NOW THAT WE KNOW - thanks for the link ex-pat

From John Nichols’ Online Beat at The Nation

Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy

“What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination—made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate)—that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement.”

•  “Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the maneuvering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary’s heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm? “

“Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that “her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA” and that “there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;” now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton’s campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work? “

As she campaigns now, Clinton says, “I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning.”
But the White House records confirm that this is not true.

Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.

When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar—a put-in-boldface-type “L-I-A-R” liar.”

The remainder of the post is at the link.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=300860

What I personally find to be even more despicable than the LIE itself, (because there have been many) is the fact that Clinton, (or her campaign – same thing) again went to their personal sewers to conjure up the additional LIE, to put on Obama, that he had somehow done a wink and nod about this NAFTA thing in speaking to the Canadians.

Was that to somehow head off the condemnation that was sure to come, when it was discovered that she was the original merchant behind the implementation of such a disastrous policy? Implemented (by her hard work) DESPITE all of the protests by those (at the time) who KNEW what devastation NAFTA would create.

That is the kind of treachery that knows no bounds.

Now of course they can always claim that she didn’t know about that particular piece of chicanery waged by her ‘advisors’ (since she frequently uses that as an excuse) but there’s no denying, FROM THESE PAPERS, that Hillary was heavily committed to the original deal, or that she has remained committed since.

Is THIS what she doesn’t want the agricultural community to know?

Is this what she doesn’t want ALL Americans to know? That she was so instrumental in creating the economic-based immigration that everyone is so up-in-arms about? If so, I understand why she wouldn’t want Americans to make the connection? But, why lie on Barack Obama? Why not just say that at the time, (that she was putting NAFTA together) she didn’t know it would have these effects?

Maani:

Some time back I posted a link to Molly that upset you.

I believe that was when I responded, I liked Hillary. And in the past, when she’s been attacked, I have vigorously defended her. I also mentioned I liked Bill. My feelings have never changed. That’s why I get upset when Bill loses control and gets stupid. He should know better!

I find it sad Hillary’s supporters sink to negative lows, because in the long run that makes her look bad. My mind remains unchanged, the war - I did watch Hillary’s speech about the war on Wednesday, and I’m very happy she’s finally speaking out forcefully on the damn thing - I still remain behind Obama.

However, I meant it sincerely when I said Hillary is a kind, gracious and forgiving person. Maybe that’s why she hasn’t come right out and told her negative supporters to knock it off. And that’s why it upsets me when I see so mud throwing. Obama is good at dodging. Probably comes from a life-time of straddling the great racial divide. So when the mud comes, it misses him and lands on her. For goodness sakes, support the women. Tell us why you LOVE her!

Meanwhile, we mustn’t forget the reality of what wretches repubs are. Bush stated when asked about a recent VETO - when the democrats spend money to fix things and people complain about the cost, we blame them [the dems] for the problems, and regain control -

Sounds incredible, but that’s exactly how they do business. Have for as long as I can remember. They do it because they can get away with it. That’s what daddy Bush meant when he said “this will all be forgotten in three months,” meaning the mess in Florida, 2000.

They really believe people who vote and pays taxes cant remember anything for more than three months! They are so convinced, they’re perfectly willing to start war, drain the treasury and bring the nation to the brink of ruin. They believe four years of paying to fix the mess will put them back in control. That IS the republican way.

So if you want to throw mud, how about McCain. He’s not to swift, you can probably find a target! Come to think of it, same goes for Obama’s supporters! Don’t divide the party. Mainstreammedia does that well enough!

I believe Hillary is capable of being president. I believe she’s smart enough to pick people who’ll give her sound advice.

But, will she be able to embrace the conservatives without alienating them? Will she be able to help them see they need to be as involved in the rebuilding as the dems? That we’re all in the same boat and if it sinks we ALL drown!

Will she be able to truly unite the people of this nation?

I believe many conservatives in firmly red states voted for Obama in the primaries because of the perception that his leadership will truly unite the people of this nation.

