Ron Paul Winning Hearts And Minds In Iowa

Ron Paul Winning Hearts And Minds In Iowa


Just read on MSNBC about how the GOP is shunning Ron Paul, but he’s picking up the politically independent in Iowa.

I like his thoughts on how to phase out pieces of the welfare state. Not all at once, but doing it in a common sense, gradual manner…

Since most Americans have become accustomed to the welfare state, isn’t ending it the toughest idea to sell to audiences?

“It is,” he acknowledged in an interview before his Ames speech. “It’s really tough — unless the young people listen to what I’m talking about, because the young people know they’re getting ripped off.”

Asked point blank whether he would propose to abolish Medicare, Paul replied, “That’s not my goal. It might be my theoretical goal and my philosophic goal.”

He predicts Medicare will “self-destruct.”

He foresees a transition in which current beneficiaries are paid for, but “young people get out.”

It’s interesting to hear pundits talk as if Paul will want to abolish everything immediately, but if you listen to what he’s actually saying he talks about progress, not perfection, and that makes the Club for Growth’s recent editorial about him all the more laughable. Paul has been in politics too long and he knows what he’d have to do if he were President.

In any event, what does all this building buzz mean for Iowa? Well, just ask Joe Trippi, Dean’s former campaign manager…

Joe Trippi, a 25-year veteran of Iowa caucus politics who served as Howard Dean’s campaign manager in 2003 and who’s now a top aide to Edwards, said, “From what I see, Ron Paul is doing much better than his better-known opponents think he is doing. He is at that stage of the Dean campaign when all the other campaigns are laughing at him and have no idea of how strong he really is.”

Trippi added, “This kind of candidacy can be surprisingly strong in a caucus state particularly if it stays just below the radar.”

Trippi knows all about being below the radar and then rocketing above it immediately. Yet another reason why Paul could be in a better position than Dean in 2004. People are still finding out about him, and the cacuses are still 60 days away. A hell of a lot can change in that time, and if RP hits his $12 million goal for Q4, well, watch out GOP.

  • Jimmy the Dhimmi

    He seems to be winning your heart and mind too, J.G. even though he’s against absolutely every one of the positions you hold dear – abortion, gay marraige, embryonic stem cell research, universal health care, progressive taxation, ect… – every position except of course, Iraq. (i.e Iraq circa 2007, NOT Iraq circa 2003-2005).

    He is Pat Bucchanan circa 1996 – except instead of an endorsement from the KKK, he gets one from Stormfront – the leading Neo-Nazi organization of the United States. Not to mention Alex jones and the entire 9/11 “Truth” movement.

    Hardly a centrist, independent “Donklephant.”

  • MW

    He never claimed to be a centrist, but Ron Paul is definitely independent of the entrenched structure of either party. He is the only candidate in the presidential race (with the possible exception of Kucinich) who answers questions honestly and without pre-constructed messages, designed to appease everyone.

    Justin is reporting on Ron Paul’s apparent strength in Iowa. He presents the situation in a clear way, with references. What would you have him do – not report on it? Sweep it under the rug and then express surprise when Ron Paul does well? Seems like you’re a little angry that not as many people support “universal health care and progressive taxation” as you’d like, Jimmy.

  • Liberty Ranger

    Jimmy, if the USA has 300 million people in it, you could say about 1 in 100 of those are kooks. In case your math is bad, that means there are about 3 million kooks out there. Now, if the head of stormfront likes Ron Paul, tha is 1 kook out of 3 million. Of course, you are assuming he is a kook. I mean maybe he donated to Ron Paul because he has seen the light. Once a kook doesn’t necessarily always mean a kook. I get your point though. According to you, he must be a very bad bad bad man. So, even if you are granted that, that means that there are 2,999,999 kooks that could support Ron Paul or another candidate. Are you saying that out of those 2,999,999 people there aren’t some bad bad bad people that have sent money into any of the other presidential candidates?

    What are the responsibilities a candidate has to police its contributors anyhow? I’ll answer that for you right now. As long as it is legally given, none! It boils down to freedom of expression. Obviously, since you are against Ron Paul I can understand why you have such a problem with freedom.

    We have to respect people’s views no matter how ugly we may think they are. As soon as we type cast people we are headed right into fascism. Ron Paul’s views are clearly not rascist in any way. Freedom brings people together and does not divide us. A Ron Paul’s presidency would be one where we all would have freedom of expression, even the worst of us.

