Showing posts with label liberal scum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal scum. Show all posts
Saturday, June 5, 2021
I like the Washington Post but the people who write comments there are just plain fucking stupid. Corporations make them cry. This comment someone wrote was unusual because it was well done.
"Corporations paying more taxes will just raise the cost to the consumers, or they will go overseas to Ireland or elsewhere. The money eventually gets taxed anyway, via employee salaries and sales tax, etc."
Sunday, May 30, 2021
I wrote this for an asshole at the Washington Post:
"Islamophobic" means "knows too much about Islam". The ridiculous word was invented to suppress freedom of speech.
Sunday, May 23, 2021
There are people who suck up to the Hamas terrorist organization. They're fucking morons. At the Washington Post this is a comment someone wrote about the Muslim terrorists in Gaza.
Arab media reported:
Hamas terror chief Ismail Haniyeh on Friday hailed Hamas’s “victory” in the recent hostilities with Israel, saying it had foiled attempts by Israel to integrate into the Arab world.
He also thanked Iran for the funds and weaponry it has provided to the Strip.
“This battle has destroyed the project of ‘coexistence’ with the Israeli occupation, of the project ‘normalization’ with Israel,” Haniyeh said from Qatar, where he has been residing.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The very thing that liberals have been campaigning over many decades, a negotiated settlement between the Jews and Arabs, is the very thing that Hamas is dedicated to preventing. The casualties to the people of Gaza that they know will result from attacking Israel are the very point of the attacks. To Hamas, the more dead in Gaza the more it benefits them because they have no negotiation position in dealing with Israel other than the destruction of Israel.
Regardless of the efforts of well-meaning agencies to move Hamas away from its absolute position, Hamas has no interest in anything that will allow Israel to exist. So, it's a fight to the death, as far as Hamas is concerned. The effort then for the future is to minimize Hamas' capability to attack Israel.
Nevertheless, yesterday Bangladesh announced that it has removed from its passports the text “this passport is valid for all countries for the world except Israel.” This will allow Bangladeshis to seek cooperative opportunities in Israel. Hamas may be unmovable, but not the rest of the Muslim world.
Hamas terror chief Ismail Haniyeh on Friday hailed Hamas’s “victory” in the recent hostilities with Israel, saying it had foiled attempts by Israel to integrate into the Arab world.
He also thanked Iran for the funds and weaponry it has provided to the Strip.
“This battle has destroyed the project of ‘coexistence’ with the Israeli occupation, of the project ‘normalization’ with Israel,” Haniyeh said from Qatar, where he has been residing.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The very thing that liberals have been campaigning over many decades, a negotiated settlement between the Jews and Arabs, is the very thing that Hamas is dedicated to preventing. The casualties to the people of Gaza that they know will result from attacking Israel are the very point of the attacks. To Hamas, the more dead in Gaza the more it benefits them because they have no negotiation position in dealing with Israel other than the destruction of Israel.
Regardless of the efforts of well-meaning agencies to move Hamas away from its absolute position, Hamas has no interest in anything that will allow Israel to exist. So, it's a fight to the death, as far as Hamas is concerned. The effort then for the future is to minimize Hamas' capability to attack Israel.
Nevertheless, yesterday Bangladesh announced that it has removed from its passports the text “this passport is valid for all countries for the world except Israel.” This will allow Bangladeshis to seek cooperative opportunities in Israel. Hamas may be unmovable, but not the rest of the Muslim world.
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
Biden's fellow Democrats are stupid fucking assholes who suck up to terrorists.
 |
 |
|
|
Sunday, May 16, 2021
Here in Idiot America we have liberal assholes who complain about the police even though they risk their lives every day.
Chicago news:
CHICAGO — Two Chicago police officers were injured in a shooting Sunday morning in Chicago’s North Lawndale neighborhood, according to police.
The condition of the officers injured and the suspect remains unknown. The incident occurred just after 7:10 a.m. in the 1500 block of South Lawndale Avenue.
Police said officers responded to a nearby ShotSpotter alert and observed a person in a nearby vacant lot. According to police, the man turned and opened fire toward the officers, striking two officers.
Officers returned fire and struck the suspect on the lower body.
Supt. David Brown announced both officers are in stable condition at Mount Sinai Hospital. One officer was struck to the collarbone and shoulder and another officer was struck to the hand.
The suspect is recovering at a different hospital in stable condition.
The condition of the officers injured and the suspect remains unknown. The incident occurred just after 7:10 a.m. in the 1500 block of South Lawndale Avenue.
Police said officers responded to a nearby ShotSpotter alert and observed a person in a nearby vacant lot. According to police, the man turned and opened fire toward the officers, striking two officers.
Officers returned fire and struck the suspect on the lower body.
Supt. David Brown announced both officers are in stable condition at Mount Sinai Hospital. One officer was struck to the collarbone and shoulder and another officer was struck to the hand.
The suspect is recovering at a different hospital in stable condition.
Saturday, May 8, 2021
What I wrote at the Washington Post to help liberal morons understand.
"At the same time, business leaders and Republicans are complaining that there is a “worker shortage,” and they largely blame the more generous unemployment payments and stimulus checks for making people less likely to take low-paying fast food and retail jobs again. Democratic economists counter that companies could raise pay if they really wanted workers back quickly."
I suggest throwing out the "generous unemployment payments" and see what happens. Will these people get a job? Probably yes.
I like Biden but he is wrong about this stuff.
I suggest throwing out the "generous unemployment payments" and see what happens. Will these people get a job? Probably yes.
I like Biden but he is wrong about this stuff.
Wednesday, May 5, 2021
Here in Idiot America we have students in poor neighborhoods who are learning nothing in the only school there is for them. This is thanks to the Democrats who suck up to teachers unions because they get tons of money for it. The Republicans could fix the problem but they have done nothing because they're fucking stupid.
Wall Street Journal
OPINION
UPWARD MOBILITY
Teachers Unions’ Covid Cop-Outs Are a Winning Issue for GOP
Republicans should campaign hard in 2022 on Democratic obeisance to the AFT and NEA.
By Jason L. Riley
May 4, 2021
When is the Republican Party going to declare war on teachers unions?
Doing so would be smart politics as well as smart policy. There is no appreciable downside to the GOP taking on the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, which already give nearly all their money and political support to Democrats. And the nation’s pupils have everything to gain, especially if they happen to be low-income minorities.
