureaucracy where the IT and classification systems haven’t caught up with how business is conducted in the digital age. Reading the FBI’s interviews, Clinton’s team hardly seems organized enough to mount any sort of sinister cover-up. There’s scant oversight of the way Clinton communicated, and little thought given to how her files might be preserved for posterity—MacBook laptops with outdated archives are FedExed across the country, cutting-edge iPads are discarded quickly and BlackBerry devices are rejected for being “too heavy” as staff scrambled to cater to Clinton’s whims.” 

However, what Graff seems to ignore is the magnitude of the issue, whereas one who was trusted with the safety and security of items in the nation’s interest chose personal convenience over prudent responsibility.  And if she was incompetent, computer illiterate and/or technically deficient, it was incumbent upon her to find another, totally secure way, to overcome those insufficiencies. In fact, it’s totally preposterous to make the claim that top secret information was exposed because she wished to operate a personal device conveniently.   

Although the article by no means makes Bill’s wife’s conduct excusable, an immense of work went into the compilation of material. So, here’s a link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi4lPzLqLfPAhWFwiYKHRjND7oQqQIILDAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fmagazine%2Fstory%2F2016%2F09%2Fhillary-clinton-emails-2016-server-state-department-fbi-214307&usg=AFQjCNFjZLZJV2Cb-7gC2yLz2F97h-Wd0w&sig2=sT597GyKwh12gYotJS1TZQ

 

And naturally, since there’s still plenty of reason to doubt her innocence, despite Graff’s attempts at glossing the situation over, the ongoing question can be asked again: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are you guys reading this?    

 

That's it for today folks.     

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Aside from media analysis regarding the results from Monday night’s presidential debate, another indicator suggests that Trump fared quite well. 

Joseph Weber writes @FoxNews.com: “The Donald Trump campaign’s massive $18 million, 24-hour fundraising haul this week was orchestrated by some of the biggest names in politics, Wall Street and philanthropy -- including New York Jets owner Woody Johnson and Hollywood producer Steve Mnuchin.” 

While a number of influential figures are now involved in Trump’s accelerating fundraising: “About one-third of the money reportedly came in the form of relatively small, online donations. The remainder was solicited during a phone-calling blitz during which more than 100 top fundraisers went to Trump Tower in New York City to make calls.” 

At the same time, one more non-traditional event took place that is not only a first, but may very well forebode future Democrat woes. 

FoxNews.com reported : “Congress on Wednesday overwhelmingly rejected President Obama’s veto of a bipartisan bill letting families of Sept. 11 victims sue the Saudi Arabian government, in the first successful veto override of Obama’s presidency. 

“Marking a significant defeat for the White House, the House ensured the bill will become law after voting 348-77 to override Wednesday afternoon. This followed a 97-1 vote hours earlier in the Senate.” 

The votes came “[d]espite last-ditch warnings from the Obama administration that the legislation could hurt national security and was “badly misguided,” lawmakers dismissed the concerns. 

Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, responded: “This bill is about respecting the voices and rights of American victims." 

Even Schumer joined the majority as he: “pushed back hard on Saudi government objections to the legislation.” 

And then, although he’s been steadfast in his distaste, dislike and distrust for Bill Clinton’s wife, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano showed why people should always remain within the confines of their expertise.   

The judge began his column today: “In this weekly column and in my on-air work at Fox News, I have characterized former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a crook and as the "Queen of Deception." I have argued that there is enough credible evidence in the public domain to indict, prosecute and convict her of espionage, perjury, misleading Congress, public corruption, providing material assistance to terrorist organizations and obstruction of justice. 

“I can point to five times when she lied under oath. I know of FBI agents who believe that their hands were tied by the Obama administration in the criminal investigation of her. And I know of American intelligence agents who firmly believe that Americans died because Clinton failed to keep state secrets secure.” 

In regard to the summation of Bill’s wife’s criminality, the judge is likely absolutely correct. But then he goes on to write:about both presidential candidates, as follows:   

“Neither understands the economy. Both want the government to force employers to pay higher wages, to impose higher taxes on the most productive in our society, to impose tariffs on goods we import and to increase our $19.5 trillion national debt. Aren’t those behaviors just what got us into our present precarious economic straits, where all federal tax revenue is now consumed by wealth transfers, the Pentagon and interest on the government debt, with the government being run on borrowed money and borrowed time?” 

However, Trump believes that individual states should establish wage legislation. He also seeks revision of the tax code, reducing rates and the number of brackets immediately. He wishes to use tariffs to prevent American businesses from manufacturing elsewhere while undercutting those who operate here. He also believes that continuation of unbridled national debt will soon eviscerate the U.S. economy altogether.  

So, whoever is doing the judge’s homework for him regarding the Trump platform isn’t performing very well. And if the judge himself presented his conclusions in a court of law, he’d be found guilty of perjury at least, while also obstructing justice.  

  

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

An article by Amy Chozick @nytimes.com, yesterday presents the premise that Bill Clinton’s wife did much to help herself in Monday nights debate. Going on to provide supporting detail as to how “she avoided the land mines that Mr. Trump had so effectively planted against his Republican primary opponents.” Ms Chozick also noted that, on Tuesday, Democrats “breathed a sigh of relief.“ 

Then, much farther along in the piece, an excerpt unintentionally explains why Democrats have never presided over fiscally successful terms in office. (Except for Bill Clinton who left Republican Allan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve for the eight years of his term.) 

Ms Chozick writes: “Democrats cheered when Mrs. Clinton accused Mr. Trump of not paying federal income taxes and he replied, playing into their hands, “That makes me smart.” And they could hardly believe their good fortune when Mr. Trump said, “That’s called business, by the way,” after Mrs. Clinton accused him of profiting from the housing crisis.” 

As a practical matter, however, what Ms Chozick nor Bill’s wife are unable to grasp is the fact that it’s government that provides tax relief incentives in the first place. And the reason for the provision of that shelter is to stimulate private investment, which in turn helps the overall economy to grow. 

