How can one’s mind not seize up into a quivering pile of jello when contemplating Hillary Clinton’s surreal behaviors? We understand the avoidance of press conferences simply because she is not stupid enough to think that all the press corp will play the docile subservient lackeys to this establishment warmongering whore
American Mirror | The Times didn’t report what questions the children were allowed to ask, but they were likely more than anything the media’s been allowed to ask lately.
Maybe the media should pose as children with a stacks of 27 $100 bills in little their outstretched hands so they, too, can have an audience with the queen.
The New York Times revealed in the 21st paragraph of a Saturday story that while it’s now been 23 days since Hillary Clinton last held a press conference, one group of non voters is getting to quiz her, given they have a wad of cash to hand over: For a donation of $2,700, the children (under 16) of donors at an event last month at the Sag Harbor, N.Y., estate of the hedge fund magnate Adam Sender could ask Mrs. Clinton a question.
A family photo with Mrs. Clinton cost $10,000, according to attendees.The Times didn’t report what questions the children were allowed to ask, but they were likely more than anything the media’s been allowed to ask lately.Clinton’s campaign regularly had children ask her questions during the primary.
Back in January, a boy in New Hampshire read a question to the candidate, wanting to know what she would do about guns to keep him and his friends “safe.”Reading from a card, the boy said, “When you become president, what is your plan to connect mental health problems and guns to make sure that me, my brothers, and my friends are safe from violence at school?”
Tolerance of Corruption or Ideological Blindness?
There is evidence that people vote for corrupt candidates even when they have information that their representatives have misbehaved in the past. We propose that ideology is an important factor explaining this voting behavior, and we tested two psychological mechanisms for this effect through an experimental approach conducted among Facebook users. We found that ideology strongly predicts voting for a corrupt candidate.
We found evidence for two mechanisms: a cognitive cost-benefit tradeoff and a change in perception. Our results hold for two different types of corruption: nepotism and money.
Our findings suggest that both tolerance of corruption and ideological blindness influence voting choice, in such a way that when an ideologically preferred candidate is corrupt, voters see their corruption as mild, but even when they acknowledge that corruption exists, choosing the corrupt candidate is still worthwhile. Finally, this study expanded current knowledge about corruption reappraisal showing that it not only happens for people’s own dishonest acts, but also for dishonest acts from other people, as long as they share the same ideology. By showing this, we suggest that dishonest from another person may hurt people’s own self-concept, as long as they identify themselves with this other person