The move is long overdue, and the pandemic offers Republicans the perfect opportunity to explain to voters how the unions’ ironclad control over public education does grave harm to children. We’ve known from the earliest days of the virus that youngsters are the least likely to catch it or spread it to others. We also know that many low-income parents struggle with home schooling and need to go back to work. Distance learning exacerbates racial and economic achievement gaps and takes a heavy psychological toll on kids. Union leaders couldn’t care less.
California, which is the most populous state and currently has the lowest per capita Covid rate in the country, also has the highest percentage of school districts that remain entirely virtual. Teachers unions have used the pandemic to demand more money and more-generous benefits. They know that millions of Americans can’t return to work if kids can’t return to schools. For parents it’s a dilemma, but unions see it as leverage. The United Teachers of Los Angeles requested free child care for its members as a condition for returning to the classroom. Union clout is the main reason that California’s percentage of all-virtual school districts is more than three times the national average.
An exposé published in Sunday’s New York Post shows how diligently teachers unions have been working to capitalize on our misery. “In the days before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released their much-anticipated school-reopening guidelines on Feb. 12, the American Federation of Teachers launched a full-court press to shape the final document and slow the full-reopening of schools,” the Post reported. “The lobbying paid off. In at least two instances, language ‘suggestions’ offered by the union were adopted nearly verbatim into the final text of the CDC document.”
The Biden administration isn’t “following the science.” It’s following orders. The nation’s largest teachers unions spent more than $40 million in the 2020 cycle to elect Democrats. And labor leaders are getting a fabulous return on that investment. The Covid-relief law President Biden signed in March allocates $123 billion for public schools, with no requirement that districts first reopen for in-person learning to receive the money.
Before the pandemic, the political landscape for teachers unions was improving. Recall that the Democrats had a strong 2018 midterm election. They not only regained control of the House but also picked up seven governorships and flipped more than 300 state legislative seats. In recent years, teacher walkouts in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Washington state and West Virginia were largely successful in garnering bigger school budgets, higher pay and smaller class sizes (which translates into more union jobs). The question now is whether Covid will reverse this momentum.
What Americans have learned from the lockdowns is the degree to which unions control not only the public school systems but by extension the everyday lives of tens of millions of parents with school-age children. If Republicans are smart, they won’t let voters forget this lesson anytime soon. Education always ranks high among the concerns of the electorate, and the virus exposed the catastrophic consequences of having so few school alternatives for families of modest means. Private schools, religious schools and charter schools have all outperformed traditional public schools during the pandemic, and teachers unions labor to limit access to better alternatives.
GOP candidates in the 2022 midterms could campaign hard on the unions’ myriad Covid cop-outs. Voters should know all about how the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, along with thousands of state and local affiliates, consistently gave priority to their adult members instead of the children and families they are supposed to serve. Moreover, Republicans could take this message directly to the communities hit hardest by the unwillingness of educators to do their jobs.
Republican outreach should include running ads on radio and television and social-media outlets with large black and Latino audiences. It should include visiting churches and barbershops in low-income neighborhoods to explain how voucher programs and charter schools change the power dynamic by giving parents the ability to switch school systems if the educational needs of their children aren’t met. Remind these voters that the union-controlled schools Democrats support have an abysmal record when it comes to educating minorities. With apologies to a former president, what the hell do Republicans have to lose?
Appeared in the May 5, 2021, print edition.
OPINION
UPWARD MOBILITY
Teachers Unions’ Covid Cop-Outs Are a Winning Issue for GOP
Republicans should campaign hard in 2022 on Democratic obeisance to the AFT and NEA.
By Jason L. Riley
May 4, 2021
When is the Republican Party going to declare war on teachers unions?
Doing so would be smart politics as well as smart policy. There is no appreciable downside to the GOP taking on the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, which already give nearly all their money and political support to Democrats. And the nation’s pupils have everything to gain, especially if they happen to be low-income minorities.
The move is long overdue, and the pandemic offers Republicans the perfect opportunity to explain to voters how the unions’ ironclad control over public education does grave harm to children. We’ve known from the earliest days of the virus that youngsters are the least likely to catch it or spread it to others. We also know that many low-income parents struggle with home schooling and need to go back to work. Distance learning exacerbates racial and economic achievement gaps and takes a heavy psychological toll on kids. Union leaders couldn’t care less.
California, which is the most populous state and currently has the lowest per capita Covid rate in the country, also has the highest percentage of school districts that remain entirely virtual. Teachers unions have used the pandemic to demand more money and more-generous benefits. They know that millions of Americans can’t return to work if kids can’t return to schools. For parents it’s a dilemma, but unions see it as leverage. The United Teachers of Los Angeles requested free child care for its members as a condition for returning to the classroom. Union clout is the main reason that California’s percentage of all-virtual school districts is more than three times the national average.
An exposé published in Sunday’s New York Post shows how diligently teachers unions have been working to capitalize on our misery. “In the days before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released their much-anticipated school-reopening guidelines on Feb. 12, the American Federation of Teachers launched a full-court press to shape the final document and slow the full-reopening of schools,” the Post reported. “The lobbying paid off. In at least two instances, language ‘suggestions’ offered by the union were adopted nearly verbatim into the final text of the CDC document.”
The Biden administration isn’t “following the science.” It’s following orders. The nation’s largest teachers unions spent more than $40 million in the 2020 cycle to elect Democrats. And labor leaders are getting a fabulous return on that investment. The Covid-relief law President Biden signed in March allocates $123 billion for public schools, with no requirement that districts first reopen for in-person learning to receive the money.
Before the pandemic, the political landscape for teachers unions was improving. Recall that the Democrats had a strong 2018 midterm election. They not only regained control of the House but also picked up seven governorships and flipped more than 300 state legislative seats. In recent years, teacher walkouts in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Washington state and West Virginia were largely successful in garnering bigger school budgets, higher pay and smaller class sizes (which translates into more union jobs). The question now is whether Covid will reverse this momentum.
What Americans have learned from the lockdowns is the degree to which unions control not only the public school systems but by extension the everyday lives of tens of millions of parents with school-age children. If Republicans are smart, they won’t let voters forget this lesson anytime soon. Education always ranks high among the concerns of the electorate, and the virus exposed the catastrophic consequences of having so few school alternatives for families of modest means. Private schools, religious schools and charter schools have all outperformed traditional public schools during the pandemic, and teachers unions labor to limit access to better alternatives.
