Trump/Hillary/Clintons/2020/Madness

Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
4,163
Likes
4,608
Trump is going to win again- regardless of who I’m talking to (left or right), I haven’t heard a single person think otherwise. SO, what’s coming? Is Trump going to expose stuff like he promises OR are we going to wake up in trap laid by ‘he’s amazing!’....
At this point it looks like Hes going to rock this scam until the wheels fall off, then ditch the office when it becomes legally necessary. This term or next, he will step down once its time to pardon his kids and head off into the sunset to putter around one of his resorts, openly cheating on his wife until he's divorced and bankrupted..... again.
 





ohhi9876

Established
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
384
Likes
191
At this point it looks like Hes going to rock this scam until the wheels fall off, then ditch the office when it becomes legally necessary. This term or next, he will step down once its time to pardon his kids and head off into the sunset to putter around one of his resorts, openly cheating on his wife until he's divorced and bankrupted..... again.
makes sense - just wondering about ww3... still see it happening but that may be for pence to oversee ... he is the ex-congressperson afterall...
 





Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
4,163
Likes
4,608
makes sense - just wondering about ww3... still see it happening but that may be for pence to oversee ... he is the ex-congressperson afterall...
It would appear that TPTB are going to try to keep the illusion of a strong America going up to, and possibly through, the 2020 presidential election cycle..... but thats no sure thing and honestly the current systems of control could break down at anytime imo.
 





ohhi9876

Established
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
384
Likes
191
It would appear that TPTB are going to try to keep the illusion of a strong America going up to, and possibly through, the 2020 presidential election cycle..... but thats no sure thing and honestly the current systems of control could break down at anytime imo.
agreed - no one talks about all of the money the fed is pumping into the system - like billons and no one thinks of it
 





Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
4,163
Likes
4,608
agreed - no one talks about all of the money the fed is pumping into the system - like billons and no one thinks of it
Indeed. Its over a 100 billion a day, just with the short and long-term debt they are purchasing with imaginary money. Who knows how far this thinly veiled round of Quantitative Easing will go or how deep its already entrenched?
 





ohhi9876

Established
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
384
Likes
191
Indeed. Its over a 100 billion a day, just with the short and long-term debt they are purchasing with imaginary money. Who knows how far this thinly veiled round of Quantitative Easing will go or how deep its already entrenched?
that is unreal - do you have an article furthing exlpaining - it is a bit confusing but very troubling.
thanks.
 





Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
4,163
Likes
4,608
that is unreal - do you have an article furthing exlpaining - it is a bit confusing but very troubling.
thanks.
Greg Mannarino has provided excellent analysis and updates of the situtaion. It started towards the end of September so if you peruse his videos from then on, its likely you can find the info you are looking for there. Each one is usually between 5-15 minutes long so it doesnt get exhausting either. He has a very comprehensive understanding of the situation, yet presents the info in a form everyday people such as myself can understand as well.
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,836
Likes
6,507
will secure T a second term

Third-Party Run? Tulsi Gabbard Says She Won't Seek Re-election To Congress

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tulsi-gabbard-says-she-wont-seek-re-election-congress-2020
Tulsi Gabbard is playing chess. But I'm not going to give away the moves. I will say that her moves don't necessarily benefit Trump though. Besides, the liberal media and DNC play into Trumpism more than any 3rd party candidate ever could.

Anti-Trump rhetoric apparently made Jill Stein rich over a supposed "recount" that never happened. It's just a question of whether that type of rhetoric is backfiring or if they do it on purpose. Maybe it's a little bit of both. Either way, the liberal media created a perfect third party model to follow. So seeing them complain is irony at its finest.
 





Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
4,163
Likes
4,608
Tulsi Gabbard is playing chess. But I'm not going to give away the moves. I will say that her moves don't necessarily benefit Trump though. Besides, the liberal media and DNC play into Trumpism more than any 3rd party candidate ever could.

