Let’s hear it for Kellyanne

In this 100th anniversary of the vote for women, and women are being honored for all sorts of achievements and not being blamed for some atrocities, I don't hear feminists giving much credit or kudos to Kellyanne Conway, the woman I think put Trump in the White House. She was masterful (if we are still allowed to use this sexist term) in moving him to just the right pockets of supporters and weak spots the Democrats had missed. He was down in the polls before she was appointed his campaign manager and he won the election.

Her marriage, to a former Republican and conservative who hates Trump, is about to be wrecked, not by her loyalty and friendship with the President (since 2006), but by their 15 year old daughter who is being shamelessly used by the vultures on the left who will chew her up and spit her out because Trump is their target.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/stop-hailing-claudia-conway-as-your-resistance-hero/?

Years from now when she and her mother have mended their fences and hurt feelings, the internet will have archived all the dirty laundry and those who helped kill a family will have moved on to another hate project.

Voter manipulation isn’t from Russia

Some people I know are still in the Russia, Russia, Russia delusion about 2016, however, Google can manipulate the election by influencing that precious "undecided" group. Watch this testimony. https://youtu.be/rNvgl38TLvI Epstein is not a Trump supporter. The Left went crazy when this report came out, and when Trump repeated it (not using the exact numbers--could be over 10 million) the very ones who claimed to revere science screamed themselves blue and grew donkey ears. No paper trail, nothing to check with this method, Epstein says.

Now he says “Just by fiddling with search suggestion, Google has the power to turn a 50-50 split among undecided voters into a 90-10 split with no one knowing that they have been manipulated,” he said.

https://www.westernjournal.com/expert-warns-google-shift-10-vote-away-trump-hand-2020-election-biden/

The Number One financial donor to Hillary Clinton in 2016 was the parent company of Google. And you're worried about Putin?

Haters continue to bring down our country

The Lap dog media have been misquoting the president for over 3 years, and then their followers on FB, Twitter and blog land continue the stream of misinformation. He never said there were good people in the right wing hate groups or the left wing hate groups at a demonstration against destroying American history by tearing down statues, and he never said the coronavirus was a hoax. He never said Mexicans were bad people. But the haters still hate and the liars still lie. Even when it gets corrected at the source, or watchdog groups show the video was cut or filtered, the lies still circulate because they hate Trump and by extension, the 60 million who put him in office. Even now in a crisis that is hurting their own pension funds and investments, their neighbors and their families, they continue to lie, because they hate Trump more than they love Americans.

Code words—Constitution and Democracy

The reason we're hearing so often those words rarely ever uttered by a Democrat--Constitution and Democracy--is because they are smart enough to see the hypocrisy of saying Trump asked Ukraine for help for political reasons not policy, when they are trying to impeach Trump for political reasons not policy.

But in fact, the President was following up on corruption--Joe Biden had admitted in public on camera involvement in a quid pro quo and got someone in another government fired in exchange for money. It's part of the president's job to look into that. On the other hand, the House Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for the sin/crime of winning the election in 2016 and defeating their candidate in the electoral college. From the pink hat marchers to Maxine shouting at rallies to investigating endlessly a porn star, they have been political. They have no crimes. Theirs is political, Trump's was not. The IG report shows that all the collusion was on the part of the DNC, the Obama administration and the media.

That said, Trump is allowed to be political, and so is the partisan Congress. The Democrats can impeach him because they hate him, and for no other reason--they can twist that to high crimes and misdemeanors--it just makes a mockery of the system.

Who influenced the election?

Who had more influence--the MSM spending billions in 2016 talking about and ridiculing Trump, or Russian disinformation trolls on FB spending thousands? Trump got so much free advertising from MSNBC and CNN and the broadcast media, he should have added them to his staff.