Not because of his credentials or color. But because he conveys a sense of urgency and a sense of coming together that we haven’t seen in this country for a long time. That’s why his speech in the 2004 Convention brought so many people to a stand-still! He said something we all wanted and needed to hear! And he continues to do so.

Should someone be president just because they say what we want and need to hear? Not always, but in Obama’s case, he wrote that speech in 2004. And he wrote the so-called “race” speech. So he’s a really smart writer who thinks for himself and senses a need in this nation we all sense. And if that holds out any possibility of true national unity, I’m all for it.

But, I still intend to support Hillary if she is the candidate. We cant have another four years of republican leadership, or the next go-round we wont be sitting here typing. We’ll all be trying to survive the Great Depression of the Twenty First Century!

Depression. Another republican way.

Maani,

Why must absolutely every single post from you, (even in response to a complimentary one) have to involve more defamation?

•  “Unlike Obama, of course, who had Power (gone), Wright (gone) and now John Brennan (advisor on foreign policy and intelligence), CEO of the company whose employees illegally accessed State Department passport files on the candidates.”..

Like the above. For starters, Samantha Powers, (whom I just heard speak again last week) is NOT a ‘moron’. She IS obviously human, and became very frustrated with the scorched-earth tactics of the Clinton campaign, enough to call her a monster in front of a reporter. So, she voluntarily resigned from her (probably) voluntary position as one of MANY advisors to Barack Obama.

That’s it Maani. That’s what happened..neither more or less. It also has absolutely nothing to do with her value as an advisor to his campaign or policy, because the woman actually is quite brilliant.

It’s the same with Jeremiah Wright. He was one of MANY people involved in an advisory capacity to the campaign, as part of the Committee on African-American Relgious whatever, whatever. Again, one of MANY, which is how politics operates. No more, no less, at least until some of Hillary’s supporters (like you) and apparently some of her campaign advisors, decided to turn HIM into part of the scorched-earth campaign tactic. And, it has backfired. Why? Because nasty politics does.
Were you aware Maani, that Jeremiah Wright had been a guest of the Clinton’s at the White House when they were in residence there, back in the ‘90s’? Apparently not. This is how such chicanery and intentional black-balling can backfire.

So yes Maani, both of those individuals have indeed left the campaign in whatever ‘advisory’ status they may have held. (though I’m inclined to believe that Samantha Powers was more involved than Wright). BOTH of them already had ‘day jobs’ and while his campaign was surely benefitted by both of them, you cannot make the example that Obama’s advisors have acted against the interests of his bid, in the way that Hillary’s have.

Whether Hillary’s advisors are ‘morons’ as Louise suggested, or just lacking in judgment, or ignorant to the perception of the American electorate, the bottom line is that they have FAILED her, in recommending the strategies that have so backfired on her overall campaign.

Start thinking based on reality and a bit more subjectivity Maani, if that’s even possible for you. Every time you make comments like this, it’s only your hate of Obama that you re-affirm, which was the challenge originally put to you. Could you make a case for Hillary, WITHOUT bashing her competitor? 
You’ve proved that you cannot.

As for the passport file violations at the State Dept, that’s more proof of how you will go in search of the most tortured of connections. The thing that should be APPALLING…to ALL Americans, is that there are so damn many CONTRACT EMPLOYEES involved in the daily workings of the business of the State.
Now THAT is what should make any of us cringe and it’s something that needs to be corrected. It’s been 2 decades since the Corps, in all of their ‘outsourcing’ have been contracting out important jobs formerly performed by trained (and vetted) professionals, for whatever the industry. The consumer has been robbed as a result.

In the past 7 years, the same thing has happened in every branch and department of the Federal Gov. THAT is what should concern you Maani. Not WHO the CEO of the contracting company is, but that there is a CEO or contracting company involved AT ALL!!

^ entirely possible.  That’s why each candidate needs to have a brain and think for themselves!  God or somebody help us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Expat:

“She just happens to be surrounding herself with a lot of moron advisors.”

