First Female

Presidential Nominee

Is so Seventies.


Victoria Woodhull

Hillary Clinton will make history next week in Philadelphia when she formally becomes the first woman to be the presidential nominee of a major party. But she is not the first woman to be nominated as a presidential candidate: that distinction is held by Victoria Claflin Woodhull.

Notorious Victoria: the first woman to run for president | Eileen Horne | US news | The Guardian

Hillary Clinton and Five Other Women Who Ran For President

All rights reserved by PoliticalNess


The Trouble For Trump

I saw this headline and had to laugh.  Ironically, but still a laugh, of sorts.


The media have reached a turning point in covering Donald Trump. He may not survive it. – The Washington Post

Wow, you’d think someone might have predicted this was going to happen.  Oh wait.  Someone did.

Even the media kisses his ass, because he brings in ratings.  He’s so vitriolic they never know what he’s going to do next to keep things stirred up, and they love that.  If he does manage to get the Republican nomination though, they’ll eat him alive, because he’s not fully a Liberal – I mean, in pretty much everything but name, but the Party matters to them, and he’d be running against the anointed [whoever gets the Democratic nomination].  At that point, they’d finally get around to vetting him, you can be sure.

It’s no secret that I’m not a Trump fan.  That being said, the notion that anyone could in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton is appalling to me.  It makes me throw up in my mouth a little.  This woman is so corrupt and proud of it.  Trump may not be ideal, but my gosh, Hillary Clinton is so vile and beneath contempt that there’s no comparison at all.  It sickens me that the “media” thinks no one else can see their double standard, their complete disregard for truth, or their biases.  They like to think themselves qualified to vet a candidate when they bury facts about their candidate of choice.  In their mind, lies justify the ends, so it’s okay.  They aren’t qualified to vet piles of feces, let alone candidates for the Presidency of the United States.


Plenty of presidential candidates have had shady doings in their pasts, but can you think of anything that compares to Trump University?

Uh, hello?  Are you kidding me?  I assume you’ve never heard of Benghazi?!  People DIED there!  That’s just one, and it makes Trump University look like a preschool playground.  Do some research media!  The history of corruption surrounding Clinton is a long one.  She’d be in jail now if you’d been doing your job


That kind of on-the-fly fact-checking is unusual, but Trump necessitates it because he tells such a spectacularly large number of lies. He also enables it because those lies are often repeated and obvious. So we’re beginning to see those corrections appear right in the body of stories: the reporter relays what Trump said, and notes immediately that it’s false.

Good grief, Hillary makes her living on lies, has been fired from jobs for unethical violations which included lying, and you people don’t even mention this!  Let me guess, your “fact checking” only applies to the candidate(s) not on the Democrat ticket?


Trump has shown the press that the best way to do it is to cover him like every candidate should be covered. That means not just planting a camera at his rallies and marveling at how nuts it all is, but doing the work to fully vet his background, correcting his lies as swiftly and surely as they can, exploring what a Trump presidency would actually mean, and generally doing their jobs

If you people were doing your jobs, you’d have vetted Hillary a long time ago, and she would not be on the Democratic ticket now.  Why don’t you cover her “like every candidate should be covered”?  Oh, sorry, I couldn’t hear you over the sound of your double standard screaming nah nah nahnahnah with its fingers in its ears. 

All rights reserved by PoliticalNess

Riddle Me This


All rights reserved by PoliticalNess

Hey Republicans!



All rights reserved by PoliticalNess

Di Leo: Donald Trump and the American Primary Process – Illinois Review

Too full of great information not to share! 

All rights reserved by PoliticalNess

And yet… despite the rules being in place for years… we see some candidates and their supporters, on both right and left, screaming that the rules are unfair. 

Why unfair?  Because they’re unexpectedly losing at the rules that they accepted when they began, by entering the race in the first place.

The American Primary Process

Perhaps what America needs is a review.  A short, simple review of what the presidential primary process – and in fact, the entire primary process – is for.

Let’s begin with a couple of points:

Di Leo: Donald Trump and the American Primary Process – Illinois Review

“There is absolutely no evidence that Trump is currently, or has ever been a Republican”—Brad Thor

Because the messenger, Trump, has NO integrity or consistency, his message becomes void and irrelevant. He is obviously just saying what he thinks people want to hear – he is not invested in the values he claims to support. This is just a popularity contest for him, not a commitment to conservative values.

Please find a candidate who has been consistent with what s/he purports to believe!


“There is absolutely no evidence that Trump is currently, or has ever been a Republican”—Brad Thor:


West Virginia primary

I came across this article in my news reading and was pretty flabbergasted. 

–>> Federal inmate makes strong showing against Obama in West Virginia primary | Fox News

A Federal inmate – in Texas no less – is getting 40% of the vote in the WV Democratic primary.  40%!  Holy cow!  When WV Dems say, “Anybody but Obama!” they REALLY mean it! 

That is a serious wow factor, lol.  Smile