And which country spends more trying to influence other governments and cultures in trade, agriculture, military advisors, NGOs, education, Peace Corps, entertainment and family planning (aka contraception and abortion)--Russia or the U.S.A.? If you guessed Russia, you are wrong. And to suggest that Trump supporters were influenced by Russian ads on Facebook and Twitter means someone didn't pay attention to Hillary's awful campaign and policies.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode-5-billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house.html

Russia, Clinton and Fusion GPS

Which is worse? Russia buying social media ads (half of which were after the campaign) or Hillary selling our Uranium to the Russians who give it to Iran and North Korea? Which is worse? Trump’s bull in a china shop behavior and language or Clinton and DNC paying a spy to bring down his campaign?

What’s coming out now is almost incomprehensible—DNC and Clinton campaign behind the phony dossier that FBI showed Trump before election (which he denied) and now the FBI and Mueller are implicated, as well as Hillary and Obama. They all knew about Uranium One deal, the money she and Bill got, and just gave her a pass. Forget Flake and Corker.  They are just nothings. This crime goes to the highest levels, much worse than anything Nixon ever thought of.   But the woman we could have elected as president?  The DoJ and FBI and our former president all colluding to smear and implicate Trump in a crazy Russian scandal to destabilize not just his candidacy, but then his presidency?  She’s lower than I thought. And One World Obama’s going down fast. Who will investigate Bob Mueller who is investigating the president? He knew also!

 But I’m worried about the unnamed Republican who was involved with Steele (the British spy) before the Clintons took over the dirty deal.  Who knows maybe it was Flake or Corker, but supposedly it was one of the primary candidates. Hoping it wasn’t Cruz, my favorite after Walker, Jindal and Carson.  As they say, get out the popcorn for this thriller, but we’ll need a score card. The Washington Post has the story—and Bezos must have had to swallow gasoline to even allow it in print.

"The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said." Washington Post, Oct. 24, 2017.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.1f3857c9c53b

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/356999-clinton-campaign-dems-helped-fund-research-for-trump-dossier-report

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/24/sean-hannity-real-russia-probe-exposes-clintons-obama-not-president-trump.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/fusion-gps-clinton-campaign/index.html

I guess Weinstein is out of the news for the duration while we watch Hillary Clinton's lie on her book tour.

What are the NFL protests about?

 I have some suggestions.

•  If some players say this is about police, give each man a copy of the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
•  If some players say this is about the election, give each man a copy of the constitution and underline the part about the electoral college.
•  If some players say this is about oppression, give each man a history of the civil rights movement since thousands shed blood in the 1860s, beginning with the formation of the KKK and Jim Crow laws (Democrat party), moving on to the desegregation of the schools and military, on to modern socio-economic statistics, and underscore poverty stats and single moms.
• If some players say it's about voting rights, show them the black voter turn out in 2008 and 2012 with higher voting rates for blacks than whites.
• If some think it's about income inequality, hand them a copy of their latest multi-million dollar contract to compare with their high school friends who didn't work as hard or get the scholarships to play in college.

Search engines also skewed to support Hillary Clinton

"So far we have found that between May and November 2016, search results displayed in response to a wide range of election-related search terms were, on average, biased in Mrs. Clinton’s favor in all 10 search-result positions," the study's authors write. "This bias could not be accounted for by the bias in the search terms themselves."

"The study even goes so far as to claim that without the bias in search results, the oft-cited lead Mrs. Clinton enjoyed in the popular vote would have been nearly eradicated. “[I]n articles published in February 2016 and thereafter, the lead author of the PNAS study predicted that a pro-Clinton bias in Google’s search results would, over time, shift at least 2.6 million votes to Clinton. She won the popular vote in the November election by 2,864,974 votes. Without the pro-Clinton bias in Google’s search results, her win margin in the popular vote might have been negligible.”

So you see, it pays to have an honest or at least a diverse media, and we don't have that today.  Even if you don't like Fox, or Breitbart or Town Hall, you should at least look at them.  They may have the key sentence your liberal/left is leaving out. Then you can return to CNN or ABC and catch on to what they are doing.

http://bucksexton.com/study-google-other-search-engines-stumped-hard-for-hillary-clinton-throughout-2016-election/

http://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_et_al_2017-SUMMARY-WPA-A_Method_for_Detecting_Bias_in_Search_Rankings.pdf

At this point, no evidence that Russia did anything that influenced the election

"Ten months after questions were first raised, there’s no evidence that Donald Trump “colluded” with Russia, according to prominent Democrats and Republicans who have reviewed information or received briefings." (Sharyl Attkisson).