Unlike Obama, of course, who had Power (gone), Wright (gone) and now John Brennan (advisor on foreign policy and intelligence), CEO of the company whose employees illegally accessed State Department passport files on the candidates.

Sounds like BOTH of them have some “moron” advisors.

Peace.

Louise:

I am absolutely floored by this!  Are you really the same Louise who has been posting all this time, or are you an imposter?  LOL.  Saying something nice - REALLY nice - about Hillary?  Did you forget to take your meds or something?  LOL.

Seriously, though, I am happy to hear that you you have even a modicum of respect for her, and it sounds like if she wins the nomination, you would actually vote for her - a marked difference between you and most of the other Obama supporters here.

Brava to you, no matter how often (and passionately) we disagree most of the time.

Peace.

“She just happens to be surrounding herself with a lot of moron advisors.”

While I agree with your comment: Doesn’t this speak to her poor judgement?

Louise, for what it is worth I voted for Clinton on Super Tuesday (in California).  While I do not want to be accused of being a single-issue voter, at my age I have to worry (a lot!) about what is happening to health care in this country.  After giving the matter considerable thought, I decided that Clinton was in the better position, because I figured it was better to learn from a failed attempt at health care reform than to not have tried at all.

Having said all that, I think that the mass media did a really good job of making sure that those of us who voted on Super Tuesday no longer had the option of choosing among seriously substantive differences.  I think it is now extremely unlikely that the next occupant of the White House will deliver anything other than more of the STATUS QUO.  So, while I suspect that the likelihood of damage-control will be far greater if the Democrats control both the Executive and Legislative branches, I am not setting my hopes for “change” particularly high!

Where are Clintons supporters?
And I don’t mean the Obama bashers.

I think it’s pretty pathetic when an opportunity to put forth her best qualities, while defending her are completely overlooked by those who claim to love her.

Shame on all of you. This woman is kind and gracious and forgiving. She just happens to be surrounding herself with a lot of moron advisors. And she made the mistake of believing the hype when she got suckered into running for office. But that doesn’t discredit her as a person. And that doesn’t discredit her as a Senator. And that doesn’t change the fact that like it or not, she may be running for president in a few months.

I can only hope she’ll find herself some real supporters, with real credentials and the ability to think standing up should that happen.

And I can only hope those so-called supporters on the internet take a crash course in how to win friends and influence voters ...

“she isn’t lying…she’s just being misleading” - in other words “what any good corporate lawyer would be!”

So she found every scrape of paper she could an dthrew it in the boxes. She has no intentions of Being Transparent- why should she her predecessor and cohort has paved the way for her.
I was a Bill supporter and Defender (and Hill)since ‘92. But Hindsight is 20/20. And her ‘yrs’ in th eSenate have only made my vision more accute.
Seh can not be trusted. No discussion of legal action agaisnt this admin, no reassurances about revoking Abuse of Power precedence, No real commitment to the welfare of our Armed Services ( thus US), No word regarding Retribution for Financial institutions who been robbing this country for Decades(nearly 80 yrs in the ‘Fed’s scam). seh has proven by her silence and Omissions she will ‘Change ’ Nothing.
She is a disgrace to the Dem Party, the Nations, Woman, and her own husbands legacy. seh has no allegience but to herself and who ever is footing her bill. She muust not only Concede the Dem nomination to Obama, she needs to step doen form Public Service.

It would serve us all well to examine the context of NAFTA in deciphering what Sen Clinton really means.

The first stretch of the Clinton administration didn’t go so well, for a variety of reasons.  Finally, the Clintons took a vacation.  When they returned, there were some serious meetings about how to move forward.  One of the factors that they thought had been a major problem for them was trying to do too much all at one time.

