Said Hillary Clinton, just the other day, to some group she addresses as "Indivisibles," quoted in "Hillary Clinton: 'Right-Wing Extremists Already Have A Plan To Literally Steal The Next Presidential Election'" (RCP).
It sounds like left-wing regulars already have a plan to "deny" the next presidential election, and they’re not making a secret of it.
I'm using their shibboleth "deny." I don't think challenging the results of an election is denying the election. At some point the results are sufficiently tested and so well proved that you're in denial if you don't accept the results, but even then you're not denying the election. You still believe in the election. You just don't think that the announced result represents the real election that took place.
Hillary is laying the groundwork for her side to do exactly that in the next election. The "denying" rhetoric and the "stealing" rhetoric are crossing paths right now and acting like they don't recognize each other.
Posts
102 comments:
Hillary has been living in denial since her infamous "vast right-wing conspiracy" claims close to 25 years ago. But, Monica Lewinsky was real. The blue dress was real. Bill Clinton's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was real.
Hillary stood by her man and mentored Huma to stand by her man. She continues to project her own failings and delusions onto others.
But, I think we ALLLLLL know this and we are all sick of her. Universal. Bipartisan agreement. If not for Trump, the lefty Bernie Bros might have successfully expelled Hillary in 2016.
Elections are sufficiently poorly run that any victory of less than a couple percentage points could and should be challenged. Nevertheless, Democrats are being surprisingly transparent in their hypocrisy. Their expectations for people's memory gets shorter every election cycle.
I want so much for all these people to just go away.
Narrator: Hillary created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the 2022 election denial and going right for the throat!
Does she know what "literally" means? And for that matter, are there any right wing individuals who are not "extremists"? The lack of intelligent thought regarding word choice is so tiresome.
Could Hillary just STFU?
Leave us alone. Go away.
Where's the quote "deny"? Not in the Clinton video.
Thankyou Hillary, for re-affirming America made the right choice when we rejected you in 2016.
Ann -- Sometimes everything is not equal. MAGA folks would gladly destroy our constitutional republic if it got/kept their guy in power. And MAGA controls the Republican party. Sure there are some Democrats that feel the same way, but they are a fringe element within the party and hence not a serious threat to our Democracy. So Hillary speaks the truth, just as she did with her ill-timed "deplorables" comment.
Looks like Althouse pouncing on Hillary’s reasonably stated fear that in the next election Republicans might be planning to act like Democrats do when “saving our democracy” and well, how rude of us to take note.
The Regime censors it's political opponents because it cannot deal with the truth.
If they were smart they would censor Hillary Clinton too just to at least look consistent.
But they know the dwindling number of people that support them will suffer any humiliation to be a part of their tribe.
They know how stupid their supporters are.
Has Hillary ever publicly addressed her campaign hiring a law firm who, on behalf of their client, hired a political action firm which hired an ex-British spy to create a falsified "dossier" on Trump which was then used to obtain FISA court approval to spy on Trump campaign members as well as an FBI investigation into Trump, both of which were used to leak against Trump.
No?
There are certain people who have been caught in so many lies, so much dishonesty, so much lack of accountability for their failures, that they need to crawl into a hole or just exit their space.
Hillary Clinton is several of those people.
"Denial," of course began as a term for those who deny that the Holocaust happened. It referred then to purely hate-filled AND pathological people capable of denying an incontrovertible reality. It was useful then in identifying odious people no one should give the time of day to. It has morphed in the hands of the left into a substitute for thinking itself. Climate denial was its first stop on this road. As if anyone could possibly deny that there is a climate or that it changes. What "denial" meant in that context was anyone who disputed any of a thousand unresolved questions about the earth's climate that in fact every actual climate scientist knows are unresolved - because they spend a lot of time trying to resolve them. Now, "denial" has morphed again into an all-purpose contentless term of abuse designed to prevent actual thinking. It's a drug, like valium. Take it when any thought generates anxiety. It's sure to sooth.
Hillary will never be President.
Phew.
What about me tooism it shows the weakness of the Democrats playing into Trump's hands over and over and over and over again because they are afraid to bring up their young bench who will turn off the Davos billionaire tap of graft and insider trading tips.
Clintons. The source of so much damage to America. The media suckle at the abcess of Clintonism.