What’s more, entire industry’s have grown and flourished as a result of simple tax incentives such as depreciation expense, amortization and in years past, the introduction of investment tax credit at various times along the way. 

In these cases, win/win situations are created for both investors and their customers. Lessees and/or renters get the realty or equipment they desire at far more attractive rates than other alternatives, while Lessors and rental operations retain the benefits of the underlying asset's ownership, which includes any available write-offs or incentives.  

In terms of industry size,  according to franchisehelp.com: “Last year there were approximately 210,000 companies operating in the residential brokerage and management field, which generated $200 billion in revenue; there were 35,000 companies operating in the commercial brokerage and management field, generating $35 billion in revenue.” 

And then, according to the 54rd Annual Convention of the Equipment Leasing and Finance Association Equipment Finance Industry Report: “For the first time ever, the equipment finance market is expected to surpass $1 trillion in 2015.” 

So, here we have a real estate investor, Trump, who happens to be in a business in which tax considerations are woven into its very core and structure by federal law. And on the other side, a competitor who attacks him as if success was a crime. However, that may turn out to be a huge mistake for her. 

Because, now that Trump’s aware of her intention to vilify his business record by accusing him of tax avoidance, her similar behavior is now certainly fair game. Which means that all of those issues mentioned by Judge Napolitano today can now come into play including: “enough credible evidence in the public domain to indict, prosecute and convict her of espionage, perjury, misleading Congress, public corruption, providing material assistance to terrorist organizations and obstruction of justice.” 

And that certainly leaves room for the asking again of the ongoing question: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are you guys reading this?   

That's it for today folks.      

Adios

BloggeRhythms

While the mainstream media continues to drain every pro-Clinton ounce that it can out of Monday’s debate, nothing's changed at all regarding the election itself.

The USC Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election Daybreak Poll this morning shows Trump retaining his lead 46.7% to 42.6%,  four points ahead of his rival. 

While the MSM’s consistently supports Trump's rival, voters themselves don’t seem to be very interested in the message.

Erik Sandoval, reporter @clickorlando.com, writes: “Fresh off Monday night's presidential debate, Republican Donald Trump campaigned in Brevard County on Tuesday, arriving like a rock star at Melbourne International Airport.

“Trump's personal passenger jet rolled up to a waiting stairway outside the AeroMod hangar, where inside, an estimated 10,000 people waited to hear him speak. 

“Trump claimed the crowd grew to more than 20,000 while he was talking. 

“Most of the people stood in long lines outside the Melbourne airport for hours in the hot afternoon sun. Temperatures reached 90 degrees across Central Florida on Tuesday. 

“Inside the hangar, many were overcome with heat and had to be treated by paramedics.” 

This attraction demonstrated by Trump’s supporters is quite different than that received by his rival. In her case, while the audiences are significantly smaller, medical attention is not usually required by the attendees, but for she herself. 

Another perspective on Monday night’s debate came from Michael Goodwin @nypost.com yesterday. 

“But here’s the other side of the [debate] story: Trump won’t suffer much voter pain, certainly not enough to put victory out of reach. His secret weapon is that his core supporters, including many independents, distrust the media nearly as much as they distrust Clinton. 

“Consider that, while most media professionals said Clinton won the debate, most online polls of viewers had Trump winning. 

“The split verdict reflects a theme that goes back to the earliest GOP primary debates. Candidates who blasted media moderators for being prejudiced against Republicans got rousing ovations. 

“The anger has grown more pronounced since Trump, the ultimate outsider, crashed the party to win the nomination.” 

And then, Mr. Goodwin addresses the elephant in the newsrooms of the MSM, whose audiences are disappearing rapidly while today’s voters seek other, unbiased sources.   

Mr. Goodwin writes: “[I]t’s possible that anti-media sentiment could help decide the election. The nationwide numbers suggest the possibility. 

“A recent Gallup survey found a new low in public trust of the media, with only 32 percent of Americans saying they have a great deal or some trust in newspapers, TV and radio “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly.” Trust fell eight points in one year alone and is only 14 percent among Republicans. 

“In a change election where both candidates have historically high negative ratings, many voters could make their choice for secondary reasons. 

“Voting against the other candidate is the most likely option, while voting against the media as a proxy for voting against the establishment is emerging as another. 

“In that case, the news media could be more than part of the story. They could be the story.” 

While Mr. Goodwin is an experienced, highly popular voice regarding politics, his suggestion of the media’s garnering votes seems a bit extreme. Nonetheless, his observation regarding the shift of voters' to alternative sources is entirely accurate. 

Which is, perhaps, why Trump drew 20,000 voters to his event in Orlando the day after the MSM tries their damnedest to write him off. 

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne @foxnews.com today, produced an article illustrating that there are issues far more important to the upcoming election than the results of a soon-forgotten debate. 

As usual, the FBI chose late Friday afternoon to release nearly 200 highly redacted pages of so-called “302” files from the bureau’s investigation. The files included new details of the tech intervention by Clinton aide Huma Abedin and Clinton Foundation official Justin Cooper – and a third individual, a Hillary Clinton aide named Monica Hanley. 

“Hanley was interviewed twice by the FBI, on Jan. 11 and June 23. Working for Hillary Clinton as a “confidential assistant,” Hanley joined the State Department in 2009 as Hillary Clinton began her job as secretary of state.  Previously, the 35-year-old worked as an intern for Clinton while she served as a U.S. senator for New York. 

“In the released documents, Hanley emerged as the go-to staffer often tasked with finding replacements to satisfy Clinton’s chosen use of non-secure BlackBerries. Hanley stated she tried to find BlackBerries for sale on eBay and admitted that she made a trip to a mall in Virginia to try to find devices for sale. 

“The FBI document said “Hanley received a Top Secret/SCI clearance at DoS.” Despite the training, during one trip to Russia, Hanley was specifically criticized for leaving a classified document in a hotel suite she shared with Clinton during the trip. “Hanley was informed by DS (Department of State) that the briefing book and document should have never been in the suite,” the document said.” 