Anti-Trump rhetoric apparently made Jill Stein rich over a supposed "recount" that never happened. It's just a question of whether that type of rhetoric is backfiring or if they do it on purpose. Maybe it's a little bit of both. Either way, the liberal media created a perfect third party model to follow. So seeing them complain is irony at its finest.
If she gets similar treatment to that which Bernie Sanders receved last primary, I can see her putting in a 3rd party bid.
 





saki

Veteran
Joined
Dec 11, 2017
Messages
545
Likes
971
will secure T a second term

Third-Party Run? Tulsi Gabbard Says She Won't Seek Re-election To Congress

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tulsi-gabbard-says-she-wont-seek-re-election-congress-2020
...just found this.... certainly worth consideration....

October 28, 2019
Was Hillary’s Attack on Tulsi Gabbard Part of a Plot to Destroy Trump?
By Selwyn Duke
https://www.americanthinker.com/art..._gabbard_part_of_a_plot_to_destroy_trump.html
On the surface, Hillary Clinton’s “Russian asset” attack last week on Rep. Tulsi Gabbard appeared the rambling of a bitter, perhaps unhinged woman. One observer suggested that Clinton was holding a grudge because the Hawaii Democrat supported Bernie Sanders and opposed her rigging of the 2016 primary process against him. Perhaps so. Or maybe, exhibiting typical leftist intolerance of dissent, Gabbard’s anti-war stance really does make her our time’s Leon Trotsky.

But what if Clinton’s attack is actually part of a plan to defeat President Trump in 2020? What if Clinton’s theory that Gabbard may run third-party is, aside from a deep Democrat fear, precisely what more Machiavellian Dems want?

Consider: The NOQ Report’s J.D. Rucker correctly points out that, contrary to conventional wisdom, Gabbard would draw far more votes from Trump than the Dems. As he explains:
If Gabbard ran, she’d do so by positioning herself as the common sense choice against an “extremist” on the right in President Trump and a “radical” on the left in Elizabeth Warren or whoever wins the nomination.​
Sad reality: There are more Democrats in this country than Republicans. The electoral college [sic] degrades this advantage a bit, but if there were no Independents, Democrats would win most elections. If we assume Gabbard will pull mostly from Libertarians and Independents, then that’s an advantage for Democrats. There is no way for the President to win if he doesn’t get the votes of a majority of Independents.​
Rucker nails it. Gabbard could appeal to many “undecideds” in the confused middle.

Moreover, the Democrats and their PR team, the mainstream media, would facilitate this by painting Gabbard not only as of a kind with Trump in “doing Putin’s bidding” and retreating from Syria, but as a closet conservative “never really at home in the Democrat Party.” This wouldn’t be hard given the congresswoman’s past positions and the media’s ability to shape narratives. They’d simply pick up on Jacobin magazine’s 2017 warning to “progressives” that “Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend.”

Note: This wouldn’t serve to convince most people that she’s actually a “conservative,” but that the “truth” lies between the Democrat and GOP claims — she’s a centrist. Besides, she’d appear another “outsider” alternative to Trump.


Rucker adds that since Gabbard has little money and would need a party behind her, a likely choice is the Libertarians, the country’s third largest party. With a little “tweaking” of her policies she could pass muster, Rucker says, and with a current or former Republican such as ex-congressman Justin Amash for balance, the ticket would appeal to many.

Is Gabbard Already Signaling a Third Party Run?

So, what if Clinton &Co’s goal is to attack Gabbard and alienate and anger her to the point where she does leave the Democrats and run third party? Oh, I’m not saying Clinton is smart enough to have planned this on her own, but that Bill and other crafty figures in her orbit are. But then there’s the kicker:

What if Gabbard is aware of this plot and is either an explicit or, more likely, a wink-and-nod participant?

Either way, the congresswoman may be signaling third-party intent. It’s not just her stated disgust with the Democrats but this: “I'm fully committed to my offer to serve you, the people of Hawaii & America, as your President & Commander-in-Chief,” she tweeted last week. “So I will not be seeking reelection to Congress in 2020.”

In other words, she’s going “all in.” But why? Does she seriously believe she can win the nomination in today’s far left, “woke” Democrat Party? Or does she have another agenda?

Whatever the truth, if Gabbard altered her views — in this case to facilitate third-party ambitions — it wouldn’t be the first time. The congresswoman used to be pro-life, pro-marriage (meaning, one man/one woman) and opposed the special privileges some people call “gay rights.” What changed?

