But I don’t have to find reasons to dislike her.
Anyone who is pro-big government, and she is just by the fact she is for universal health care CONTROLLED by the government, means you will NOT get my vote.
I just found it funny that her campaign again shows that the racists and sexists and classists and every other ist seems to be coming from one political party and it isn’t the republicans. It hasn’t BEEN the republicans for a very, VERY long time.
Add to this the media apologizing FOR her when they SHOULD be broadcasting it from the tops of the highest towers like they would if Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson had said the exact same thing, and it makes you wonder?
The basic thing is this:
Hillary thinks it takes dictates from the President to make change.
Mr. King thought it took action from the people to make change.
One is imperial, the other is democratic. I, for one, agree with Mr. King, not Mrs. Bill Clinton. We fought to revolutions to escape from the tyranny of a monarchy, the Revolution AND the War of 1812 (the latter being our fault, BIG TIME.)
Anyway, BACK ON TOPIC!
Who thinks Mitt’s successes in Wyoming and Michigan are flukes, as my local media seems to put it?
Honestly, I think New Hampshire was a fluke, mainly because anyone who wanted too, could vote there. No need to establish residency or even to register before hand. That meant you could buss in anyone you wanted to vote any way you wanted.
Iowa, dunno.
But Michigan and Wyoming were probably the local residents voting. And, since Mitt’s won 2 primaries and came in second for 2 primaries, I find it incredulous for the media to keep claiming he is one loss away from dropping out. He IS the front runner at this point.
Anyone disagree?