Click to Sign Petition.

Click to Sign Petition.
FBI INVESTIGATE TRUMP Once

Monday, March 28, 2016

Yeah, A Hillary Clinton Forum by Hillary Clinton supporters for Hillary Clinton Supporters.

In 2008 one of the leading Hillary Clinton forums took a change in direction once Barack Obama became the nominee (might have even been before he became the nominee) and it left many Hillary Clinton supporters with one less visible choice to show their support for Hillary Clinton. I just stumbled upon this Hillary Clinton forum, called "Will Hillary Win"

Many have blogs, most Clinton supporters are now on facebook, but forums have always had a different feel to them as they can more easily be revisited as time passes and sometimes updating a topic is more useful than simply starting a new topic on the same subject. I don't know who is running "Will Hillary Win" but please feel welcome to introduce yourself in the comments section.

And if anyone else has an active Hillary Clinton forum, please comment and give us your link.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

After losing the primary in Arizona and then winning five consecutive caucus contests in Utah, Idaho, Hawaii, Washington, & Alaska, Bernie Sanders only gains 10,000 popular votes against Hillary Clinton's massive 2.5 million Popular Vote Lead.

10,000 votes. Really?  

After Bernie Sanders lost the primary in Arizona to Hillary Clinton and then won five caucus contests, all Bernie Sanders has to show for his effort is 10,000 more votes than Hillary Clinton? Are you kidding me?  

Caucus contests completely favor younger voters who tend to have less family obligations and are more mobile and more social, aka, Bernie Sanders supporters. 

Caucus contests mean less locations to vote, greater distances in between voting locations, and much much longer lines before one can vote. The caucus scenario certainly favors Bernie Sander's younger, more socially driven supporters over Hillary Clinton supporters who tend to skew older AND have more family, business and social obligations, or are retired and not into a 1 to 6 hour adventure just so they can vote. 

If you want to see just how dominant Hillary Clinton has been in the democrat primaries and the popular vote, click here.

Bernie Sanders is deceiving his enthusiastic but younger supporters by overspending in caucus state contests so he can amplify his winning percentage in low voter turnout caucus contest states. Bernie Sanders refuses to admit that overall caucus vote totals can be as much as 75% to 95% lower than if that same state were to hold a primary, and therefore do not fairly reflect the actual will of that state's democrat voters.

Shame on Bernie for misleading his younger supporters who will suddenly feel "Bern'd" once the next set of primaries play out.



Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Do not be Alarmed if Hillary Clinton loses all three Saturday Caucuses today in Hawaii, Washington and Alaska.

One of the most comical aspects to the 2016 democrat presidential nomination race is Cenk Uygur having apoplectic seizures every time that Bernie Sanders wins a caucus contest. This weekend should put Cenk on Cloud Zenith as he can actually state that Bernie Sanders has won the last five competitions between himself and Hillary Clinton. Won't Cenk won't tell you is those five contests were all caucuses, meaning voter turnout is a lot lower and completely and totally favors Bernie Sanders for two very unrepresentative reasons. Over the last six democrat contests, Hillary Clinton won Arizona, and then Bernie has won the next five caucuses. The popular vote over these las six contests may end up in Hillary's favor!

Bernie Sanders keeps saying if turnout is high, he will win, yet almost all of his wins have been in low voter turnout states that run caucus contests instead of primaries.  Caucus contests create two inter related scenarios that  reduce Hillary Clinton voting by Hillary Clinton supporters. The distance to the caucus contests is vastly greater for most of the voters within a state running a caucus contest then when they run a primary. And then because the distance is greater in between voting locations, remarkably long voting lines form and waiting times of one hour to five hours usually occur.

