Breitbart post-debate poll: Clinton won 48/43

Breitbart post-debate poll: Clinton won 48/43

POSTED AT 4:41 PM ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 BY ALLAHPUNDIT



Credit Breitbart for conducting a scientific poll whose outcome would be in doubt instead of taking the easy route and posting a Drudge-style online poll widget. The latter are fine if all you want is a broad sense of what your own readers think; if you want to know what the country thinks, scientific is your only reliable option. It amazed me this morning to see how many Trumpers on social media were dismissing the overnight scientific polls by CNN and YouGovthat showed Clinton winning by pointing to Drudge-style widgets that have Trump romping 95/5 or whatever. A widget poll posted on a website doesn’t rely on a random sample. A site’s readership is self-selecting and in most cases will be skewed heavily by partisan ideology, race, sometimes age, sometimes gender. On top of that, it’s easy to game those polls by having other sites who are sympathetic to one candidate or the other link to the widget and encourage supporters to vote and run up the score. It’s like trying to gauge a candidate’s support based on crowd size at his rallies. That might tell you something about enthusiasm but it doesn’t tell you much about Election Day. If Breitbart had run a poll like that, given how pro-Trump their readership is, Trump’s margin might have been 98/2 or thereabouts but that wouldn’t tell you anything about national opinion. And Breitbart knows that, even if some of its allies don’t.

So they commissioned their pollster, Gravis, to do a scientific poll. Result: Clinton won narrowly, 48/43, although Trump came out ahead on key questions.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-conten...16/09/plau.jpghttp://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-conten...16/09/care.jpg

Only five percent of voters said their minds were changed by the debate, and of that number slightly more said they had switched to Trump than to Clinton. If all of that is true there should be virtually no changes in the polls next week due to the debate. On the other hand, YouGov had Clinton winning by a more comfortable margin:
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-conten...16/09/yg-2.jpg

CNN had Clinton winning even more comfortably at 62/27(!), although their sample was D+15. A noteworthy result:
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-conten...16/09/cn-2.jpg

That’s a bad outcome for a guy who needed to show last night that he was qualified, but it may be an artifact of the sample. Democrats split 12/87 on the question while Republicans split 84/14, near mirror images, while independents split 50/49. It’s pretty much a straight partisan divide. On the other hand, Clinton’s own numbers on this question are significantly better: She earns a 67/32 split, with even 38 percent of Republicans admitting that she’d be able to do the job.

What does all of that mean? Nate Silver looked back at post-debate scientific polls and found that the candidate who was perceived to have won usually ended up with an election poll bounce the following week. If that’s true to form, Clinton could be leading again in tight states like Ohio and Colorado next week. On the other hand, Silver’s playing an expectations game that could come back to haunt Clinton: If her numbers fail to rise despite accord among various surveys that she won the debate, the left is going to have a nervous breakdown over the possibility that Trump is now essentially mistake-proof and that his momentum is likely to carry him to victory in November. In that sense a “tie” in next week’s polls is a win for him, leaving Hillary and the left to make a tough decision. Do they want to risk two more debates with Trump despite having gained nothing from a victory in the first one? You won’t see anything from Clinton in the next two that you didn’t see last night, but there’s always a chance you’ll see a disciplined, cogent Trump putting any remaining doubts about him to rest. He’s really got nothing to lose from further debates if he doesn’t take a hit from last night’s performance. Clinton does. Will she bail?

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/2...tm_campaign=nl

Pat Caddell: Breitbart/Gravis Post-Debate Flash Poll Shows Hillary Clinton Won Slightly; Trump Gains ‘Plausibility’

by Neil W. McCabe
26 Sep 2016 Washington

Democratic nominee for president Hillary Clinton edged her GOP rival Donald Trump in Monday’s presidential debate held at Hofstra University before a television audience estimated at 100 million viewers, according to a Breitbart/Gravis “flash poll” conducted minutes after the debate ended.

Pat Caddell, the Democratic pollster and Fox News Insider, told Breitbart News that poll respondents said Clinton performed better at the debate; 48 percent said Clinton did a better job, compared to 43 percent, who said Trump did the better job.