    Ron Paul is the best candidate for you. Do not believe the media slander that wishes to pull this honorable man down. Research his positions and find out the truth about Ron Paul and you will be converted.

  • brettrix

    Good Stuff Justin,

    Do you know what is happening on November 5th? The RePaulicans plan to send a money bomb to Ron Paul – it looks like over a million will be sent on that day. Do you think that would be news that the MSM would pick up on?


  • Scott

    In response to Jimmy… Ron Paul is not “against” gay marriage. The ones who are against it are pushing for an amendment. Paul wants the issue taken out of the hands of the federal government altogether.

  • db

    Just a question, why is it important who is contributing to who? I’m sure there are a lot of “unsavory” folks giving money to many different campaigns and I fail to see what the problem is, especially when it comes to Ron Paul. This is freedom, this is America. As far as I am concerned, whatever you do is your pursuit of life, liberty and prosperity and until your pursuit interferes with my own, please, feel free to do what you want.

  • Andy

    When people talk about Ron Paul supporters being a kook or something. I personally take offense to that. I don’t call Hillary supporters kooks just because I disagree philosophically with them.

    Also there are pure sociallists supporting Hillary, but that doesn’t mean that all of her supports are. Also there are people that would call some of Huckabee’s supporters religous kooks who are disagreeing with my line of thought in some way. Again, it doesn’t apply to all.

    Don’t name call or generallize people into narrow buckets, it just shows your ignorance.

  • anon

    Ron Paul’s supporters are called kooks because they spam comments sections and “debate” Paul’s chances of winning by effectively plugging their ears and screaming his name over and over. They aren’t open to hearing about his flaws (and he has them, everyone does) and don’t balance their optimism with a little reality.

    Justin, ask yourself this: How much of your interest in Ron Paul is driven by the fact that Ron Paul posts tend to generate more page visits and comments than others? Are you falling victim to the same impulses that drive the MSM to churn out sensationalist garbage? I’m not trying to be accusatory, but I think it’s worth taking a step back and thinking about the mission of the blog.

  • Parke

    Im sure all the top tier candidates get money from people worse than Stormfront.

  • Adam Weishaupt

    Shame on you Jimmy. Does the millions of dollars that Hillary has taken from the Chinese gov’t indicate that she intends to promote their interests? Okay, maybe that was a bad example. But, does accepting $500 from an American with unpopular views (and as a black man, I find stormfront’s racial views VERY unsettling) indicate that the contributor believes Paul will do more than defend his constitutional rights as an American citizen (rights that include the expression of ideas that make me uncomfortable)? Isn’t that exactly what every President swears an oath to do anyway? What really ought to bother us is how many Presidents have willfully violated that oath. If one of your objections to Paul’s candidacy is that you fear he would actually uphold that oath, then maybe the rest of us should have a problem with YOU.

  • Adam Weishaupt

    Oh yeah, and Ron Paul believes (as do I) that marriage should be neither a matter of federal recognition nor of state licensing. The good news here for everyone is that he believes the interpretation of the covenant should be left to the parties involved, not the state.

  • Steve

    Ron Paul despite some imperfections is the best candidate running in the GOP.
    Who is better? No one seems to be asking that question. Romney and Guiliani?? Guiliani is NOT a Presidential candidate for many reason including his support of the fighting Islamic extremism. Romney is a flip flopper on issues. I simply don’t trust either of them to do the right thing for the American people. Hillary too. If not Paul first, I would support any other but NOT these three!!!!

  • FZappa

    Ron Paul is going to win despite the media propping up the other candidates and ignoring Ron Paul.

    I mean, have you ever seen anything like this before? It’s as if Ron Paul can’t be mentioned in an article without the words “longshot” or “little chance of winning” or something like that. Pure propaganda, and ubiquitous.

    But we have the internet now, and people are seeing for themselves how popular Ron Paul is, despite what the bought-and-sold “scientific polls” say.

    Get ready for President Paul!

  • Steve

    The problem is that i see is this.

    These points people are bringing up just really make we want to laugh, Shouldn’t we be focusing our efforts on more important issues?

    If you want to make a point why don’t you tell people why you think someone else would make a better president: with valid points.