Hasn't Russia/USSR and the USA always had its spies and coverts snooping around other countries' political elections? Probably not many operatives in North Korea, but they are everywhere else, including checking out the recent French election, the British brexit, and Israel.

The media hype will continue, however, because it's the best way they know to keep the Republicans from getting anything done that will help the economy, protect the borders, save the unborn and get the infrastructure rebuilt, all of which the Democrats couldn't do. 

"It’s significant that no evidence of wrongdoing by Trump has publicly surfaced long after multiple players in politics and media began insisting there was collusion. Among the allegations of treasonous behavior was a “dossier” peddled to the media and published in January. It made lurid claims about Trump ties to Russia, involving bribery and prostitution. But it turns out the dossier wasn’t an intelligence report; it was campaign opposition research compiled by Trump political opponents.

This week, Former Defense Intelligence Agency chief James Clapper told Congress that the sourcing trail of the dossier was so poor, that the entire file was excluded from in an intelligence community assessment in January.

Yet despite the persistent dearth of evidence, there’s been no widespread backtracking by those who have made claims against President Trump to date."

It's so difficult for the media and DNC and Mrs. Clinton to acknowledge they had a bad candidate.

Comey's testimony

We learned yesterday that Obama's FBI was investigating Trump as early as July 2016, and maybe before. Are we to assume nothing electronic was used? We know phone conversations were leaked to the press almost before the words were spoken. Comey sticks with the old fashioned word, "wire tapped," as did NYT when it reported on it in January, but we know today's methods go far beyond that. It's called surveillance.  We also learned again yesterday that nothing was found. Now what will Democrats pull for their next impeachment move? None of that could have been done without Obama's approval. This Wired account continues to refer to DNC John Podesta's email as "hacked." As a so-called premier geek source, they should know that phishing isn't hacking.  Anyone could have done this since his password was "password." And all we learned from that was that the DNC was for Hillary and against Bernie--but Donna Brazile has admitted that, too.  Is she a tool of the Russians? The word interfered is continuously used by Democrats, but no one can find anything they have done, no one who changed her vote, and all it has done is make people less secure--which I suppose would be a plus for the Russians even if it is a result of the Democrats' refusal to accept the election results.

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/fbi-director-comey-confirms-investigation-trump-campaigns-russia-ties/ 

 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/fbi-trump-russia-probe-timeline-236258

 "This story is FAKE NEWS and everyone knows it!” Trump tweeted. “The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!”

She's not going to get over it

A retired teacher friend on Facebook whom I met 14 years ago as a blogger (I've never met her face to face and don't even know where she lives) has thrown down the gauntlet.  She's not going to get over Trump's election, she plans to rechannel her efforts to her representatives and senators to make sure they are voting as she wishes.  I left her a comment.

"That's probably a good idea. That's what conservatives did in 2009 and managed to get a number of seats changed in 2010 and 2012, although Republicans in Congress ignored them. At the state level Republicans control the majority of state houses probably as a result of the so-called Tea Party and Glenn Beck's 9-12 groups and reading clubs. The average American voter is running on what they learned in civics classes in high school if they even teach that in the 21st century. In classes I attended in 2010 we learned about the differences and importance of Supreme Court picks to determine if we had a real constitution or a plastic constitution. Also learned some history which has been pretty much covered up since even the 1920s. What a shock to some people to learn the origins of the KKK, lynchings and Jim Crow (Democrat party) and that it was the Republican administrations that led the fight for Civil Rights even in the 1960s. The biggest advantage was meeting like minded, lovely people after being demonized for so long. Some things were discouraging, like learning how committees at the local level for both parties control just about everything and don't want starry eyed newcomers upsetting their comfortable spots. You'll find out the same in your city, county and state elections. Our government at all levels is only quasi-representative. We elect a board at our church, or elect a school board, or a library board, or we answer to a team at work, and so forth. If we don't participate at some level of committee or board, our voices aren't heard. By the time of the election, it's too late. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2008 primaries against Barack Obama. But the popular vote didn't matter--it was number of primaries."