GOP candidates in the 2022 midterms could campaign hard on the unions’ myriad Covid cop-outs. Voters should know all about how the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, along with thousands of state and local affiliates, consistently gave priority to their adult members instead of the children and families they are supposed to serve. Moreover, Republicans could take this message directly to the communities hit hardest by the unwillingness of educators to do their jobs.
Republican outreach should include running ads on radio and television and social-media outlets with large black and Latino audiences. It should include visiting churches and barbershops in low-income neighborhoods to explain how voucher programs and charter schools change the power dynamic by giving parents the ability to switch school systems if the educational needs of their children aren’t met. Remind these voters that the union-controlled schools Democrats support have an abysmal record when it comes to educating minorities. With apologies to a former president, what the hell do Republicans have to lose?
Appeared in the May 5, 2021, print edition.
President Biden is doing OK but America would have been much better off if Mike Bloomberg was elected president in 2020.
“Too many Republicans wrongly blame immigrants for our problems, and they stand in the way of action on climate change and gun violence. Meanwhile, many Democrats wrongly blame the private sector for our problems, and they stand in the way of action on education reform and deficit reduction.”
—Michael Bloomberg, 2016 Democratic National Convention
—Michael Bloomberg, 2016 Democratic National Convention
Friday, January 8, 2021
Trump has been trying to grow up. He has been very nice. This bullshit is not necessary. Also, we have something called "Freedom of Speech". It's the most important thing in our Bill of Rights.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House could move to impeach Mr. Trump over his role in inciting a violent mob attack on the Capitol if he did not resign “immediately,” calling Mr. Trump’s actions a “horrific assault on our democracy.”
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Twitter said it permanently suspended President Trump’s account, citing “the risk of further incitement of violence.”
The suspension comes a day after Mr. Trump was barred from using Facebook for the remainder of his term, and on the heels of a number of other digital platforms limiting Mr. Trump from their services.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Twitter said it permanently suspended President Trump’s account, citing “the risk of further incitement of violence.”
The suspension comes a day after Mr. Trump was barred from using Facebook for the remainder of his term, and on the heels of a number of other digital platforms limiting Mr. Trump from their services.
Thursday, December 3, 2020
Monday, November 16, 2020
Progressives, also known as liberal assholes.
New York Times
Opinion
Groupthink Has Left the Left Blind
A constricted view of the world leaves progressives surprised by the world as it is.
By Bret Stephens
Opinion Columnist
November 16, 2020
This year, several high-profile writers have left left-leaning publications after running afoul of what they describe as a pervasive culture of censoriousness, groupthink and intellectual-risk aversion. This month, Donald Trump once again stunned much of the liberal establishment by dramatically beating polling expectations to come within about 80,000 votes of another Electoral College victory.
It’s worth asking whether there’s a connection between the two — that is, between the left’s increasingly constricted view of the world and the increasing frequency with which leftists are surprised by the world as it is.
What, today, is leftism, at least when it comes to intellectual life? Not what it used to be. Once it was predominantly liberal, albeit with radical fringes. Now it is predominantly progressive, or woke, with centrist liberals in dissent. Once it was irreverent. Now it is pious. Once it believed that truth was best discovered by engaging opposing points of view. Now it believes that truth can be established by eliminating them. Once it cared about process. Now it is obsessed with outcomes. Once it understood, with Walt Whitman, that we contain multitudes. Now it is into dualities: We are privileged or powerless, white or of color, racist or anti-racist, oppressor or oppressed.
The list goes on. But the central difference is this: The old liberal left paid attention to complexity, ambiguity, the gray areas. A sense of complexity induced a measure of doubt, including self-doubt. The new left typically seeks to reduce things to elements such as race, class and gender, in ways that erase ambiguity and doubt. The new left is a factory of certitudes.
It’s from that factory that writers like Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald have fled, and from which many other independent-minded thinkers will, sooner or later, follow. For them, the loss isn’t devastating: They have large followings and can use new digital platforms like Substack to make a generous living.
For the new left — and the publications that champion it — the loss is much greater. It makes them predictable, smug and dull. It alienates readers. A current article on the New York magazine website is titled, “I Think About Björk’s Creativity Animal a Lot.” For gems such as this they got rid of Sullivan?
But worse than making it dull, the purge (or self-purge) of contrarians has made the new left blind.
According to the incessant pronouncements of much of the news media (including a few of my own), Donald Trump is the most anti-Black, anti-Hispanic and anti-woman president in modern memory. Yet the CNN exit poll found that Trump won a majority of the vote of white women against both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. He also improved his vote share over 2016 with both Latino and Black voters, while losing most of the advantage he previously had with college-educated white males — precisely the demographic his policies had supposedly done most to favor.
If the catechism of today’s left determined reality, none of this would have happened. Racial, ethnic or sexual identity would have trumped every other voting consideration. But as the Texas Democratic Representative Henry Cuellar recently told Axios: “Trump did a much better job at understanding Hispanics. Sometimes, Democrats see Hispanics as monolithic.” Latino voters in his South Texas district were particularly turned off by progressive rhetoric about defunding the police, opposition to fossil fuels and decriminalizing border crossings.
What is true of Cuellar’s constituency is true of everyone: People are rarely reducible to a single animating political consideration. Nor should they be subject to a simple moral judgment. Motives are complicated: It is perfectly possible to see Trump for the reprehensible man he is and still find something to like in his policies, just as it is possible to admire Biden’s character and reject his politics.
The apparent inability of many on the left to entertain the thought that decent human beings might have voted for Trump for sensible reasons — to take one example, the unemployment rate reached record lows before the pandemic hit — amounts to an epic failure to see their fellow Americans with understanding, much less with empathy. It repels the 73 million Trump voters who cannot see anything of themselves in media caricatures of them as fragile, bigoted, greedy and somewhat stupid white people.
It also motivates them. The surest way to fuel the politics of resentment — the politics that gave us the Tea Party, Brexit and Trump, and will continue to furnish more of the same — is to give people something to resent. Jeering moral condescension from entitled elites is among the things most people tend to resent.
Which brings me back to the flight of the contrarians. As the left (and the institutions that represent it) increasingly becomes an intellectual monoculture, it will do more than just drive away talent, as well as significant parts of its audience. It will become more self-certain, more obnoxious to those who don’t share its assumptions, more blinkered and more frequently wrong.
To the enemies of the left, the self-harm that left-leaning institutions do with their increasingly frequent excommunications is, ultimately, good news. The mystery is why liberals would do it to themselves.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. Facebook
Opinion
Groupthink Has Left the Left Blind
A constricted view of the world leaves progressives surprised by the world as it is.