If you are a Bernie Sanders supporter, odds are you are a millennial or a slightly older "wanna still be" a millennial, and the thought of having a voting adventure that could last anywhere from one hour to six hours is kind of cool because it means hanging out with other Bernie Supporters and rabidly trading the latest tidbit about the newest Hillary "Snowball" Clinton escapade that will surely get her transported to another planet in a first of it's kind Hillary Clinton Derangement Syndrome scenario that includes shipping Hillary to another planet. And after Sander's supporters have voted in a caucus contest state, they can then accuse Hillary Clinton of causing the long lines in the first place in an effort to stop Sander's supporters from voting even though the reverse reality is true, Caucuses actually thwart Hillary Clinton supporters from voting.

MANY Hillary Clinton Supporters are too busy leading productive lives in which others rely on them, to take up to six hours to vote. That is the number one reason why states that have primary contests, which means many many many locations to vote, much shorter distances to travel to vote, and much shorter lines to vote, almost always produce a Hillary Clinton victory. So buckle your seats and remember that the false flag victories in Saturday's Caucus contests in Alaska, Washington and Hawaii do not fairly reflect the true percentage of support for each candidate but actually inflate Bernie Sander's numbers while deflating Hillary Clinton's numbers. I would suggest looking forward to several big primaries coming up which should put Hillary Clinton within range of locking up the nomination.

The Bernie Sander's plan for winning the nomination is wrought with so many inconsistencies and falsehoods it can get confusing to follow them all. The Sander's plan includes donating no money to any congress people's campaigns, meaning much much less legislative support were he to be elected president, whereas Hillary Clinton has donated over 18 million dollars to help democrat candidates win seats in congress. The Sander's plan includes OVERSPENDING by dramatic margins in caucus contests so he can use low voter turnout to amp up the unrepresentative margin of victory in an effort to create a false sense of a coming wave of support that isn't ever going to be enough against Hillary Clinton in the primaries. 

What I find disappointing about Bernie Sander's plan is it is a plan of trickery, one that continues to raise the hopes of millions of millennials who are led to believe the only way Sanders won't win the democrat nomination is if Hillary Clinton cheats, the popular vote massively favoring Hillary Clinton be damned. Bernie Sander's slash and burn overspend in caucus contest tactics will simply demoralize millions upon millions of Sander's supporters who are being brainwashed by Cenk Uygur and Move on Dot Org into believing that Bernie Sanders is the more popular candiate, when he clearly is not.

And if by some bizarre media ballistics, the false flag of these caucus contests victories are overhyped and actually fool the masses into wanting to be part of an imaginary movement that was actually much smaller then they were led to believe, we would be witness to one of the greatest sleight of hands ever perpetrated upon the american people during an election cycle, and an epic failure in realizing even a modicum of success because of the slash and burn false flags it took to "win".

I'm looking forward to the upcoming primaries and what should be some nice wins by Hillary Clinton, and you can help by making some donations now so that the alleged populist candidate who continues to spend more money for less votes doesn't keep outspending the candidate who has more popular votes than any other presidential candidate in 2016, Hillary Clinton.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Friday, March 25, 2016

Will Somebody, ANYBODY, do a spoof about Caucus Contests and how poorly Hillary Clinton supporters are represented at caucus contests?

It's quite obvious why Hillary Clinton supporters do poorly when it comes to voting in caucus state contests, they have lives to live, real lives. Many Hillary Clinton supporters are moms and dads, small business owners, caregivers, and senior citizens, and they don't have the time to travel much farther distances to vote at a caucus location because caucuses have less overall locations to vote within a state than if that same state were to hold a primary instead.  

And because there are less overall places to vote, not only is the average distance to a caucus greater for most of the voters, the lines are a lot longer as well. While some Bernie Sander's supporters see driving farther distances and waiting hours in line as some kind of revolutionary "rite of passage", Hillary Clinton supporters are like, "I'm outta here", or "I'm not even going to try to vote, I'm too busy making dinner for my grown up jobless kids who will be mighty hungry when they get back from those five hour lines waiting to vote for Bernie Sanders".  