Gabbard says her two Mideast tours of duty caused an epiphany. “I began to realize that the positions I had held previously regarding the issues of choice and gay marriage were rooted in the same premise held by those in power in the oppressive Middle East regimes I saw,” she wrote — “that it is government's role to define and enforce our personal morality.”

Uh, okay. But this flash of insight just so happened to coincide with her desire to win a congressional seat in über-liberal Hawaii. And her transformation suggests three possibilities:
  • Gabbard is hardly a thinker and never had principles, only preferences. Her comment’s conclusion is the equivalent of, and is as relativistically nonsensical, as speaking of “personal truth.” If it’s personal, it’s not morality. It then has a different name: taste. (Moreover, all just law reflects morality and is thus “religious,” as I explain here and here.)
  • Gabbard, power-prostitute style, never had principles and will say anything to get elected (conservative suckers for pretty faces, take note).
  • Both of the above.
All this said and in accordance with Occam’s razor, I freely admit that my third-party-plot theory isn’t the most likely explanation here. Leftists are emotion-driven creatures, and Hell hath no fury like a Hillary scorned. So maybe Clinton’s bitterness was again showing. It’s also true that Gabbard claims to have dismissed running third party.

But she has flip-flopped before. Moreover, all the attention such an effort would bring — the media could want to maximize this “centrist’s” exposure — may appeal to Gabbard’s vanity. And, oh, harking back to Rucker’s Libertarian Party theory, note that the congresswoman’s not-“government's role to define and enforce our personal morality” line is right out of libertarians’ playbook. She’s not exactly an odd fit.

What I am quite convinced of is that a Gabbard third-party run would hurt Trump and that, as the Russia and Ukraine cons evidence, such a scheme would not be an odd fit for the Democrats.
 





Last edited:

ohhi9876

Established
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
384
Likes
191
...just found this.... certainly worth consideration....

October 28, 2019
Was Hillary’s Attack on Tulsi Gabbard Part of a Plot to Destroy Trump?
By Selwyn Duke

On the surface, Hillary Clinton’s “Russian asset” attack last week on Rep. Tulsi Gabbard appeared the rambling of a bitter, perhaps unhinged woman. One observer suggested that Clinton was holding a grudge because the Hawaii Democrat supported Bernie Sanders and opposed her rigging of the 2016 primary process against him. Perhaps so. Or maybe, exhibiting typical leftist intolerance of dissent, Gabbard’s anti-war stance really does make her our time’s Leon Trotsky.

But what if Clinton’s attack is actually part of a plan to defeat President Trump in 2020? What if Clinton’s theory that Gabbard may run third-party is, aside from a deep Democrat fear, precisely what more Machiavellian Dems want?

Consider: The NOQ Report’s J.D. Rucker correctly points out that, contrary to conventional wisdom, Gabbard would draw far more votes from Trump than the Dems. As he explains:
If Gabbard ran, she’d do so by positioning herself as the common sense choice against an “extremist” on the right in President Trump and a “radical” on the left in Elizabeth Warren or whoever wins the nomination.​

Sad reality: There are more Democrats in this country than Republicans. The electoral college [sic] degrades this advantage a bit, but if there were no Independents, Democrats would win most elections. If we assume Gabbard will pull mostly from Libertarians and Independents, then that’s an advantage for Democrats. There is no way for the President to win if he doesn’t get the votes of a majority of Independents.​
Rucker nails it. Gabbard could appeal to many “undecideds” in the confused middle.

Moreover, the Democrats and their PR team, the mainstream media, would facilitate this by painting Gabbard not only as of a kind with Trump in “doing Putin’s bidding” and retreating from Syria, but as a closet conservative “never really at home in the Democrat Party.” This wouldn’t be hard given the congresswoman’s past positions and the media’s ability to shape narratives. They’d simply pick up on Jacobin magazine’s 2017 warning to “progressives” that “Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend.”

Note: This wouldn’t serve to convince most people that she’s actually a “conservative,” but that the “truth” lies between the Democrat and GOP claims — she’s a centrist. Besides, she’d appear another “outsider” alternative to Trump.