That was some video...like we say in the south, "Bless her heart". She really is such grifter. The Clinton Foundation must still not be pulling in the big bucks like in the good old days.
My recollection is that the term “denier” was introduced to single out people who deny the holocaust.
Some people might say Biden’s term might’ve leading us to a holocaust.
What does that make a Biden’s policy advocate?
One answer is, I don’t want to steal Trump’s thunder.
"Does she know what "literally" means?"
I *think* it means you have a secret habit of watching the Kardashians TV show.
"Where's the quote "deny"? Not in the Clinton video."
I'm using their lingo, not quoting the video. By "their," I mean Democrats who've been talking about election denial for the past 2 years. You haven't noticed?
I flipped her "steal" to "deny" to show how the rhetoric is now switching and the Dems are taking up election denial themselves after demonizing Republicans for the same damned thing.
I thought that was pretty obvious. Do I need more signposts and sledgehammers?
She is the worst person this country has ever produced. The worst.
Damn those Republicans, being told to follow the law and then actually doing it!
How dare they?!
When a judge tells a state to count ballots that have no chain of custody from supposed voter to the counting table, well, that's just fairness during a pandemic. And so what if the number of votes counted exceeds the number of registered voters. But damn the Supreme Court and state legislatures if they actually start following the US Constitution!
Hillary is a street lunatic on the boulevard of broken dreams, desperately clutching at passers-by and babbling her mad delusions to anyone foolish enough to make eye contact.
Ann - I'm glad you've caught on to the lies and deceit out of that evil woman's mouth.
Why use the Clinton video for that? There really is that case pushed by Republicans and now in the USSC, which she talks about, to give state legislatures unreviewable control over elections.
Hillary is a "pre-denier".
Hillary has a plan. Not sure whether it's practical or not though.
Joe is forced out in January. Kamala becomes President but is told by whoever the fuck is running this country that she will be a figurehead, like Joe, and will not be allowed to run in 2024. She agrees to this.
Hillary is made her VP. She becomes de facto but not de jure President and runs in 2024.
Ten years ago this would sound crazy. Not so much now.
From the linked RCP article:
the 2024 presidential election could be decided not by the popular vote, or even by the anachronistic Electoral College, but by state legislatures -- many of them Republican-controlled.
This statement describes the Republican right-wing extremists' plan to steal the next Presidential election.
Discuss.
"The "denying" rhetoric and the "stealing" rhetoric are crossing paths right now and acting like they don't recognize each other."
Heh
We are told election deniers belong in the DC gulag. Off to the gulag for the biggest election denier in the country today!!! Send her to Gitmo.
jim5301 said...
Ann -- Sometimes everything is not equal. MAGA folks would gladly destroy our constitutional republic if it got/kept their guy in power. And MAGA controls the Republican party. Sure there are some Democrats that feel the same way, but they are a fringe element within the party and hence not a serious threat to our Democracy. So Hillary speaks the truth, just as she did with her ill-timed "deplorables" comment.
10/26/22, 7:46 AM
What alternate universe do YOU live in. Biden and your Progressives are ALREADY in the process of doing exactly what you are saying. Remember, it was OBAMA who bragged about Fundamentally changing the USA into your Utopia. How do you like is so far?? Hate, division, inflation, invasion at the border. ALL ON YOU!!
Readering said...
Where's the quote "deny"? Not in the Clinton video.
You are right.
Hillary said "steal" and "stolen."
jim5301 said...
Ann -- Sometimes everything is not equal. MAGA folks would gladly destroy our constitutional republic if it got/kept their guy in power. And MAGA controls the Republican party. Sure there are some Democrats that feel the same way, but they are a fringe element within the party and hence not a serious threat to our Democracy. So Hillary speaks the truth, just as she did with her ill-timed "deplorables" comment.
Just replace "MAGA" with Jew and you will understand what jim is getting at.
I can’t think of an election in my lifetime that wasn’t rigged.
“Do I believe in baptism? Hell yeah, I’ve seen it done!”
One of my dad’s jokes.
Sledgehammers are needed. Especially with Hillary. You can't help but wonder, with a couple of these people, where the shrewd ends and the psychopathic begins. Hillary and Nancy Pelosi chief among those people. Without Bill, though, Hillary would be just another former lawyer wondering what to do with herself today. She's a minor leaguer compared to Nancy.
Readering said...
