I'll just post this link for now, and maybe comment more later:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/05/understanding_the_medias_role_in_the_rebekah_jones_grift.html
One question: Why didn't the leftist enemy of the people find this info when it was "news", rather than simply run with it like the enemies of the people they are? They are, after all, supposed to be news organizations, right? Journalists? According to one journalism student from Kentucky who isn't very bright, just reporting whatever they're told is their job. It's not to dig deeper to find out what's really true. Too bad how it affects consumers of news.
Trump is still right about the leftist media.
UPDATE:
Yes, Trump was right, and here's one of the few remaining actual journalists who are still Allies of the People who would agree:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/lara-logan-propagandists-political-assassins-have-infected-the-media_3816309.html?utm_source=News&fbclid=IwAR1-lTdUxKgma3Mh08BnxYPJ938O1GvgnKu4vKskL55T2L04djhfq4Yz0iM
About an hour long, but worth the time spent.
8 comments:
Speaking of our wonderful, heroic (if flawed) free press... Marshal, did you see this story:
Historians CONTINUE to rank Trump as amongst the worst presidents ever. In a survey of historians from across the political spectrum, the twice impeached moron president you fancy is STILL reckoned to be amongst the worst.
Because, of course, he is. Reality sucks for those who don't like reality.
https://www.businessinsider.com/historians-rank-trump-among-worst-presidents-us-history-c-span-2021-6
Yes I did see it. I'm no more inclined to think it's of any value than the others you posted. Indeed, it's every bit as worthless as the others and for two obvious reasons:
1. A true ranking must be based not only on the policies of a given president, but on the merits of those policies, much of which can't be accurately measured until some time has past. Anything that has happened beyond a half-second ago is history, but true history requires some significant time to pass. And it seems these ranking surveys go way the hell out of their way to ignore policies and their impact. They're personal popularity contests.
2. They continue to rank Obama not only higher than Trump, but higher than they did last time as if the moron actually accomplished something of any value to the nation. He did less to improve the nation than William Henry Harrison.
The above is what reality looks like. This survey does not reflect reality at all, though it does give low intellect people like yourself quite the tingle in your panties.
Marshal... "The above is what reality looks like. This survey does not reflect reality at all, though it does give low intellect people like yourself quite the tingle in your panties."
1. Marshal THINKS what he says represents reality, in spite of what historians and experts on presidential history say.
2. Marshal THINKS that his opinion is the "smart" one instead of those who study the topic for years and who make it their career. These historians - liberal, mainstream AND conservative - all disagree with Marshal's hunch and Marshal thinks he is better suited to make that call and anyone who disagrees with him and his unscholarly hunches is "low intellect."
3. But based on what? What makes Marshal a more expert opinion on presidential history than the actual experts?
Is there some hubris, some arrogance, some anti-expert opinion going into Marshal's unsubstantiated and unsupported claims?
A reasonable person might say so.
What IS your expertise, Marshal, that makes you able to say on a more authoritative basis that these historians and experts from across the political spectrum are mistaken?
How about 20 or 30 years from now, when Trump has remained at the bottom of expert and mass opinion polls on presidential greatness... will you finally acknowledge THEN that the experts were right and you were blinded by partisanship?
Do you SERIOUSLY think that Trump is going to rise in the polls a decade, two or three hence?
Come on. You can't be that deluded.
"1. Marshal THINKS what he says represents reality, in spite of what historians and experts on presidential history say."
My position is not "in spite" of what historians and your "experts" say. It's compelled by it. No honest person can rate Trump lower than Obama, because Obama didn't do half as much good with twice the time Trump had. That's not opinion. That provable fact.
"2. Marshal THINKS that his opinion is the "smart" one instead of those who study the topic for years and who make it their career. These historians - liberal, mainstream AND conservative - all disagree with Marshal's hunch and Marshal thinks he is better suited to make that call and anyone who disagrees with him and his unscholarly hunches is "low intellect."
Once again, no honest person can rate Trump lower than Obama, because Obama didn't do half as much good with twice the time Trump had. Prove me wrong.
As is true with your other surveys, this one gives no explanation for why any of those surveyed rated any president as they did. Given this one has 10 categories, that would be 440 explanations for each of the 142 who completed the survey (again, why only 142 out of thousands of working historians? Could it be because historians with integrity wouldn't participate in such a survey that includes presidents with the last, say, 25 years, when the full impact of their policies can't truly be known?). That's a lot of 'splainin', Lucy. They even acknowledge that for each category, there could be 142 different interpretations for what a category even means, so without knowing such tings, there's no way to determine f the interpretations of ANY of them are worth a damn. It's all wildly subjective, as ranking proven morons like Obama so highly clearly indicates. Indeed, it can't be any other way given the rather ambiguous category descriptions. For example, how does one measure "moral authority" and how can an asshole who protects the murder of the unborn, enables the sexually immoral, dictates what private citizens must buy, uses the IRS and DOJ to attack his political enemies, including members of the press, be rated 6 out of 44?