“However, 95 percent of the people we contacted told us they were not going to change their vote based on the debate,” Caddell said.

Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump.

“Trump won on the most critical factor, on whether Clinton or Trump was more ‘plausible’ as president, 46 percent to her 42 percent,” he said.

“That for him is really what this debate was really about,” he said.

Participants said they thought Clinton had a better grasp of the issues, by 48 percent to his 40 percent.

“What really happened was she won on the issues and he won on plausibility,” Caddell said.

“I was really surprised by this–because it is usually a question that plays well with Democrats–‘Who showed that they care about people like you?’ Trump won that 49 percent to 44 percent for her,” he said.

In other questions, 49 percent said Trump was more honest and 42 percent said Clinton was more honest.

Forty-eight percent of respondents said in the debate Trump showed he would be a strong leader, compared with 44 percent for Clinton.

“With regards to expectations, 26 percent said Trump did better than they expected,” he said.

“Clinton clearly did better than expected with 46 percent telling us that and only 20 percent telling us she did worse,” he said. “The point is that despite that, Trump actually benefited from the debate tonight.”

Nobody knows more about the history of presidential debates or presidential debate polls than he does, he said.

“Trump, as the challenger in this race, has a so-s0 performance against Clinton, but he gained what he needed,” he said.

“Like most debates, this debate did not shift the race. What it did do was show Trump as plausible, as a strong leader and more importantly that he cares about people,” he said. “Trump really helped himself out tonight.”

Caddell said he was very happy with the Brietbart/Gravis sample. “I am proud that we used a serious sample, unlike other outlets that were heavily skewed.”

Doug Kaplan, the managing partner of Gravis Marketing, the Florida-based polling firm that executed the poll, said, “Before the debate, we contacted 3,000 registered voters and 1,700 of them agreed to be part of our poll sample, we did not stop dialing until we reached 890 of them to ensure we had a strong sample.” The poll carries a 3.3 percent margin of error with a 95 percent level of confidence.

The poll was executed with automated phone calls with results weighted to match a proprietary turnout model.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...te-flash-poll/

I think Clinton will get a little bump after the debate, but it won't stick, because the reason some might go with Hillary for a spell is based on the depiction by Hillary and Lester that Trump is racist and sexist. Lester drove this false narrative with the birther and stop and frisk questions and then Hillary on the porn whore from Venezuela. Both racist questions are constitutional issues that Lester's position was simply wrong about.

Every American voter should be a birther, because our Constitution requires it to ensure we demand candidates meet the conditions of eligibility, both to age and natural born citizenship that can only be verified by a birth certificate or an affidavit from witnesses and so forth, no different than what every 16 year old has to produce to obtain a driver's license. Most Americans believe to be eligible for President or Vice President you must be a natural born citizen which most of US believe requires born in the US to 2 US citizen parents (natural born or naturalized at time of birth).

Stop and Frisk is constitutional. But like all things in our country, how you do something whether it's police stopping suspects or employers hiring workers, determines whether or not in the process of your task, whatever it is, you are conducting it in accordance with US civil rights laws. If a Judge determines that a Company is guilty of hiring discrimination, does that make hiring unconstitutional? No. Same thing with stop and frisk, just because NYPD got sloppy and expanded their use of stop of frisk to a point that was violating civil rights does not make stop and frisk unconstitutional, it makes the abuse of civil rights unconstitutional, the same as hiring discrimination.

On the sexist issue of Machado and Hillary's charge that Trump calls women pigs and slobs, the only woman Trump has called that to my knowledge is Rosie O'Donnell after she attacked him to create a media feud to boost the ratings of The View. I think a reporter who wrote an article attacking him, he sent her a book and drew a dog face on her picture, much the way newspapers draw a clown face on him.

These are not examples of sexism, because pigs, dogs and slobs all come in all sizes and genders.

Our country's media and many of our politicians have sadly revealed an extreme stupidity with regards to our language.

Online Polls Show Overwhelming Winner Of First Presidential Debate

by Jack Davis September 27, 2016 at 7:51am

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was the hands-down winner of Monday’s presidential debate, according to online polls conducted by CNBC and Time magazine.