By Bret Stephens
Opinion Columnist
November 16, 2020
This year, several high-profile writers have left left-leaning publications after running afoul of what they describe as a pervasive culture of censoriousness, groupthink and intellectual-risk aversion. This month, Donald Trump once again stunned much of the liberal establishment by dramatically beating polling expectations to come within about 80,000 votes of another Electoral College victory.
It’s worth asking whether there’s a connection between the two — that is, between the left’s increasingly constricted view of the world and the increasing frequency with which leftists are surprised by the world as it is.
What, today, is leftism, at least when it comes to intellectual life? Not what it used to be. Once it was predominantly liberal, albeit with radical fringes. Now it is predominantly progressive, or woke, with centrist liberals in dissent. Once it was irreverent. Now it is pious. Once it believed that truth was best discovered by engaging opposing points of view. Now it believes that truth can be established by eliminating them. Once it cared about process. Now it is obsessed with outcomes. Once it understood, with Walt Whitman, that we contain multitudes. Now it is into dualities: We are privileged or powerless, white or of color, racist or anti-racist, oppressor or oppressed.
The list goes on. But the central difference is this: The old liberal left paid attention to complexity, ambiguity, the gray areas. A sense of complexity induced a measure of doubt, including self-doubt. The new left typically seeks to reduce things to elements such as race, class and gender, in ways that erase ambiguity and doubt. The new left is a factory of certitudes.
It’s from that factory that writers like Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald have fled, and from which many other independent-minded thinkers will, sooner or later, follow. For them, the loss isn’t devastating: They have large followings and can use new digital platforms like Substack to make a generous living.
For the new left — and the publications that champion it — the loss is much greater. It makes them predictable, smug and dull. It alienates readers. A current article on the New York magazine website is titled, “I Think About Björk’s Creativity Animal a Lot.” For gems such as this they got rid of Sullivan?
But worse than making it dull, the purge (or self-purge) of contrarians has made the new left blind.
According to the incessant pronouncements of much of the news media (including a few of my own), Donald Trump is the most anti-Black, anti-Hispanic and anti-woman president in modern memory. Yet the CNN exit poll found that Trump won a majority of the vote of white women against both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. He also improved his vote share over 2016 with both Latino and Black voters, while losing most of the advantage he previously had with college-educated white males — precisely the demographic his policies had supposedly done most to favor.
If the catechism of today’s left determined reality, none of this would have happened. Racial, ethnic or sexual identity would have trumped every other voting consideration. But as the Texas Democratic Representative Henry Cuellar recently told Axios: “Trump did a much better job at understanding Hispanics. Sometimes, Democrats see Hispanics as monolithic.” Latino voters in his South Texas district were particularly turned off by progressive rhetoric about defunding the police, opposition to fossil fuels and decriminalizing border crossings.
What is true of Cuellar’s constituency is true of everyone: People are rarely reducible to a single animating political consideration. Nor should they be subject to a simple moral judgment. Motives are complicated: It is perfectly possible to see Trump for the reprehensible man he is and still find something to like in his policies, just as it is possible to admire Biden’s character and reject his politics.
The apparent inability of many on the left to entertain the thought that decent human beings might have voted for Trump for sensible reasons — to take one example, the unemployment rate reached record lows before the pandemic hit — amounts to an epic failure to see their fellow Americans with understanding, much less with empathy. It repels the 73 million Trump voters who cannot see anything of themselves in media caricatures of them as fragile, bigoted, greedy and somewhat stupid white people.
It also motivates them. The surest way to fuel the politics of resentment — the politics that gave us the Tea Party, Brexit and Trump, and will continue to furnish more of the same — is to give people something to resent. Jeering moral condescension from entitled elites is among the things most people tend to resent.
Which brings me back to the flight of the contrarians. As the left (and the institutions that represent it) increasingly becomes an intellectual monoculture, it will do more than just drive away talent, as well as significant parts of its audience. It will become more self-certain, more obnoxious to those who don’t share its assumptions, more blinkered and more frequently wrong.
To the enemies of the left, the self-harm that left-leaning institutions do with their increasingly frequent excommunications is, ultimately, good news. The mystery is why liberals would do it to themselves.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. Facebook
Saturday, November 7, 2020
Biden is not yet the president but already I hate him.
"Biden will repeal the ban on immigration from many Muslim-majority countries."
Fucktard Biden, do you remember the 9/11 atrocities? 3,000 Americans murdered in one day. Did you know these insane assholes were Muslim scum? Are you trying to sacrifice more American lives because you want to be politically correct?
What a stupid fucking asshole. Fuck you, Biden.
Fucktard Biden, do you remember the 9/11 atrocities? 3,000 Americans murdered in one day. Did you know these insane assholes were Muslim scum? Are you trying to sacrifice more American lives because you want to be politically correct?
What a stupid fucking asshole. Fuck you, Biden.
Friday, November 6, 2020
Wall Street Journal article about Fucktard Biden
Wall Street Journal
OPINION
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Joe Biden’s Non-Mandate
He may win the White House, but his party and progressive ideas lost.
By the Editorial Board
November 5, 2020
As the votes continue to be counted in swing states, Joe Biden has the best chance to become the next President. But the closer we inspect the nationwide election returns, the more the result looks like a defeat for the rest of his Democratic Party and especially for the progressive agenda. Mr. Biden would take office without a mandate beyond addressing Covid-19 and not being Donald J. Trump.
Mr. Biden will win the popular vote, and he may eke out a narrow win in the Electoral College. In essence he’ll have reversed Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016 with hair’s-breadth advantages in Wisconsin and Michigan, and perhaps Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona. None of them will be by large margins. He will have vanquished an incumbent President, which is no easy task.
But look down the ballot, or across the country, and Mr. Biden’s potential victory looks remarkably limited and personal. Most new Presidents enter office having swept allies into Congress and statehouses as the public embraces his agenda and vision for America. Certainly this was true of Barack Obama in 2008 and to a lesser extent Mr. Trump in 2016. Mr. Biden had no such coattails.
Democrats lost seats in the House, giving up some of the suburban gains they made in 2018 while continuing to struggle in rural areas. The full results won’t be in for weeks, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi may find her majority cut in half or more to the smallest in 20 years.