Why can't some comedy show like Saturday Night Live educate America in a comical way about the differences between a caucus contest and a primary contest and how different candidates either get a boost or a bust from caucus contests.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Bernie Sanders "Show us the Transcripts speech" makes no sense.


According to Bernie Sanders, because Hillary Clinton accepts significant speaking fees from wall street companies she is going to be on their side once she is president. 

Apparently Bernie Sanders wanted Hillary Clinton to speak to wall street, and charge next to nothing. No wait, Bernie Sanders didn't want Hillary Clinton to speak to wall street at all. Instead, Bernie Sanders wanted Hillary Clinton to speak to middle america, and charge large speaking fees. No wait, Bernie Sanders would have preferred Hillary Clinton speak to middle america and charge little or no speaking fees. 

Really? was that the plan Bernie, for Hillary Clinton to speak to middle america and not charge them, because according to Bernie Sanders, any other scenario would be unacceptable. And when we define middle america as being  100,000 different locations, how does one choose which 100, 200 or 200 locations Hillary would speak at for next to no money, or for free, without offending the other 99,700 places she didn't attend?

Now Bernie Sander's DEMANDS that Hillary Clinton reveal what she said to wall street. In other words, two entities exchanged intellect for money and now a third entity, Bernie Sanders, expects those two entities to reveal their bought and paid for exchange, for free, to everybody else. Because in Bernie's world, everything should be free such as Hillary Clinton speeches, health care, education, alleged trips to a resort island owned by Bernie's friend and paid for by Bernie's wife using college funds when she was head of Burlington college for 7 years. 

So the final question one must ask is, was Bernie Sanders offered a chance to speak to wall street for money, and turned it down, or was he just never asked? I sure hope Bernie Sander was offered Wall Street speaking opportunities, and turned them down, otherwise he's just acting like a third wheel who never got invited. 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Are we heading into GroundHogs Day Territory again Regarding the 2016 Arizona, Utah and Idaho democrat primaries?

Will we have another Democrat Primary Tuesday in which Hillary Clinton again gets many more voters and more delegates than Bernie Sanders in Arizona, yet "loses" 2 out of 3 of the contests in large part because Utah is a caucus contest and Dakota is Republican Leaning anyways. 

There is definitely a Ground Hogs Day Tease element to the 2016 democrat race as Hillary Clinton keeps pulling ahead of Bernie Sanders in the popular vote and Delegate Count yet Bernie Sanders can  chortle about winning 2 of 3.

Update March 22, 2016, 11:42 pm.

Apparently both Idaho and Utah were Caucuses. Thus Bernie was able to eeke out a 4 delegate advantage out of the three contests, but still lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by around 18,000 votes among the contests held in Arizona, Idaho and Utah.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Sunday, March 20, 2016

One of the best examples of Hillary Clinton Derangement Syndrome you will ever find.

The following quote by Richard Fulton of the Maryville Daily (in Missouri) caught my eye because Hillary Clinton Derangement Syndrome is  explained so perfectly.

"The other news coming to us on Wednesday was the nomination by President Obama of Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court. He appears to be a brilliant lawyer and jurist, well respected by virtually everyone. Republicans will be quoted during the next weeks as having praised him in glowing terms. Republicans refuse to budge from their partisan stand, however, that they will not consider the nominee, give him a hearing or a vote. This is unprecedented obstructionism. 
More will be said about the nomination and its processes in coming weeks.

Let me speculate that one outcome may be that, if the nomination is not withdrawn by then, the Republicans will rush to vote Garland onto the court if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. They will see Garland as preferred to any appointee Clinton might make. 

All this if the nomination drags on to November." end quote
So Merrick Garland is unacceptable as a Barack Obama Supreme Court nominee to the Republicans, but if the Merrick Garland nomination process drags out long enough and Hillary Clinton were to become president, the Republicans would probably dive at the chance to approve Mr. Garland before Hillary Clinton can make a new selection. 

Now that is a perfect example of Hillary Clinton Derangement Syndrome in action.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Hillary Clinton should release her Super Delegates as a sign of good faith to Bernie Sanders Supporters.