In addition: “Clinton Foundation official Justin Cooper who recently testified before the House oversight committee, was responsible for running the clintonemail.com networks. In addition to his work for the Clinton Foundation, Cooper is listed as a senior adviser to Teneo Holdings, a private investment banking firm worth billions and founded by former President Bill Clinton and longtime adviser Doug Band. 

“The FBI file says Hanley told the FBI that after the conference call, “Cooper provided Hanley an Apple Mac laptop from the Clinton Foundation, which Hanley took home to her apartment (redacted.)  It was noted that “Hanley created an archive of Hillary R. Clinton’s hdr22@clintonemail.com as a result of concerns about the reported hack of Blumenthal’s account.  

“Hanley stated that Huma Abedin selected the new name of the email account, hrod17@clintonemail.com.” 

So, here we have additional proof that refutes completely Bill’s wife’s contention that she was technologically ignorant. In fact, she was sophisticated to the extent that she specifically assigned an aide to acquire, maintain and update personally favored equipment. 

What’s more, by the newly exposed overlap of personnel's responsibilities between the state department, Clinton Foundation and private businesses, its a virtual certainty that top level breaches of confidentiality took place in the past. 

All of which indicates that If Trump is one who learns from experience, he now has another major issue to pursue when the next debate rolls around. And if the result turns out as it should, strongly in his favor, the ongoing question needs asking once more: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are you guys reading this?  

That's it for today folks.      

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Regardless of what delving into specific statistical outcomes may eventually disclose, last night’s debate proved hugely successful for Trump. Because, as reported by James S. Robbins @usatoday.com this morning: “Trump pulled off presidential”

Mr. Robbins writes: “Like Reagan in 1980, viewers saw a Trump who was better than the liberal talking points. 

“You can’t fact check leadership, and tonight Donald Trump showed himself a leader.”

A comparison was then made to none other than to the revered Ronald Reagan. 

“Overall, [Jimmy] Carter kept Reagan on the defensive, and the president probably won on points. However, Reagan’s affability and easy manner wore well against Carter’s stern lecturing. Reagan did not come off as the cartoonish, conservative cowboy of Democratic talking points. The Lowell Sun observed, “Ronald Reagan had not self-destructed. He had not made any ill-advised statements that were clearly foolish, as Carter had hoped. Reagan appeared calm under Carter’s attack. With his polished stage manner, he went a long way in presenting himself as presidential timber.” Many Americans agreed. A Gallup poll two days before the debate showed Reagan trailing Carter 39% to 47%. A week later, Reagan won the election 51% to 41%.

“The same words could apply to 2016. Donald Trump did not self-destruct, he did not make foolish statements (whether you agree with him or not), he gave as well as he got. And despite Clinton’s numerous mocking remarks to the contrary, he came off as presidential. And that’s a fact.”

As far as the numbers themselves are concerned, polling data for last night’s contest is in and the results are debatable.  

According to dailymail.co.uk: “CNN awarded Hillary Clinton an overwhelming victory in the first presidential debate - but most snap polls show Trump emerged victorious. 

“Online polls carried out afterwards gave a different outcome - handing the title to Trump. 

“Such polls are self-selecting, and more likely to pick up the views of those who vote, although CNN's study also reflected a similar bias. 

“The Drudge Report's poll showed Trump fared better with 81.5 per cent of the vote to Clinton's 18.5 while others, including Time, CBS New York and the Washington Times, also saw Trump win the vote.” 

FoxNews.com’s Charles Krauthammer arrived at a similar conclusion regarding both candidate’s performance, but gave the edge to Trump. 

“It was not exactly the knock out fight that we thought. It was a spirited fight. I think in the end it was something like a draw. But I do believe that the draw goes to the challenger in the sense that Trump did not go over the line. And the very fact he could go 90 minutes on the same stage ultimately elevates the challenger, that's just automatic for any debate of that sort.” 

Which on an otherwise slow news day, brings us to the update on Bill Clinton’s wife.  

David Lightman and Tim Funk @charlotteobserver.com, addressed results from a focus group of voters from around Charlotte conducted by McClatchy and the Charlotte Observer, as follows:   

“Indeed, while polls said that Clinton won the first general election debate with Donald Trump Monday, she may not have won actual votes. And she may even have lost some, at least in the battleground state of North Carolina. 

“The closeness of the race – even after a seeming Clinton win in the debate – was underscored in the hour-long discussion with voters after watching the debate at Queens University of Charlotte. 

“Kae Roberts and Jay Eardly were leaning toward Hillary Clinton before Monday night’s debate. 

“By the end, they had both pulled away. 

“John Kokos and Hank Federal were undecided going in, potential Clinton backers. 

“By the end, they’d ruled her out. 

And most important about the voter’s change of heart, are the reasons why. 

“For the four who emerged less impressed by Clinton, it was the seeming familiarity of her proposals for the economy and national security that was a turnoff. 

“Roberts, who is unaffiliated with a party, wrote in her notes several times during the debate that Clinton offered “pie in the sky” ideas. By debate’s end, she had moved from leaning toward Clinton to undecided.” 

All of which underlines that regardless of her debating skills, years in politics and government, voters today want answers to their administration-caused dilemmas. And she’s not only not the solution, she’s a major part of the problem.

Bringing up the ongoing question once more: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are you guys reading this? 

That's it for today folks.     

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Observing all of the media hype, promotion and speculation regarding tonight's presidential debate is remindful of all the business “experts” who spout from the sidelines about dealing with competition. And, unless those experts have been in the exact same situation themselves, facing the exact same circumstances, in the exact same place and time, they have no idea whatsoever as to what to say or do in advance. Nor do they know how “customers” will react until the actual interchange takes place. 

Therefore, when you get right down to it, debating is the same as competing for customers in the business world. Which means that nobody knows in advance what the outcome will be until the “sales-call” is made. And that’s because it’s the customers who decide whether to ‘buy” or not, regardless of anyone else’s expectation, theory or projection of the eventual results.

In fact, the only thing that’s absolutely certain is that if both contestants actually show up tonight, one will win and the other won’t. Unless, of course, it winds up in a dead heat.