Rucker adds that since Gabbard has little money and would need a party behind her, a likely choice is the Libertarians, the country’s third largest party. With a little “tweaking” of her policies she could pass muster, Rucker says, and with a current or former Republican such as ex-congressman Justin Amash for balance, the ticket would appeal to many.

Is Gabbard Already Signaling a Third Party Run?

So, what if Clinton &Co’s goal is to attack Gabbard and alienate and anger her to the point where she does leave the Democrats and run third party? Oh, I’m not saying Clinton is smart enough to have planned this on her own, but that Bill and other crafty figures in her orbit are. But then there’s the kicker:

What if Gabbard is aware of this plot and is either an explicit or, more likely, a wink-and-nod participant?

Either way, the congresswoman may be signaling third-party intent. It’s not just her stated disgust with the Democrats but this: “I'm fully committed to my offer to serve you, the people of Hawaii & America, as your President & Commander-in-Chief,” she tweeted last week. “So I will not be seeking reelection to Congress in 2020.”

In other words, she’s going “all in.” But why? Does she seriously believe she can win the nomination in today’s far left, “woke” Democrat Party? Or does she have another agenda?

Whatever the truth, if Gabbard altered her views — in this case to facilitate third-party ambitions — it wouldn’t be the first time. The congresswoman used to be pro-life, pro-marriage (meaning, one man/one woman) and opposed the special privileges some people call “gay rights.” What changed?

Gabbard says her two Mideast tours of duty caused an epiphany. “I began to realize that the positions I had held previously regarding the issues of choice and gay marriage were rooted in the same premise held by those in power in the oppressive Middle East regimes I saw,” she wrote — “that it is government's role to define and enforce our personal morality.”

Uh, okay. But this flash of insight just so happened to coincide with her desire to win a congressional seat in über-liberal Hawaii. And her transformation suggests three possibilities:
  • Gabbard is hardly a thinker and never had principles, only preferences. Her comment’s conclusion is the equivalent of, and is as relativistically nonsensical, as speaking of “personal truth.” If it’s personal, it’s not morality. It then has a different name: taste. (Moreover, all just law reflects morality and is thus “religious,” as I explain here and here.)
  • Gabbard, power-prostitute style, never had principles and will say anything to get elected (conservative suckers for pretty faces, take note).
  • Both of the above.
All this said and in accordance with Occam’s razor, I freely admit that my third-party-plot theory isn’t the most likely explanation here. Leftists are emotion-driven creatures, and Hell hath no fury like a Hillary scorned. So maybe Clinton’s bitterness was again showing. It’s also true that Gabbard claims to have dismissed running third party.

But she has flip-flopped before. Moreover, all the attention such an effort would bring — the media could want to maximize this “centrist’s” exposure — may appeal to Gabbard’s vanity. And, oh, harking back to Rucker’s Libertarian Party theory, note that the congresswoman’s not-“government's role to define and enforce our personal morality” line is right out of libertarians’ playbook. She’s not exactly an odd fit.

What I am quite convinced of is that a Gabbard third-party run would hurt Trump and that, as the Russia and Ukraine cons evidence, such a scheme would not be an odd fit for the Democrats.
interesting - thanks!
if tulsi runs 3rd is hillary wanting to jump in herself or just have a dem win?
if a war starts biden or hillary will be in a better postion to win with their experience - i dont see warren having a strong case to deal w syria/related ...
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,836
Likes
6,507
...just found this.... certainly worth consideration....

October 28, 2019
Was Hillary’s Attack on Tulsi Gabbard Part of a Plot to Destroy Trump?
By Selwyn Duke
https://www.americanthinker.com/art..._gabbard_part_of_a_plot_to_destroy_trump.html
On the surface, Hillary Clinton’s “Russian asset” attack last week on Rep. Tulsi Gabbard appeared the rambling of a bitter, perhaps unhinged woman. One observer suggested that Clinton was holding a grudge because the Hawaii Democrat supported Bernie Sanders and opposed her rigging of the 2016 primary process against him. Perhaps so. Or maybe, exhibiting typical leftist intolerance of dissent, Gabbard’s anti-war stance really does make her our time’s Leon Trotsky.