    I don’t agree with Ron Paul on every issue but i will say this, if it was just protecting our constitution and ending the war in Iraq that would be enough to be a damn good start but after reviewing the mans record I SEE ONE OF THE LAST HONEST PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON THAT IS NOT CORRUPT.

    If any of actually believe that the candidates that take millions from special interest groups will actually accomplish anything for the american people in washington once elected should have your head examined. Why doyou think they are called special interest groups? They are not called majority interest groups or helping the average american groups are they? Think about that!

    He took $500 from an american that most of us find insulting at the very least. He took money from Alex Jones that constantly questions the goverment GOOD FOR HIM even if i don’t agree with most of his stances i do believe we should all question our goverment more that we do, Isn’t Alex an american that is protected under the constitution and the bill of rights?

    What i find funny is that instead of attacking the princples that Ron Paul has put forth they find these piddly things like a racist donated $500 to Ron Paul OMG he must be in a conspiracy.

    All i have to say is that if you people that bash Ron Paul can’t do any better then the crap your bringing up on him you are all in big trouble.

  • Liberty Ranger

    The establishment divides us. They are the ones that put us into groups through their socialist programs and feel good intentions. A Ron Paul Revolution will do wonders for race relations.

  • Rob

    This country needs a heavy dose of fiscal conservatism and I’m not surprised to find that the most likely candidate to deliver also appears to be the only candidate with integrity.

    Personally I’ll be voting for Ron Paul in the primaries, and if he doesn’t get the nod then I will vote for the individual that is most likely to generate the greatest gridlock. I suppose it’s the next best thing, but with any luck it will at the very least it will make politicians think twice about wasting money and allowing their “principles” to be dictated by the latest poll.

    You want unity? Forcing the republicans and democrats to collaborate and either provide something the president wouldn’t veto or something with the support of 2/3 of the house and senate would certainly go a long way toward that end.

    I don’t agree with him on every point, but then I don’t expect to and at least I know where he actually stands. I can’t say the same for the rest of the candidates from either party.

  • Rod

    Ron Paul is the only honest politician who cares about the people and the Constitution. He wants to help his country. Our government today is punishing the value of the dollar in many ways, spending billions in Iraq (and requesting more), and pushes us further into debt. Only Ron Paul’s vast experience as a politician can fix this crisis. I am surely voting for Ron Paul. He served loyally in the Air Force, is a doctor, an economist, and our next President! God Bless Ron Paul, I pray for him and our people of the United States every day!

  • Becky

    Support Ron Paul by sending out this eCard

  • paul revere II

    Ron Paul Could turn around this country in his firts term!

    Life would be better for all at home and abroad…..

    Plus, who the hell wants an income tax…….

    Stop corruption! Ron Paul 2008!

  • mw

    There appears to be another mw on this thread. I just want to be clear that I am the lower case mw that posts on this blog whcih frequently triggers Jeremy’s white hot rants of righteous indignation. I don’t know who the upper cae MW is. As it turns out, I completely agree with the sentiment expressed by the upper case MW in this thread (well except for that Kucinich part), which is fortunate I guess.

    Anyway – I still think that Paul has no chance at the nomination. That said, I have no doubt that the voters in Iowa and NH are just contrarian enough, that Paul could very well take either primary. Particularly if the conventional vote splintered among the rest of the Republican herd.

  • Jim S

    Anyone who thinks that every social program can be eliminated because there are enough jobs for every American that pay enough to cover living expenses is delusional, whether they think it should be done slowly or quickly. The same is true for someone who thinks that the only way to do something about our health care system is to prop up the current system by tax credits. And what about the unemployed? His plan does nothing for them.

    And, yes, Ron Paul is opposed to gay marriage or else he wouldn’t consider it a valid proposition that states can ban homosexual activity or any other activity they find immoral while he says the feds shouldn’t be involved at all, including having the Supreme Court able to say that it violates individual rights.

  • Jimmy the Dhimmi

    Ron Paul’s supporters are called kooks because they spam comments sections and “debate” Paul’s chances of winning by effectively plugging their ears and screaming his name over and over.


  • J. Cline

    Hold up. I count maybe two cheerleading Ron Paul posts. The rest are topical to the article being discussed. Are you being deliberately obtuse so as not to acknowledge the rest?

    As a very normal person with a profession, a family, and a house I own, I defy the ubiquitous stereotype peddled by Paul-haters, that we’re all a bunch of freaks and spammers. I suppose what annoys these people the most in return is when you ignore their libel and simply get back to the discussion at hand… so let’s do that.