Senate control may be determined by a Jan. 5 runoff for two seats in Georgia. But the GOP already looks to have won 50 seats to 48 for Democrats, who had expected to ride public dislike for Mr. Trump into the majority. A GOP Senate may compromise with Mr. Biden around centrist ideas, but the aggressive House agenda of the last two years would die again.
This result is all the more remarkable given that Democrats had nearly all of the media, Silicon Valley billionaires, and all of the leading cultural figures and institutions helping them. Even the Chamber of Commerce paid protection money. Democrats raised unheard of sums close to $100 million for some Senate races, outspending Republicans by two or three to one. They still could oust only two incumbents and lost one of their own.
The lack of coattails was also evident in the states, where Democrats spent heavily to flip legislatures. Former Attorney General Eric Holder made this his personal project with a goal of dominating the fight over Congressional redistricting next year after the final Census count. He flopped. The GOP flipped both legislative bodies in New Hampshire, despite Mr. Trump’s loss in the Granite State, and Republicans protected their advantage nearly everywhere else. (See more details nearby.)
There was no blue wave, and certainly no mandate for progressive change. If anything, the fevered Democratic and media anticipation of a “transformational” election drove more voters to turn out to stop it. When Mr. Trump finally focused on the economy and progressive agenda in the last weeks of the campaign, his support rose and lifted Republicans in some places as well.
Meanwhile, Mr. Biden’s campaign platform boiled down to he’s not Donald Trump, he’ll do a better job fighting Covid-19, and he won’t take away your health care. His TV ads were largely biographical, contrasting his character to Mr. Trump’s.
Mr. Biden barely mentioned the agenda his aides developed with Bernie Sanders, and the press barely asked him about it. When the former Vice President did finally admit in the last debate that he wanted to “transition” the economy from fossil fuels, his campaign had him scramble to explain it away.
Mr. Biden does have a mandate to defeat Covid-19, rolling out the vaccines already in the pipeline and setting an example by wearing his mask. He has a mandate not to tweet, not to call the press “the enemy of the people,” and not to make himself the center of attention all the time. He also has a mandate to work across the aisle with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
This could be liberating for Mr. Biden, giving him leverage over a diminished Mrs. Pelosi and the Sanders-Elizabeth Warren wing of the Senate Democratic caucus. But he would have to risk upsetting the political left who supported him in hopes that he is the Trojan Horse whose personal contrast with Mr. Trump would usher in a new progressive majority.
Instead, in their considerable wisdom, the voters may have elected Mr. Biden but they left his party and its radical ideas behind.
Appeared in the November 6, 2020, print edition.
OPINION
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Joe Biden’s Non-Mandate
He may win the White House, but his party and progressive ideas lost.
By the Editorial Board
November 5, 2020
As the votes continue to be counted in swing states, Joe Biden has the best chance to become the next President. But the closer we inspect the nationwide election returns, the more the result looks like a defeat for the rest of his Democratic Party and especially for the progressive agenda. Mr. Biden would take office without a mandate beyond addressing Covid-19 and not being Donald J. Trump.
Mr. Biden will win the popular vote, and he may eke out a narrow win in the Electoral College. In essence he’ll have reversed Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016 with hair’s-breadth advantages in Wisconsin and Michigan, and perhaps Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona. None of them will be by large margins. He will have vanquished an incumbent President, which is no easy task.
But look down the ballot, or across the country, and Mr. Biden’s potential victory looks remarkably limited and personal. Most new Presidents enter office having swept allies into Congress and statehouses as the public embraces his agenda and vision for America. Certainly this was true of Barack Obama in 2008 and to a lesser extent Mr. Trump in 2016. Mr. Biden had no such coattails.
Democrats lost seats in the House, giving up some of the suburban gains they made in 2018 while continuing to struggle in rural areas. The full results won’t be in for weeks, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi may find her majority cut in half or more to the smallest in 20 years.
Senate control may be determined by a Jan. 5 runoff for two seats in Georgia. But the GOP already looks to have won 50 seats to 48 for Democrats, who had expected to ride public dislike for Mr. Trump into the majority. A GOP Senate may compromise with Mr. Biden around centrist ideas, but the aggressive House agenda of the last two years would die again.
This result is all the more remarkable given that Democrats had nearly all of the media, Silicon Valley billionaires, and all of the leading cultural figures and institutions helping them. Even the Chamber of Commerce paid protection money. Democrats raised unheard of sums close to $100 million for some Senate races, outspending Republicans by two or three to one. They still could oust only two incumbents and lost one of their own.
The lack of coattails was also evident in the states, where Democrats spent heavily to flip legislatures. Former Attorney General Eric Holder made this his personal project with a goal of dominating the fight over Congressional redistricting next year after the final Census count. He flopped. The GOP flipped both legislative bodies in New Hampshire, despite Mr. Trump’s loss in the Granite State, and Republicans protected their advantage nearly everywhere else. (See more details nearby.)
There was no blue wave, and certainly no mandate for progressive change. If anything, the fevered Democratic and media anticipation of a “transformational” election drove more voters to turn out to stop it. When Mr. Trump finally focused on the economy and progressive agenda in the last weeks of the campaign, his support rose and lifted Republicans in some places as well.
Meanwhile, Mr. Biden’s campaign platform boiled down to he’s not Donald Trump, he’ll do a better job fighting Covid-19, and he won’t take away your health care. His TV ads were largely biographical, contrasting his character to Mr. Trump’s.
Mr. Biden barely mentioned the agenda his aides developed with Bernie Sanders, and the press barely asked him about it. When the former Vice President did finally admit in the last debate that he wanted to “transition” the economy from fossil fuels, his campaign had him scramble to explain it away.
Mr. Biden does have a mandate to defeat Covid-19, rolling out the vaccines already in the pipeline and setting an example by wearing his mask. He has a mandate not to tweet, not to call the press “the enemy of the people,” and not to make himself the center of attention all the time. He also has a mandate to work across the aisle with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
This could be liberating for Mr. Biden, giving him leverage over a diminished Mrs. Pelosi and the Sanders-Elizabeth Warren wing of the Senate Democratic caucus. But he would have to risk upsetting the political left who supported him in hopes that he is the Trojan Horse whose personal contrast with Mr. Trump would usher in a new progressive majority.
Instead, in their considerable wisdom, the voters may have elected Mr. Biden but they left his party and its radical ideas behind.
Appeared in the November 6, 2020, print edition.
