Democrats certainly support odd concepts relating to life, death, immigration, and the economy

Michael Brown robs a store in Ferguson, Missouri; goes after a police officer's gun; and gets killed.  The media goes along with a fictional story of "hands up, don't shoot," making Michael Brown a hero and ginning up racial hate and hate of cops, causing riots and destruction.

Kate Steinle, Mollie Tibbetts, and others get killed by illegal aliens, and most of the media and Democrats give the stories short shrift, if any coverage at all, once the perp is identified, because it just doesn't fit with the agenda.

A professor on MSNBC cared so much about Mollie Tibbetts's death that she called her "a girl in Iowa" that "Fox News is talking about."  Elizabeth Warren implied that Tibbetts's death wasn't that important, quickly moving on to talking points when the subject was raised.  The separation of kids at the border is what is important.  I thought all deaths were important.

Over the years, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin, and others have said similar things to Trump on illegal immigration, border security, and chain migration, and not only didn't the media, Hollywood, and other Democrats condemn them as racists and xenophobes, but they supported them in their re-election.  With Trump, they intentionally gin up racial hate among blacks, Hispanics, and others in order to keep their votes.

Elizabeth Warren, Hollywood, and the media didn't care much when Obama separated children from their parents and kept them in "cages," and now they trash Trump for following the law.

Civil War statues were up for well over 100 years prior to Obama being in office, yet the protests and destroying the statues did not occur until Trump took office.  Why?  They are obviously organized, not spontaneous, protests meant to destroy Trump.  Why aren't there protests to take down references and monuments to Margaret Sanger and Robert Byrd since they were known racists?

When over 350 newspapers get together to coordinate editorials about how important and honest they are and how despicable Trump is, maybe they should consider how much they intentionally distort the news to favor an agenda.  Fake news about Michael Brown, hypocritical reporting on immigration, fake rape cases on rich white kids at Duke (intentionally meant to gin up racial hate), and the fake Russian collusion story that has run for years are just a few examples.

Currently there is a story based on anonymous sources that the National Enquirer owner has a safe with stories he buried about Trump, and the media are feigning outrage and claiming that somehow this is manipulating an election and an illegal campaign contribution.  It is hilarious for the media to act outraged.  The media bury stories every day that is positive on Trump and bury stories continuously that are negative for Democrats.

Hillary and Obama along with others surrounding them had multiple violations of the law, and the media didn't care.  Obama clearly weaponized the Justice Department, the IRS, and intelligence agencies to destroy political opponents and protect people he supported, and yet the media dutifully parrot that there was no politicization during Obama's eight years.  By the same logic, why aren't networks and newspapers being investigated for their obvious campaign contributions to Democrats and their obvious attempt to manipulate elections?

The media continually blame Trump for dividing the country, but the media intentionally seek to divide in the way they report.

The most important issue concerning Democrats, including the media, seems to be Roe v. Wade and unlimited abortion.  Chelsea Clinton encapsulates their views well when she says how much Roe v. Wade helped women be more productive.  She credits the decision and the killing of babies for helping the economy.  She seems to have a much more negative view of motherhood and women than most of us do.  She thinks the way women help or participate in helping the economy is by killing their babies so they can join the workforce.  (It should be noted that women who choose to be stay-at-home mothers also contribute a great deal to the economy and the greatness of society.)  If I were the child of Hillary I might think the same way.  It appears that Chelsea was raised by a village, a village of idiots.

I wonder how Chelsea thinks her mother made it into the work force since Hillary didn't abort her and she was born seven years after Roe v. Wade was handed down by the Supreme Court.  My third child is a daughter who was born 15 years after Roe v. Wade, and thank goodness neither she nor my two boys were aborted.  They are all great contributors to and beneficiaries of the great economy today.  I do believe that Chelsea didn't drop too far from the tree and can see that neither her mother nor her dad actually produced anything.  Instead, they got rich by selling their political power.  That is the same way Chelsea has gotten rich, from her parents' political power.  Does anyone think anyone would care what Chelsea says if she weren't the former first daughter?  They also sought to destroy anyone, especially women, who got in their way in their quest for power.  It is a shame that anyone looks up to the Clintons and acts like they are pro-women after their wanton disrespect and destruction of women.

Margaret Sanger, a "progressive," was a fan of eugenics and wanted to build a "cleaner" race through selective breeding.  I would ask Chelsea if killing black babies at a rate much higher than their percentage of the population helped black women join the work force, or did it just prevent more blacks from growing up?

Why do Democrats continue to support racist laws, like Davis-Bacon, which was passed to prevent minorities from taking white workers' jobs?  It has oppressed minorities and taxpayers for over eighty years, so why isn't it repealed?

I will support a president who wants businesses and individuals to thrive and have independence versus a party whose policies are meant for the government to thrive and have more people remain and become dependent on government.  It is a simple choice.