  • mw

    Actually, Jimmy D and Jim S – It looks a little different.

    It looks a lot more like the Republican partisans who have forgotten what it means to be a conservative, are putting their fingers in their ears and saying over and over again “NYAH! NYAH! NYAH! NYAH! NYAH! – I can’t hear you!”

    That includes your ridiculous repetition of the tiresome RedState refrain trying to make something from some neo-nazi nutcase that sends him a contribution. It convinces exactly no one, and says more about you than it does about Ron Paul. I dunno, I guess it probably fees good for you to parrot that crap for each other and anybody else who already feels like you do, so you can hear your message bounce around the echo chamber and pretend you are saying something meaningful.

    If any group needs to worry about being tarred by who contributes to their coffers, it’s Republicans.

    All you have to do is listen to what RP says, to know that he is not an anti-semite and the polar opposite of a Nazi. I am a Jew and I can see that. I don’t know why you can’t. Unless you are just not listening.

  • Darwin

    You have said some pretty foolish things here. It would be nice if you would read the constitution sometime. I don’t think is says anything in there at all about the “federal” government having the authority to take any position on abortion, marriage, research, healthcare, or the progressiveness of the tax system. None of those issues are among the enumerated powers of the federal government. Don’t be a fool. The Democrats can not make this country better. ONLY Ron Paul can save America and end the WAR.

    Pro-Abortion Democrat guys really just want knock girls up and not have to love them in the morning. Take some personal responsibility. If you don’t love the girl enough to father her child and raise it (even if the pregnancy is unintended), then you should probably not be sleeping with her. Women are wonderful and they should be cared for and loved, not used for play things.

    All Ron Paul wants to do is leave abortion up to the States to decide.

  • Jim S

    I said nothing about the non-issue of the Stormfront nut. I said that I consider his policy suggestions to be unrealistic.

  • mw

    Jim S

    Jimmy D did – first comment in this thread. My comment was more directed at him. I added you to the salutation as an afterthought as I mistakenly thought he was quoting you with the “kooks” comment. I see now he was quoting the ubiquitous “anon”. Sorry about that. Should have been more careful.

  • Rob

    “Anyone who thinks that every social program can be eliminated because there are enough jobs for every American that pay enough to cover living expenses is delusional”

    About as delusional as those who think that the campaign promises of the “top tier” candidates are anything more than pillow talk. Although maybe that’s what the jimmys prefer… that way they can act indignant after they’ve given it up on the first night.

    Personally I’d rather know where a candidate stands rather than where they say they stand… right now… based on current polling… and considering the current position of the moon.

    A kook is foolish or insane. Fools lack common sense and insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results. By my count, that means that anyone who expects the current round of clones, err candidates, to be considerably different than the candidates of the last two decades is in fact a kook.

    I can play ad hominem too.

  • Jimmy the Dhimmi

    Ive heard on this website people claim, “Only Ron Paul can save America,” he will “kick the money changers out of the temple” and Ron Paul will “Deliver America into the promised land.” That’s pretty kooky. I don’t hear this rhetoric coming from any other candidate, and I don’t see any other candidate recieving upwards of 75% of votes on internet polls, or his voteries flooding wbsites with comments en-masse. WTF is going on here? Are you guys so deluded and narcissistic that you don’t see there is something extremely unusual about all this?

    (Predicted response: “What’s unusual is that Ron Paul will stand up to the pharisees of America and offer salvation to this country, redeem the values of the consitution and rebuild the temple in 3 days. RON PAUL 2008!!!”)

  • JT

    I see noone here offering anything good that any of the other candidates will provide if elected. Only attacks. It looks like we’ve moved up a notch on the ladder. Ignore, ridicule, attack.

  • Jim S

    It is not simply an attack to point out that a candidate holds policy positions that are out of touch with the real world and holds an unrealistically idealistic view of the efficacy of completely unrestrained and unregulated capitalism. To claim that it is one is another characteristic of the fanatical Paulistas.

  • Rob

    Here’s the thing jimmy2, every candidate has their fanatical base. Paul’s base happens to be very comfortable with the internet, where anyone is free to say whatever they like, preserved for posterity.