Because they lost the election

In 2015 the Census reported "changes in income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States between 2013 and 2014. The main takeaway is that income is still stagnant. The median income in 2014 was $53,657—essentially unchanged for the third consecutive year, but 6.5 percent lower than in 2007, before the recession, and 7.2 percent lower than in 1999." All that recovery Obama bragged about, that hope and change, was for the top 1% and those with investments. So why is the left raging in rent a mobs about Trump when he's been president for 3 weeks, and we had Obama for 8 years? (Mother Jones, Sept. 16, 2015) Because they lost the election.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) took to social media to quell what it calls "dangerous and irresponsible" stories that allege the agency is executing "roundups" of illegal immigrants for deportation.
Untrue, ICE said in a tweet.

ICE arrested nearly 700 illegals over recent operations, saying 75 percent of those had criminal records. One President Obama operation alone in 2012 netted 350 percent more illegal fugitives."

Why does the left rage and pass along these stories then? Because the protests have nothing to do with illegal immigration. They lost the election.  (Newsmax.com, Feb. 17)

There's another women's march coming up--not sure if it's about inequities or Trump.  Women with the same education, marital status and position of the same age and geographic area are earning more than men of the same status. Are they going to strike to earn less? A 2009 report commissioned by the Labor Department that analyzed more than 50 papers on the topic found that the so-called pay gap “may be almost entirely” the result of choices both men and women make. In 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of men in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more.

In Obama's final year women were 35 percent more likely to live in poverty than men. So why are they mad at President Trump who's been in charge 3 weeks?  Because they lost the election.

If you voted for Mrs. Clinton--WHY?

The issues important to voters between New York and LA in 2016 where Trump won were,
1) terrorism,
2) economy,
3) education,
4) jobs,
5) health care costs.

I have no idea what mattered to those voters on the left coast, but it appears,
1) Hillary is biologically a woman, although that matters in nothing else to the left,
2) abortion on demand especially for the poor and minorities,
3) raising minimum wage (4% of hourly employees) to keep the poor at the bottom longer,
4) illegal immigration to change the racial mix of the U.S.,
5) higher taxes and more regulations to strangle American small businesses so the big guys can hold them back and reduce competition.

If you voted for Mrs. Clinton, and I missed your reason(s), let me know. For a lot of people it was her name wasn't Trump. According to the polls additional concerns showed Republicans cared more about poverty and race relations than Democrats.

Kellyanne Conway--the woman who put Trump in office

 
Kellyanne will turn 50 the day her candidate becomes president. She was raised on a farm by her mother, grandmother and aunts. Married at 34, she had her four children in late 30s and early 40s. She's a success in a business overwhelmingly owned by men, shutting out all the talking heads and experts (even Rove who seems to be wrong more than he's right). She turned down contracts for data sets she thought immoral. She's strongly pro-life. She says family time should not mean everyone is looking at a different screen.

http://www.hoover.org/research/kellyanne-conway-discusses-presidential-election-2016

Trump also won the popular vote--counting 49 states

Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: 58,474,401
Clinton: 57,064,530
_________________
Trump: + 1.4 million
...

I saw this on another post--that Hillary Clinton's popular vote margin came from Calfornia. If you're wondering why we have a representative government or why we are called United States of America"" instead of "California and Friends of America," this would be why.

Snopes confirms the number, grudgingly, and calls the source, "click-bait," as though Snopes doesn't depend on its advertisers (clicks) to make its profit.

Posting on Putin

The MSM (Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) plus all the leftist social media like Vox, HuffPo, Daily Beast are admitting that all the negative publicity they put out on Trump after he won the Republican primaries was no match for the truth about the Clinton campaign leaked by Wikileaks.

