Tag Archives: media bias

Hypocrites rejoice

Here’s the perfect quote for today:

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” – Bill Clinton, President of the United States

To be perfectly clear, the fact that Bill Clinton is the person who said it is not the point.  The point is that those words were said by a Democratic President who, when his on-the-record lie and the activities relating to it were discovered, retained the full support of liberals and feminists, including the whiny-assed liberal crybabies who now believe that Trump’s off-the-record, private statements somehow disqualify him from the presidency.  You can not have supported Clinton then and oppose Trump now without being a complete and total hypocrite.

A tougher nut to crack are so-called conservatives who have sided with the liberals on this. I’m not talking about people like that miserable double-crosser Paul Ryan. Politicians like him make a career out of being slime, so it’s no surprise when they live up to that expectation.

No, I mean ordinary, conservative voters who are somehow so offended by Trump’s remarks as to act as if they believe we would be better off with a criminal in the White House.  So, let’s ask the question: Would we? Would we be better off with an obvious criminal as President of the United States?

There are a lot of other pointed questions I could as as well.  More than I can even think of offhand, really.  But here are just a few:

Would we be better off with someone in the White House whose political career wouldn’t even exist if she hadn’t married the right man, and who, amazingly, believes that this gives her the right to be this nation’s first female president? Do we actually want our first female president to be someone who so clearly does not deserve that honor?

Do we really want a President who seems to actually desire a shooting war with Russia?

Do we really want a President who’s made a career of selling her influence to the highest bidder, and who has been better at it than any other politician in history?

If elected, Clinton is going to get the chance to nominate up to five liberal justices to the Supreme Court, not to mention putting liberals in lower level federal courts.  These are all lifetime appointments, virtually unimpeachable, and all of these courts have the power to override any state law that they want to. Liberal judges have demonstrated time and time again that the Constitution means whatever silly damned thing they say it means, and how dare we question their superior wisdom? The Supreme Court can even override Congress, which makes a Hillary Clinton presidency genuinely dangerous to the long-term viability of this nation as a free republic. Is that what you want?

Would we be better off with the ratification of the TPP?  Do you understand how that is an infinitely more important issue than all of this made-up “Trump is a bad, bad man!” horseshit, which not one person in the press ever said anything about until his candidacy threatened to upset their pre-planned succession to the presidency?

And, as long as I’ve mentioned that, since when does the press get to decide who is president in this country, anyway, and why exactly should we allow them to get away with it? If some liberal reporters at the Washington Post had given Trump the exact same level of consideration that the press had given Bill Clinton back in the 1990’s, we wouldn’t even be talking about this. The Post released this information because they want to make sure that the American people don’t make the “wrong” choice in November.  They believe that they and all the other educated liberal elites are the only people who really, truly understand what is good for this country, and the fact that they are only a small minority of the electorate is of no concern to them.  They know right and wrong far, far better than us ordinary people ever will, so we better just shut up and let them decide for us, right? I ask again:  Since when do liberal reporters get to decide what is right and wrong for this country?  Who the hell gave them the right to do that?

Advertisements

The First Debate

Trump got his ass handed to him tonight.

It’s true the odds were against him. He was up against The Clinton Earpiece, and whatever superdrugs they’ve been pumping her full of for the last month. He was up against a debate format that favored succinct, prepared responses rather than a multi-layered, complex communication style. He was up against Clinton getting first crack at all but one of the topics, thus allowing her to set the frame and bait him into wasting 3/4 of his time refuting her bullshit instead of telling people what they really need to know about Donald Trump. He was up against her clearly being fed the questions in advance, even though that was not supposed to happen.

Beyond that, he was up against her derisive, condescending attitude, obviously designed to piss him off and get him to punch back hard, as he tends to do, thereby casting Clinton herself as the Poor Helpless Female™, under attack by a big, sexist male bully simply for telling “the truth.” Worst of all, he was up against the Clinton media lie machine, and a public prepped for months with a constant barrage of misinformation, misdirection, lies by omission and even outright falsehoods. Nobody can refute months worth of lies in two minutes, and anyone who tries is not going to get his real message across.