They had three major initiatives that they wanted to pursue (or were discussing): NAFTA, health care reform, and reinventing government.  All three of these were basically run by separate fiefdoms within the administration.  The President had low poll numbers and little political capital; there was a great worry that while they wanted to do all three, they wouldn’t be able to.  Serious discussions/arguments followed…

Obviously, the first lady’s fiefdom was health care reform.  NAFTA didn’t have much support on the Hill, so it was going to take some effort to even get the Dems on board.  Hillary was against NAFTA, not because she was against the agreement (what kind of corporate lawyer would be?), but because it might distract the President from health care reform.

So she can now say that she was against NAFTA and she isn’t lying…she’s just being misleading.

Yeah, I read that article. I also listened to an interview with a national correspondent on the radio. The man said there is a fundamental disconnect with Hillary Clinton’s claims of being against NAFTA from the start, but being seen as vehemently lobbying for the trade act during the Clinton administration. No one can really say whether or not she was being sincere when she was lobbying, but the fact remains she did.

So which is it?

Hillary is insincere, and does what she is told when supporting NAFTA.

OR

Hillary Clinton never opposed NAFTA until it became politically unpopular to do so.

Either way, Hillary Clinton is a liar.

I’m not an Obamaholic, i just hate the Clintons…and i have since the early nineties.  My biggest fear is that an Obama administration will be as big of a disaster as the two Clinton administrations were…for many of the same reasons.

And it sure is funny to listen to Clinton supporters trash Obama, when he’s running almost the exact same campaign that Bill did in 1992.  The slogans, the policy, most everything.

My guess is that this is one of the biggest reasons that the Clintons hate him.  He’s using their own weaponry against them, and using it more effectively than Bill ever did.  Hell, Obama might be able to win the general without the help of Ross Perot taking 20% of the vote.

The Clintons have been blaming the media and everyone else for their self-inflicted wounds since they arrived in Washington; it seems to be a trait that they’ve passed on to their supporters.  The petulance is unbecoming, even more unbecoming than the self-aggrandizement.

^ think there’s nothing in Hillary’s papers; others beg to differ.  Follow this link for an interesting read.

JOHN NICHOLS
Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=300860

When has any other first lady run for president?

Jackpine savage, I know that however, did you not
hear Obamas little speech wondering way Hillary wouldn’t release those papers plus her income tax returns.  That is what I am speaking of, not that it matters one diddly damn as you Obamaholics don’t like the truth or any thing resembling it.

Oh, were they all together???

It is interesting that the first thing the MSM gleaned from these papers was that Hillary was in the White House when Bill got his first BJ from Lewinsky!  Now that’s getting the lowdown!!!!

lib in Texas,

The “Obama people” didn’t get those records released…it was part of a judicial watch FOIA request.

Oh my…

I had to laugh out loud once I read the comments, and discovered that this is apparently not the real “Clinton Pastor” but rather a Pastor in Clinton, NY.

I’m certain, (very certain) that this was an honest mistake by Greg Bacon, contrary to the accusations by others, that he did it ‘on purpose’.

BUT…it serves an excellent purpose, in pointing out that Hillary and McCain supporters have done EXACTLY THIS, in misrepresenting (INTENTIONALLY) the connections between Wright and Obama, and in taking (INTENTIONALLY) out of context, so much of what Barack Obama has said.

He makes an excellent speech, only to have grandma lib in Texas claim that he was somehow bad mouthing his own grandmother. (He said he would sometimes ‘cringe’ at some of the racial epithets that his grandmother would sometimes use).

Well NO grandma lib in TX, he was NOT badmouthing his own grandmother. He SAID what he was feeling at the time that she did it, just like I have on the many occasions that my own mother has said or done similar things. Just because she’s my mother, doesn’t make it right or OK to make nasty comments about anyone else.
Now since she IS my mother, I wasn’t likely (at least then) to do much more than CRINGE, and now that I’m older, and far more likely to correct her, it’s beyond a time for it to do any good. (she wouldn’t get it, just like you don’t lib).