Putin must be feeling really powerful. He tips the scale of the civil war in Syria after Obama opts out, and causes chaos among millions of unhappy American Democrat voters creating a panic about the next president. A leak of Podesta's e-mails told Democrats what was going on in that party. A G-mail account . And Putin gets the credit for their dishonesty and duplicity.

Much of the anti-Putin, anti-Russia news slant is recent. Most Americans are not on social media and many don't trust the MSM or this administration to report accurately. So I'm not surprised when we hear/read that a survey (fake news?) showed Putin rated high with Republicans (it's still a minus number but has come up). And why not? For over a decade liberals told how wonderful the Russians were, they were our allies, good source of new businesses etc. , churches were op...en and growing. And before that liberals loved the Soviets. President Bush said he looked in Putin's eyes and saw his soul, or something like that. Hillary Clinton as Sec. State was very chummy offered a reset button for them to play with and Obama promised off mic that after the 2012 election he could be even more friendly (obviously another promise broken). 

The Russians haven't bombed any nightclubs or Christmas parties, they haven't been cozy with Cuba since the 90s, so where would Americans get a negative view if not from this administration--and many of us hit mute when Obama takes the platform for disinformation? As Democrats began blaming Putin for their own failures (Podesta's e-mails), Republicans' view of him went up. Even the recent Aleppo news strongly condemning and blaming Russia is a little strange, since this administration helped create the chaos in Syria. As one Russian reporter pointed out, there hasn't been a single day of peace since Obama took office.

 Watched an analysis (don't know her name) on Fox today of Obama's presser yesterday criticizing the media for their negative coverage of Clinton during the campaign. I guess seconds or a minute about her e-mails was just too much. She said there wasn't enough soap in the world to scrub the brown off their noses. I thought that was pretty good.

 Huma Abedin's e-mails on her husband's laptop weren't hacked--the FBI found them when looking for sex crimes of her husband. I personally think that was very negative publicity--but certainly not from Putin.
FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation is still on-going. Was the FBI being manipulated by Putin?

One of the strangest things I heard in Obama's press conference yesterday was that he'd warned Putin personally in September not to interfere with our election. There would be consequences. If he believes Putin did it, why would he admit to one more failure?

So now they say it was a typo in Podesta's e-mail

 
Tucker Carlson of Fox (opinion show, not news show) interviewed a Democrat (forgotten his name) last night who commented on how damaging the leaked e-mails of Podesta were to the Clinton campaign. He had been a Bernie supporter and was really mad at the DNC for its deceptive practices fixing the primaries. Then Carlson asked him whom he voted for: Hillary.

 It isn't the Russians damaging our system, it is the Democrats/Clinton campaign trying to change the results. They are trying to get Electors to be "faithless." Ballots weren't changed; machines weren't tampered with. People found out the truth and used it. But did loyalists change their minds or just lose respect for the DNC? Finding out that Podesta and staff were ridiculing opponents and fellow Democrats didn't change my vote--or any Democrats I know. 

Last March, Podesta received an email purportedly from Google saying hackers had tried to infiltrate his Gmail account. When an aide emailed the campaign’s IT staff to ask if the notice was real, Clinton campaign aide Charles Delavan replied that it was “a legitimate email" and that Podesta should “change his password immediately.”

Instead of telling the aide that the email was a threat and that a good response would be to change his password directly through Google’s website, he had inadvertently told the aide to click on the fraudulent email and give the attackers access to the account. 

 http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/310234-typo-may-have-caused-podesta-email-hack

Do the Democrats want to stage a coup and destroy the republic?

Democrats don't want an investigation for the truth, they want to convince the Electors to lose faith in the election and "vote their conscience." They want them all (or just enough to throw the election) to be "faithless"--to violate what they've pledged to do--vote for their party's choice.

 

There is no evidence that the Russians leaked Podesta's e-mails (a G-Mail account is not secure for anyone--what was he thinking?), or that any Clinton supporters left her for that reason. There's also no evidence that it wasn't an inside job. . .but that's what Julian Assange says. And there was no sign the Democrats wanted this so-called interference investigated last fall when it first came up.  In October, the Democrats and their lapdog media friends were ridiculing the idea that an outside power could affect a U.S. election. Will the electors be given that information or just the version the Washington Post made up (aka fake news). 