Michael Brown robs a store in Ferguson, Missouri; goes after a police officer's gun; and gets killed.  The media goes along with a fictional story of "hands up, don't shoot," making Michael Brown a hero and ginning up racial hate and hate of cops, causing riots and destruction.

Kate Steinle, Mollie Tibbetts, and others get killed by illegal aliens, and most of the media and Democrats give the stories short shrift, if any coverage at all, once the perp is identified, because it just doesn't fit with the agenda.

A professor on MSNBC cared so much about Mollie Tibbetts's death that she called her "a girl in Iowa" that "Fox News is talking about."  Elizabeth Warren implied that Tibbetts's death wasn't that important, quickly moving on to talking points when the subject was raised.  The separation of kids at the border is what is important.  I thought all deaths were important.

Over the years, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin, and others have said similar things to Trump on illegal immigration, border security, and chain migration, and not only didn't the media, Hollywood, and other Democrats condemn them as racists and xenophobes, but they supported them in their re-election.  With Trump, they intentionally gin up racial hate among blacks, Hispanics, and others in order to keep their votes.

Elizabeth Warren, Hollywood, and the media didn't care much when Obama separated children from their parents and kept them in "cages," and now they trash Trump for following the law.

Civil War statues were up for well over 100 years prior to Obama being in office, yet the protests and destroying the statues did not occur until Trump took office.  Why?  They are obviously organized, not spontaneous, protests meant to destroy Trump.  Why aren't there protests to take down references and monuments to Margaret Sanger and Robert Byrd since they were known racists?

When over 350 newspapers get together to coordinate editorials about how important and honest they are and how despicable Trump is, maybe they should consider how much they intentionally distort the news to favor an agenda.  Fake news about Michael Brown, hypocritical reporting on immigration, fake rape cases on rich white kids at Duke (intentionally meant to gin up racial hate), and the fake Russian collusion story that has run for years are just a few examples.

Currently there is a story based on anonymous sources that the National Enquirer owner has a safe with stories he buried about Trump, and the media are feigning outrage and claiming that somehow this is manipulating an election and an illegal campaign contribution.  It is hilarious for the media to act outraged.  The media bury stories every day that is positive on Trump and bury stories continuously that are negative for Democrats.

Hillary and Obama along with others surrounding them had multiple violations of the law, and the media didn't care.  Obama clearly weaponized the Justice Department, the IRS, and intelligence agencies to destroy political opponents and protect people he supported, and yet the media dutifully parrot that there was no politicization during Obama's eight years.  By the same logic, why aren't networks and newspapers being investigated for their obvious campaign contributions to Democrats and their obvious attempt to manipulate elections?

The media continually blame Trump for dividing the country, but the media intentionally seek to divide in the way they report.

The most important issue concerning Democrats, including the media, seems to be Roe v. Wade and unlimited abortion.  Chelsea Clinton encapsulates their views well when she says how much Roe v. Wade helped women be more productive.  She credits the decision and the killing of babies for helping the economy.  She seems to have a much more negative view of motherhood and women than most of us do.  She thinks the way women help or participate in helping the economy is by killing their babies so they can join the workforce.  (It should be noted that women who choose to be stay-at-home mothers also contribute a great deal to the economy and the greatness of society.)  If I were the child of Hillary I might think the same way.  It appears that Chelsea was raised by a village, a village of idiots.

I wonder how Chelsea thinks her mother made it into the work force since Hillary didn't abort her and she was born seven years after Roe v. Wade was handed down by the Supreme Court.  My third child is a daughter who was born 15 years after Roe v. Wade, and thank goodness neither she nor my two boys were aborted.  They are all great contributors to and beneficiaries of the great economy today.  I do believe that Chelsea didn't drop too far from the tree and can see that neither her mother nor her dad actually produced anything.  Instead, they got rich by selling their political power.  That is the same way Chelsea has gotten rich, from her parents' political power.  Does anyone think anyone would care what Chelsea says if she weren't the former first daughter?  They also sought to destroy anyone, especially women, who got in their way in their quest for power.  It is a shame that anyone looks up to the Clintons and acts like they are pro-women after their wanton disrespect and destruction of women.

Margaret Sanger, a "progressive," was a fan of eugenics and wanted to build a "cleaner" race through selective breeding.  I would ask Chelsea if killing black babies at a rate much higher than their percentage of the population helped black women join the work force, or did it just prevent more blacks from growing up?

Why do Democrats continue to support racist laws, like Davis-Bacon, which was passed to prevent minorities from taking white workers' jobs?  It has oppressed minorities and taxpayers for over eighty years, so why isn't it repealed?

I will support a president who wants businesses and individuals to thrive and have independence versus a party whose policies are meant for the government to thrive and have more people remain and become dependent on government.  It is a simple choice.