And THAT was his point. Yet, simplistic lib comes up with some interpretation that it meant he was somehow disrespecting his grandmother, which she gladly posted here. THAT is a lie, and it’s disingenuous, and intended to be yet another character assassination of Obama, no different than what so many others on this board, (including mr. mensa) consistently evoke.

And yet, they are the first ones to cry foul, and hurl threats, (I’m going to report you) when someone else does this, unintentionally or otherwise.

It’s SOOO obvious…

Meantime, I’m still laughing.

Don’t worry Greg…if Hillary Clinton were to actually get the nomination, there would be so much shit coming out about her you wouldn’t be able to post or shovel fast enough…

Lucky for her, the Obama campaign has not been willing to indulge in the sewer of the Politics of Personal Destruction, so she may stay safe, unless she really DOES have to go up against the real right wing of the repug party.

Seems like she would remember this from when they did the Clintons in, over a decade ago. But, maybe she feels safe in having ‘cleaned up the records’ well enough to avoid that, this time around.

Time will tell…

So, like this campaign race we’re in now, Hillary’s ONLY ISSUE is Health Care. Additionally, it shows when she fails, she just hides in a corner much like she cries and loses control during her most difficult period of her life… the Lewinsky scandal. What a friggin charlatan. She’s false. FALSE

Did anyone think that there was going to be information in these records that was up front and black and white.  Possibly by the careful examination of the 11,000+ pages cross-referenced with other data there’s the possiblity there’s something in there.  So if one assembles 220 “examiners” and they each take 50 pages….will it be worth it?  Well, I guess that remains to be seen.

The Washington Post had a few interesting “tidbits”, but nothing extremely major…as yet.
“As a record of her official activities, the schedules are at best an incomplete account of her time on Washington’s center stage. Her various interrogations under oath by Whitewater prosecutors, for instance, do not appear; nor does her meeting in late 2000 with a New York rabbi who lobbied for a controversial commutation of the sentences of four Hasidic men convicted of fraud and conspiracy. Many days are filled with “Private Meetings,” with no further information.

Still, the schedules offer some tantalizing tidbits. She spent time with fundraiser Denise Rich at a New York ball in late 2000, just weeks before the president provoked wide criticism by pardoning Rich’s ex-husband, Marc, a commodities trader who had fled the country to avoid tax-evasion charges. She held four private meetings with her chief of staff, Maggie Williams, on the day in 1996 that an aide presented old law firm billing records subpoenaed two years earlier in the Whitewater investigation.”

“Looking at the ‘93 documents, especially early on, you would have thought you were looking at a president’s schedule,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Things seemed to calm down after the health-care thing blew up in their faces. She stepped back.”

“When she traveled abroad with her husband, she attended official dinners and photo ops with him but followed the traditional pattern of maintaining a separate schedule that took her to schools, clinics and art galleries while he met with heads of government. During summits, she was relegated to what the schedule calls the “spousal bus.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031901317_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines&sid=ST2008031902656

While it’s understandable from our perspective as voters to want to “know” who our candidates are, and I do.  You have consider how much it would suck to be them.  Wow…

You call it a headache;  I call it bottom-feeding CHUTZPAH!

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/03/investigative-chutzpah.html

The papers did exactly what we wanted them to do, Lib. And that is expose Hillary Clinton’s white house experience as a FRAUD!!!

You have no valid argument. We didn’t need scandal, just proof that Hillary Clinton’s experience claims are full of shit, just like you are.

Lord please give these poor people a brain to think with. 
Obama people were the ones wanting this papers released. So now they are released and you can’t find any thing scandalous you make up stuff.
Give me strength as you Obamaholics are (they haven’t invented any words yet to discribe you.)

My GOD do you not research anything or are you just a plain liar?????
This case was a minister from the Assembly of God in Clinton, New York.  “CLINTON PASTOR”
WHAT A SLEAZE YOU ARE!!!!!

Also (not that Hillary can’t attend any church she wants) Hillary is a Methodist.  Wesleyan College???
I’m stunned at how stupid you are or are you doing this on purpose to take the Heat off your friend OBAMA.  Disgusting !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Judge to ex-pastor: ‘You lied’

When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But as the former Clinton pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home last March, Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day he testified.