Why use the Clinton video for that? There really is that case pushed by Republicans and now in the USSC, which she talks about, to give state legislatures unreviewable control over elections.
++++++
Well, who do YOU think should be in charge of elections in each state?
"Ann - I'm glad you've caught on to the lies and deceit out of that evil woman's mouth."
You haven't been reading me very well. I have had a problem with Hillary since before this blog began and there was never a point in the writing of this blog when I did not mistrust her. How about if *you* catch on to what I am doing instead of baselessly suggesting that I am behind?
Readering said...
Why use the Clinton video for that? There really is that case pushed by Republicans and now in the USSC, which she talks about, to give state legislatures unreviewable control over elections.
You know there is a Constitution for our country right?
And that it has words in it?
Things that you can read?
I think there is judicial review of decisions by state legislatures to throw out election results.
I have had a problem with Hillary since before this blog began and there was never a point in the writing of this blog when I did not mistrust her.
And yet you told us you voted for her in 2016. Sorry, but in my book that means you do not mistrust her nearly enough.
Things that she says, and things that others on the left say just shows how delusional they have become. It seems that when people participate in democracy, democracy dies, according to them. Here is a great example....
.@MatthewJDowd: "I’m not going to say that the GOP are Nazis ... but it certainly sounds very familiar to what happened in Germany, which is a bunch of citizens, Adolf Hitler gets a third of the vote ... they went along because he said he would solve the economy & fix inflation"
Trump broke these people.
I know Hillary has her fans (hello, Stacey Abrams), but I've observed enough over the last 30+ years to have concluded that this woman is so morally compromised that she meets the definition of "Evil".
It wouldn't surprise me if she introduced Bill to Epstein in hopes that Bill would exercise his "desires" in a more private manner as to not interfere with her political ambitions.
Ann Althouse said...
I thought that was pretty obvious. Do I need more signposts and sledgehammers?
Some questions answer themselves.
On the other hand you voted for Hillary not that long ago. You knew everything you needed to know about Hillary in 2016. You knew everything you needed to know about the WAPO in the Sandman case. You knew everything you needed to know about Blasey Ford.
When you discuss things like this with some people they will purposely restate what you are saying in terms more favorable to them. They will use past actions as support.
You are purposely trying to be above the political tribes that are in conflict. By doing this you are implicitly attacking everyone who actually supports something.
Prepare for details to slip by people.
I know Hillary has her fans (hello, Stacey Abrams), but I've observed enough over the last 30+ years to have concluded that this woman is so morally compromised that she meets the definition of "Evil".
It wouldn't surprise me if she introduced Bill to Epstein in hopes that Bill would exercise his "desires" in a more private manner as to not interfere with her political ambitions.
I know Hillary has her fans (hello, Stacey Abrams), but I've observed enough over the last 30+ years to have concluded that this woman is so morally compromised that she meets the definition of "Evil".
It wouldn't surprise me if she introduced Bill to Epstein in hopes that Bill would exercise his "desires" in a more private manner as to not interfere with her political ambitions.
I know Hillary has her fans (hello, Stacey Abrams), but I've observed enough over the last 30+ years to have concluded that this woman is so morally compromised that she meets the definition of "Evil".
It wouldn't surprise me if she introduced Bill to Epstein in hopes that Bill would exercise his "desires" in a more private manner as to not interfere with her political ambitions.
Sorry Ann - could have sworn you voted for her. Perhaps I am wrong?
Readering - care to back up your assertion with some proof?
No readering comprehension: to give state legislatures unreviewable control over elections
Which is literally how the Constitution describes the process of setting voting rules, it is up to "state legislators" to specify the time manner and place of elections. If you didn't know that readering then why do you think the Left pushed to change voting procedures in 2020 through EACH STATE based on the COVID "emergency" crisis that they didn't miss an opportunity to use?
"Sorry Ann - could have sworn you voted for her. Perhaps I am wrong?"
You're not wrong about that, you are just putting facts together wrongly and reaching a false conclusion. I don't appreciate it.
At the point when the decision was between Trump and Hillary, millions of people were just voting for the less shitty option. I really hate the notion that voting for someone is an endorsement and in the next election, the one with all the Covid, I resorted to abstention. I would consider always abstaining to keep my distance, but if I do opt to vote, I don't appreciate being thought of as liking the probably awful person I am voting for.
