[Unz Review] It is not hard to think of reasons why Hillary Clinton should not be President. Yesterday Wikileaks founder Julian Assange cited one of the best: Libya.
In an interview with John Pilger, a noted Australian-born documentary maker and veteran critic of American military adventurism, he commented: "Libya more that anyone else’s war was Hillary Clinton’s war. Barack Obama initially opposed it. Who was the person who was championing it? Hillary Clinton. That’s documented throughout her emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails out of the 33,000 of Hillary Clinton’s emails we published just about Libya.
"She perceived the removal of Gaddafi and the overthrow of the Libyan state as something that she would use to run in the general election for president. So late 2011, there’s an internal document called the ’Libya Tick Tock’ that is produced for Hillary Clinton, and... it’s a chronological description of how Hillary Clinton was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state."
Things did not quite follow the script, however. For a start, U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and several other U.S. citizens were massacred when U.S. facilities in Benghazi were ransacked. The attacks were facilitated by security lapses for which Clinton was forced to take responsibility. Con't.
[Unz Review] Did Donald Trump unite the American Silent Majority behind things true and shared?
These are economic prosperity, national pride and unity, recognizable neighborhoods--a yen that demands an end to the transformation of neighborhoods through centrally planned, mass immigration--and an end to gratuitous wars.
Those were the questions asked in "The Trump Revolution The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed" (June 29, 2016), and answered in the affirmative.
Unlike America’s self-anointed cognoscenti, some of us saw this coming. The former recognize truth only once card-carrying members arrive at it independently, grasp and broadcast it, sometimes years too late. Not so America’s marginalized writers. Not in 2012, but in 2002 did we pinpoint the wrongness of the Iraq War. And not in 2016, but in July of 2015 did some of us, not fortuitously, finger Trump as "a candidate to ’kick the crap out of all the politicians’" and "send the system’s sycophants scattering" (August 14, 2015). His appeal, as this writer has contended since late in 2015, transcended left and right.
Conversely, vaunted statistician Nate Silver "calculated, last November, that Trump’s support was ’about the same share of people who think the Apollo moon landings were faked.’" (Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University properly downgraded wonder boy Silver’s intellectual prowess. His prose, wrote the good teacher, was a sprawl that "evinces a greater affiliation to rigor with data analysis than to rigor with philosophy of science or, for that matter, rigor with rhetoric.")
Given the disparate groups that rooted for Mr. Trump’s candidacy, it would appear that he did in fact awaken a historic majority. You could say Mr. Trump was an "omnibus candidate," a concept floated by historian David Hackett Fischer. An omnibus campaign is one that appeals in all cultural regions. Back in the 1840 and 1848 elections, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, respectively, proved to be "omnibus candidates," popular across cultural regions. In his ability to run strongly in almost every cultural region, Trump is the closest the country has come in a long time to an "omnibus candidate."
President-elect Trump answered the many prayers of very many people. Con't.
#2
It was the Dems who tried to drive wedges between various groups by saying such things as "bitter clingers" and "basket of deplorables/irredeemables." That tends to piss people off.
Nudderwords, he's gonna keep doing what he's been doing and expect different results.
[WASHINGTONEXAMINER] Frankly, I had no problem with unbalanced coverage during the 2016 cycle. Our job first and foremost is to educate the public and help them make informed decisions. Trump was and is a dangerous man ideologically, and so many in the media abandoned any concerns about bias in order to portray him as the threat he is.
All of this culminated on Election Day, where despite the media's best efforts, Trump emerged victorious. A lot of people vilified the media, saying they missed the Trump phenomenon or didn't act soon enough to stop him.
So where does this leave journalism? In a world where cold hard facts and truths were rejected by a plurality of Americans, and many Americans actively detest journalists, what role does the media have in our electoral process and society on the lam?
But then I remembered the now-famous words of Michelle Obama: "When they go low, we go high."
America went low, so in response, journalists need to let their aspirations to objectivity go. We need to recognize that our role has fundamentally, permanently changed. We failed over the last two years to educate the electorate largely because we were afraid of disobeying our "fair and balanced" oath.
Boy howdy, we watched youse guys struggle with that fear of being unbalanced the entire campaign...
American press did neither candidate any favors. They should have been much harder on Hillary and more objective on Trump. Instead of doing their jobs, they took dictation from the left and hammered the right. And they hammered Trump much the way they were hammering white voters. It is hard even for dumb white guys not to notice, but easy to remedy at the voting booth. It is being said that now that a Republican is in the White House, journalists will go back to reporting the news and publishing facts. But with this crowd of stenographers, I doubt they would know an objective fact if it was spray painted on their desks.
Have you read how military news is reported these days? Can they tell an armored personnel carrier from a tank? An air superiority aircraft from a ground interdiction aircraft? They ignore what they are told to ignore in exchange for access. It is hard to break a bad habit like that, but I have every faith they won't, even unto their very demise.