But what if Clinton’s attack is actually part of a plan to defeat President Trump in 2020? What if Clinton’s theory that Gabbard may run third-party is, aside from a deep Democrat fear, precisely what more Machiavellian Dems want?

Consider: The NOQ Report’s J.D. Rucker correctly points out that, contrary to conventional wisdom, Gabbard would draw far more votes from Trump than the Dems. As he explains:
If Gabbard ran, she’d do so by positioning herself as the common sense choice against an “extremist” on the right in President Trump and a “radical” on the left in Elizabeth Warren or whoever wins the nomination.​

Sad reality: There are more Democrats in this country than Republicans. The electoral college [sic] degrades this advantage a bit, but if there were no Independents, Democrats would win most elections. If we assume Gabbard will pull mostly from Libertarians and Independents, then that’s an advantage for Democrats. There is no way for the President to win if he doesn’t get the votes of a majority of Independents.​
Rucker nails it. Gabbard could appeal to many “undecideds” in the confused middle.

Moreover, the Democrats and their PR team, the mainstream media, would facilitate this by painting Gabbard not only as of a kind with Trump in “doing Putin’s bidding” and retreating from Syria, but as a closet conservative “never really at home in the Democrat Party.” This wouldn’t be hard given the congresswoman’s past positions and the media’s ability to shape narratives. They’d simply pick up on Jacobin magazine’s 2017 warning to “progressives” that “Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend.”

Note: This wouldn’t serve to convince most people that she’s actually a “conservative,” but that the “truth” lies between the Democrat and GOP claims — she’s a centrist. Besides, she’d appear another “outsider” alternative to Trump.


Rucker adds that since Gabbard has little money and would need a party behind her, a likely choice is the Libertarians, the country’s third largest party. With a little “tweaking” of her policies she could pass muster, Rucker says, and with a current or former Republican such as ex-congressman Justin Amash for balance, the ticket would appeal to many.

Is Gabbard Already Signaling a Third Party Run?

So, what if Clinton &Co’s goal is to attack Gabbard and alienate and anger her to the point where she does leave the Democrats and run third party? Oh, I’m not saying Clinton is smart enough to have planned this on her own, but that Bill and other crafty figures in her orbit are. But then there’s the kicker:

What if Gabbard is aware of this plot and is either an explicit or, more likely, a wink-and-nod participant?

Either way, the congresswoman may be signaling third-party intent. It’s not just her stated disgust with the Democrats but this: “I'm fully committed to my offer to serve you, the people of Hawaii & America, as your President & Commander-in-Chief,” she tweeted last week. “So I will not be seeking reelection to Congress in 2020.”

In other words, she’s going “all in.” But why? Does she seriously believe she can win the nomination in today’s far left, “woke” Democrat Party? Or does she have another agenda?

Whatever the truth, if Gabbard altered her views — in this case to facilitate third-party ambitions — it wouldn’t be the first time. The congresswoman used to be pro-life, pro-marriage (meaning, one man/one woman) and opposed the special privileges some people call “gay rights.” What changed?

Gabbard says her two Mideast tours of duty caused an epiphany. “I began to realize that the positions I had held previously regarding the issues of choice and gay marriage were rooted in the same premise held by those in power in the oppressive Middle East regimes I saw,” she wrote — “that it is government's role to define and enforce our personal morality.”

Uh, okay. But this flash of insight just so happened to coincide with her desire to win a congressional seat in über-liberal Hawaii. And her transformation suggests three possibilities:
  • Gabbard is hardly a thinker and never had principles, only preferences. Her comment’s conclusion is the equivalent of, and is as relativistically nonsensical, as speaking of “personal truth.” If it’s personal, it’s not morality. It then has a different name: taste. (Moreover, all just law reflects morality and is thus “religious,” as I explain here and here.)
  • Gabbard, power-prostitute style, never had principles and will say anything to get elected (conservative suckers for pretty faces, take note).
  • Both of the above.
All this said and in accordance with Occam’s razor, I freely admit that my third-party-plot theory isn’t the most likely explanation here. Leftists are emotion-driven creatures, and Hell hath no fury like a Hillary scorned. So maybe Clinton’s bitterness was again showing. It’s also true that Gabbard claims to have dismissed running third party.

