I took this post seriously but find it lacking. Many of the claims he makes have links. When you follow the links they are to Huffpo or National Review articles that make really poor conclusions from weak or non-evidence.
Or how about his proof that Trump doesn’t know a single book of the Bible? The article was about Trump declining to give his favorite verse because it’s personal. The assumption that Matt and the article made is that Trump was lying.
I am all for vetting and proving a candidate.... but doing so with good evidence... rather than straining at gnats while swallowing a Hilldabeast.
I am all for vetting and proving a candidate.... but doing so with good evidence... rather than straining at gnats while swallowing a Hilldabeast.
_____________________________
;-) Excellent.