Politics rewards the most poisonous people. We'd all like a decent human being to become president, but it's impossible. Showmen, liars, grifters are who we get. Hillary is one of the most vile in the business, and also one of the biggest failures. Apparently she's decided to dial it up to 11 and throw herself into the circus again.
Hillary just grifting again, the Cayman accounts must be running low.
For those who care about the state legislatures vs voters issue, the briefs are obtainable online at the USSC website.
jim5301: "Ann -- Sometimes everything is not equal. MAGA folks would gladly destroy our constitutional republic if it got/kept their guy in power. And MAGA controls the Republican party. Sure there are some Democrats that feel the same way, but they are a fringe element within the party and hence not a serious threat to our Democracy. So Hillary speaks the truth, just as she did with her ill-timed "deplorables" comment."
This is not a parody comment.
This is jim5301's actual intended comment.
LOL
I question why anyone -- anyone! -- would care one iota what Hillary has to say. Why, except to (apologies) garner clicks, would you listen to this woman, and then write a story about it?
Readering: "I think there is judicial review of decisions by state legislatures to throw out election results."
Which judicial bodies do you "think" have judicial review authority over federal elections?
(Spoiler: we already know the corrupt games you lunatic leftists want to play from our Bush v Gore experience)
The RCP journalist forgot to write the words "without evidence" in his report about Hillary Clinton's statement.
When you vote for Hillary, you are supporting Hillary. Just like the National Review supported Hillary.
But again, you can always count on democrats to accuse others of doing what they are actually doing. It never fails.
Sometimes everything is not equal. MAGA folks would gladly destroy our constitutional republic if it got/kept their guy in power. And MAGA controls the Republican party. Sure there are some Democrats that feel the same way, but they are a fringe element within the party and hence not a serious threat to our Democracy.
Wow, there are a lot of assertions in that paragraph... Our constitutional republic is not in danger from people who want to use the Constitution, exactly as it is, to support their side, even if you don't like what their side is. Our constitutional republic is in a heck of a lot more peril from people who ignore the Constitution as it is and insist on trying to rewrite it by judicial fiat, overrule it by violent mob action and threats thereof, and destroy the employment, reputations, and relationships of those who disagree with them or their tactics through social shaming and demands for action against them.
To say nothing of the fact that the so-called "fringe" of untoward Democrat activism includes Google and the FBI, as just two examples.
"Right-wing extremists already have a plan to literally steal the next presidential election, and they’re not making a secret of it."
I don't understand this as a campaign tactic.
It's idiotic as a fund-raising ploy.
It's like a bank saying, "Give us your money, we're about to be robbed."
"Literally" is HRC's way of saying "Not a joke," "Not hyperbole," or "I give you my word of honor as a Clinton."
She's another paper tiger. An old-fashioned reporter could dismantle her in five minutes, but the media doesn't ask her hard questions or challenge her.
I wonder if her real grievance isn't with the pollsters who made her so overconfident in 2016 and the party that didn't assemble an extensive and inclusive voter fraud operation to put her over the top.
Per Pennsylvania, voting in contested elections is dangerous because the peasantry may select the wrong candidate. Keystone State Democrats have remedied this by choosing candidates through a Special Olympics.
Ann - I've never (I don't think anyway) given you any crap for voting for her. Your vote/ your choice.
I'll re-phrase - 'Despite past tacit support for Hillary via a vote, I am always grateful when you post your misgivings about her, as you have done so many times.'
Thanks for the blog.
pantsuited pantload
be gone stay gone hildebeast
with the crazy eyes
All this "election deniers" stuff has merely been battlespace preparation, so D's can cheat openly and then start arresting "deniers" as threats to the Republic.
Hellooooooo. . . . .this is what happens in every dictatorial regime.
Ann - also - I did not use the word "finally" in my 8:13 post.
I do recognize your cruel neutrality and your even handed criticism of her over the years.
Ann - Also - I do not think you are an awful person. No way - no how. On the flip! I have great respect for you.
Providing cover, for, among other things...
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/10/arizona-border-patrol-finds-over-500000-fentanyl-pills-in-two-days-at-one-port-of-entry/
Look! squirrel! Still workin it.
I don't appreciate being thought of as liking the probably awful person I am voting for.