 

Democrats just can't accept that she ignored millions of voters, called Americans names, sneered at their values, and they didn't turn out for her as they did for Obama. But they really turned out for her in Detroit--more ballots than voters! Where's that investigation? Trump was speaking at 5-6 rallies a day to huge crowds--and she could barely field enough interest for a basketball game and only a few times a week.  He was talking to the press ($2 billion free publicity) and she was hiding and resting.

 

 These trouble makers may be the biggest threat to our country ever--and it's not from the Russians. It's Democrats who can't accept the results. They want the popular vote which is not constitutional and they continue to sow seeds of doubt.  It's OK not to like the elected person--I didn't like Obama--but it's not OK to try to undo the election results.

 

Did they try this nonsense in 2008 when Clinton got the popular vote in the Democrat primaries?

No workable policies, the left resorts to name calling

Although I think it’s dangerous and inaccurate for our media (and I include leftist digital news like Huffington Post, The Daily Beast and Vox in media) and Democrats to call patriotic, non-college graduates “alt-right” which has become synonymous with Nazi, I do think I’ve observed the right falls for falsified information more than the left, and that includes memes about health products and cures, genetically modified food, vaccines, collapse of bee colonies, big foot, and things famous people have said. The left inserts more trolls—again my opinion—at conservative websites. This has been confirmed in their own words by recent videos by undercover researchers.  

This is not new—the phenomena of fake news—only the name is new and political since Clinton lost. As a librarian, I saw it all the time, especially from the animal rights movement. You’d see the same photo of an abused cow or dog appear in a number of publications as “real news.” I consider a lot of climate change news fake, yet that can get me called a “climate denier” as though Ohio was never under a glacier or that coal didn’t come from a time of heat and pressure. There was a time in the 20th century when pogroms or mass starvation in USSR were unreported and then called fake news by our own government and media when it did come out. Turks call reports of Armenian genocide fake to this day 100 years later, despite photos and survivors’ families. There are some who say no one died at Sandy Hook and no one landed on the moon. People have been falling for fake news and MSNBC news for years. Look at the whoppers Clinton told about the video causing Benghazi. Or Brian Williams. 

 As one of the best known correspondents in the world for one of the best known newspapers in the world, [Walter] Mr. Duranty's denial that there was a famine was accepted as gospel. Thus Mr. Duranty gulled not only the readers of the New York Times but because of the newspaper's prestige, he influenced the thinking of countless thousands of other readers about the character of Josef Stalin and the Soviet regime. And he certainly influenced the newly-elected President Roosevelt to recognize the Soviet Union. http://www.weeklystandard.com/pulitzer-winning-lies/article/4040

http://www.dailywire.com/news/11475/brian-williams-blames-fake-news-clintons-loss-robert-kraychik

 https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/

 Glenn Greenwald is a source I cautiously recommend. He's done investigative research on both Snowden and Manning, two of our most famous leakers. Some of his writing would put him on the left, some on the right, some in the middle--and he's very suspicious of bipartisanship--says that's when the most mischief happens. He's openly gay, and moved to Brazil for that reason some years ago. https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/

 https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

There are news stories about fake news stories and fake news stories about fake news stories. Odd that the left only became interested when Clinton lost, and not when she was distributing misinformation about a video that caused Benghazi deaths. I'm pretty good at sorting these out, but this is trying the skills I learned as a librarian in Slavic Studies, Latin American Studies, Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, to say nothing of all the clerical jobs in a public library (Mt. Morris, Illinois), college and university libraries (University of Illinois, Ohio State University), and a private special library (OhioNet). Librarians known that everything on the shelves has a bias just through selection of what to purchase, and who controls the publishing industry.

But social media are a whole new ballgame. Some of the news sources I read online are filled with bad actors, trolls, kids barely out of high school working out of mom's basement, disgruntled government employees, web designers with desperate bosses seeking clicks so they can make their profit, and little old ladies like me--that's really what LOL stands for

We're all Russians now