Hillary Clinton can make a magnanimous step towards reeling in Bernie Sanders supporters by taking the innovative, confident and daring step of releasing her super delegates now as long as they agree to not align with either candidate until the democrat convention.

Hillary Clinton would still have a lead and it would mathematically show Sander's supporters that she is winning fairly and squarely from the popular vote. Even if the skeptics were to say "Oh, she's only giving her super delegates up now that she is firmly in control", the proper response would be, "Hillary Clinton never gets fairly reflected from the caucus contests so the two were canceling each other out. Now that most of the caucuses have played out, she's releasing her super delegates".


Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Friday, March 11, 2016

Bernie Sanders Personal Credit Card Debt is a Con you should not Fall for.

Bernie Sanders has been making over 150,000 dollars a year as a politician for the past 20 years. His wife Jane Sanders was probably making at least 100,000 dollars a year at Burlington College as college president. Would it not be safe to say for at least a 7 year window of time, and presumably longer because people don't generally go from unemployment to 100,000 dollar a year jobs, that the Sanders were making 250,000 dollars a year, the Equivalent of 1,000 dollars A DAY (not counting Saturdays and Sundays) for anywhere from 7 to 15 years.

If you agree that the evidence above shows that the Sanders were making a thousand dollars a day for a stretch of 7 to 10 to maybe 15 years, then why does Bernie Sanders have between 20,000 to 50,000 dollars worth of credit card debt? 


In my opinion the Bernie Sanders credit card debt is a Carny trick. Bernie Sander's credit card debt creates the illusion that he is broke and has credit card debt like the common man or woman. If Bernie Sanders and his wife were making 1,000 dollars a day for a decade or longer, why does Bernie Sanders have any credit card debt at all? 

Bernie  Sander's credit card debt is a con and is a much bigger deal than it may seem because Mr. Sanders has chosen to pay the banks 5,000 dollars to 10,000 dollars a year in non-deductible credit card interest rate charges rather than pay off his credit card debt and use the MONEY SAVED every year by no longer having credit card interest rate charges to help fund several dozen non-profit groups instead at no additional cost to himself! 

If Mr. Sanders had no credit card debt he could take the yearly 5,000 to 10,000 dollars in credit card interest rate charges he is currently paying and start donating that interest payment money to 25 to 50 different charitable causes that ask for 19 dollars every month to help a war veteran, a child with cancer, abused animals, and so forth. 

Mr. Sanders has instead chosen to "Carny" his credit card debt for maximum political advantage and in the process has basically blown off helping 25 to 50 charitable organizations on a monthly basis with all that credit card debt interest rate money he has instead been paying to the banks year after year. Even if he is already giving to charities, Bernie Sanders has blown off helping an ADDITIONAL 25 to 50 charities on a monthly basis and instead is giving that same money to the banks in the form of credit card interest rate charge payments.

There is no stretch here, it's either keep credit card debt for political advantage and therefore keep paying thousands of dollars in interest rate charges every year, or pay off  the credit card debt and use the yearly savings of 5,000 to 10,000 dollars in credit card interest rate charges to help several dozen "in need" people and animals through various non profit groups, on a monthly basis. Mr. Sanders has chosen a credit card debt ruse to enamor him with his supporters. This is just plain sleazy.

Mr. Sanders, why have you chosen to keep paying the banks thousands of dollars in yearly interest rate charges on credit card debt rather than paying off your credit card debt and then donating the annual savings in credit card interest rate charges to dozens of non-profits that help the truly needy when you and your wife have been making a thousand dollars a day for a span of 7 to 15 years worth of time?

If Bernie Sanders is unwilling to pay off his own credit card debt and use the saved credit card interest rate charge payments to help the needy, why should the rest of us accept higher taxes to do what he refuses to do when it would not have cost him one penny more to do it?




Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Thursday, March 10, 2016

How Media Sexism against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democrat Race has gone unnoticed.

A case can be made that once again Hillary Clinton is facing a mountain's worth of Media Sexism in the 2016 presidential campaign. In 2008 at least there were dueling and overlapping issues of racism and sexism that magically seemed to almost cancel each other out, the same cannot be said about 2016.

In 2008, the piping hot media sexism was laid out for all the world to see. It was the male dominated late night show talk hosts who were ALL making Hillary Clinton jokes. Then there was Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and MSNBC going way overboard to attack Hillary Clinton. CNN joined in the fray as well. There was also a female contingent consisting of Arianna Huffington, Oprah Winfrey, Donna Brazile, even Nancy Pelosi and Maria Shriver played a significant role in making sure Barack Obama was the nominee instead of Hillary Clinton when the more prudent course of action would have been to wait on the sidelines and then support whomever won between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

But this time around all of the above have been on much much better behavior, which has mistakenly led the media into believing they are not being sexist against Hillary Clinton. But what is happening is Hillary Clinton is being double and triple vetted and condemned by insinuation while her male democrat counterpart Bernie Sander's can't make a mistake if he tried, and he has tried.

An example of media sexism is the claim that Hillary Clinton receives speakers fees from wall street and therefore she is influenced by the deep pockets of Wall Street into making anti populist decisions. Yet her opponent, Bernie Sanders, has been outspending Hillary Clinton since the middle of January 2016 while Hillary Clinton continues to win more of the popular vote and delegates than Bernie Sanders. 

My question is, How can the "populist" candidate Bernie Sanders spend more money and get less of a result than Hillary Clinton and still be called the populist candidate? Answer is he can if he is running against a woman who is perpetually being savaged by media conservatives on one side, and former conservatives turned progressive media on the other end of the political spectrum. Yes, it is media sexism to anoint the male candidate as the populist underdog when he continues to spend more money for a lesser result than Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton IS the populist candidate because she is raising less money while getting a better result than Bernie Sanders but nobody is reporting it that way, instead it is the male candidate who is the underdog populist.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton did remarkably better in Pennsylvania and Ohio than Barack Obama even though Obama spent at least double to triple on television advertising while still losing to Hillary Clinton in both states. Yet there too Barack Obama, another male, was portrayed as the populist candidate while also spending more money than Hillary Clinton and getting a lesser result.

Can a populist "for the people" candidate, Bernie Sanders, raise more money for the months of January and February 2016 than his female opponent while getting less votes than his female opponent, and still be called the populist candidate. The answer is a resounding NO, unless the opposing candidate is a female candidate, in which case the media champions on that the richer, "more cost per lesser vote received" male candidate is still the populist underdog.

Is there any chance in heck that we will see even one media outlet anoint Hillary Clinton as the underdog who is getting more votes while spending less money than her male opponent. I haven't seen it yet.

The next area of media sexism is the vetting of the candidates spouses. Bill Clinton was attacked for having a foundation that is spending millions of dollars on a yearly basis helping the impoverished all over the world because it gives him inside access to political figures from all over the world. The things the U.S. could have done better while Bill Clinton was president regarding U.S. farming competing with third world farmers he is trying to make amends for now. Yet the attacks and insinuations of insider dealings are all we hear about from the media. There has been no balance and little mention of the good that Bill Clinton's foundation has done and continues to do.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sander's wife, Jane Sanders, apparently may have a very checkered past in which while president of Burlington College from 2004 to 2011 she may have used institution funds to write checks to a resort vacation island run by Bernie Sander's best friend. What then followed was an alleged 200,000 dollar golden parachute firing of Ms. Sanders as a gentile manner of eviction from her job when she possibly could have been indicted instead. Has this story been vetted by the media? I check Snopes.com and this story has not been "Snoped", yet the media does nothing. Is it not media sexism to vet Hillary Clinton's husband while not vetting Bernie Sander's wife? Just another example of media sexism against Hillary Clinton.