Trump came out on top over Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at 67 percent to 33 percent according to CNBC

According to Time, Trump was the winner at 55 percent over Clinton’s 45 percent.

“Trump won hands down,” commented Brian Earl on CNBC‘s poll. “Not in the debate itself but after. He did well in the first half of the debate, lost a little in the second half, but after it was over Hillary vacated so fast the camera man was running trying to keep up. Trump stayed with his wife and daughter and answered questions for a good 20 minutes. He also referenced a Clinton (ad) on the birther issue. CNN pulled up the Wolf (Blitzer) clip and proved she was (lying).”

Others saw the candidates’ performance as a window to their character.

(See hillary was given questions a week in advance -)
http://www.alipac.us/f9/tomi-lahren-...ht-but-337842/


“Hillary looked smug during the entire debate, and she has a fake smile,” commented Kendoaz. “I give her credit for not falling over and lasting 90 minutes. Hillary looked fake, had prepared lines and did good remembering them, but we don’t want fake we want the truth. I’m tired of politicians BS and Trump just delivers well. With Trump it looks like it comes from the heart, not a paid political junkie. I bet the next debate Trump will be on the attack more, he let her off the hook a few times.”

Many viewers found there to be a heavy hand of bias in the debate.
“Where was the discussion about illegal immigration? That’s the number 1 issue in the election. Where was the discussion about radical islamic terrorism? That’s the number 2 issue in the election. Hillary and the 3rd debater, Lester Holt, spent most of the time trying to play “gotcha” with Donald Trump,” commented Tom Johnson. “Holt tried to rebut Trump 41 times. He only followed up with Hilary 7 times. Hilary came across as a smug, pompous insider politician. Trump came across as a leader.”
Others felt the media bias was present during the post-debate spin cycle.
“What was pathetic was the spin room reporters of ABC, NBC and CBS immediately after the debate. My God those people have no shame and ran to tell us all how bad Trump did, how Trump failed, never saying any bad about Secretary Clinton’s performance. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at anything the media does this cycle, but it was sickening to watch,” commented Rockerfeller.

Fox News, in fact, noted that online polls showed Trump largely being cited as the winner, but the media analysis of the debate largely gave the victory to Clinton.
Trump himself gave Clinton a grade of C+ for her performance.

“I thought she was very bad in the first half when they were asking normal questions,” he said, “and when they were asking bad questions she did better.”

Trump said he had planned to hit the Democratic nominee on her husband Bill Clinton’s infidelities but in the end could not bring himself to do so in front of their daughter, Chelsea Clinton. “See, I do have a heart,” he said.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/onl...ential-debate/

Yes, everyone who respects the Truth and Fairness KNOWS Donald Trump won the debate, because there was no Truth or Fairness in the Hillary speeches during the Debate and none in the Debate set-up to begin with. Now we find out that NBC RIGGED THE DEBATE not only with Lester becoming part of the Debate, not only with the unfairness of his interjections against Trump, but also by providing Hillary with the debate questions a week in advance.

Hillary Clinton Received Debate Questions in Advance-Fiction!

Summary of eRumor:
Hillary Clinton was given a list of questions that would be asked during the first presidential debate at Hofstra University a week ahead of time.

The Truth:
False reports that Hillary Clinton was given debate questions in advance can be traced back to a 200-year-old newspaper that was recently revived to sling fake news.

The Baltimore Gazette news site published the report immediately following the debate between Clinton and Donald Trump on September 27th. The story, which appeared under the headline, “Clinton Received Debate Questions Week Before Debate, According to Sources,” reports:

Earlier last week an NBC intern was seen hand delivering a package to Clinton’s campaign headquarters, according to sources. The package was not given to secretarial staff, as would normally happen, but the intern was instead ushered into the personal office of Clinton campaign manager Robert Mook. Members of the Clinton press corps from several media organizations were in attendance at the time, and a reporter from Fox News recognized the intern, but said he was initially confused because the NBC intern was dressed like a Fed Ex employee.

