Replies

I may be wrong here, but it seems you must not have been delving into politics long.

All the information you seek, or wish to know, about a politician or candidate, is already out there.

Your wishing to know it simply means you have not seen it.

So, who do you expect to show it to you, after they have done the research. The media?? The national newspaperes of record?? TV stations?? Cable??

realize this one thing, and one thing only, and the remainder will be very clear:

----->The media cares less what you think, or what is the trvth (with a V), their sole and only purpose is to help elect a liberal socialist to every post they can influence, from the top down.<----

Once you understand that, the rest becomes clear.

It is up to the informed voter (dichotomy?) to seek information elsewhere on a particular candidate.

I understand what you are saying, however, it leads to a much more serious question. I am going to put myself on the chopping block and risk sounding, as you said, "not have been delving into politics long". Why do we bother with the primaries and elections? Not all the information about the candidates is out there. You said it correctly when you said of the media, "their sole and only purpose is to help elect a liberal socialist to every post they can influence, from the top down".

The information necessary to become an informed voter is protected from the public. That was my whole point of the article. The big money backers, like George Soros, are not going to allow anything really detrimental to be revealed about their investment. Hillary Clinton, who has committed a plethora of offenses in the public eye, is never held accountable.

It is really a joke to have the primaries. As far as the Democrats are concerned the Super Delegates are going to decide it anyway. A lot of time and money has been wasted. The voters still don't really know who these people are or what they stand for. They could have had a few debates on TV and donated the money to charity.