confusedWell, here is the last post in this series on quotes out of context.  I would like to say I entirely understand the response I got, but I don’t. The best I can do is make some observations.

Most of the opposition’s comments in this series landed on the first post in the series. Why? Well, here are my guesses.

  • The post was a straightforward defense of Donald Trump.  There was no mention of H. Clinton. So H. Clinton’s supporters could attack Trump’s supposed narcissism without much fear they would have to defend H. Clinton.
  • The topic is fuzzy. Everyone knows Trump supporters would not stand by him if he started shooting people in the street, but it sounds awful to gun control freaks. Apparently, since sensitive souls can’t take such talk we must condemn it. Still, I wonder how such sensitive souls survive all the violence in the mass media.

Anyway, I would like to thank the commenters.

silenceofmind took the time to remind us that the news media’s bias has become dangerous to our republic.  He also pointed out that “one of THE Donald’s attributes that is so attractive is that he is completely unsullied by political correctness”.

novaDemocrat (AKA novascout) fomented confusion.  He described Trump’s utterance as useless braggadocio, even going so far as to say that people understood what Trump meant when they first heard the remark out of context. Shrug! He is entitled to his opinion.

Stephen thought Trump’s hyperbole imprudent.

But Prudence would dictate that you should not make such violent, hyperbolic statements to begin with.

Here is a list of examples of hyperbole. Here is an explanation of hyperbole as a literary device. People use hyperbole because exaggeration sometimes serves a purpose. If we let the news media deliberately misrepresent what people say to us, at some point we must blame ourselves for wilful ignorance.

Tony only made one comment (here), but it was a doozy. Here we get an elaborate explanation of how we choose our leaders the same way we choose our favorite soda pop and a hateful string of unsupported accusations against Trump. That comment simply disregarded the fact of news media bias.

One last observation, really a question. Has Trump manipulated the news media, or has the news media manipulated Trump? I don’t know.  There is little doubt that Trump’s willingness to express himself frankly and colorfully attracts media attention. However, frank, colorful statements are also easily distorted. So there is a trade-off.

The trade-off worked for Trump in the primaries. Will it work for him in the general election. Arguably, the news media wanted Trump to win the primaries. Given, for example, how a certain ten-year old video was held until October, that is sort of obvious. Nevertheless, Trump had to be aware the media would turn on him after the primaries.  So everything he said would eventually be used against him, and it has been. So how did he plan on dealing with it? Did he have a plan? I don’t know.

What about our plan? As voters, we want the best candidate to lead our country? However, we all have out own opinions about what that best candidate should look like.  That’s is why we have to vote, but voting doesn’t solve the problem of choosing the best candidate. We still have to learn about the candidates, and we still have to give the needs of our country some thought. That requires homework.

If we don’t do any homework, the news media will just tell us what to think. Everyone is biased, and that especially includes so-called objective journalists.  Therefore, if we want to learn about the candidates, we have to take the time to listen to them. That includes checking out their websites and listening to some of their campaign speeches. Otherwise, instead of voting based upon our own biases, we will be voting based upon the biases of our favorite talking heads.

Anyway, my future posts will focus on the issues.  Which of the candidates is more qualified? Which of the candidates has the best agenda.

BTW, here are the second and third posts.


The two big October surprises are Donald Trump’s supposed groping of women and Hillary Clinton’s wikileaks. Thus far Trump’s groping has gotten far more attention from the major media. How has the news media tried to portray the issue?

Do Republicans like teleprompters? We have not been teasing Obama about his teleprompters for years? I think we can skip that one. So what about Trump the victim? The video below is the one cited by CNN in the articles above. Keep in mind that Trump had other things to say besides what he said about the groping charges, but Trump response to the accusations is all CNN wanted to focus upon.

Trump’s calm response to the accusations begins 12 minutes into the video below. However, since the new media is not going to tell us anything, we may as well all listen to the whole thing.

Consider this example of how CNN has tried to put the issue into perspective.

When Harper started talking about diversion, I just wondered how he could say such a thing with a straight face. H. Clinton does not lie about just about everything.