As far as the major polls are concerned today, the race itself is in a virtual tie, except for the USC Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election Daybreak Poll, which has Trump ahead by four full points, 46.3 to 42.4%.

Aside from poll results another, perhaps quite important projection of the election outcome came from bloomberg.com this morning, which reported: “Gold may be in for a bumpy ride in the final quarter as Republican candidate Donald Trump now has a 40 percent chance of winning the presidential election and investors will be preparing for the possibility of higher U.S. interest rates, according to Citigroup Inc.

“Volatility in bullion and foreign-exchange markets may increase, according to a commodities report from the bank as it raised the odds on a Trump victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton in November from 35 percent. There would probably be a single U.S. hike by year-end, it said. A Bloomberg Politics poll has Trump and Clinton deadlocked before a debate later today.” 

And then, in another “real world” happening, Brandon Darby @breitbart.com, reported: “Leaked documents with sensitive FBI data exclusively obtained by Breitbart Texas reveal that 7,712 terrorist encounters occurred within the United States in one year and that many of those encounters occurred near the U.S.-Mexico border. The incidents are characterized as “Known or Suspected Terrorist Encounters.” Some of the encounters occurred near the U.S.-Mexico border at ports-of-entry and some occurred in between, indicating that persons known or reasonably suspected of being terrorists attempted to sneak into the U.S. across the border. In all, the encounters occurred in higher numbers in border states.

At the same time as the terrorist encounters were disclosed by breitbart, Steve Holland @ca.news.yahoo, wrote: “With immigration likely to be discussed at the debate, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, a union representing 5,000 federal immigration officers and law enforcement support staff, announced it would support Trump, in what was described as its first endorsement of a candidate for elected office.

“The union's president, Chris Crane, outlined in a statement why his group is backing Trump, saying his union members are "the last line of defense for American communities" and that his members "are prevented from enforcing the most basic immigration laws." 

“Crane said the endorsement was conducted by a vote of the union's membership and that Clinton received only 5 percent of the vote.” 

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

This one comes from politico.com’s Kyle Cheney, Isaac Arnsdorf, Daniel Lippman and Daniel Strauss who headed their column: “Hillary Clinton Struggles Most With Truth About Herself” 

While the authors attempted to establish Trump as a continual prevaricator, they presented: “Some metrics on Clinton’s statements this week:

• Number of appearances: two speeches; three TV interviews; one press availability; 114 tweets; two op-eds
• Combined length of remarks (speeches, interviews): 96 minutes, 10 seconds
• Raw number of misstatements, exaggerations, falsehoods: eight
• Rate: one untruth every 12 minutes

Thus, their conclusion was: “Though Clinton is far more practiced at sticking to defensible policy positions and recollections of history, she’s significantly more lax when addressing her own transgressions — the potential Achilles’ heel of a candidacy marred by questions of her truthfulness.”

The article contains considerable evidence of her fabrications. Here’s a link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjpo_mdp63PAhXBMSYKHVr8BAsQFgiSATAP&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fmagazine%2Fstory%2F2016%2F09%2F2016-hillary-clinton-fact-check-week-214286&usg=AFQjCNHvk_mp9d6r50fEeAXyFHR0cTQzSw&sig2=188tea7N360Q_m_J2i1eAA

Therefore, in consideration of potential demand for honesty in the nation’s highest elected office, the ongoing question needs asking again: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are you guys reading this? 

  

That's it for today folks.    

 

Adios 

PS: The game of golf, and the world in general, lost an irreplaceable icon yesterday. Arnold Palmer will be dearly missed. 

Having spent many years as a dedicated fan provides a rather firm basis for my opinion and reverence. He truly deserves every aspect of it. 

MB

BloggeRhythms

Despite significant sponsor promotion and media hype, the true value of the upcoming presidential debate remains to be worthless. That’s because a few minutes of televised rhetoric isn’t going to change either candidates history, experience, job performance, fundamental knowledge or capabilities an iota. Both contestants are what they are and their resumes have been very well known to the voting public for the past thirty years or more.  

And, most important, their platforms won’t change due to some TV show. For those wanting more of the same stagnation as the last ten years and continuation of a government controlled welfare-based nation, Bill Clinton’s wife is their only choice. And for those wishing for a national turnaround, economic growth, a more secure country and foreign policy improvement, Trump’s the singular alternative. And thus, except for the show business angle, there isn’t any reason to watch two old folks toss insults at each other.  I know I'm not going to waste any of my time on it.

However, if nothing else, this particular debate preamble resulted in one of the biggest laughs this writer’s had in quite a while now.  

It was reported a couple of days ago that the Democrats were planning to put supporter Mark Cuban in the first row of the audience, because he’d be a loud and distracting heckler to Trump. 

To that, Trump brilliantly tweeted back: “If dopey Mark Cuban of failed Benefactor fame wants to sit in the front row, perhaps I will put Gennifer Flowers right alongside of him!”  Which would really be quite funny indeed.  

And that’s because, as reported by Aaron Short and Mary Kay Linge @nypost.com, Gennifer Flowers, carried on a 12-year affair with Bill Clinton when he was attorney general and governor of Arkansas.  

“Ms. Flowers has agreed to join Donald at the debate,” her personal assistant, Judy Stell, wrote in an e-mail to BuzzFeed, according to the Web site. 

“The revelation of Flowers’ affair with Bill Clinton — the first of many “bimbo eruptions,” as his inner circle called them — nearly derailed his White House hopes in 1992, one month before the New Hampshire primary. 

“Rumors of infidelity had haunted Clinton from the moment he announced his candidacy, but when Flowers told a supermarket tabloid that she and the governor had carried on a torrid, decade-plus relationship, he and wife Hillary sat for an awkward “60 Minutes” interview to save the campaign. 

“Bill Clinton admitted that he had “caused pain” in his marriage, but would not confess to the relationship with Flowers — or admit to having obtained a state job for her. 

“Instead, he maintained that his private life had no place in the presidential campaign and refused to say whether he had ever committed adultery. 

“The next day, a furious Flowers called a press conference at New York’s Waldorf-Astoria Hotel to tell 200 reporters that Clinton had been “absolutely lying” by denying their affair. 

