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.


What does it mean to “rig an election”? Well, when someone uses that expression, we usually think of contaminating the vote at the polls. Is that being done? Probably, but in America the vote is counted by local governments in 50 different states. So except in a close election it is difficult to win an election by rigging the vote.

Nevertheless, Donald Trump has said the election is rigged.  Here is how CNN plays the story.

Donald Trump and his surrogates amplified their argument over the weekend that the election is “rigged,” leaving the Republican nominee more isolated as top members of the GOP — including his own running mate — declared their faith in the political system.
Trump opened Sunday with a series of tweets sowing doubt about the legitimacy of the election.

“The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary – but also at many polling places – SAD”

But Trump’s own vice presidential nominee, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, disagreed during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” saying he will accept the Election Day results.

“We will absolutely accept the result of the election,” he said. “Look, the American people will speak in an election that will culminate on November the 8. But the American people are tired of the obvious bias in the national media. That’s where the sense of a rigged election goes here, Chuck.” (from here)

Are Trump and Mike Pence in disagreement? Listen to what Trump says about 8 minutes and 30 seconds into this video.

Also consider the latest investigation to come out of I heard about this when Mark Levin interviewed James O’Keefe on his show. That discussion starts at about 20 minutes into the recorded version of the 10/17/2016 episode. (Click here to download the show in a different format.). After the interview with Levin, crashed, of course, but they are back up.

Note also that Real Clear Politics is carrying the story here => New O’Keefe Video: Clinton Campaign, DNC Coordinated With Organizations To Incite Violence At Trump Events. has a report documenting efforts by H. Clinton’s campaign and other Democrat operatives to foment violence at Trump rallies.

A second video is supposed to come out tomorrow.

Finally, take the time to investigate some of the stuff coming out of WikiLeaks.



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.