How do new mommies keep baby happy? Well, we fill baby's world with happy things so they don't get sad and fussy. We don't want them to look like this.
We want them to look like this
It's the same thing for our president. His staff has learned that if they only show him praise from the media, he won't have a tantrum on Twitter. In fact, they go out of their way to steer him clear of all that bad, poopy headed stuff and only let him see the happy things.
I for one am so comforted that our president, like most right wing bloggers and commenters, fills his world with light and not darkness:)
The Obama administration effectively threw cold water on the idea that the Russians were involved in hacking voting machines in the 2016 election.
In its statement, the administration said, “The Kremlin probably expected that publicity surrounding the disclosures that followed the Russian government-directed compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations, would raise questions about the integrity of the election process that could have undermined the legitimacy of the president-elect.”
I think it's a good idea to do a recount in the states where the margin was so close but at this point, I do not think the election was rigged or hacked. Donald Trump won the electoral college.
Of course, the fact that he lost the popular vote by over 2,000,000 votes is a whole other story. At what point does the electoral college become absurd?
As this election season enters its final phase, it's become painfully obvious there is a double standard in terms of candidate bashing. This piece from Olivia Taylor-Young sums it up quite nicely.
1) The most benign, run-of-the-mill stuff is automatic cause for suspicion. 2) Bad faith must always be presumed. 3) Regardless of source, every vicious, outlandish accusation warrants headlines and intense investigation.
This is, of course, what happens when you deal with a group of people (conservatives) who behave as adolescents. And a media that gets very high ratings when Clinton scandals are front and center.
Certainly, Trump has been the target of media bashing as well. But the story that sells the best with him is the "Trump is a crazy asshole" meme, not "Trump is crooked and broke the law." Today, I'm wondering why and calling bullshit.
Let's take this step by step. Remember this?
This was just one in a series of comments in which Trump bragged that he paid to play, something he is now pillorying Hillary Clinton for doing. The New York Times has an extensive article up today about how Trump has clearly violated campaign law.
In the 1990s, the Federal Election Commission fined Mr. Trump for exceeding the annual limit on campaign contributions by $47,050, the largest violation in a single year. And in 2000, the New York State lobbying commission imposed a $250,000 fine for Mr. Trump’s failing to disclose the full extent of his lobbying of state legislators.
For the most part, Mr. Trump has seemed unrepentant. Testifying in 1988 about a $50,000 bank loan he had first guaranteed, and then repaid, on behalf of Andrew J. Stein’s successful campaign for New York City Council president, Mr. Trump made no bones about the move.
“I was under the impression that I was getting my money back,” he told the New York State Commission on Government Integrity.
Imagine if this were Hillary Clinton. There would be calls for jail time, public floggings and a town hanging. But for Trump? He's just a businessman...that's what they do...and now he's calling attention to a broken system.
Except not really.
In the Florida case, Mr. Trump is accused of using a large and timely political donation in 2013 to ward off a potentially thorny investigation by Ms. Bondi’s office: Days before the donation was made, The Orlando Sentinel reported that the New York State attorney general’s office had sued Trump University and noted that Ms. Bondi’s office was weighing whether to join in that litigation.
A political aide to Ms. Bondi told The Associated Press earlier this year that the attorney general had solicited the donation in a conversation with Mr. Trump weeks before The Sentinel’s article. But Mr. Trump made the donation from his charitable foundation, in violation of tax regulations, and paid the penalty, as first reported by The Washington Post last week.
So, here we have Donald Trump behaving like...a politician? That really does not fit with his image as an outsider who wants to change politics as usual. Worse, and unlike the Hilz, there is clear evidence that violated the law.
The question now is...will all of the media cover this because it's not a "Crazy Donald" story?
Hillary Clinton gave an interview on Fox News on Sunday in which she once again apologized and admitted fault for using a personal email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. The media went ballistic today (natch) over her "lying" about classified material being sent on this server. It's been explained so many times now that I really don't get why everyone is still talking about her emails.
What they should be talking about is the real scandal. Hillary Clinton doesn't understand basic technology and clearly has trouble on the line with the computer machine. Sure, it's not as sexy as her lying and going to jail (nothing gives a conservative a boner like imagining a Clinton in jail), but it is a fact. She set up the private server because she didn't have the multi-tasking capability to toggle between two different emails on her Blackberry. When she was asked about her hard drive being scrubbed, she said, "What do you mean, with a cloth?" She seemed to not understand reading the code on three emails that had a "c" classification.
All of this tells me that she doesn't understand something the leader of the free world should get. I have several emails accounts on my phone along with a variety of apps that I use all the time. Granted, I may be a bit ahead of the game in terms of tech but the president should have basic level knowledge of this stuff.
I highly doubt the media, particularly the conservative media, will go after on this but they should. It's a valid criticism and it should be concerning to voters.
First, the former secretary of State did nothing illegal by having a private email system. The department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) pointed to “policies” that were violated but cited no laws that were violated and said these policies were inconsistently applied and need to be further clarified in the future. Second, Clinton was not trying to hide her use of her own private email address. In fact, 90 percent of all the emails she sent went to State Department employees with a state.gov email address, which she thought, mistakenly, would be automatically preserved on the department’s email server. How could she be seeking to hide her use of a private email address if she sent her private email to so many people at State?
Third, no email received or sent by Clinton was labeled at any level of classification. Multiple references in the media and in the right-wing blogosphere to Clinton emails containing “classified” information all refer to post-facto opinions — what could be accurately called classification by hindsight. State Department experts disagreed with many of those opinions. Fourth, according to the OIG, there is no evidence that Clinton’s private server was ever successfully hacked. In other words, all the dire and dark warnings from partisan Republicans about the secretary of State risking the nation’s security by using a private server are, in fact, all speculation — based on no facts whatsoever. Fifth, as pointed out by the inspector general, there was ample precedent for the use of private emails for official and private business, from Colin Powell to senior aides for Condoleezza Rice.
If you head hurts, that's the ol' cognitive dissonance happening.
The second one is my favorite because it shows how silly the Hillary mouth foamers are. Email goes two ways, right? So..um...that means that there are always copies out there FROM THE PEOPLE WHO SHE SENT EMAILS TO!!!