Monday, November 2, 2020
I agree with this Wall Street Journal article about moron Trump and his moron opponent. I especially agree with this: "Trump Is Terribly Flawed, but the Alternative Is Simply Terrible." Trump is going to win and that's a good thing. The liberal fucktards will cry like babies. Nobody cares.
Wall Street Journal
OPINION
FREE EXPRESSION
Trump Is Terribly Flawed, but the Alternative Is Simply Terrible
He may do more damage to the nation’s frayed fabric. But the Democrats seem committed to tearing it up.
By Gerard Baker
November 2, 2020
"I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything," the second Viscount Melbourne is supposed to have said. The weary observation of a Victorian prime minister about an intellectually self-assured political rival and the most famous historian of his age is a good starting point to ponder the state of American politics on Election Day 2020.
We live in an age of Macaulays. Everyone, it seems, is cocksure of his beliefs, absolutely certain about the choice the nation faces this week. American democracy stands at a crossroads. One way lies renewal and recovery, salvation from the forces of darkness, a last-ditch affirmation that the U.S. can be redeemed after all. The other is the one-way path to perdition, an accelerating descent into an abyssal underworld of misrule, repression and corruption.
We should expect this kind of absolutism from ideologues, especially on the left. As Americans choose their leaders for the next four years, radical Democrats and their vocal enablers in the media, academia and leading cultural institutions have never been more certain about anything in their lifetimes of steadily diminishing intellectual curiosity.
Yet on the right too there’s a growing tendency to narrow down a complex choice to simple verities.
It would be nice to think that the world presented us with such simple choices: that the alternatives on offer on the ballot paper—or in life—are clearly labeled “good” and “evil.” But those of us who graduated from kindergarten know that picking one from the other involves discernment and judgment, not revelation.
Conservatives especially should bring a little skepticism to the cartoonish morality tale that has debased our modern politics. We should vow to be a little more Melbourne and a little less Macaulay.
For the truth—the irony—is that for all the absolute conviction that so many people bring to the choice in this election, only the intellectually or morally blindfolded could not be consumed by doubts about it.
You don’t have to believe a single word of the media’s hysterical hyperbole about Donald Trump these last four years to think that this president is seriously lacking in the character of the men and women who have made this country the greatest nation on earth.
You don’t have to think he’s Hitler’s heir to be alarmed by his evidently cavalier disregard for small matters like the independence of the judiciary, the proper use of executive power, or the truth.
You don’t have to think he takes personal joy in incarcerating children in cages to worry that his underdeveloped capacity for human empathy has made him especially unfit for the crises of the past year.
You don’t have to believe he’s Bull Connor to worry that his rhetoric and manner have done harm to the nation’s fragile social contract.
Yet for all his faults, for all the legitimate fears stoked by the last four years, it’s not immoral or irrational to think that the incumbent still represents a better alternative to what’s on offer.
This is an improbable but singular success in forging the basis of a new conservatism that has involved an economic record of tax cutting and deregulation that had begun to restore the nation’s self-confidence and dynamism before the virus hit; a recasting of national interest that has made a decisive break with decades of futile international engagement and needless American sacrifice; a rebalancing of the judiciary toward much-needed restraint up to and including the Supreme Court.
It’s about above all recognizing the alternative. Voters after all are not being asked to choose between Donald Trump and Abraham Lincoln.
The alternative today is a candidate who sits vacantly smiling and slightly bewildered atop a party that, in its radical platform, its emerging leaders and its ideological associations, represents a sustained challenge to the shared ideals that have defined the United States through its history.
The Democrats have spent four years falsely accusing their opponents of mounting a coup, but now threaten an assault on many of the pillars of the constitutional order. They’ve spent the last six months conniving at brazen lawlessness and allying themselves with proponents of an ideology that rejects the nation’s values, while compelling allegiance and silencing those who dissent. Their elevation of ideologies of race, gender and other “identity” issues consciously pits Americans against one another in potentially ruinous ways.
So admit it. It’s not a rich choice. On the one hand, a flawed man who may yet do more damage to the nation’s frayed fabric. On the other, a party that seems committed to tearing it up.
Most readers of these pages will have made a reasoned judgment and decided the risks associated with four more years are worth taking given the alternative. But acknowledging the uncertainties associated is not only intellectually and morally mature. It will help us all to learn to live with a result that so many will find unpalatable.
OPINION
FREE EXPRESSION
Trump Is Terribly Flawed, but the Alternative Is Simply Terrible
He may do more damage to the nation’s frayed fabric. But the Democrats seem committed to tearing it up.
By Gerard Baker
November 2, 2020
"I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything," the second Viscount Melbourne is supposed to have said. The weary observation of a Victorian prime minister about an intellectually self-assured political rival and the most famous historian of his age is a good starting point to ponder the state of American politics on Election Day 2020.
We live in an age of Macaulays. Everyone, it seems, is cocksure of his beliefs, absolutely certain about the choice the nation faces this week. American democracy stands at a crossroads. One way lies renewal and recovery, salvation from the forces of darkness, a last-ditch affirmation that the U.S. can be redeemed after all. The other is the one-way path to perdition, an accelerating descent into an abyssal underworld of misrule, repression and corruption.
We should expect this kind of absolutism from ideologues, especially on the left. As Americans choose their leaders for the next four years, radical Democrats and their vocal enablers in the media, academia and leading cultural institutions have never been more certain about anything in their lifetimes of steadily diminishing intellectual curiosity.
Yet on the right too there’s a growing tendency to narrow down a complex choice to simple verities.
It would be nice to think that the world presented us with such simple choices: that the alternatives on offer on the ballot paper—or in life—are clearly labeled “good” and “evil.” But those of us who graduated from kindergarten know that picking one from the other involves discernment and judgment, not revelation.
Conservatives especially should bring a little skepticism to the cartoonish morality tale that has debased our modern politics. We should vow to be a little more Melbourne and a little less Macaulay.
For the truth—the irony—is that for all the absolute conviction that so many people bring to the choice in this election, only the intellectually or morally blindfolded could not be consumed by doubts about it.
You don’t have to believe a single word of the media’s hysterical hyperbole about Donald Trump these last four years to think that this president is seriously lacking in the character of the men and women who have made this country the greatest nation on earth.
You don’t have to think he’s Hitler’s heir to be alarmed by his evidently cavalier disregard for small matters like the independence of the judiciary, the proper use of executive power, or the truth.
You don’t have to think he takes personal joy in incarcerating children in cages to worry that his underdeveloped capacity for human empathy has made him especially unfit for the crises of the past year.
