Bottom Feeder Politics

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the forces of a woman who spent millions to defend the sexual proclivities of her own husband, even to the extent of coining the term, “bimbo eruptions” should now be “crying crocodile tears” about similar stories about her opponent, just weeks before the presidential election. That's how Democrats operate: using “bottom-feeder” tactics to defeat their opponents. Like Harry Reid's claim that Mitt Romney “didn't pay any taxes for ten years,” to election fraud to tilt an election in their favor. Reid had no proof of this (It was later proved false), and when challenged, he said, “I don't need proof! You need to ask Romney about it.” (Which was WRONG! When you make an accusation like that, in the “real world,” YOU have to prove it!) Bill Clinton is a KNOWN sexual abuser, who got FINED $800,000 plus dollars after LYING about it, lost his law license for five years (And what did he need it for? He was making a fortune in “bribes” for the “speeches” he was making after leaving office), and was disbarred. Yet Democrats are now “making a big thing” about UNSUPPORTED allegations of sexual abuse by Trump, just in time for the election. Surprise, surprise! Frankly, if the Democrats are “disturbed” about it, I reject it. I don't believe ANYTHING the Democrats say. (Just common sense)