All of that is true. What’s more, surely Trump and his people knew to expect it going in. Trump is, after all, the person who coined the term Crooked Hillary. He’s been calling out the dishonest media for over a year, as well as pointing out, time and time again, how completely rigged the whole system is. The Trump team certainly expected that this debate would not be a level playing field by any stretch of the imagination.

What was not obvious tonight, though, was how in the world they thought they were going to deal with it. What Trump needed was a “Kobayashi Maru” maneuver, something to shatter the whole Clinton/media paradigm and enable him to own the game in one move. Unfortunately, coming up with that sort of thing is a tough call, and whatever plan they had tonight was clearly not up to the challenge. Trump’s performance tonight was simply not effective. It was unconvincing to anyone who wasn’t already a Trump supporter. Worse, Clinton’s performance, while a bit Mondale-esque at times, was basically the sort of thing that the proverbial swing voter is looking for. She was not only reassuring and “presidential,” but even a little humorous at times, and, worst of all, humorous at Trump’s expense. Her goal tonight was to reinforce the manufactured image of Trump as a blowhard and a buffoon, and it worked.

I’m relieved there are two more debates. Trump is going to need both of them to make up for tonight.

This all sounds incredibly pessimistic and defeatist, but wait. I’m not done yet. In spite of tonight, I am still optimistic that Trump can emerge as the overall winner of the debates. His performance at the next two will be substantially better than tonight.

How do I know this? Because I’ve seen him improve like that before. His ability to learn from his mistakes and improve was one of the very first things that impressed me about him, well over a year ago. It was a key factor in my decision to wholeheartedly support Trump, and since then, I’ve seen him do it again, several times. He’ll sit down with his people and they’ll go over all the mistakes and missed opportunities from tonight, and when the next debate comes on the 9th, we’ll see something much better than we saw tonight.

Moreover, Trump has another big advantage that Clinton doesn’t have: Tonight was Clinton’s be-all-you-can-be performance. It was everything she’s got, the very best her campaign and their media shills (not to mention her doctors) can come up with. She can’t improve any more than she already has. But Trump can. One of Trump’s greatest qualities is his ability to learn quickly, to make adjustments, and to improve. He’s going to need that now. We all are.

Super Tuesday

Big day in the Republican presidential primary races!  Will Trump pull ahead to a decisive lead today?  Will the absolutely insane anti-Trump media blitz of the past few days have an impact, perhaps enough to lose him a state or two? Or will swing voters recognize it as exactly what it is: a desperate attempt to fling a truckload of shit in the hope that just a little bit of it will stick?

Perhaps the stickiest shit flung is in relation to the David Duke “endorsement.” Laughably, the whole thing turned out to be false, unless you want to really indulge in some hairsplitting: Duke himself stated clearly that he does not endorse Donald Trump, although he does plan on voting for him. That is an interesting distinction, because it’s possible the only reason Duke is making it is that he knows full well an outright endorsement would possibly damage Trump’s reputation. However, he could also be making it simply because a candidate with positions so congruent to his own as to actually merit his endorsement is not to be found in this race. That would make Trump, in his eyes, the most pragmatic choice of half a dozen less-than-adequate candidates. It is certainly not unusual for people to vote that way.  Myself, for instance: I voted for Romney in 2012, but would not consider that an endorsement.  I voted for him because I didn’t want Obama to win, that’s all.  I did, however, gladly support Ron Paul in the 2012 primary, and I’d agree that really does constitute an endorsement. See the difference?  In particular, when you compare Trump’s position on illegal immigrants to that of the other GOP candidates, do you see the difference? Which position do you think Duke agrees with?