You don’t have to believe he’s Bull Connor to worry that his rhetoric and manner have done harm to the nation’s fragile social contract.
Yet for all his faults, for all the legitimate fears stoked by the last four years, it’s not immoral or irrational to think that the incumbent still represents a better alternative to what’s on offer.
This is an improbable but singular success in forging the basis of a new conservatism that has involved an economic record of tax cutting and deregulation that had begun to restore the nation’s self-confidence and dynamism before the virus hit; a recasting of national interest that has made a decisive break with decades of futile international engagement and needless American sacrifice; a rebalancing of the judiciary toward much-needed restraint up to and including the Supreme Court.
It’s about above all recognizing the alternative. Voters after all are not being asked to choose between Donald Trump and Abraham Lincoln.
The alternative today is a candidate who sits vacantly smiling and slightly bewildered atop a party that, in its radical platform, its emerging leaders and its ideological associations, represents a sustained challenge to the shared ideals that have defined the United States through its history.
The Democrats have spent four years falsely accusing their opponents of mounting a coup, but now threaten an assault on many of the pillars of the constitutional order. They’ve spent the last six months conniving at brazen lawlessness and allying themselves with proponents of an ideology that rejects the nation’s values, while compelling allegiance and silencing those who dissent. Their elevation of ideologies of race, gender and other “identity” issues consciously pits Americans against one another in potentially ruinous ways.
So admit it. It’s not a rich choice. On the one hand, a flawed man who may yet do more damage to the nation’s frayed fabric. On the other, a party that seems committed to tearing it up.
Most readers of these pages will have made a reasoned judgment and decided the risks associated with four more years are worth taking given the alternative. But acknowledging the uncertainties associated is not only intellectually and morally mature. It will help us all to learn to live with a result that so many will find unpalatable.
Thursday, October 29, 2020
I found this at the Wall Street Journal. It's about the airhead Biden chose to be his Vice-President.
Jobless Joe comes bearing job losses instead of gains—and doesn’t seem to work very hard himself. He still can’t see why his choice of a running mate was not a mere exercise of his political instincts. Picking Kamala Harris was a studied insult to the American people. He might have chosen anyone—even a male! Instead, his choice is far to the left of Republicans, moderates and nearly all Democrats. Not even Democrats could work up any enthusiasm for Ms. Harris in the primaries. If Mr. Biden wins, Ms. Harris will be forced down America’s throat. If Mr. Biden dies in office, we will be in big trouble. Mr. Biden’s biggest choice so far could hardly have been worse. What does that portend?
Pennsylvania: the state can decide before Election Day whether election officials can continue receiving absentee ballots for three days after November 3. North Carolina: the state’s board of elections will extend the deadline to nine days after Election Day.
A comment I wrote for the stupid fucking liberal assholes at the New York Times:
"The Democrats are going to make the entire nation wait several days before we know who won. This is one of many reasons why I could never vote for a Democrat."
"The Democrats are going to make the entire nation wait several days before we know who won. This is one of many reasons why I could never vote for a Democrat."
Wednesday, October 28, 2020
The Democrats are stupid fucking assholes. They want to make Americans wait several days after the election before we know who won. These stupid fucking liberal assholes need to be killed.
This bullshit is from the New York Times.
Pennsylvania: The state’s highest court has ruled that election officials should count mailed ballots that arrive up to three days after Election Day. Pennsylvania Republicans are trying to get the Supreme Court to reverse the order, so that only ballots received by Election Day will count.
North Carolina: Republicans and the Trump campaign have asked the Supreme Court to block the state’s board of elections from extending the deadline to receive mail ballots. The board has said ballots can arrive until Nov. 12, as long as they were mailed by Election Day.
Pennsylvania: The state’s highest court has ruled that election officials should count mailed ballots that arrive up to three days after Election Day. Pennsylvania Republicans are trying to get the Supreme Court to reverse the order, so that only ballots received by Election Day will count.
North Carolina: Republicans and the Trump campaign have asked the Supreme Court to block the state’s board of elections from extending the deadline to receive mail ballots. The board has said ballots can arrive until Nov. 12, as long as they were mailed by Election Day.
Tuesday, October 27, 2020
"Saving Private Biden" Wall Street Journal article about fucktard Biden and the liberal press that sucks up to him.
Wall Street Journal
OPINION
MAIN STREET
Saving Private Biden
The press standard for 2020: No tough questions for the former vice president.
By William McGurn
October 26, 2020
In the thick of the 2016 presidential campaign, the front page of the New York Times handed down the word from on high: In the era of Donald Trump, press objectivity was a luxury America could not afford.
It turned out that biased press coverage wasn’t enough to keep Mr. Trump from winning. So for 2020 the press introduced a new corollary: Joe Biden must never be asked a tough question.
In the past the media’s competitive juices, plus a presidential candidate’s interactions with the American people along the campaign trail, would have rendered this impossible. But Covid-19 gave Mr. Biden the excuse to stay in his basement, and the press corps has run interference for Mr. Biden rather than tackle the story.
At the moment, the hard questions Mr. Biden is avoiding are about the lucrative deals his son made with politically connected Chinese and Ukrainian businesses, sometimes while riding alongside his father in Air Force 2. This past week, one of Hunter Biden’s former business partners, Anthony Bobulinski, accused the former vice president of lying when he said he never discussed his son’s overseas business dealings—and the Hunter Biden story became a Joe Biden story.
The elder Mr. Biden dismisses it all as Russian disinformation, though both the director of National Intelligence and the Federal Bureau of Investigation say there’s no evidence for that. Specifically, Mr. Biden has yet to say that the emails are phony and the laptop isn’t his son’s. Then again, he has never had to say that because the media won’t press him on it.
And not only the press. When the New York Post published texts and emails from the laptop, along with an explanation of how they came into the Post’s possession, Twitter and Facebook ran interference by suppressing the story—and the Post—on their platforms. The rationale appears to be that Mr. Biden can’t handle the questions and the American people can’t be trusted to handle the answers.
This see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil approach to Mr. Biden started with Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer who accused the candidate of having sexually harassed her in 1993, when she’d worked for him. When Julie Swetnick asserted in 2018—without any corroboration—that she witnessed Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh participating in gang rapes at high-school parties, the Times ran the story the same day. But when Ms. Reade accused Mr. Biden of sexual assault, the previous believe-the-woman standard was given the heave-ho, and the Times waited 19 days to report it.