“She played 15 minutes of phone conversations between the two in which Clinton instructed her to lie about having been his lover. 

“If they [reporters] ever hit you with it, just say ‘no’ and go on — there’s nothing they can do,” said a voice that she claimed was ­Clinton’s. 

“Six years later, Flowers was vindicated when lawyers for Paula Jones, who had accused Clinton of sexual harassment, forced him to admit under oath that Flowers had been telling the truth.” 

While the resurrection of Bill Clinton’s past digressions would certainly be quite damaging to the entire current presidential campaign of his wife, Cuban’s support of her might come back to bite her as well. Because, he certainly isn’t her strongest ally in the world either.    

   

According to Sally Bronston @nbcnews.com, as recently as May 22 2016: “In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," Cuban said, "If [Trump] asked me, I'd be like, 'Okay, Donald. That's great. Let's talk about it. But we're both going to have to dig in and really look and understand the issues so we can come up with solutions.'" 

In the very same interview: “Cuban also expressed interest in running with Hillary Clinton. He said he would "absolutely" entertain that conversation, but "she would have to go more to the center." 

“Clinton, in a separate interview on "Meet the Press," did not fully dismiss the idea. "I appreciate his openness to it," she said.” 

“The tech entrepreneur did admit Donald Trump has "opened the door to non-traditional candidates, which is a great thing." Cuban says he's more open to running for public office now because "You don't have to be the perfect Stepford candidate like you would've been in the past." 

Most importantly: “Cuban said he believes Trump "has a real chance to win, and that's scary to a lot of people." 

“What alarms him specifically is that Trump is "listening to everybody, which is fine on the surface," but, he continued, "It's coming across as if he's proposing things based off the last person he talks to." 

However, that was six months ago, and now today Trump has far more clearly defined his platform, intentions and objectives. Which means that Cuban’s main concern has been greatly reduced, if not completely eliminated. 

And therefore, since Cuban has no solid political interest aside from whatever he can do for himself, he’s really the only completely loose cannon in the bunch. Which is something that Trump can bury him with.  

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

While the soon to be forgotten debate will likely have quite little to do with the upcoming election’s outcome, another item holds strong indications for the future in very real terms. 

Bob Unruh @wnd.com titled his column today: “Amazon steps in to 'fix' Hillary book review,” and added: “If you can’t even win when the rules are changed in your favor, things must be REALLY bad.” 

“[O]ut of 1,244 reviews, 81 percent were one-star and 16 percent five-star. The book plunged from No. 840 earlier this week to No. 1,538 on Thursday. It was No. 5 in the subcategory “Books-Politics & Social Sciences-Politics & Government-Elections & Political Process-Leadership.” 

“WND previously reported there were more than 1,200 reviews, and the number grew to than 2,000. 

“But Thursday afternoon, there were only 255, with many of the most critical reviews removed by Amazon, whose CEO, Jeff Bezos, owns the Washington Post, which created an army of 20 reporters and researchers to investigate the life of Donald Trump. 

“Victory for the Clinton book, however, remains out of grasp, with the negative, one-star responses, outnumbering positive, five-star responses nearly 2-1.” 

What’s most interesting, however, is that: “[R]eviewers many times simply punched the five-star button then made harshly critical condemnations of the book and Hillary Clinton. 

“The reviews dripped sarcasm, both before the Amazon edits to the reviews and after.

Elaine wrote: "I bought this thinking it would be a how-to book. I wanted ‘How to set up your own Foundation for fun and profit.’ Also, would like to have seen a chapter on ‘Ten easy steps to setting up your own secure server in a bathroom.'”

“Not only no but hell no. I’d rather read Mein Kampf,” said Anthony Messina. 

“Another anonymous Amazon Customer wrote, “not worth it.” 

“Yeliya said, “Don’t waste your time and money on this book full of lies.” 

“Cross Locket said, “I am now on Hillary’s watch list for rating this disgusting book ‘1 star.'” 

“Alei said, “Trash, farce, fairytale.” 

“And kpm said, “Imagine my dismay when key parts of her life were omitted, would have made for far better reading if she had included all of the below starting with flunking the D.C. Bar Exam to:

• Was removed from her House Judiciary Committee staffer job because of incompetence and lying.
• The Whitewater scandal.
• Married a serial liar and cheater, who occasionally had sexual encounters with nonconsenting partners.
• Lied about “sniper fire” in an attempt to simulate exposure to danger in a war zone.
  The subject of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that led to the impeachment and disbarment of her husband
• Took crockery, furniture, artwork and other items from the White House — had to return and/or pay for them.
• Said “what difference, at this point, does it make” about four brave people killed in Libya as a direct result of her failure to protect them on the anniversary of 9/11.
• Totally ignored the structure and rules for the handling of sensitive national security information.
• Amassed a personal fortune with “speaking fees” and payments from private sector political donors and foreign governments into transparent “foundations” in obvious exchange for future political favor.

“Nearly 1,500 people found that review “helpful.” 

“But more than 3,400 found helpful the comments from Daniel B.:

“I was going to read this book … I really was. But just as I got started, I found myself under sniper fire, passed out, and fell and hit my head. After that I got double vision and had to wear glasses that were so damn thick I couldn’t even see to read. As if that wasn’t enough, I then had an allergic reaction to something and started coughing so hard I spit out what looked like a couple of lizard’s eyeballs, my limbs locked up, and I passed out and fell down again, waking up only to find out I had been diagnosed with pneumonia 2 days earlier. Somehow I managed to power through it all, but it’s a good thing I was able to make a small fortune on this random small trade in the commodities market (cattle futures or some such thing) and then, miracle of all miracles, a few banks offered me a few million to just talk to their employees for a few minutes – and all that really helped out because I swear I was dead broke and couldn’t figure out how I was gonna come up with the 6 bucks to pay for this book, let alone pay the $1,500 for my health insurance this month. I still want to read it, but, honestly, what difference at this point does it make? I hear it sucks anyway.”