The reporter from Fox questioned campaign staff about the intern, but campaign staff at first claimed ignorance and then claimed that it was just a Fed Ex employee who had already left. No reporters present who had seen the intern dressed as a Fed Ex employee go into Mook’s office saw him leave by the same front entrance. The Fox reporter who recognized the intern also immediately looked outside of the campaign headquarters and noted that there were no Fed Ex vehicles parked outside.

Clinton seemed to have scripted responses ready for every question she was asked at the first debate. She had facts and numbers memorized for specific questions that it is very doubtful she would have had without being furnished the questions beforehand. The entire mainstream media has specifically been trying to portray Trump as a racist and a poor candidate. By furnishing Clinton with the debate questions NBC certainly hoped to make Clinton appear much more knowledgeable and competent than Trump. And though it is unlikely that anyone will be able to conclusively prove that Clinton was given the debate questions, it seems both logical and likely.

Baltimore Gazette states in its “About Us” section that it’s Baltimore’s “oldest news source and one of the longest running daily newspapers published in the United States” — but that description is intentionally misleading.

In reality, the Baltimore Gazette had a 10-year from 1865-1875, records kept by the Library of Congress indicate.

Someone recently revived the Gazette and has been publishing a mixture of real and fake local and national news stories that has left many readers confused.

One example is a story about a man that stole Sudafed from a Walgreens on East Fayette Street in Baltimore — a story that sounds real enough, but isn’t. The story includes a description of the suspect and a phone number for readers to call with tips. However, Baltimore’s City Paper learned from police that that theft never occurred:
BPD spokesman T.J. Smith says the story “doesn’t appear to be true” and notes that the phone number listed for anyone with information to contact is not affiliated with the department.

It’s not clear who’s operating the site, but it’s safe to assume that it’s not a reliable source of news. That’s why we’re calling the rumor that Clinton received debate questions in advance “fiction.”

https://www.truthorfiction.com/hilla...tions-advance/

Someone revived the Baltimore Gazette to spread fake news ...

www.citypaper.com/.../bcpnews-someone-revived-the-baltimore-...

Baltimore City Paper

5 days ago - The Baltimore Gazette, a newspaper that existed very briefly just after the Civil War, has returned online as a site to spread fake news stories and other nonsense.
One article in particular, "ATLANTA OFFICER KILLS BLACK WOMAN, INJURES CHILD, FOLLOWING BREASTFEEDING ARGUMENT ...

Well, who in the heck is "truthorfiction.com"?? What makes their sleazy site any more credible than the Baltimore Gazette site? Who are they? What town or country are they in? Who funds them? They don't even have an "About Us" section on their website. No phone number, no address.

To me, that's the pot calling the kettle black.

They're probably both fake.

Clinton Received Debate Questions Week Before Debate : snopes.com

www.snopes.com › Fact Check › Fake NewsSnopes.com

1 day ago - A fake news story reported that Hillary Clinton was given her questions for the first presidential debate of 2016 a week in advance. ... Claim: Hillary Clinton received her questions for the first presidential debate of 2016 a week in advance. Origin:On 26 September 2016, Democratic ...

Oh yeah, "Snopes", the couple working out of their basement in Iowa.

:lol::lol::lol:

Trump Gets Big Boost From Fake Newspaper

His supporters will be thrilled, though.

09/27/2016 10:44 pm ET
Jason Linkins

Big media news for Hillary Clinton Tuesday night as the Arizona Republic ― which had never in its history endorsed a Democrat for president ― has thrown its endorsement to the former secretary of state, citing her lifetime of never coming across like an impulsive man-baby: “The president commands our nuclear arsenal. Trump can’t command his own rhetoric.”

But not so fast! Donald Trump has a media coup of his own to brag about. Seems that some eagle-eyed investigative reporters at the Baltimore Gazette have brought home a dilly of a scoop:

“Multiple reports and leaked information from inside the Clinton camp claim that the Clinton campaign was given the entire set of debate questions an entire week before the actual debate.”
Trumpet sting!