And finally, Bernie Sanders has been making over 150,000 dollars a year as a politician for the past 20 years. His wife was probably making at least 100,000 dollars a year at Burlington College. So would it not be safe to say for at least a 7 year window of time, and presumably longer because people don't go from unemployment to 100,000 dollar a year jobs, that the Sanders were making the Equivalent of 1,000 dollars A DAY (not counting Saturday and Sunday) for a very long stretch of time. If you agree that yes, the Sanders were making a thousand dollars a day for the past 7 to 10 to maybe 15 years, why does Bernie Sanders have between 20,000 to 50,000 dollars worth of credit card debt? 

The Bernie Sanders credit card debt is a Carny trick. Bernie Sander's credit card debt creates the illusion that he is broke like the common man or woman. If Bernie Sanders and his wife were making 1,000 dollars a day for a decade or longer, why does Bernie Sanders have any credit card debt? Again, no vetting by the media.

And why is Bernie Sanders credit card debt such a big deal? Mr. Sanders is paying between 5,000 to 10,000 dollars a year in "interest payments only" on that revolving credit card debt. For a politician who wants to spend MORE of other people's money to help the needy, Mr. Sanders is voluntarily paying 5,000 to 10,000 dollars a year to the banks in interest rate charges on his credit card debt!  

If Mr. Sanders had no credit card debt he could take the yearly 5,000 to 10,000 dollars in interest rate charges he is currently paying and start donating that interest payment money to charitable causes that ask for 19 dollars every month to help a war veteran, a child with cancer, abused animals, and so on. 

Mr. Sanders has instead chosen to "Carny" his credit card debt for maximum political advantage and in the process has basically blown off helping 25 to 50 charitable organizations on a monthly basis with all that interest rate money he has been paying to the banks year after year. 

Mr. Sanders has willfully chosen to pay the banks interest rate charges rather than pay off his credit card debt and use the interest rate charge savings to help war veterans, kids with cancer, and abused animals. There is no stretch here, it's either keep credit card debt for political advantage and therefore keep paying thousands of dollars in interest rate charges every year, or use that very same money to help several dozen in need people and animals through various non profit groups on an ongoing basis. 

Mr. Sanders, why have you chosen paying the banks interest rate charges rather than paying off your credit card debt and then donating the savings to dozens of non-profits that help the truly needy?

If Mr. Sanders can't get the little things right, how can he be trusted to get the big things right? If Mr. Sanders wife has behaved in the very same manner that Mr. Sanders abhors on wall street, is he not the ultimate con artist for concealing it from the public? If Mr. Sander's is not vetted on these issues, and vetted soon, than Media Sexism will have once again roared to life in the 2016 democrat race. 







Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Hillary Clinton has been outspent by Bernie Sanders since the beginning of January 2016 yet Hillary Clinton continues to get more votes and delegates.

Bernie Sanders shouldn't get to have it both ways. On the one hand he claims to be a populist candidate with average donations of around 40 dollars. But on the other hand Bernie Sander's has out raised Hillary Clinton by 10 million or more dollars since the beginning of January 2016. 

Can someone explain to me how one can be the populist, "for the people" candidate who collects more money than his alleged wall street opponent Hillary Clinton, while consistently losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton who he is outspending?

This same phenomenon occurred in 2008. Hillary Clinton was being wildly outspent by populist candidate Barack Obama by a 2-1 to 4-1 margin in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, yet Hillary Clinton kept winning those swing states in 2008.

Dollar for dollar, it looks like the alleged wall street candidate Hillary Clinton is spending LESS MONEY once the  campaigns enter their stretch run, yet Hillary Clinton is delivering a BETTER return on the money she spends. 

Maybe its time for the male dominated media to stop harassing Hillary Clinton by claiming she is the presumptive,  paid and bought for wall street candidate when she is winning against an opponent who is ultimately spending MORE MONEY than Hillary Clinton while getting less votes than Hillary Clinton!