All of which means that there are quite many in the voting public who know precisely what Bill Clinton’s wife is all about, regardless of attempts of influential supporters like Jeff Bezos to help her. It also means that showcases, such as debates, can’t possibly alter or reshape her very well-known history.  

Thus, considering the overwhelming negativity surrounding her, the ongoing question needs asking again: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are you guys reading this?   

That's it for today folks.     

Adios

BloggeRhythms

If no news is truly good news, today’s a wonderful day. Except, perhaps, for Bill Clinton’s wife.

Back on  March 7, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Reena Flores @CBS News (via Drudge) reported that “President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton's private email address use for official State Department business after a New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview.

“CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama. 

"The same time everybody else learned it through news reports," the president told Plante.”

But that was then, and this is now where Josh Gerstein and Nolan D. McCaskill report today that: “President Barack Obama used a pseudonym in email communications with Hillary Clinton and others, according to FBI records made public Friday. 

“The disclosure came as the FBI released its second batch of documents from its investigation into Clinton’s private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.” 

Which means that Bill’s wife not only communicated with the POTUS on her private server when she was secretary of state, both of them have consistently lied about it since then.  

Although there’s a dearth of other news, what can be added to Clinton negativity in the press is found in a Reuters article via cnbc.com. It will also serve as today’s update on her.

Whereas cnbc is part of the MSM, the postponement of a photo-op trip was reported in the most favorable light possible this morning: "U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has postponed a trip planned for Sunday to Charlotte, North Carolina, which has seen sometimes violent protests after a black man was killed by police earlier this week. 

"Hillary is grateful for, and intends to honor, the invitation from faith leaders to visit with the Charlotte community," her campaign said in a statement on Friday. 

"After further discussion with community leaders, we have decided to postpone Sunday's trip as to not impact the city's resources," it said, adding that Clinton will visit the city on the following Sunday. 

In actuality, however, as reported in several articles elsewhere on Friday Charlotte’s mayor, Jennifer Roberts, publicly asked both presidential candidates to delay plans to visit the city. 

According to Ronnie Glassberg @charlotteobserver.com, the mayor urged both presidential candidates to postpone trips, explaining that local law enforcement is strained now. “We would hope they would come a little bit later.” 

Which means that, after being requested as politely as possible to stay away because she wasn’t needed at all and would also cause unwanted strain on personnel, Bill’s wife’s press corps gave her full credit for the decision to cancel. Although it was Charlotte that had no desire whatsoever to see her. 

Further information about how the tragedy was actually handled by Bill’s wife’s and her campaign management appeared back on September 22, when, according to Charlie Spiering @breitbart.com: “Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton has remained silent after a second night of riots in Charlotte, North Carolina caused major damage in the city. 

“But Clinton’s campaign has been silent, as she remains at her home in Chappaqua, New York preparing for her first debate with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.” 

Trump himself, however: “was the first candidate to weigh in, voicing his reaction in an interview on Fox and Friends Thursday morning calling for law and order, leadership, and unity.” 

“But Clinton’s campaign appears focused on spreading existing media to the press, with no new statement from the Democratic presidential nominee.” 

So, here again, much like most other significant decisions, the Clinton approach has always been to do absolutely nothing until the most advantageous political gain can be determined. Regardless of whatever the most responsible, professionally appropriate response should be in the immediate circumstances. Which is remindful of continual Benghazi truth avoidance, the delayed reaction to the early discovery of email abuses, and postponed release of Clinton Foundation financial dealings. 

Leading to the ongoing question, once again: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are you guys reading this?   

That's it for today folks.    

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Once again, much of today’s headline news concerns the upcoming presidential election, and more specifically, this coming Monday’s debate. 

As far as the bigger picture’s concerned, Peggy Noonan’s column today @wsj.com, suggests that she senses a very strong voter trend toward Trump. 

Ms Noonan writes: “The most arresting sentence of the week came from a sophisticated Manhattan man friendly with all sides. I asked if he knows what he’ll do in November. “I know exactly,” he said with some spirit. “I will be one of the 40 million who will deny, the day after the election, that they voted for him. But I will.” 

Along the same lines of voter reluctance to divulge their presidential preferences at present, Ms Noonan continues: “A high elected official, a Republican, got a faraway look when I asked what he thought was going to happen. “This is the unpollable election,” he said. People don’t want to tell you who they’re for. A lot aren’t sure. A lot don’t want to be pressed. 

“That’s exactly what I’ve seen the past few weeks in North Carolina, New Jersey, Tennessee and Minnesota. 

“Every four years I ask people if they’ll vote, and if they have a sense of how. Every four years they tell me—assertively or shyly, confidently or tentatively. This year is different. I’ve never seen people so nervous to answer. It’s so unlike America, this reticence, even defensiveness. It’s as if there’s a feeling that to declare who you’re for is to invite others to inspect your soul.” 

Despite voter’s reluctance to readily disclose their preference, Ms Noonan then goes on present further evidence of her Trump victory expectations, as follows: 

“I feel like this is the most controversial election ever,” said a food-court worker at La Guardia Airport. She works a full shift, 4 a.m. to noon, five days a week, then goes full-time to a nearby college. We’d been chatting a while, and when I asked the question she told me, carefully, that she hasn’t decided how she’ll vote, and neither have her family members. I said a lot of people seem nervous to say. She said: “Especially Trump people. They’re afraid you’ll think they’re stupid.” 

“Which is how I knew she was going to vote for Donald Trump. 

“It’s true: Trump voters especially don’t want to be categorized, judged, thought stupid—racist, sexist, Islamophobic, you name it. When most of them know, actually, that they’re not.” 

Support for Ms Noonan’s conclusions regarding Trump came from reader, Eric G Raymond, who commented: “I came to the same conclusion in 2008 with McCain having just named Palin as his VP. 

“The one advantage he had was experience, and he blew it with a single decision. My prínciples wouldn't allow me to vote for an idiot. 

“So...I chose NONE OF THE ABOVE for President, thinking "what do we have to lose?" I still voted...just left the top line blank, which is my Constitutional Right. 