“As a minister of God, you got on the stand and you lied,” Dwyer told Procanick, the 54-year-old former pastor of Resurrection Assembly of God church on Kirkland Avenue.

A jury found Procanick guilty Jan. 22 of first-degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child.

Dwyer said he believes Procanick was being honest when he told the girl’s mother in a recorded phone call that he was wrong to caress the girl’s body while she was trying to fall asleep.

However, Procanick instead testified in court that he did nothing wrong other than spend time alone with the girl, who was a friend of the family, Dwyer noted.

If Procanick had accepted responsibility from the beginning instead of straying from the truth, Dwyer said, Procanick would likely have faced a lesser punishment and possibly avoided jail time.

“The truth would have set you free,” Dwyer said. “You had a chance to be a man and say, ‘I made a mistake.’ But as always, the cover-up is much worse than the original crime.”

Procanick’s defense attorney, George Aney, noted that Procanick still received a sentence less than the maximum, which was up to seven years in prison.

“It’s considerably less than the maximum, but considerably more than he deserved,” Aney said.

Aney also took issue with how Dwyer and the victim’s mother used harsh language to attack Procanick’s Christian values.

“You are just an evil man,” the victim’s mother said Friday in court. “You lied, and you had your wife lie. And all these people who showed up in court to support you, did you lie to them, too?”

The Observer-Dispatch does not identify sex-abuse victims and their families.
The victim’s mother said her daughter is still waking up scared at night because of what happened, and she continues to see a therapist. The young girl also feels that everybody is mad at her, the mother said.

Assistant District Attorney Doug DeMarche Jr. then read a note written by the girl, who did not appear in court Friday.

“Bill made me sad and scared,” DeMarche read. “I thought I did something wrong, because I trusted him.”

Dwyer gave Procanick an opportunity to speak in court, but Procanick had nothing to say to the victim and her family.

Aney did not plan to speak in court, he told Dwyer, but he felt obligated to respond to what the victim’s mother said about Procanick and his wife.

“I believe she shows her own lack of Christianity by referring to people as liars,” Aney said.

After the sentencing, Aney further commented about what was said in court.

“I respect Judge Dwyer for what he said this morning, but I have to say I disagreed with him,” Aney said. “I have every right to express my feelings, and my feelings are that we are not permitted to call anybody a liar. That’s a judgment someone higher than I makes.”

DeMarche, however, said he can understand why the girl’s mother spoke of Procanick in such harsh terms.

“She had a lot of faith and trust in Mr. Procanick, and he violated that trust,” DeMarche said. “I think she’s justified in being angry.”

http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x1637676857

Now that Obama’s lynching has gone off as planned, think the MSM will run this story about Hillary’s former pastor?  Or would that upset the planned election of either Israeli-firster Hillary vs. Israeli-firster McCain?

It’s just a first lady calender, RdV. It’s pretty obvious to me they made a whole big deal about them being released to hype up essentially a counting of minutes.

When you look deeper into the pages, you see during key events in the 90s, the first lady was having tea or making an appearance somewhere while Bill was doing the real signing. This should not be a surprise, but I’m sure to some it will be surprising to find out Hillary was nothing but a female figurehead during her white house days.

Aside from the NAFTA thing-which she has been able to fool some with, does it document her claims of “experience” or is it just a first lady’s calendar?

Yeah, I read all about this yesterday. Essentially, Hillary Clinton’s schedules show absolutely nothing, but that is perfectly O.K. because….... (and this is according to the Clinton camp) these schedules are just the outline of the day and have no bearing on what she actually did…. SOOooOooo, we can continue to speculate if her “white house experience” is actually what she claims it to be.

I still say it’s a bunch of bunk bullshit perpetuated by a power hungry, matriarchal, war mongering, FTA-pushing, insincere Republican-lite. But, hey, that’s just my opinion.