Earlier last week an NBC intern was seen hand delivering a package to Clinton’s campaign headquarters, according to sources. The package was not given to secretarial staff, as would normally happen, but the intern was instead ushered into the personal office of Clinton campaign manager Robert Mook. Members of the Clinton press corps from several media organizations were in attendance at the time, and a reporter from Fox News recognized the intern, but said he was initially confused because the NBC intern was dressed like a Fed Ex employee.

That’s some serious shoe-leather! Unfortunately there was un problema. As the Baltimore City Paper’s Brandon Weigel reported last week:

The Baltimore Gazette, a newspaper that existed very briefly just after the Civil War, has returned online as a site to spread fake news stories and other nonsense.

One article in particular, “ATLANTA OFFICER KILLS BLACK WOMAN, INJURES CHILD, FOLLOWING BREASTFEEDING ARGUMENT,” caught the attention of the online sleuths at Snopes.com after it apparently went viral. Search “Baltimore Gazette” on Facebook and you’ll find a number of people who have been deceived by the breastfeeding story or are trying to prevent others from doing the same.

Yes, turns out the Baltimore Gazette is just one more in an increasingly baffling array of “parody” news sites that swap the humor of The Onion with the crackpottery of your great-uncle’s emails, all while dressing up their wares with as close an approximation to real news as they can muster. (Weigel reports that the “Gazette” does salt its bogus offerings with occasional stories that are on the level ― and stolen from other sources.)

Nevertheless, a story about Clinton getting the debate questions ahead of time? Fake news site or no, you’d have to be a complete idiot to believe ―

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...024a52d2b71e6?

No, one would not have to be a complete idiot to believe the debate was rigged. It all adds up. That's why Lester never did a follow up question. That's why he didn't ask her anything about her emails, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, lying to the FBI, lying to Congress, funding Syrian Rebels, the DNC rigging the nomination against Bernie, her false promise to create 200,000 jobs in New York as a US Senator but didn't create any and instead cost them thousands of jobs, why she called TPP the Gold Standard if it hadn't even been negotiated like she said, why does she support amnesty for illegal aliens when millions of Americans are out of work, why does she want to raise taxes when our economy is only at 1.2% growth, why she wants to increase refugees from Syria by 550%, etc., etc., etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Oh yeah, "Snopes", the couple working out of their basement in Iowa,

---

Actually they are in San Fernando Valley California and

"FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people,"
=====================

Snopes.com /ˈsnoʊps/, also known as the Urban Legends Reference Pages, is a website covering urban legends, Internet rumors, e-mail forwards, and other stories of unknown or questionable origin.^[2] It is a well-known resource for validating and debunking such stories in American popular culture,^[3] receiving 300,000 visits a day.^[4]

Snopes.com was created by Barbara and David Mikkelson, a California couple who met in the alt.folklore.urban newsgroup.^[5] The site is organized by topic and includes a message board where stories and pictures of questionable veracity may be posted. The Mikkelsons founded the San Fernando Valley Folklore Society and were credited as the owners of that site until 2005.^[6]

History[edit]

David Mikkelson used the username "snopes" (the name of a family of often unpleasant people in the works of William Faulkner)^[7][8] in the Usenet newsgroup alt.folklore.urban.^[9]

The Mikkelsons created the Snopes site in 1995,^[10] and later worked on the site full-time.^[5][8][10]

A television pilot based on the site, called Snopes: Urban Legends, was completed with American actor Jim Davidson as host, but major networks passed on the project.^[8]

Main site[edit]

Snopes aims to debunk or confirm widely spread urban legends. The site has been referenced by news media and other sites, including CNN,^[11] Fox News Channel,^[12] MSNBC,^[13] and Australia's ABC on its Media Watch program. Snopes' popular standing is such that some chain e-mail hoaxes claim to have been "checked out on 'Snopes.com'" in an attempt to discourage readers from seeking verification.^[14] As of March 2009, the site had approximately 6.2 million visitors per month.^[15]

The Mikkelsons have stressed the reference portion of the name Urban Legends Reference Pages, indicating that their intention is not merely to dismiss or confirm misconceptions and rumors but to provide evidence for such debunkings and confirmation as well.^[16] Where appropriate, pages are generally marked "undetermined" or "unverifiable" if the Mikkelsons feel there is not enough evidence to either support or disprove a given claim.^[17] The Mikkelsons have said many of the urban legends are mistakenly attributed because of common problems associated with e-mail signatures.^[18]