Maybe the media should not have it both ways either. Calling Hillary Clinton the candidate of the rich and owned by wall street as Bernie Sanders outspends her while getting less votes and delegates per buck than Hillary Clinton, seems to be a oxymoronic cliche whose time has passed.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Hillary Clinton with 125,000 more votes and 18 more delegates than Bernie Sanders from 2016 Mississippi and Michigan Primaries.

It must be easy for Bernie Sanders to just give up on states he can't win, like Mississippi, and not even visit Mississippi, and instead outspend Hillary Clinton by massive amounts in Michigan for a very narrow victory, losing the night by over 125,000 total voters and 18 delegates while declaring victory.

But if Hillary Clinton had done the same thing, completely ignoring Mississippi and focusing entirely on Michigan, she might have made up a very minor 2% differential. Instead, Hillary Clinton put in the work in multiple states and came up with 125,000 more votes than Bernie Sanders and 18 more delegates. Hillary Clinton put in the hard work and won the night.

While Bernie Sander's younger, supposedly more environmentally aware supporters vigorously support Sander's slash and burn approach, (how ironic is that!) Hillary Clinton put in the hard work and respected both states came away with 18 more delegates and 125,000 more popular votes.

Now lets hear Bernie Sander's supporters whoop it up for winning the night, when they didn't.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Monday, March 7, 2016

Cenk Uygur's Apoplectic yet Nonsensical Rant about Bernie Sanders being a stronger candidate than Hillary Clinton.

I'm not even going to bother linking to Cenk's Uygur's latest fit of Rage against Common Sense thinking. To sum it all up, Cenk cites polls that show Bernie Sander's polling higher than Hillary Clinton against Republican candidates and how could all the democrat oldsters be so stupid as to not see it.

Cenk's eyes bulge out as he gestures wildly and one wonders if he isn't the long lost brother of Dad Murray Goldberg from the TV series The Goldbergs. Fittingly, Cenk is the moron for piling more and more crap onto his previous crap of misdirection regarding Hillary Clinton's electability.

But what can we expect from a former republican pundit who seems bent on uplifting millions of younger democrats so they can be demoralized by the truth that Cenk does not speak.

In his latest diatribe, Cenk fails to mention that the reason Bernie Sanders may be polling higher than Hillary Clinton against Republican candidates is because Bernie Sander's supporters are so fanatical they are skewing these national polls by saying they would vote for a Republican before they would vote for Hillary Clinton.

Now picture Cenk Uygur as Murray Goldberg's brother, wildly  gesturing about anything anti Hillary Clinton. Then picture Jeff Garlin as dad Murray Goldberg telling his brother Cenk Uygur that Cenk is a moron. 

Maybe Cenk was destined to be an estranged brother on the TV show The Goldbergs and through some episodic accident landed in politics instead. I'd gladly rather watch Cenk on the Goldbergs being called a moron than watch one of his political editorials where he gets it wrong about Hillary Clinton over and over and over again.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Sunday, March 6, 2016

Hillary Clinton leads Bernie Sanders 9 to 3 in Primary Contests, 8 more Primaries coming up!


Bernie Sanders fanatics keep pointing to his Caucus wins as having super significance. Sure, up through March 5, 2016 democrat caucuses, Bernie Sanders has won 4 of 7 caucuses, but Hillary Clinton has won 9 of 12 primaries. 

Maybe Bernie wins the Maine caucus today, at which point Sanders fanatics will scream he's on a roll because he has won 3 of the last 4 contests, even though once again, those three wins will be in, caucus contests.

Sanders 4-3 in caucuses, add Maine and it's 5-3, Hillary Clinton 9-3 in primaries, and most importantly,  8 of the next 9 contests after Maine are Primaries. So look for the progressive media to try one more time to deflate Hillary Clinton supporters with Bernie's 3 out of 4 victories this weekend in a desperate hope to quell the tide of 8 primaries out of the next 9 contests, you know, where Hillary Clinton is 9-3 so far.