Meanwhile, Mr. Biden’s press conferences sometimes become a contest between reporters and the candidate to see who can hate Mr. Trump most. In August, after an anonymously sourced story in the Atlantic accused Mr. Trump of disparaging dead American soldiers from a World War I cemetery, the magazine’s Edward-Isaac Dovere asked Mr. Biden, “When you hear these remarks—‘suckers,’ ‘losers,’ ‘recoiling from amputees,’ what does that tell you about President Trump’s soul and the life he leads?”
Ed O’Keefe of CBS News noted Mr. Biden had said he was trying to restrain himself about Mr. Trump and then served up this hardball: “Aren’t there a lot of people out there who are supporting you or inclined to not vote for the president who would say, ‘Why isn’t Joe Biden angrier about all of this?’ ”
Or what about the Associated Press? In September it revised its stylebook to say reporters should use the term “unrest” instead of “riots” to describe the criminal violence in cities from Portland, Ore., to Kenosha, Wis. The AP now frowns on “looting” as well, urging greater sensitivity because President Trump has used the term.
It’s the job of the press to ask the hard questions and insist on answers, even at the risk of looking obnoxious. It isn’t biased, for example, to ask President Trump why, with polls showing more than half of the American people saying they are better off today than before he was elected, so many will still vote against him because they don’t like his personality and temperament.
But the toughness should apply equally. And no honest observer could say that, for example, of the recent and dueling town halls, where on ABC Mr. Biden had a leisurely chat with George Stephanopoulos while on NBC Savannah Guthrie savaged Mr. Trump. Not to mention the constant calls from reporters for the president to denounce white supremacists while studiously avoiding asking Mr. Biden about his condescending remark that anyone who doesn’t support him can’t be black.
The best summary of the new standard in election coverage was given by Mark Hemingway of RealClearInvestigations. After a particularly fawning news conference, he relayed the assessment of a friend: Watching the press handle Joe Biden is “like watching someone make sure a 3 year old wins Candyland.”
Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Appeared in the October 27, 2020, print edition.
OPINION
MAIN STREET
Saving Private Biden
The press standard for 2020: No tough questions for the former vice president.
By William McGurn
October 26, 2020
In the thick of the 2016 presidential campaign, the front page of the New York Times handed down the word from on high: In the era of Donald Trump, press objectivity was a luxury America could not afford.
It turned out that biased press coverage wasn’t enough to keep Mr. Trump from winning. So for 2020 the press introduced a new corollary: Joe Biden must never be asked a tough question.
In the past the media’s competitive juices, plus a presidential candidate’s interactions with the American people along the campaign trail, would have rendered this impossible. But Covid-19 gave Mr. Biden the excuse to stay in his basement, and the press corps has run interference for Mr. Biden rather than tackle the story.
At the moment, the hard questions Mr. Biden is avoiding are about the lucrative deals his son made with politically connected Chinese and Ukrainian businesses, sometimes while riding alongside his father in Air Force 2. This past week, one of Hunter Biden’s former business partners, Anthony Bobulinski, accused the former vice president of lying when he said he never discussed his son’s overseas business dealings—and the Hunter Biden story became a Joe Biden story.
The elder Mr. Biden dismisses it all as Russian disinformation, though both the director of National Intelligence and the Federal Bureau of Investigation say there’s no evidence for that. Specifically, Mr. Biden has yet to say that the emails are phony and the laptop isn’t his son’s. Then again, he has never had to say that because the media won’t press him on it.
And not only the press. When the New York Post published texts and emails from the laptop, along with an explanation of how they came into the Post’s possession, Twitter and Facebook ran interference by suppressing the story—and the Post—on their platforms. The rationale appears to be that Mr. Biden can’t handle the questions and the American people can’t be trusted to handle the answers.
This see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil approach to Mr. Biden started with Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer who accused the candidate of having sexually harassed her in 1993, when she’d worked for him. When Julie Swetnick asserted in 2018—without any corroboration—that she witnessed Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh participating in gang rapes at high-school parties, the Times ran the story the same day. But when Ms. Reade accused Mr. Biden of sexual assault, the previous believe-the-woman standard was given the heave-ho, and the Times waited 19 days to report it.
Meanwhile, Mr. Biden’s press conferences sometimes become a contest between reporters and the candidate to see who can hate Mr. Trump most. In August, after an anonymously sourced story in the Atlantic accused Mr. Trump of disparaging dead American soldiers from a World War I cemetery, the magazine’s Edward-Isaac Dovere asked Mr. Biden, “When you hear these remarks—‘suckers,’ ‘losers,’ ‘recoiling from amputees,’ what does that tell you about President Trump’s soul and the life he leads?”
Ed O’Keefe of CBS News noted Mr. Biden had said he was trying to restrain himself about Mr. Trump and then served up this hardball: “Aren’t there a lot of people out there who are supporting you or inclined to not vote for the president who would say, ‘Why isn’t Joe Biden angrier about all of this?’ ”
Or what about the Associated Press? In September it revised its stylebook to say reporters should use the term “unrest” instead of “riots” to describe the criminal violence in cities from Portland, Ore., to Kenosha, Wis. The AP now frowns on “looting” as well, urging greater sensitivity because President Trump has used the term.
It’s the job of the press to ask the hard questions and insist on answers, even at the risk of looking obnoxious. It isn’t biased, for example, to ask President Trump why, with polls showing more than half of the American people saying they are better off today than before he was elected, so many will still vote against him because they don’t like his personality and temperament.
But the toughness should apply equally. And no honest observer could say that, for example, of the recent and dueling town halls, where on ABC Mr. Biden had a leisurely chat with George Stephanopoulos while on NBC Savannah Guthrie savaged Mr. Trump. Not to mention the constant calls from reporters for the president to denounce white supremacists while studiously avoiding asking Mr. Biden about his condescending remark that anyone who doesn’t support him can’t be black.
The best summary of the new standard in election coverage was given by Mark Hemingway of RealClearInvestigations. After a particularly fawning news conference, he relayed the assessment of a friend: Watching the press handle Joe Biden is “like watching someone make sure a 3 year old wins Candyland.”
Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Appeared in the October 27, 2020, print edition.
The Washington Post's never-ending war against Trump continues. As usual, the liberal loons are complaining about something nobody cares about.
The Washington Post
 |
| Post investigations, major projects and important reads |
|
|
Friday, October 23, 2020
The liberal fucktards at the Washington Post hate Trump. They will never admit Trump killed Biden last night.
The Washington Post
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)