When Sciolaro said God can use Trump, that did not compute for Harper and Baldwin. When Sciolaro started talking about and his wife being one, that just went over the Harper’s and Baldwin’s heads. Sexism? Really? Bill and Hillary are not one? It is funny, but I don’t think their fellow Democrats give their marriage as less credit than Conservatives.

Anyway, even though I have no idea just who Vicki Sciolaro might be, I can say one thing for certain. She is one of my fellow “deplorables.”


The news media spend lots of time telling us who we should vote for.  Currently they are telling us to vote for H. Clinton. Can we trust the news media to tell us the truth? No.  Most of the major news media organizations are owned by big corporations. Large companies have an interest in big government. Why?

  • They can afford to “buy” legislators with campaign donations and favorable media. Their bought legislators give them competitive advantages through regulations and tax laws (Tariffs against foreign competition is a biggie.).
  • Big corporations have an edge in getting government contracts.  When the government spends $6 trillion a year, that’s a significant part of their income.

So the mass media has an economic incentive in being biased towards big government. Since H. Clinton is the big government candidate, most of the news media trashes Donald Trump. Here is another simple example of how they do it. Supposedly Trump is preposterously arrogant. Here was The Hill‘s title on a January 23rd article, “Trump: I could shoot people in streets and not lose support“. What did Trump say?

Lauding his fans’ loyalty at a campaign event in Sioux Center, Iowa, on Saturday, Trump said he could kill people and still be popular.

“I have the most loyal people, did you ever see that? I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot people and I wouldn’t lose voters,” he said.

Sounds awful! So CNN added to the mischief in its version of the story, Trump: I could ‘shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters’, by using the story to pit Ted Cruz against Donald Trump. Worked, I am sad to say.

The Daily Caller, on the other hand, at least provided a video in its report, Trump Says That He Could Shoot Somebody And ‘Wouldn’t Lose Any Voters’ [VIDEO], that puts that quote in context. After listening to the quote in context, it is obvious that Trump intended nothing more than a bit of hyperbole.

Want to see the whole speech? The video below provides that. The part of speech where that quote appears begins at 1:24 minutes into the video.



vote for americaI just finished watching Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have a go at it in their second and last debate.  Trump began the debate obviously nervous and angry. H. Clinton started off smugly composed.

Consider what had just happened. Before the start of this second debate, the news media released that abominable, ten-year old video. Why now? Of course, the release of that video was designed to shake Trump up just before the debate and to maximize the “news value”.

Obviously, Wikileaks had similar notions when it released transcripts Hillary Clinton’s private speeches.

Trump, however, had the much greater problem. The news media doesn’t much care if H. Clinton lies to the voters, however, the fact that Trump engaged in locker room talk ten years ago was major news.  So a bunch of chickens in the GOP establishment deserted Trump, and the moderators just had to get to that question.

Thus, the debate began just about as ugly as it could get, which, of course is what both the news media and H. Clinton apparently wanted. Eventually, however, the town hall format forced the debaters to focus on issues. Trump then cooled and composed himself, and H. Clinton grew strangely more anxious. Now why would that be the case? That is something to think about.

Here is one more thing to think about. Why do we have such an awful choice of presidential candidates? Why all the name calling in the debate? The answer is not complex. Instead of voting for what is good for our country, too many of us have voted for what we think is good for us personally. Instead of voting for the best among us, we have voted for those candidates willing to make the most extravagant promises with “other people’s money”.

Because they involve extravagant promises with “other people’s money”, Hillary Clinton’s promises are simply empty talk. She cannot deliver what she promises; it is not possible. All she can do is redistribute the wealth, and redistributing the wealth eventually kills an economy. That’s why our economy is already stagnant.

Trump has a slightly different appeal. He promises to make America great again. Implicit within that promise is the understanding he will stop trying to redistribute more and more of our wealth. He will let us get back to work so we can make America great again.

In truth, only God can make America great again, but God isn’t likely to help us if we keep trying to use our government to rob each other.