A CLINTON DEFEAT, A TRUMP VICTORY! WE JUST DODGED A SERIOUS BULLIT, PERHAPS-WW III. Whew!

Bowie...now,Cohen...Missed beyond words. RIP, in a better place than this,Leonard Cohen

'We need a renaissance of wonder. We need to renew, in our hearts and in our souls, the deathless dream, the eternal poetry, the perennial sense that life is miracle and magic.'
E. Merrill Root

"So Sorry Hillary", It's OUR Turn; We The People DESERVE It!

A TRUMP VICTORY & most of the greedy fat-azz corporate pigs who have come to think themselves, "better" than all the rest of us[ other piggies] are shittin-in-their-slops today wrestling with the most simplest of all the 'WHY' questions...
CLUE: think "BREXIT"> There, do you think that THEY get-it now?!? Probably not.
Perhaps THE RUSSIANS infiltrated "The Rust Belt"?
The Democratic Party ****ed-up ROYALLY; in so many ways that it would take a book to list "The Wrongs & Errors" that were committed. The Corrupt Mainstream Media really ****ed this Country WITH THE LIES,SECRETS, PROPAGANDA, & DECEPTION surrounding Hillary & Billie-Boy's 'Inner Circle'. So Wrong on Soooo Many Levels. HUBRIS-Trump? Sorry, but the TRUE HUBRIS that HURT so many good people was that type of narcissism & greed displayed by The Clinton Cartel & Their MACHINE."Oh, you don't have to tell me; I guess they thought that they'd get-away with it..." Or not.
THANK YOU WIKI-LEAKS.

OK...Whatever...

If the dude, turns-me-on?
I'm with-------->HER [Ms.Janis, RIP] on the topic;}

Janis Joplin - Get it while you can
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju9yFA1S7K8

Oh Sojourning_Soul, don't waste your time with those who wish to remain in ignorance. FACTS DON'T MATTER to such folk; they are invested in maintaining a their own particular, rigid mind-sets. After all, by now- Everyone should know to blame EVERYTHING ON THE RUSSIANS ...


Hillary Clinton Let's Blame The Russians
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJQRP36yyMU

RE: FBI & THE CLINTON EMAIL INVESTIGATION
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"
- Carl Sagan, Astronomer
PS: Especially True when The DEPARTMENT OF [IN]JUSTICE & THE FBI HAVE BEEN TOTALLY COMPROMISED.



OBAMA DOJ: HANDMAIDEN OF CLINTON CORRUPTION
How the Clinton machine is perverting
U.S. federal law enforcement to shield Hillary.
by JOSEPH KLEIN

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264705/obama-doj-handmaiden-clinton-corruption-joseph-klein

*ABOUT JOSEPH KLEIN*
Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

HILLARY CLINTON "MAID" HER AN ACCOMPLICE!

I’m Voting For Trump Because Only A Street Fighter Can Take Down Clinton’s Anti-America Machine Would a Trump victory give us breathing room and allow Americans the chance to reassess our trajectory? At least with Trump, it’s an open question. We know what Hillary will do.
*
https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/04/im-voting-trump-street-fighter-can-take-clinton-machine/
*
Excerpt:
"We Are Way Beyond Requiring Virtue of Our Leaders[Busted-Bernie or GREENIE-Jill],
America gave up the luxury of assuming great character in our civic leaders when it turned its back on the idea of virtue. We are living in a post-virtue society. And the only hope of beginning to turn that around now is to make sure the Clinton crony machine does not control the reins of power. That means voting for Trump, however grimly you might feel the task.I am falling into a deep pit. If there is a branch to hold onto that could break the fall and allow me to stabilize myself, allow me to climb back to solid ground, I’ll grab it. It’s no use trying to determine whether the branch is deeply rooted, whether it’s poisonous, or if I would fall anyway. I’m going to grab onto the branch, even if you tell me it’s a decoy or an illusion. Why? Because I know the pit is real. Because I know I am falling. And because there is no other choice.I am faced with the stifling prospect of losing my constitutional right to express myself. Hillary Clinton is on track to complete what President Obama started on the censorship front. So I will vote for the only alternative who offers hope for preserving the Bill of Rights. And I revere the right to speak openly without the perpetual threat of personal ruin for doing so. This leads me, in this particular year, to explain publicly why I’ve decided to pull the lever for Donald Trump. And why I hope many other Americans do so as well."
*
Realistically, ONLY A VOTE FOR TRUMP CAN INSURE A NEVERHILLARY OUTCOME.
*
For some comic relief:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5VfIcaAYjw
"The Clintons"
*
Clinton Fatigue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt2QVtWtdjQ