    In my church (and I know my church isn’t an isolated phenomenon), Romney has a wacko base that swears the same deliverance at his hand. Now does that mean that every Romney supporter is “touched” so to say? Of course not.

    The same is true of Paul’s supporters, except that while evidence of Paul’s wackos can readily be found on a forum or blog post, to find the same evidence of the other candidates’ wackos requires talking to people comfortable enough to open up to you personally. This is to say nothing about the average signal to noise ratio on any site where anyone may post anything they wish.

    So yes jimmy2, I’m sure you’ll get your fanatical response, but attributing the response of any number of odd people to the candidate they support is stupid. By that logic all of the candidates are worthless… hrmmmm actually, maybe you’re on to something.

  • JT

    And current policy is in touch with the “real world” how? I would call the illegal invasion of another soverign nation completely unrestrained and unregulated. I’d also call the Washington lobbyists the same. Please explain your candidates postion on these issues.

  • MKW

    mw – I am the other MW, sorry, I should have realized my initials are common. I will use “MKW” from now on. I was certainly not trying to impersonate you.

    Jim S – it’s not that I do or don’t think there are enough jobs for those currently receiving handouts from “social programs.” It’s that I simply don’t care.

  • Julian

    What I find really funny is how insistent some people are that “Ron Paul has no chance…come ON why even waste your vote on him,” as if they really are so blitheringly ignorant as to think that propping up a BushIII tool like Giuliani or Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson will be a successful bid against Hillary (or even Obama) in the general election. If you ask me, those are the one’s who “cant possibly win.”

    Lets consider facts folks: we have right now one of the most unpopular presidents in the history of this country sitting in office. The last two elections have sapped quite a bit of true concern and care from the public and people are apathetic. Within such a context, you’ll have the average person out there thinking “I dont really give a crap who wins…as long as its not some Bsuh-republican,” and they’ll take that sentiment to the polls unless they hear different.

    Therefore many people will assume that they can only choose from the set of candidates which the Council on Foreign Relations has handed to them. With Hillary posing herself as the “anti-war candidate” even though she isnt, she’ll be guaranteed to grab votes including from the poor sheepish deluded who think Bill’s administration was some sort of “golden age.”

    What’s even more alarming about this- is that although ALL of the candidates currently running (except for Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, most people have no opinion of that organization whatsoever. Not because they did some quick reserach on their own and decided it’s unimportant…but because the vast majority have NEVER EVEN HEARD OF IT and have NO IDEA that virtually all their choices are members of the same thinktank.

    This is political apathy and ignorance on a downright frightening level; if 90% of my choices for who sits in the highest office in the country ALL chew the same kind of bubblegum then I’d want to know why such a coincidence exists and just what is so great about that gum.
    It’s ASTONISHING that so many are willfully ignorant of the fact that all these candidates belong to the same international organization attended by some of the most powerful international bankers, heads of state, media organizations, and multi-national corporations…and arent interested at all in what the goals of this organization are, what they do, who else belongs to it, and to what ends.

    Im voting for Ron Paul not because he is some savior who will wave a wand and fix everything, not because he will end/begin X Y and Z the day he gets into office, and not because he’s “the lesser of two evils.” I’ve studied government long enough and Im grown up enough to know that the president is not the emperor and cannot do this…but that a megalithic federal government with no internal conflict of interest, true differences of opinion, or concern for its actual stated task (serving the people of the US and defending/upholding the constitution) essentially is. As President, Ron Paul could slow this process and help stop us on our road to disaster by actually using his veto pen and leaving most special interest groups out in the cold/aka not taking their bribes which should be a criminal act for those who run this country.

    If the following policies and our march towards them/continuing them were even simply SLOWED DOWN it would be enough for me to vote for Ron Paul- yes EVEN DESPITE his $500 donation from a racist that we’re all so curiously fixated on while Hillary takes over $800,000 from a 15 year federal fugitive, felon, and known embezzler:
    – Codex Alimentarius/the WTO
    – The Council on Foreign Relations’
    – The Drug War
    – Interventionist policy overseas
    – The Federal Reserve

    I’d encourage you to familiarize yourselves with just what those are if you arent already.

  • Mark W.