Beyond that, though, you have the simple fact that Duke’s alleged endorsement is irrelevant anyway. I will illustrate: Let’s say some weirdo genius is able to resurrect Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Gengis Khan from the dead and they all endorse Trump, enthusiastically and unequivocally.  Hitler yells, “Jawohl! Herr Trump ist der best hope for betterment of the master race and containment of das internazional Jew menace! All hail Deutschland!” Stalin proclaims Trump the exalted savior of World Communism, champion of the working class and the reincarnation of Karl Marx; and Khan insists that he and Trump could have a grand old time invading, conquering and pillaging diverse lands while relishing the lamentations of the enemy women.  What the hell difference would any of this make, exactly?  Would Trump’s position somehow be changed because of these endorsements? Would he be different somehow?

The answer is simply, no, Trump’s position would not change, Trump would still be Trump, and it doesn’t matter if a candidate is endorsed by an extremist whose views he doesn’t share.  It is in fact irrelevant, unless you happen to be of similar mindset to a six year old: “That other kid that I hate says he likes you, so I am going to beat you up, scum!!”  It’s completely ridiculous, and I say that as someone who, as a kid, was actually subjected to that type of asinine behavior (on one occasion).  It is certainly unworthy of people who purport to be serious political commentators, politicians or journalists.  The expectation of disavowal is clearly a shibboleth, and a lame attempt to push Trump down the slippery slope of liberal virtue signalling.

I have little doubt that typical Trump supporters understand all of this, at least at a gut level.  Whether or not swing voters get it is something less certain, but we’ll see.  One advantage that Trump has at this point in the race is that his primary opponents have pretty successfully managed to tar and feather themselves. Everybody knows Cruz is dishonest and Rubio is out of his depth, even their supporters (who nonetheless don’t want to admit it to themselves).

It’s going to be an interesting night.

A couple ‘a vids

I’ve watched a lot of Trump vids over the past 6 months.  Mostly rallies, some interviews, speeches, portions of the debates. A variety of stuff. Much of it is very worth watching. Yesterday’s rallies in Forth Worth and Oklahoma City, for instance: both among the best that I’ve seen.

Tonight, though, I came across something special so I will link it here, I encourage everyone to give it a click and enjoy:

Learn to Love TRUMP in 12 Minutes or Less

I won’t embed that because it’s much better in a full sized window, preferably hi-def if your regional YouTube server can feed it to you.

One of the best things about it is all the crowd shots.  Having watched so many rallies where the cameras never! move! one! single! inch! it’s really refreshing, even thrilling, to see the size of these crowds.

Here’s another good one by that same person:

Donald Trump – A Great Leader, Father & American

My favorite part of that one is when he asks all the little kids if they want a ride in his helicopter and they all yell, “Yeaaaaaahhh!!!!!”  Gotta love it!

Both of these were put together by an anonymous person called merely “A Donald Trump Fan.”  I don’t have a YouTube account, so I will say here: Great job, whoever you are.

To report or not to report, that is the question

On December 3, I noticed on the front page of the local newspaper that there was no mention whatsoever of the San Bernadino terrorist shooting that had occurred the previous day.  I remarked upon it at the time to a couple of co-workers, who speculated that the shooting occurred after press time. That didn’t seem quite right to me, but since I didn’t have a better explanation, I let it slide. (I didn’t bother looking through the rest of the paper to see if it had been mentioned at all. Looking back, I now realize that was a mistake.)

More recently, there was an incident here where someone was non-fatally shot by police officers. It happened around 3:30 p.m.  It was the headline article on the front page of the newspaper the very next morning.  There wasn’t a lot of detail in the article, but at least it was up there in top view, right where it ought to be: Shootings are mercifully rare around here, and shootings by police officers are even more unusual.

So, I got curious and looked up the time of the San Bernadino incident.  According to Wikipedia, it happened at 10:59 a.m., local time, which would be 12:59 p.m. in this time zone. Thus, the suggestion that it happened after press time is clearly incorrect. Why, I wonder, was it completely omitted from the front page?

The local paper here is owned by one of the major players in the newspaper business. I, and others, have noticed that the major players in mainstream news today seem to have some, shall we say, particular tendencies when it comes to reporting violent crimes. Obviously this is the first thing that comes to mind when I wonder about the mysterious absence of the San Bernadino shooting on the front page.