But YOU find these nonsensical surveys compelling, not because you've investigated them and affirmed the integrity of any of the participants, nor the intelligence of their opinions, but simply because rank Trump low, and our midnight fantasy Barack Obama highly.
"3. But based on what? What makes Marshal a more expert opinion on presidential history than the actual experts?"
Not "more expert", but more honest, logical and rational given I rank Trump on his results, which were stellar and improved the lives of more people than anything Barely O'Bumf**k could ever pretend to.
"Is there some hubris, some arrogance, some anti-expert opinion going into Marshal's unsubstantiated and unsupported claims?
A reasonable person might say so."
You have no familiarity with reason. You have no way to support that any of the surveys you present are worth a flying rat's ass and certainly no more than fodder for drunken debate. They have no real value for assessing the worth of any president. You simply get a tingle in your shorts over the fact that it ranks Trump poorly, on criteria of questionable significance given their ambiguity, and thus desperately cling to it as validation for your grace-embracing hatred of the president who has been more positively effective and of value to the nation than your favored leftist empty suits who continue to destroy the nation...as we're seeing now.
"What IS your expertise, Marshal, that makes you able to say on a more authoritative basis that these historians and experts from across the political spectrum are mistaken?"
What expertise do you think is necessary to see the obvious? What is your expertise that you believe justifies your presumption to dismiss my response to your survey? You don't even have the honesty, never mind expertise, to judge the value of the survey accurately. (Here's a hint: they have no true value at all). Without details regarding the thought processes of any of the historians, there's no way to assess any of them are among the best historians out there. They're just the 142 out of thousands working today who responded to the request to respond.
But I look at results anyone can see or easily research if they had the Christian honesty to accept the truth. Results and attempts to achieve results which may have been blocked by your Democrat morons. I can see, for example, that the economy was stoked after the implementation of Trump's tax and regulatory policies.
I can see that Middle Eastern nations united in peace with Trump's assistance. While Obama crapped on Israel and bent over to the Palestinian asshats...as too many prior presidents have done...Trump had the brains to tell Middle East nations to ignore their sorry asses, that the Pallies could go scratch if they weren't interested in peace and were not necessary for any of the rest of them to agree to peace. Peace came for Israel and several Arab nations.
Russia, China, N. Korea and Iran all were put on their asses by Trump and they all regarded him with some level of fear and respect as opposed to a doormat like Obama. Trump showed American presidents didn't have to kiss the asses of those who hate us. And he got results doing so.
These and other results are not difficult to see, but are easy to dismiss by those who simply don't want to rank Trump honestly. Indeed, these few points alone justify ranking Trump above the worthless Obama.
"How about 20 or 30 years from now, when Trump has remained at the bottom of expert and mass opinion polls on presidential greatness... will you finally acknowledge THEN that the experts were right and you were blinded by partisanship?"
NO. Because I'm NOT "blinded by partisanship", but can't say the same for you and certainly can't say the same for any of these historians. Indeed, you can't say they're NOT blinded by their own TDS. You just assume they're as pure as the driven snow BECAUSE you can't bear the thought of Trump ranked highly due to your grace-embracing hatred of the man. You couldn't, on your best day if it coincided with my worst, argue Obama was a better president. No one could because he wasn't. He didn't freakin' do anything of note, except that which hurt.
"Do you SERIOUSLY think that Trump is going to rise in the polls a decade, two or three hence?
Come on. You can't be that deluded."
You can't accuse me of delusion without first proving me wrong about Trump in relation to Obama. You aren't even capable of trying and certainly can't actually succeed in proving he should be ranked higher than Trump. I'm concerned only with the track record of Trump...not worthless categories most of these survey's pretend are concrete characteristics which can be tangibly measured. When these surveys get serious about how to rank presidents, I'll given serious consideration to taking them seriously.
re: Obama's record vs Trump's. Listen to the experts. It is entirely fair to note that, for the first three years of his administration, Trump did not cause any significant harm to the positive trends that began in Obama's years. But he was laying the groundwork for a predictable crash. We saw that in spades when the fourth year of Trump began.
On point after point, the economy was in a wreck and the nation struggling in many areas when Obama inherited and he turned it around.
On point after point, the recovering economy that Trump inherited eventually collapsed under his mismanagement.