Adapt or die, Darwin says.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/14/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
And then when it looked like he had a legitimate shot at the presidency, many of us did everything in our power to warn the American people to reject his message.
More blather from the echo chamber of the MSM. Spare me, you had your chance. What gives you the right to try to destroy a candidate at every turn--to the extent of making up stories? What gives you the right to elevate another candidate and hide all their flaws. You never vetted Obama, you never vetted Hillary. Your job is to report fairly on a candidate and let people decide whether or not they want to vote for that candidate. I've never seen such a pile-on. The NYTs says they are trying to atone, but who believes them? So I say to you "GF-Yourselves." Enjoy the grave you have dug for yourselves.
#5
The current big media goal is to establish 'professional media' as a government backed and protected position. Kinda like working for the IRS. Everyone else is fair game.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
11/14/2016 7:23 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I had no problem with unbalanced coverage during the 2016 cycle. Our job first and foremost is to educate the public and help them make informed decisions.
No, you've taken upon yourself to bury, distort, fabricate, and promote lies and hate. There is no 'informed' in these deeds. If the 'media' were held to the same quality and purity standards demanded of manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, food distributors, et al, you would have been put out of business long ago.
#7
Trump was and is a dangerous man ideologically,
And who died and made you God?
The arrogance of these people is truly mind blowing. They think that their judgements are infallible and they can pronounce on any person's worth at will.
#9
I don't trust Trump. I didn't/don't trust Clinton either. Or any politician (for that matter, I'm kind of in the Fox Muldur 'trust no one' camp.)
The media would never have tried to shine a light on Clinton, but I am confident they will on Trump. I guess I prefer they be right half the time to never being right.
They never explain how they reach these conclusions, they just keep repeating them as if that will make them true. It doesn't and Trump won the election because people are beginning to figure it out.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/14/2016 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#11
My opinion is the MSM is even more dangerous than the Bush/Clinton/Obama elites because they no longer compete with each other. Instead these so called journalists appear to have some mechanism, some list of talking points that they all use to present the same stories with the same spin each and every night. It's like Orwell's Ministry of Truth. That's way in the heck scarier than any politician. That's extremely dangerous. If a politician gets out of line you should expect the media to all start digging and trying to scoop (that's a word you never hear anymore) each other with the latest and most illuminating details on the scandal. Instead these treasonous bastards all agree to bury the scandals that involve their pet politicians and hammer away at little transgression committed by the likes of Trump. Truly chilling.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/14/2016 13:20 Comments ||
Top||
#12
This fuck is the elitist I vote against when I voted Trump. How dare he say or imply he should educate us into what to think. He is THE problem. Journalists are hated because they are condescending and elitist. The only person Trump's ideology is dangerous toward are those that don't believe in American exceptionalism and the elite. They still don't get it. I wonder if they ever will.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/14/2016 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#13
America knows Hillary is a crook, and the majority took the moral high ground and rejected her.
Posted by: regular joe ||
11/14/2016 15:46 Comments ||
Top||
#14
What's changed?
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/14/2016 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Where'd this guy come from? Doesn't really sound like the Examiner. Lines crossed with Huffpost?
#16
so called journalists appear to have some mechanism, some list of talking points that they all use to present the same stories with the same spin each and every night.
It's because it's so. Media Matters for America is funded by George Soros and a number of interlocking progressive organizations. John Podesta (Hillary's 2016 campaign chairman) has been very active in creating many of these progressive organizations.
[DAWN] SHARBAT Gula became the world’s most famous refugee after a photograph of her appeared on the cover of a 1985 issue of the National Geographic. She made headlines again recently when she was jugged You have the right to remain silent... by the FIA for living in Pakistain illegally on forged papers. She was charged under Section 14 of the Foreigner’s Act and for violating the Pakistain Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Nadra Ordinance. She was slapped with a fine of Rs110,000 and was ’fortunate’ enough to be jugged Book 'im, Mahmoud! for only 15 days and not for years, as provided for under the law.
What is highly disconcerting, however, is that she was deported as soon as she was released. Sharbat Gula suffers from hepatitis C. She is also a widow and a mother of four children; she deserved to remain in Pakistain on health and humanitarian grounds.
Desperation, abject poverty and the lack of better opportunities have driven many Afghan refugees to take residence in Pakistain illegally. In other words, they have no other choice, and it goes against the core norms of international human rights ...which are often intentionally defined so widely as to be meaningless... for Pakistain to punish these individuals for violating its immigration laws. Amnesia Amnesty International also recently voiced this sentiment in a blurb that further tarnished Pakistain’s reputation for its recent treatment of refugees.
Following the APS attacks, Pakistain has hardened its stance on Afghan refugees. Scores have been subjected to harassment and torture in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. These conventions, which Pakistain has ratified, make no distinctions between the treatment of citizens, refugees or those who are illegally present in a country.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/14/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
See, you can learn something even from Pakistan.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Unz Review] It is not hard to think of reasons why Hillary Clinton should not be President. Yesterday Wikileaks founder Julian Assange cited one of the best: Libya.