“8 years later I'm able to honestly admit that when it comes to a binary choice, it's time to look at who's best going to be able to implement the policies that I like most. With Scalia's seat still sitting empty...dwell on that. 

“I hate Trump. I despise him and think he's a blowhard. But...I'm going to vote for him. Not because of him, but because he is a useful tool for me to see the government do the things I want it to do for me..instead of to me.” 

In very much the same vein, Pat Buchanan’s latest column @wnd.com, presents his suggestions as to how Trump ought to proceed to capitalize on his non-traditional candidacy.   

“Beat the point spread” is a good description of what Donald Trump has to do in Monday night’s debate. 

“With only a year in national politics, he does not have to show a mastery of foreign and domestic policy details. Rather, he has to do what John F. Kennedy did in 1960 and what Ronald Reagan did in 1980. 

“He has to meet and exceed expectations, which are not terribly high. He has to convince a plurality of voters, who seem prepared to vote for him, that he’s not a terrible risk and that he will be a president of whom they can be proud. 

“He has to show the country a Trump that contradicts the caricature created by those who dominate our politics, culture and press. 

“The Trump on stage at Hofstra University will have 90 minutes to show that the malicious cartoon of Donald Trump is a libelous lie.” 

In support of his conclusions, Buchanan writes: “Even George W. Bush, who, according to most judges, did not win a single debate against Al Gore or John Kerry, came off as a levelheaded fellow who was more relatable than the inventor of the Internet or the windsurfer of Cape Cod.” 

Most importantly: “The winner of presidential debates is not the one who compiles the most debating points. It is the one whom the audience decides they like, and can be comfortable taking a chance on. 

“Trump has the same imperative and same opportunity as JFK and Reagan. For the anticipated audience, of Super Bowl size, will be there to see him, not her. He is the challenger who fills up the sports arenas with the tens and scores of thousands, not Hillary Clinton. 

“If she were debating John Kasich or Jeb Bush, neither the viewing audience nor the title-fight excitement of Monday night would be there. Specifically, what does Trump need to do? He needs to show that he can be presidential. He needs to speak with confidence, but not cockiness, and to deal with Clinton’s attacks directly, but with dignity and not disrespect. And humor always helps. 

And then, Buchanan hammers home his well-informed, logically presented conclusion.

“Clinton has a more difficult assignment. 

“America knows she knows the issues. But two-thirds of the country does not believe her to be honest or trustworthy. As her small crowds show, she sets no one on fire. Blacks, Hispanics and millennials who invested high hopes in Barack Obama seem to have no great hopes for her. She has no bold agenda, no New Deal or New Frontier. 

“Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?” wailed Hillary Clinton this week. 

“The answer is simple. America has seen enough of her and has no great desire to see any more; and she cannot change an impression hardened over 25 years – in 90 minutes.”  

Buchanan's expectations were confirmed to a great degree by Annie Karni and Glenn Thrush @politico.com, in today’s update  on Bill Clinton’s wife regarding the upcoming match-up Monday night. 

“The fear is that she’ll get lost in the moment, and no one is better at seizing the moment than Trump,” said a longtime adviser to both Clinton's. 

“Indeed, that’s what’s worrying Clinton’s inner circle – that victory will come down to something like tone, which she has always struggled with, vacillating between cold and severe to thoughtful and wry. But the traditional, substantive sessions now underway are key to settling the candidate’s head, longtime aides said. "The prep matters because it gives her the confidence to know she is armed,” said one longtime Clinton ally. “She will feel more comfortable if she's prepared the way she likes to prepare.” 

However: “They know that Trump – a quick-study political novice participating in the first one-on-one debate of his life – is a wild card who can turn weeks of pouring over briefing books into mockery with a single, brilliant and bullying punch.” 

And there’s the rub in a nutshell. Because from the outset of Trump’s presidential run, sixteen experienced, hardened, Republican politicians were sliced, diced and overrun by an unskilled upstart arriving out of political nowhere. And now, today, those same Republican leaders have lost the party control once held, whereas he's taken that as well.

Which means that, much like what Trump’s done to his nomination competitors, he now has the chance to outperform his Democrat rival. And in that regard, he’s got plenty to work with because, according to an article by the Staff @theblaze.com:

53.5% of Americans Think U.S. Is Headed in Wrong Direction

55.3% Disapprove of How Obama Handled U.S./Iran Relations

52% of Americans Disapprove How Obama Handled the Economy

54% of Americans Wanted Congress to Reject The Iran Deal

56% of Americans Disapprove of How Obama Handled Foreign Affairs

54% of Americans No Longer Want U.S. to Be An International Peacekeeper

Americans Blame Iraq On Obama Almost as Much as Bush. 41.5% Obama,  42.5% Bush

53% of Americans Do Not Want to Close Gitmo

55.5% of Americans Disapprove of How Obama Handled Health Care, With Only 42.5% In Favor

55.5% of Americans Disapprove of How Obama Handled Terrorism

Americans Changed Their Perspective On Refugees After The Paris Attacks. 61% are now opposed versus 44% before.

61% of Americans Also Thought a December Terrorist Attack Was Likely

56.8% of Americans Disapprove of How Obama Handled Gun Policy. Only 38.8% Approve.

54% of Americans Disapprove of Obama’s Executive Orders on Guns

61.5% of Americans Disapprove of How Obama Handled ISIS. “In by far Obama’s worst polling result among the nine broad topics on this list, 61.5 percent of Americans disapprove of how the president has handled ISIS. Much of the criticism surrounds the assertion that Obama has been too cautious, dismissing the Islamic State as the “JV” (junior varsity) team. ISIS has since claimed responsibility for the terrorist attacks in both Paris and San Bernardino, Calif.

A Clear Majority of Americans, 78.5%, Believe ISIS Terrorists Are Currently in the U.S.