But she has flip-flopped before. Moreover, all the attention such an effort would bring — the media could want to maximize this “centrist’s” exposure — may appeal to Gabbard’s vanity. And, oh, harking back to Rucker’s Libertarian Party theory, note that the congresswoman’s not-“government's role to define and enforce our personal morality” line is right out of libertarians’ playbook. She’s not exactly an odd fit.

What I am quite convinced of is that a Gabbard third-party run would hurt Trump and that, as the Russia and Ukraine cons evidence, such a scheme would not be an odd fit for the Democrats.
The article is a fallacy wrapped in fallacies.

I'm not going to deconstruct the whole article though. Mainly because I can refute the whole thing in one paragraph. Tulsi Gabbard is a relative newcomer to a presidential election. Her campaign is small, and the polling industry is a biased pile of garbage. So we don't know who her supporters are, nor do we have any insight into their voting habits. Basically, the data to back up the speculatory claims in this article flat out doesn't exist.

Of course, I get that this article is meant to be an opinion piece. But the opinions therein are still illogical. The whole third party/spoiler candidate argument is a false dilemma. It's a black and white type of thinking, you know? D/R's good, third party bad.
 





ohhi9876

Established
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
384
Likes
191
The article is a fallacy wrapped in fallacies.

I'm not going to deconstruct the whole article though. Mainly because I can refute the whole thing in one paragraph. Tulsi Gabbard is a relative newcomer to a presidential election. Her campaign is small, and the polling industry is a biased pile of garbage. So we don't know who her supporters are, nor do we have any insight into their voting habits. Basically, the data to back up the speculatory claims in this article flat out doesn't exist.

Of course, I get that this article is meant to be an opinion piece. But the opinions therein are still illogical. The whole third party/spoiler candidate argument is a false dilemma. It's a black and white type of thinking, you know? D/R's good, third party bad.

well there will still be other options besides dem/gop - so a spolier could still appear besides tulsi.
 





ohhi9876

Established
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
384
Likes
191
"Those surveyed in the late October poll were asked, “Suppose Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, and John Kerry decides to enter the race, who would you support as a candidate for President?”
Joe Biden received the support of 19 percent of Democrat respondents. Clinton was in a close second with 18 percent. Elizabeth Warren came in third at 13 percent. John Kerry was at 8 percent, while Bloomberg was at 6."

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/sh...-point-behind-biden-in-hypothetical-match-up/
 





Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
8,581
Likes
4,127
"Those surveyed in the late October poll were asked, “Suppose Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, and John Kerry decides to enter the race, who would you support as a candidate for President?”
Joe Biden received the support of 19 percent of Democrat respondents. Clinton was in a close second with 18 percent. Elizabeth Warren came in third at 13 percent. John Kerry was at 8 percent, while Bloomberg was at 6."

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/sh...-point-behind-biden-in-hypothetical-match-up/
Maybe Judge Judy can help Bloomberg with his numbers? Lol!

Judge Judy thinks Michael Bloomberg should be our next president
https://nypost.com/2019/10/13/judge-judy-thinks-michael-bloomberg-should-be-our-next-president/
 





ohhi9876

Established
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
384
Likes
191
top drudge story:

Hillary Clinton leads Trump in a new Fox News poll. Yes, in November 2019.

A year before the 2020 election, he is behind all of the top-tier Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden (51 percent to 39 percent), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (46 percent to 41 percent), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (49 percent to 41 percent). Even worse, Trump is losing to Hillary Clinton, who isn't even running, 43 percent to 41 percent.

media is def pushing her to run
:/


https://theweek.com/speedreads/8761...ads-trump-new-fox-news-poll-yes-november-2019
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
4,926
Likes
6,423
that is unreal - do you have an article furthing exlpaining - it is a bit confusing but very troubling.
thanks.
I'd be interested in seeing an article about that, too -- if any exist.

The thing about videos is anyone can blab for 5-15 minutes, but well thought out articles take brains to write, and generally rely on sources and facts. My guess, without watching any videos in the subject, is that there are zero minutes of actual solid information in them.