    Excellent article, Justin. I especially liked this part: “but if you listen to what he’s actually saying he talks about progress, not perfection”. I’d also like to add that Dr. Paul’s campaign seems to engender an idea of personal excellence, which I think is at the crux of America’s problems: too few persons of excellence having to shoulder the burden of everyone else…people who don’t serve in the military, pay taxes, survive on the teat, etc. While there are many who honestly need and deserve help, the private sector has shown its willingness to provide that help. It ain’t the government’s job.

    Is it such a wacko idea to get rid of the IRS? Considering the govt gets a huge chunk of my hard earned money every payday, then when I need help, I get denied..why? Because I make too much money (TX figures out your wages before taxes). Hey, I don’t want to be on the teat, I just want my f-ing money back, so that *I* can provide health care for me and mine.

    If the only things that Dr. Paul can get accomplished as president are: a) Begin the slow pullback from empire that we have become, b) reduce or eliminate my tax liability, c) serve as an example of personal excellence, d) overturn most of the presidential directives that undermine liberty; well, he’s earned my vote. Personally, I believe that he will be a one-term, embattled president. Neither party will get behind him, mainly because he represents a threat to the status quo (read: K Street).

    Better to keep fighting for the vision of This Great Experiment, rather than submit to the wills of those who would profit from tyranny.

    Ron Paul 2008. America Forever.

  • E Philipp

    I’m a registered republican who until this summer was leaning towards Obama, not because I thought his views were brilliant, but because I felt he at least had his own views. The others seem to try and fit the polls. When I realized that Ron Paul was still running (I hadn’t really believed he was a serious enough candidate) I looked again and came to the conclusion that he’s an oxymoron–an honest man in politics! He also is an educated well-spoken man which is mind-boggling after the past 2 terms. I believe that he would set the right precedent and reduce/reverse the slide towards increased executive powers. I do not have confidence that Guiliani, Romney or especially Hillary would be so humble even Obama I don’t believe would give the power back to the congress/judicial where it belongs. I believe Ron Paul would, as evidenced by his American Freedom bill just introduced to congress calling for limitations on executive powers. He has been consistent for 10 terms in congress and refused the cushy pension on principle. I can respect that.

  • Jim S

    “it’s not that I do or don’t think there are enough jobs for those currently receiving handouts from “social programs.” It’s that I simply don’t care.”

    Thank you very much for confirming one of my beliefs about libertarianism.

    libertarian = selfish sociopath

  • Joe Lawson

    Jimmy the Dimmy and these other guys don’t get it – actually they don’t have a clue at all – its laughable. They are still going along with the old divide and conquer idea that the Republican and Democrat establishment devised to root themselves of unwanted candidates.
    They attempt to try and use the old single issue strategy to divide support. This time it is different – the reason Ron Paul supporters cover the spectrum of political leanings is that Ron Paul is so honest and likeable that his supporters are willing to overlook the differences that have with him and other supporters to stop the madness and corruption in our government – its that simple.

    This is the first time I have seen Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, Libertarians, Constitution Party members, America First Party Members, Reform Party and Independents come together for one person – its truly amazing and I have been in the political game for a long long time.

    Now go back under your rock and try to figure that one out.

  • Joe Lawson

    Response to Jimmy the Dim

    What JimmyDim writes here is truthless and he knows it – nice try

    >ve heard on this website people claim, “Only Ron Paul can save >merica,” he will “kick the money changers out of the temple” and Ron >aul will “Deliver America into the promised land.” That’s pretty kooky. > don’t hear this rhetoric coming from any other candidate, and I don’t >ee any other candidate recieving upwards of 75% of votes on >nternet polls, or his voteries flooding wbsites with comments en->asse. WTF is going on here? Are you guys so deluded and narcissistic >hat you don’t see there is something extremely unusual about all this?

    >Predicted response: “What’s unusual is that Ron Paul will stand up to >he pharisees of America and offer salvation to this country, redeem >he values of the consitution and rebuild the temple in 3 days. RON >AUL 2008!!!”)

    Not sure how old you are JimmyDim, I’m guessing not very old because you obviously haven’t been in many campaigns – actually its pretty common stuff for one Candidate to dominate. For example, don’t you think its odd that Hillary has already been crowned President, and that you see here 99% of the time on every station everywhere?
    I have actually turned the channel 2-3 times and seen her on every station.
    WTF is going on here, is the Mainstream Media delusional and wacked because this is happening? Are they stuck on Hillary and her campaign so much that they are worshipping her?

    One last thing JimmyDim, can you please spell Constitution correctly next time.