68% of Americans Believe the U.S. Military Response to ISIS Was Not Aggressive Enough

And if that isn’t enough, there’s Benghazi, the disastrous nuclear deal with the Mullahs of Iran, failure to secure the borders where Illegals continue bringing guns, drugs and diseases across unhampered, and then there’s the Bowe Bergdahl swap

As far as the economy’s concerned, there’s now the lowest Labor Force Participation rate of 62.7%, a record 92,898,000 Americans over 16 years not working, the highest percentage of Americans are now on food stamps and Medicaid, economic stimulus plans have failed and the price of healthcare has drastically risen for those purchasing it. 

Solyndra was a total bust and misjudgment, as was the handling of Syrian Red Line, the $9 trillion dollars more in debt, passing on the Keystone pipeline, returning the bust of Churchill to the Brits and paying tribute to the Japanese at Hiroshima on Memorial Day.

Thus, without the need for anything more than simple presentation of historical fact, there’s little else that Trump really needs to do in Monday’s debate. Whereas, in the examples above, Bill’s Clinton’s wife was right alongside the POTUS, agreeing with each of them. Either in practice when secretary of state or political philosophy before and afterward. 

All of which means that Trump has a significant advantage over his current rival, who very well might have considerable problems defending herself and her positions. Leading to the ongoing question again: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are you guys reading this?  

That's it for today folks.   

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Once again, the weekly analysis from pollster Rasmussen,  @rasmussenreports.com via Drudge, contains substantial detail that portends far more than just what the overall results indicate. 

“The latest Rasmussen Reports weekly White House Watch telephone and online survey finds Trump with 44% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 39%. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson earns eight percent (8%) of the vote, while Green Party nominee Jill Stein holds steady at two percent (2%). Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are still undecided.” 

That means the trend toward Trump is continuing whereas last week the spread was only 2% (42% to 40%) after trailing his rival by four points the week before. What’s more: “Trump’s total this week ties his highest ever level of support from two months ago.” 

As noted above, however, the significant keys are in the analytical breakdown. Overall, both candidates earn comparable support from voters in their own party. Trump’s at 76%, compared to 75%. But while much is made of top Republicans refusing their support of Trump, little is heard about Democrat party abandonment. 

Poll results show that while 10% of Republicans join former President George H.W. Bush in supporting the Democrat candidate, fourteen percent (14%) of Democrats prefer Trump. And perhaps more importantly, Trump has a commanding 45% to 27% lead this week among voters not affiliated with either major political party. Which means that since the party line vote is in a virtual tie, independents appear to be ready to swing the election itself to him quite handily. 

And then, on the same subject, syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer was quoted spouting nonsensical gibberish. 

Tuesday on "Special Report with Bret Baier" he said that “the presidential debates are going to be crucial this time around for candidate and voters.”  

“With Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump starting to take a slight lead in some battleground state polls, such as North Carolina and Ohio, Krauthammer said "it's getting late early" for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.”  

Krauthammer then said that since both candidates are well-known to voters, "the upcoming debates are going to play a bigger role than in years past, especially for Clinton." 

"People know who they are...I'm not sure what her advertising advantage is going to be at this point," he said.  

And that's where everyday simple logic went out the window. Because at this point it’s probable that likely voters know each candidate and their platforms inside out, upside down, and every other way possible. Which means that it’s practically impossible for anything new to be “sold” to the audience in a debate of any kind.

As a practical reality, when the debate is over, Trump will still be a political outsider taking his best shot at the White House with a host of common-sensical solutions to the nation’s ills. And his rival will still be an overrated failure as a Senator and Secretary of State who’s tied into one of the biggest slush funds ever created and the recipient of millions of bucks ripped off in an international pay to play extortion scheme.   

  

And therefore, anyone gullible enough to buy what’s spouted in answer to a questionable moderator who’s got his own axe to grind is most probably too dumb to find a voting booth with a Sherpa guide, hunting dog, 1000 watt flashlight and Google street-finder.   

Farther along in the article, even the author corroborated the point by writing: “While history has shown that the debates do not alter the basic shape of the race, Krauthammer said this year will be different.” 

Nonetheless, Krauthammer ended by saying: “The importance of these debates is gonna exceed the importance of any debates in any race that we have ever seen." And in that regard he might even be correct. Because he didn’t qualify his prediction with any specifics. Which means that if previous debates had a 0% impact on the race and this one has a 1% impact, Krauthammer’s right in his assumption.    

As for myself, it’ll be Monday Night Football and the Falcons against the Saints were I can watch a game and American flag desecration by totally spoiled multi-millionaire ingrates at the same time.

 And then, a friend sent this one:

 Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

This one was selected because of the headline found in an on-line search this morning: “Hillary Clinton Leads Donald Trump by Six Points in Latest WSJ/NBC Poll”

While the headline seemed confusedly inaccurate and contradictory to fact, the article began: “Hillary Clinton is maintaining her edge over Republican rival Donald Trump despite recent campaign setbacks, but the 2016 presidential race continues to tighten going into the homestretch, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll has found.

“After a rocky week of controversy over her health and for calling some of Mr. Trump’s supporters “deplorables,” the Democratic nominee leads Mr. Trump by 6 percentage points, 43% to 37%, among people likely to vote, the survey found. Two third-party candidates drew 12% support.” 

And then, buried in the text much farther on it’s disclosed that results came from “Democratic pollster Fred Yang.” After that, it’s noted that Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster “also helped conduct the survey.” 

While the article itself may well reflect bias on the part of the Journal and certainly NBC, a well-written reflection of what a significant number of voters think was submitted by a reader, patricia howell who wrote: “The Media has helped me decide who I will vote for. CNN, long my go-to for objective news, has become Clinton-centric to a fault along with the papers I read (have read) everyday; their outright bias is beyond what I can bear. 

“As a long-time moderate Republican, I was unhappy with Donald Trump and considered a write-in vote but Hillary Clinton will only continue the downward spiral of this country. So, despite some misgivings and to repudiate the constant barrage of what I see, hear and read, I will vote for Donald Trump on Election Day.” 

Thus, it’s once again become apparent that regardless of what leftist journalists attempt to convey about Bill Clinton’s wife’s popularity, the majority of voters themselves don’t seem to be in agreement. Which brings up the ongoing question once more: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are you guys reading this?   

 

That's it for today folks.  

Adios