Caucus contests just do not fairly represent middle aged and older americans and that is why Hillary Clinton struggles in those contests. Lets not forget that caucus contests are usually held at night in the cold of February and March winters, minimal heating, minimal seating, parking at a premium, farther from home for many then when they vote in the actual presidental elections, and the process takes several hours. Do you think middle aged people with families, and their parents, have the time and stamina to put so much effort in to a caucus night as compared to simply going into a voting booth and voting at a time and location that is both close and convenient?

So lets see who the republican shills posing as progressives are over the next day or two, they will be the ones trying to imply that Bernie Sanders is on a huge winning streak with his 3 of 4 victories over the weekend, never mind that all three wins were in caucus contests.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Saturday, March 5, 2016

Bursting the Bernie Sanders Bubble, Hillary Clinton with more than a 10% Popular Vote lead from all the Primary Contests so far.

Hillary Clinton holds a plus 10% popular vote lead over Bernie Sanders among all the 2016 democrat primaries. 

Meanwhile several former republican operatives, Cenk Uygur and Arianna Huffington, and Move On Dot Org (with a failed attempt to form a Republican Move on group), and MSNBC and their Pro Wall Street Programming, continue to mislead the nation and democrat voters over Hillary Clinton's viability and credibility.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Thursday, March 3, 2016

Cenk Uygur's Super Tuesday Downward Spiral into Clinton Derangement Syndrome.


Cenk Uygur's "Bernie Sanders won Super Tuesday" Rant is devoid of statistical truthfulness.

What Cenk doesn't tell you about Super Tuesday is that two of Bernie's four victories were in democrat caucus contests. What Cenk Uygur won't tell you is that Hillary Clinton is KNOWN to do between 10 to 30 points worse in democrat caucus contests than her actual popularity if that same state had had a primary contest instead. It is very likely that if Colorado and Minnesota had actually run primaries instead of caucuses Hillary Clinton would have won both Colorado and Minnesota. 

In 2008 Barack Obama doubled Hillary Clinton's delegates among all the democrat caucus contests even though Hillary Clinton was either tied or leading in polling done just prior to the caucus contests.

When a former republican operative  (Cenk Uygur) now preening as a democrat progressive posts in a major publication (Huffington Post) named after a former republican now posing as a democrat progressive (Arianna Huffington), little things like the truth just don't seem to  matter. The truth is that Minnesota and Colorado democrat caucus contests DID NOT represent what the majority of the voters in those two states wanted. 

Cenk's selective handling of the truth is his way of trying to get what he wants even if it isn't the truth. Coming from a former republican turned democrat progressive, why trust that windbag's brontifications?

What matters most is that Hillary Clinton went into Bernie's territory and won a Massachusetts PRIMARY, primarily because Massachusetts is a primary state rather than a Caucus contest. While the Uygur's of the world try and sell caucus wins as being as legitimate as primary wins (they are not), what Cenk won't tell you is that Hillary Clinton is leading Bernie Sanders by at least 10 percent in all of the democrat primary contests that have been held so far. (Apparently it's a much higher percentage than that).

So who are you going to trust, MORE primary voters who go into a voting booth and vote for Hillary Clinton, or LESS caucus voters who fill out pieces of paper in out of the way places in the cold of the night with no comfortable seating while conducting a process that takes several hours to finish?

I'm trusting Hillary Clinton and her superior winning margin in the primary state contests, and I'm most assuredly not trusting a former republican operative (Uygur) now reformed as a democrat progressive posting in a publication (Huffington Post) owned by a former republican operative turned progressive journalist (Arianna Huffington) whose missions appear to be taking down Hillary Clinton.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Share Gadget

10,000 Dollar Grant! Another Great Find from FABULOUSLY40.com

10,000 Dollar Grant! Another Great Find from FABULOUSLY40.com
Would this be a good way to win funds for Louisa's Law ?