Interesting Article, thought to share it:)

re Relationships Worth It?
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=9757#comment-1558405
My long term, long-distance relationship recently came to an amicable end, thus tossing me back into the world of dating. Philosophers, of course, have two standard responses to problems: thinking or drinking. Since I am not much for drinking, I have been thinking about relationships.

Since starting and maintaining a relationship is a great deal of work (and if it is not, you are either lucky or doing it wrong), I think it is important to consider whether relationships are worth it. One obvious consideration is the fact that the vast majority of romantic relationships end well before death. Even marriage, which is supposed to be the most solid of relationships, tends to end in divorce.

While there are many ways to look at the ending of a relationship, I think there are two main approaches. One is to consider the end of the relationship a failure. One obvious analogy is to writing a book and not finishing: all that work poured into it, yet it remains incomplete. Another obvious analogy is with running a marathon that one does not finish—great effort expended, but in the end just failure. Another approach is to consider the ending more positively: the relationship ended, but was completed. Going back to the analogies, it is like completing that book you are writing or finishing that marathon. True, it has ended—but it is supposed to end.

When my relationship ended, I initially looked at it as a failure—all that effort invested and it just came to an end one day because, despite two years of trying, we could not land academic jobs in the same geographical area. However, I am endeavoring to look at in a more positive light—although I would have preferred that it did not end, it was a very positive relationship, rich with wonderful experiences and helped me to become better as a human being. There still, of course, remains the question of whether or not it is worth being in another relationship.

One approach to address this is the ever-popular context of biology and evolution. Humans are animals that need food, water and air to survive. As such, there is no real question about whether food, water and air are worth it—one is simply driven to possess them. Likewise, humans are driven by their biology to reproduce and natural selection seems to have selected for genes that mold brains to engage in relationships. As such, there is no real question of whether they are worth it, humans merely do have relationships. This answer is, of course, rather unsatisfying since a person can, it would seem, make the choice to be in a relationship or not. There is also the question of whether relationships are, in fact, worth it—this is a question of value and science is not the realm where such answers lie. Value questions belong to such areas as moral philosophy and aesthetics. So, on to value.

The question of whether relationships are worth it or not is rather like asking whether technology is worth it or not: the question is extremely broad. While some might endeavor to give sweeping answers to these broad questions, such an approach would seem problematic and unsatisfying. Just as it makes sense to be more specific about technology (such as asking if nuclear power is worth the risk), it makes more sense to consider whether a specific relationship is worth it. That is, there seems to be no general answer to the question of whether relationships are worth it or not, it is a question of whether a specific relationship would be worth it.

It could be countered that there is, in fact, a legitimate general question. A person might regard any likely relationship to not be worth it. For example, I know several professionals who have devoted their lives to their careers and have no interest in relationships—they do not consider a romantic involvement with another human being to have much, if any value. A person might also regard a relationship as a necessary part of their well-being. While this might be due to social conditioning or biology, there are certainly people who consider almost any relationship worth it.

These counters are quite reasonable, but it can be argued that the general question is best answered by considering specific relationships. If no specific possible (or likely) relationship for a person would be worth it, then relationships in general would not be worth it. So, if a person honestly considered all the relationships she might have and rejected all of them because their value is not sufficient, then relationships would not be worth it to her. As noted above, some people take this view.