Lost Legends[edit]

In an attempt to demonstrate the perils of over-reliance on the internet as authority, the Mikkelsons assembled a series of fabricated urban folklore tales that they term "The Repository of Lost Legends".^[19] The name was chosen for its acronym, T.R.O.L.L., a reference to the early 1990s definition of the word troll, meaning an Internet prank, of which David Mikkelson was a prominent practitioner.^[9]

One fictional legend alleged that the children's nursery rhyme "Sing a Song of Sixpence" was really a coded reference used by pirates to recruit members. This parodied a real false legend surrounding the supposed connection of "Ring a Ring o' Roses" to the bubonic plague. Although the creators were sure that no one could believe a tale so ridiculous—and had added a link at the bottom of the page to another page explaining the hoax,^[20] and a message with the ratings reading "Note: Any relationship between these ratings and reality is purely coincidental"—eventually the legend was featured as true in an urban legends board game and television show.^[21] The television show, Mostly True Stories: Urban Legends Revealed, was shown to have been using information from Snopes when one of Snopes' invented "lost legends" appeared on the program as true; the repository thus served as an inadvertent copyright trap.^[9]

Accuracy[edit]

Critics have accused Snopes of having a liberal bias.^[22][23] Jan Harold Brunvand, a folklorist who has written a number of books on urban legends and modern folklore, considered the site so comprehensive in 2004 as to obviate launching one of his own.^[10]

David Mikkelson, the creator of the site, has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias,^[24] but insists that the same debunking standards are applied to all political urban legends.

FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases.

FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them.^[24][25]

In 2012, The Florida Times-Union reported that About.com's urban legends researcher found a "consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses" and that Snopes' cited sources and numerous reputable analyses of its content confirm its accuracy.^[26]

Traffic and users[edit]

In mid-2016, Snopes.com's Alexa rating was 1,590. Of the users, 80% originate from within the United States.^[1] In 2010, the site attracted 7 to 8 million unique visitors in one month.^[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

Folks from both sides like to make excuses when the narrative doesn't fit their agenda. We're all probably guilty of that at times. However, I did find the poll slightly concerning because Breitbart is a conservative news organization.

Trump’s Debate Loss Was So Bad That Fox News Can’t Find A Credible Poll Showing He Won

By Jason Easley on Tue, Sep 27th, 2016 Donald Trump, Featured News, Media
Donald Trump lost the presidential debate to Hillary Clinton in such a decisive manner that even Fox News can't find a credible scientific poll that declared Trump the winner.
http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.ne...mp-701x394.jpgDonald Trump lost the presidential debate to Hillary Clinton in such a decisive manner that even Fox News can’t find a credible scientific poll that declared Trump the winner.

http://www.politicususa.com/tag/onli...s-not-credible

Ouch!

Snopes is a couple working out of their home. They aren't even from the United States. When I researched them years ago, like 11 years ago, I thought they were Iowa. But if that's not right and it's California, I stand corrected.

The point is, this is a couple working out of their home, they are no better at debunking or researching than any of us here at ALIPAC, and frankly, far less so, in my opinion.

Americans don't need a couple working out of their basement to tell them what's real and what isn't, what's right and what's not. Americans are perfectly capable of doing every bit of the google searches this couple does to determine it for themselves.

SO, when American do their own research and come up with a conclusion or finding, it is completely WRONG to refer to SNOPES as somehow being the SUPERIOR RULER of the Truth. They are not. They are not truth tellers, they are debunkers, big difference. It's just like PolitiFact, that has no credibility any more either.

Americans don't need this "fact-checking", "debunkers", with their own bias and opinions.

Americans need to realize their own mind is the only debunking mechanism they need. Yes, we need facts, and for that we've relied in the past on government data and the media. But today, both of those sources are corrupt, so we're on our own to find our own source of data, our own source of facts, and then use our own brains to process it.

Just my opinion.