14th October 2016, 3:29 PM
Yeah, the recent polling has shown a shift in Clinton's favor. A big one, indicating Clinton has an over 90% chance of victory (by a scant few points, but that's where we are). I'm talking about how they connect that to the debates and then say it was X or Y that specifically changed voter's minds with ridiculous speculation about "image" and whether or not Trump's weird sniffing had anything to do with it. There's just not enough to go on to say exactly what changed minds the most, so that speculation is pointless.
You're right, reality has a liberal bias, but I really wish the media would, when they know they've done their due diligence, simply IGNORE claims they are "biased". Those are just going to happen no matter what. Heck, that's basically an extension of what I've been saying about the democrats to begin with. They keep trying to push a little further right and a little further right to dissuade claims that they are evil tyrants who can't cooperate with the republicans, and it didn't do ANYTHING to actually dissuade those people from thinking that, because it doesn't matter WHAT they do, they aren't even paying attention to begin with! "I don't really know what Obama did, but I know it can't be good." That's a sentence I've heard.
And, to be fair, we can fall into the same traps and have to be very wary of doing so at any time. Like with the Bill Clinton stuff, you seem to be on the ball in terms of recognizing the need to properly investigate such claims, but far too many left wingers seem perfectly okay using the most heinous sorts of defense of Bill that they never would extend to Trump (nor should they, since as I said, such excuses have been recognized as the harmful distractions they are). Trump lying is evil, but Clinton lying is "just how politics work". You know, that sort of thing. I'm trying to simultaneously talk about how terrible Trump would be as president and also not excuse a system rife with that sort of behavior just because it's become normal (or really, probably has ALWAYS been normal ever since the time when monarchy reigned back in Europe).
But enough of that. Trump is uniquely unqualified as a candidate, as we've discussed. If Obama invited me to some event, I'd accept. Heck, if George W Bush invited me to an event, I'd accept, and even call him Mr. President. Trump is the ONLY candidate I can think of across my knowledge of American politics where I can say I would NEVER address him as "Mr. President" or show any respect to the office he was ridiculously elected to, and I would probably spit on the invitation and return it just to be sure. Then I'd leave the country before I was arrested... I didn't think this through, but my point is I've never before seen someone this obviously incapable of even knowing what a president actually does. Say what you will about his politics (they were awful! He shut down government oversight on so many industries and shut down the state-run asylums entirely!), but at least with Reagan you knew the guy actually knew how to be a president and how to avoid accidentally starting a nuclear war over his own pride. You can't say the same about Trump. I expect Day 1 of a Trump presidency would be him hearing the phrase "Um, no Mr. President, we can't actually do that, and here's why." over and over again, with Night 1 being a televised "state of the nation" (with a studio audience of his biggest supporters) in which Trump complains about how ineffective the government is because it won't just follow his orders and do what he wants already. At the end of 90 days, he'll have ordered a ship to fire on another country's ship because they jeered at them, and suddenly we're in a war. Also he might at some point choke on some wine, but I'm not sure if that'll be before or after the inevitable impeachment.
You're right, reality has a liberal bias, but I really wish the media would, when they know they've done their due diligence, simply IGNORE claims they are "biased". Those are just going to happen no matter what. Heck, that's basically an extension of what I've been saying about the democrats to begin with. They keep trying to push a little further right and a little further right to dissuade claims that they are evil tyrants who can't cooperate with the republicans, and it didn't do ANYTHING to actually dissuade those people from thinking that, because it doesn't matter WHAT they do, they aren't even paying attention to begin with! "I don't really know what Obama did, but I know it can't be good." That's a sentence I've heard.
And, to be fair, we can fall into the same traps and have to be very wary of doing so at any time. Like with the Bill Clinton stuff, you seem to be on the ball in terms of recognizing the need to properly investigate such claims, but far too many left wingers seem perfectly okay using the most heinous sorts of defense of Bill that they never would extend to Trump (nor should they, since as I said, such excuses have been recognized as the harmful distractions they are). Trump lying is evil, but Clinton lying is "just how politics work". You know, that sort of thing. I'm trying to simultaneously talk about how terrible Trump would be as president and also not excuse a system rife with that sort of behavior just because it's become normal (or really, probably has ALWAYS been normal ever since the time when monarchy reigned back in Europe).
But enough of that. Trump is uniquely unqualified as a candidate, as we've discussed. If Obama invited me to some event, I'd accept. Heck, if George W Bush invited me to an event, I'd accept, and even call him Mr. President. Trump is the ONLY candidate I can think of across my knowledge of American politics where I can say I would NEVER address him as "Mr. President" or show any respect to the office he was ridiculously elected to, and I would probably spit on the invitation and return it just to be sure. Then I'd leave the country before I was arrested... I didn't think this through, but my point is I've never before seen someone this obviously incapable of even knowing what a president actually does. Say what you will about his politics (they were awful! He shut down government oversight on so many industries and shut down the state-run asylums entirely!), but at least with Reagan you knew the guy actually knew how to be a president and how to avoid accidentally starting a nuclear war over his own pride. You can't say the same about Trump. I expect Day 1 of a Trump presidency would be him hearing the phrase "Um, no Mr. President, we can't actually do that, and here's why." over and over again, with Night 1 being a televised "state of the nation" (with a studio audience of his biggest supporters) in which Trump complains about how ineffective the government is because it won't just follow his orders and do what he wants already. At the end of 90 days, he'll have ordered a ship to fire on another country's ship because they jeered at them, and suddenly we're in a war. Also he might at some point choke on some wine, but I'm not sure if that'll be before or after the inevitable impeachment.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)