You mean, just because so many of your commenters voted for McCain and Romney instead of Obama; you don't just assume they think McCain and Romney are the best politicians that ever lived? Maybe if you pointed that out, they'd cut out the snark.
I will note the last paragraph in the OP makes more sense after reading the comment response to readering.
Hillary has a plan. Not sure whether it's practical or not though.
Joe is forced out in January. Kamala becomes President but is told by whoever the fuck is running this country that she will be a figurehead, like Joe, and will not be allowed to run in 2024. She agrees to this.
Pelosi has a plan also. Pelosi pushes for the 25th Amendment to remove Biden after November. Harris resists. Pelosi uses that to impeach Harris. After Harris is impeached Biden is removed through the 25th and Pelosi becomes president.
I love you too, April🤙😉🤙
Readering: "For those who care about the state legislatures vs voters issue...."
LOL
"state legislatures vs voters"
The stupid lefties aren't even hiding it anymore.
It's The Constitution vs leftists.
She needs to go the fuck away.
Her political handlers are making a fortune off of her vanity, just as Trump's are making a fortune off of his...
Dude1394: "When you vote for Hillary, you are supporting Hillary. Just like the National Review supported Hillary."
The National Review strongly and passionately supported Hillary because the National Review is now just about fully funded by the far left Big Tech companies only...and those funders want something for their money.
And they got it from "Conservative" Inc.
Howard - :-)
After Harris is impeached Biden is removed through the 25th and Pelosi becomes president
----
25th doesn't remove Biden. It straps him of his powers temporarily and makes the VP acting president.
They haven't made a secret of the fact that they want to get as many secretaries of state and other officials in place to overturn disagreeable results in a way that they could not do in 2020.
Hillary's just about the worst possible messenger to persuade anyone who might still be persuadable - but that doesn't change the truth on the ground.
With Ann all the way on the exchanges here. I, too, voted for Hillary in 2016 on the basis of a principle I told myself at the time - bette the devil I know than the one I do not know." On election night, I recall already thinking, "oh well, that's interesting. We will see." Unfortunately, the immediate and utterly unhinged Trump derangement set in, that very night, with people crying and ranting, etc. I could not believe it. By the end of the night, I went to bed happy to see what would happen next. What happened next was a mental breakdown on the left that has terrified me every since far more than the idiotic things Trump has done.
Drago - I don't recall everyone at NRO supported Hillary.
At least Jonah Goldberg still recognizes that Fascism is a historical leftism.
but he is the biggest disappointment.
Joe Smith said, "She needs to go the fuck away."
It is or should be clear to everyone --except possibly to Jackass and Jillary themselves -- that she and her shameless husband will never again reside in the White House. But the Clintons will strive to their last breaths to remain "relevant" at the least in their minds.
Only one thing will make them go away. They will not choose to do so.
"Right wing extremists" -- now there's a phrase that deserves to be mothballed (just like the one I am using).
Hunter Biden's tax payer funded Hooker : "Drago - I don't recall everyone at NRO supported Hillary."
National Review was completely and thoroughly operationally pro-Hillary, primarily financed by the far left big techies and Ramesh Ponnuru might just be the only known Evan McMullin voter seen in public.
National Review 2022 is simply The Weekly Standard 2016, with all that entails and portends.
"Hillary is laying the groundwork for her side to do exactly that in the next election."
Exactly right! Democrat projection.
"I thought that was pretty obvious. Do I need more signposts and sledgehammers?"
Now, now. It is impressive how stupid Readering can pretend to be, and I am being generous in describing it that way.
Refusing to report this: New York Times, Washington Post.
Perhaps doing work to be able to support her claim. But her claim itself is news and they haven't covered it.
Isn't she needed on the set of Hocus Pocus 3?
Blogger jim5301 said...
Ann -- Sometimes everything is not equal. MAGA folks would gladly destroy our constitutional republic if it got/kept their guy in power.
It's nice that the lunatic left is willing to show us its delusions and mental pathology.
Denying delusional dingbat Democrat--but at this point what difference does it make what Hillary says?
Damn, she’s getting old!
Love to hear her read, uh, talk- about how unhinged &rabid the right side of the aisle is- while watching her widened, unblinking eyes try to keep up w/her mouth.
Our best and brightest.
Out betters/elites.
Be best.