Listen to the experts.
https://money.com/trump-vs-obama-economy/
Look at the data.
https://bangordailynews.com/2019/08/20/national-politics/here-are-15-charts-that-compare-the-trump-vs-obama-economy/
"As the nation looks down the long road toward recovery, it is important to make clear, as we state, that Donald Trump did not remotely preside over the best economy ever. His principal economic policy—tax cuts aimed at wealthier Americans—simply did not work as promised...
Under Trump, there was only one moderately strong year of growth, in 2018, and that barely surpassed 3 percent. Thus, returning to greatness is not only unlikely under the same policies; Trump never achieved it...
Trump’s tax cuts were the source of his exaggerated claim that he built the economic recovery. His economists promised upwards of 4 percent annual growth—and, as noted, didn’t come close. Meantime, they promised average annual income growth of $4,000 a year per worker. We got about $550 in 2018, the year Trump’s tax cuts were supposed to lead to a surge...
In a time of economic suffering, when it’s likely that the unemployment rate will rise above 25 percent, let’s consider what Trump is not doing. In contrast to his promises, he has not come up with a proposal to invest in infrastructure—a key policy to support future economic growth and better wages, particularly for his so-called favorite of manufacturing. His plans have actually involved cuts to infrastructure spending in the long run."
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/trumps-hollow-economy/?agreed=1
Listening to wise and informed people is not a bad thing, Marshal. Why not embrace that as a goal as we celebrate our actual liberty that only came in our lifetime?
And so, given the wisdom of experts from across the spectrum and across fields and just using basic common sense, I ask you again:
Do you SERIOUSLY think that, in your wildest dreams, it's likely that Trump will be viewed as a positive president 25 years from now? Fifty?
Do you think there is LIKELY a chance that this twice-impeached, wildly dishonest, clearly unintelligent, self-admittedly greedy, overtly perverse one term president and former reality show "star," will be viewed as one of our top half best presidents?
Come on. Really?
Can you at least admit that this is just wishful thinking from a partisan perspective, not any kind of likely reality in the real world?
The man was a cruel joke and he will unfortunately die a sad and lonely and pathetic man and will, in the pits of hell, call out, "Father Abraham, please send that bum, Lazarus, down here to give me a drink of diet coke! He's such a loser!"
It's ironic you have insisted on what sources one can use in order to argue one's position on the Marxism of Critical Race Theory, while here you clearly expect me to respect your completely leftist sources insisting Trump's economy is less than Obama's. I do suggest Moody is not particularly pro-Trump in its comparison, so my original comment is valid, indeed. I have amassed quite a few arguments rebutting your position, some of which I have not yet fully studied (I try not to simply post according to their titles as you seem to do almost always). As some are long and detailed, I want to fully digest them in order to present a cogent and coherent counter.
It's difficult to find objectivity using the common search engines, so clearly leftist in their leanings as they are. Researching your first link results in nothing but dozens upon dozens of articles simply referencing Moody's, with no analysis of their work specifically to be found. Thus, I've had to find article which appear to make Trump/Obama comparisons using similar criteria to see how others do it. Typically, I find salient points absent from the anti-Trump articles you find orgasmic which sheds important light on the issue. I'm headed out of town for a couple of days, so it'll be at least a couple more beyond that to get into it here.
As to your most recent comment above, you still choose to pretend that the "experts" you cite are truly representative of a wide array of political opinion. But that's not as important here if everyone from that wide array hate Trump like you do. Thus, I also have a few pieces which stand as sound responses to the surveys which also provoke a tingle in your lady bits.
Until I can present them properly, you ask:
"Do you SERIOUSLY think that, in your wildest dreams, it's likely that Trump will be viewed as a positive president 25 years from now?"
Sure. It's doesn't even require a wild dream. It only requires the passage of that time and the replacement of Trump-hating historians with those who review history in a coldly objective and impersonal manner. Indeed, it's more likely with the greater passage of time.
Your next question is typically absurd for its wanton dishonesty and hatred. There was no justification for impeaching Trump once, much less twice. That was nothing more than partisan Trump-hatred and what we honest people refer to as "a total f**king joke". A complete embarrassment and another stain on the character of the Democratic Party and the few Republicans who joined the effort. You have yet to provide an example of Trump dishonesty which is worse than that and no lie that is truly a lie by definition, nor of any significance to anything...unlike the many lies of the Democratic Party, including those obvious in their platform. Indeed, calling him "clearly" unintelligent is a far more egregious lie about him than any you've ever produced from him. And as he doesn't promote homosexuality as morally benign (as you do), celebrating and enabling it (as you do), nor support the murder of the unborn (as you do), it's laughable to regard him as "overtly perverse" without also indicting yourself for your own beliefs.
So stay tuned, Skippy. No one is more of a cruel joke than you, but at least you have me to help with your edification, if only you had the honor and integrity to rise above your hatred and perversion.
Post a Comment