If at least some possible (or likely) relationships would be worth it to a person, then relationships would thus be worth it. This leads to what is an obvious point: the worth of a relationship depends on that specific relationship, so it comes down to weighing the negative and positive aspects. If there is a sufficient surplus of positive over the negative, then the relationship would be worth it. As should be expected, there are many serious epistemic problems here. How does a person know what would be positive or negative? How does a person know that a relationship with a specific person would be more positive or more negative? How does a person know what they should do to make the relationship more positive than negative? How does a person know how much the positive needs to outweigh the negative to make the relationship worth it? And, of course, many more concerns. Given the challenge of answering these questions, it is no wonder that so many relationships fail. There is also the fact that each person has a different answer to many of these questions, so getting answers from others will tend to be of little real value and could lead to problems. As such, I am reluctant to answer them for others; especially since I cannot yet answer them for myself.

*

http://imgur.com/gyrelt2
http://i.imgur.com/gyrelt2.gif

*

This why one has to do lots of homework & research EVERYTHING so extensively. Exhausting.
Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy...

Cliff Arnebeck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Arnebeck
Cliff Arnebeck (born 15 January 1945 in Washington, D.C., USA) is a national co-chair and attorney for the Alliance of Democracy.

The son of an officer in the Bureau of Finance, Post Office Department,[1][2] he graduated B.A. Wesleyan University in 1967 and received a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1970. He first worked for Ohio Bell in Cleveland, Ohio and later in the legal department for the American Electric Power Company before joining the Jones, Day law firm in Columbus, Ohio.

He opened a private practice in Columbus, Ohio. In 1990, he unsuccessfully contested the Republican Party (GOP) primary election in Ohio's 15th District against 12-term congressman Chalmers Wylie.[1]

Arnebeck was a leader in the Ohio campaign for Ross Perot's failed 1992 presidential bid. Questioning the micromanagement of the campaign by Perot's staff in Houston, Arnebeck eventually challenged its legitimacy in a Washington press conference before the election [3] In 1996 Arnebeck decided to challenge the political establishment by running for Congress as a Democrat against Wylie's successor, GOP Congresswoman Deborah Pryce.[1] and once again lost by a large margin. Disturbed at what he perceived as the behind the scenes manipulation of the political system, he filed a suit and successfully challenged the Ohio Chamber of Commerce's financing of the campaign in 2000 to defeat Justice Alice Robie Resnick, a Democrat.[4]

Arnebeck then sought to act as a legal watchdog during elections. The handling of the 2004 presidential election by the state Republican administration prompted him to represent groups challenging the legitimacy of the state's vote count in a lawsuit, known as "Moss v. Bush" which was eventually dismissed by the court at the plaintiffs' request following the acceptance of Ohio's votes by the U.S. Congress and Senate on January 6, 2005.[5] However, there is reason to think that scrutiny brought by the lawsuit led to the abandonment of ongoing voting machine fraud.[6] While Ohio's Secretary of State filed a motion for sanction against the plaintiffs, alleging that the claim in Moss v. Bush was meritless, did not meet the standards of evidence required by law, and was brought only for partisan political purposes,[7] the move to impose sanctions on Arnebeck failed.

Since then, Arnebeck has focused on the fraudulent use of electronic voting machines in elections, a main issue in the 2004 suit, as the major threat to American elections. When the former Bush campaign operative Michael Connell died in a 2008 light aircraft crash in Ohio after being deposed by Arnebeck in his on-going suits on the 2004 election, Arnebeck felt that Karl Rove and others in the Bush 2004 campaign might be linked to the crash.[8]
Media appearances

American Dream Radio: Cliff Arnebeck, lead counsel for the voters lawsuit in Ohio which seeks to reverse the election outcome because of widespread voting irregularities. He explains about the lawsuit (as opposed to the recount), discusses some of the voter suppression tactics used, and talks about the expected course of the legal wrangling. 19 Dec. 2004 at 9:25 AM(audio)
Pacifica Radio: Cliff Arnebeck claims how the Ohio vote was rigged (audio)
C-SPAN video: Cliff Arnebeck, National Co-Chairman for the Alliance for Democracy and counsel in a lawsuit challenging the presidential election in Ohio, discusses the legal challenges to the 2004 vote in Ohio. 12/2/2004: WASHINGTON, DC: 30 min. (video, rm)