America last…
Nationwide insurrections, public occupations, neighborhood invasions, Mengele mandates, Democrat "heroes", and the ethics of DIE, too. #HateLovesAbortion
Readering said...
I think there is judicial review of decisions by state legislatures to throw out election results.
Really?
Where is this power enumerated?
“Hillary has a plan. Not sure whether it's practical or not though.”
“Joe is forced out in January. Kamala becomes President but is told by whoever the fuck is running this country that she will be a figurehead, like Joe, and will not be allowed to run in 2024. She agrees to this.”
“Hillary is made her VP. She becomes de facto but not de jure President and runs in 2024.”
“Ten years ago this would sound crazy. Not so much now.”
Not going to work. The problem is that a replacement VP has to be confirmed by both houses of Congress. The Republicans can block it right now with a filibuster in the Senate. Besides, if Harris becomes President (as opposed to acting as such), she could no longer break ties in the Senate, and the vote, if there were one (I.e. no filibuster), would be 50/50, and thus not confirming. But that is better than what they will face next year with a Republican House, and possibly a Republican Senate. Crooked Hillary is the very last person as replacement VP that a MAGA dominated Republican House would even let there be a vote on. Turns out that the entire RussiaGate investigation was paid for and run out of her campaign. All of the non-government players were funded by either her campaign and/or the DNC (that she fully controlled). Every one of them.
Biden is easily the worst President of the last century, and even worse than Wilson, so that means the worst in either the 20th or 21st Centuries. We are facing the first inflation in 40 years, a crashing economy, wide open borders, and worse military readiness since FDR pushed us into war in December of 1941. Meanwhile, Biden is depleting our military stockpiles in Ukraine, while trying to push nuclear armed Russia into war. He has alienated key Allie’s and cozied up to terrorists. He should be kicked out, but the Dems can’t afford to, because the Republicans are going to force the Dems to compromise on replacing Harris.
Ann Althouse said...
"Sorry Ann - could have sworn you voted for her. Perhaps I am wrong?"
You're not wrong about that, you are just putting facts together wrongly and reaching a false conclusion. I don't appreciate it.
At the point when the decision was between Trump and Hillary, millions of people were just voting for the less shitty option. I really hate the notion that voting for someone is an endorsement and in the next election, the one with all the Covid, I resorted to abstention. I would consider always abstaining to keep my distance, but if I do opt to vote, I don't appreciate being thought of as liking the probably awful person I am voting for.
It always comes down to the reasons you chose to support the action or the candidate.
If those reasons are dishonest or poorly placed then your support for that effort is in question.
Your vote in 2016 certainly showed poor judgement just like my support for Bush and joining the Army to support the effort in Iraq/Afghanistan showed poor judgement.
I thought Bush/Cheney and the rest of the Republican party actually cared about freedom and the people in those countries. I was obviously wrong.
The issue is then what do you do when you realize you were wrong.
jim5301 said...
Ann -- Sometimes everything is not equal. MAGA folks would gladly destroy our constitutional republic if it got/kept their guy in power.
You mean like by packing the Court?
Oh, wait, that's the Democrats.
You mean by Turing SCOTUS into a dictatorial junta that imposes its desires on the rest of the country, completely ignoring the US Constitution?
No, wait, that's the Democrats, too
So, Jim, do tell us how the Republicans will "destroy our constitutional republic". Is it by winning elections?
Ten years ago this would sound crazy. Not so much now.
Ten years ago we hadn't been through a toilet paper shortage. Literally everything is on the table now.
You have to follow the video to the end to understand it. It's not "laying the groundwork" for 2024, it is a fundraising appeal for an astroturfing group using the "deny" and "steal" rhetoric as a basis for the scare.
Ann Althouse said...
"Does she know what "literally" means?"
I *think* it means you have a secret habit of watching the Kardashians TV show.
Hmmm. That flew right over my head. I watched the show with my then-new wife 10+ years ago, but just for ogling purposes.
So today I googled/learned that Kim apparently says it so much it's a thing.
And I still hold with W.C. Fields: I never vote FOR anyone. I ALWAYS vote against.
Hillary is old and people hate her.
If we get a woman of color president, she won't step aside for Hillary.
This has all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.
So elections can be "stolen" assuming that's different from being "reinforced". Good to know.
If she's in the pre-denial stage of grief now, perhaps she'll reach acceptance by the time of the election.
Post a Comment