Tag Archives: media lies

Refresher on Obergefell v. Hodges

Something I saw today on Twitter prompted me to take a look back at an article I posted here a couple years ago, about how Obergefell v. Hodges was not in fact an affirmation of the will of the American People, as was repeatedly trumpeted by the fakenews at the time, but was in fact forcibly imposed by judicial fiat just about everywhere. I had posted a link to Wikipedia as a source at the time. The page at that link has since been obfuscated beyond recognition, to the point where it’s no longer a valid source for this information (nice retconning there, Wikipedians!), but, luckily, I found another one! Even on that one, though, you need to carefully look through the table and tally off the ones that list “legislative statute” or similar reason as the method of legalization. Counting full states only, there are 11. Including Washington D.C. gets you to 12. I maintain that states where same-sex marriage was legalized only after being imposed by a court do not count, and, frankly, it should be obvious that they do not. When the law is already a foregone conclusion anyway, how many people are going to bother voting against it? Liberal proponents, on the other hand, are well known for their penchant for gloating, which is precisely what such a “vote” constitutes.

In any case, here are the states who voluntarily legalized same-sex marriage, through legislative action, referendum, or the like:

Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington

In all other states, including California, legalization was jammed down the throats of the people by either federal or state court fiat. Thus, any claim that this decision was somehow the “will of the people” is a flat-out lie, and if you hear it, you are being lied to. It’s called gaslighting, and this is an absolutely massive case of it.

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.

Why I am not a liberal

I’ve been toying lately with the possibility of adding another category to my category list, named “why I’m not a liberal,” and then focusing on that for a while, with links to and discussion of all the various species of lunacy and hypocrisy that liberals are expected to believe in this day and age. The problem is, even if I limited myself just to current events, there’s so much out there that I could probably spend all day, every day blogging about that. It’s a veritable avalanche of stupidity, and I actually have to work for a living, you know?

So, for now, I’ll just throw out this link to Ann Coulter’s recent, wonderful rant: San Bernardino Shooters Unknown: Here Are Some Past Mass Shooters, wherein she takes aim at the New York Times’ patently ridiculous assertion that American mass shootings are perpetrated by “mostly white men.” Go Ann, go!

Sincerely,
A White Man