Neither Intelligence Nor Journalism

One can now see how deep liberal acceptance of alternative lifestyles really goes and for the LGBTQIAPKMOUSE endorsement seeking crowd, it's apparently pretty shallow.  You'd think they'd be overjoyed that they've got a Golden Shower loving President in the Oval Office, I mean isn't it one of those letters already, the G... or no, maybe it's the P, I don't know... I'm so confused.

You've got to love journalistic integrity when an article opens with:

"The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors."

Followed by:

"The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations"

Let's not let truth get in the way of a good story eh? A story that apparently many mainstream news outlets chose not to run with, including the New York Times, probably because it was just too damn legally risky.  Even CNN hedged its bets when it published its story that there was this document out there with some you know, really bad unverified stuff in it, that we can't tell you about lest we get sued, but well you know, we wanted to let you know it was out there anyway.

Let's face some facts here... nothing in the dossier is actionable intelligence, none of is corroborated, and the few things so far that seem readily verifiable such as the Prague Meeting have been deemed false, not only by those journalists that bothered to look into it by also by the FBI. An anonymous source, allegedly  Christoper David Steele, Director of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd. (yeah two can play a that game), provides anonymous intelligence to a paying client looking for dirt.  Well I suppose he has to provide them something otherwise he wouldn't get paid, would he? I've read the full document and with a passing familiarity for what passes for modern intelligence, can say I can understand why he's an "ex" intelligence agent as it is sloppy and full of errors.

Journalism?  Here are a few points from media helping media about the importance of fact checking. 

Are you preventing thorough fact checking? Are you investigating the situation because you have a desired outcome in mind? Are you trying to make the facts fit a headline you have already prepared in your head? If so, you may have compromised your objectivity which will make it difficult to produce a piece of journalism that is strictly factual.

The Two reliable sources rule. Most media organizations have a rule that all facts should be confirmed by two reliable sources. Often the wires will be counted as one source. The journalist then has to find another source that is willing to go on record to verify the information.

Who can a journalist trust? Well, the truth is, nobody. A journalist must never accept what they are told without scrutinizing the information. Journalists should take a skeptical view of every piece of information shared with them. They should not blindly trust contacts – even if those contacts have proved reliable in the past.

Which is probably why the NYT didn't publish it, or the other legitimate news outlets that it was shopped to.  The question is then why did those who did publish it, do so?

Me I tend to believe Trump when he says he previously cautioned other people that you're never alone in Mother Russia.  It's pretty much taken as fact and given as a warning to government personnel traveling to more countries than just Russia.  

What do you think?








 

Trump will Win!

Photo: David Shankbone

Michael Moore thinks there is a large number of unrecognized Trump supporters out there that will push him over the top against Hillary Clinton.

Many middle- to lower-income people are going to support the former reality TV star because at least he uses language directly pertinent to issues that have affected their lives, Moore argued.

Salon

Debate or Debacle?

Did you watch it?  What did you think?

My honest opinion?  Between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, no matter who wins, we lose. 

What was the outcome? I think The Onion captured it best in their headline:

Open-Minded Voter Waits Almost 5 Minutes Into Debate To Decide Who Won 

I think Clinton stuck to her script and it was noticeable, her performance seemed well-rehearsed which I don't necessarily think is a good thing.  I think Trump also missed a lot of wide open opportunities to score points, but I also think he stayed on message and think he has more of a chance of changing peoples minds about him than Clinton does, whether he accomplished that for the better, I don't know.

Listening to Trump's law and order speech shortly into the debate made me think of Pappy O'Daniel in O Brother Where Art Thou.

Hillary Clinton was exactly as I expected her to be... I think I'll go take a shower now. 

 

CNN

Photo: Michael Vadon

TRUMP +2 according to CNN

RCP Election Map: Clinton 229 - Trump 154, 155 up for grabs
 

Desperately Grasping at Straws

Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment, And by the way, if – if she gets to pick her judges, [there's] nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second Amendment people – maybe there is. I don't know. But I tell you what: That would be a horrible day if – if Hillary gets to put her judges in.

The Progs are so neurotic and obsessed with guns that the above quote was taken as an assassination threat. I have only two words for you:

GET REAL. 

It's Official!

Photo: Michael Vadon

How about a little celebratory music?

I kid you not, when I first clicked on this piece of music on Youtube the advertisement that I got was a Trump-Pence ad.

Is Trump Right

About Judge Gonzalo Curiel?

Can a Judge, at least a former member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a group associated with, if not affiliated with, The National Council of La Raza, preside in a fair and unbiased manner over a lawsuit involving the man who wants to build the Great Wall of America?

Would you liberals have been comfortable if the judge presiding over the Ferguson case had been a former member of the Missouri WASP Bar Association?  Or would you have claimed bias? 

Is La Raza a racist organization?

“I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride. Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ‘la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won’t stop there. Today it’s anti-gringo, tomorrow it will be anti-Negro."  ~  César Chávez

Seriously, liberals, what would you think of a white organization named "The Race"?

Do I think that Gonzalo Curiel is biased against Donald Trump because he wants to build a wall? I don't know him, but probably not, Trump's complaints about Curiel (and in NY, AG Schneiderman) go back to the beginnings of these cases.  Still, there can be no question of impartiality on the part of the Judge and I think it best that he recuse himself, just as I would think it best if the Judge in the Ferguson trial recuse himself if he was a former member of the Sons of the Confederacy.    

Donald Trump

Photo: Michael Vadon

The Middle Finger of America's Right Hand

Norman Lear

A multi-billionaire whose core support is blue-collar, a man seemingly immune to foot in mouth disease, dangerous demagogue or divine redemption? Accused of being everything from the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler to a False Flag Op from the Hillary Clinton campaign he continually comes out on top.

Now in the interest of full disclosure, I don't like Donald Trump the Candidate, frankly I think he's the Republican version of Barrack Obama, good with a sound-bite and zero relevant experience.  I also think he's dangerous (politically)... liberals may wander in and pooh pooh this at their leisure (and own risk) but when he stops trying to woo right wing republicans and turns his talents (or staff) to the general electorate, I think he may pose a serious threat to the Democrats blue-collar base the way Reagan did to Carter.

Curiously I find more outright support for Donald Trump among the Democrats I know than Republicans. He's not Republicans first choice, he may be their second or third, most seem interested in Cruz or Rubio, with a sprinkling of Carson fans, but he is certainly a better alternative to them than either Clinton or Sanders. Now these aren't Che Guevara Democrats or even blog wandering Democrats, most are second or third generation old familial Democrats and most are all aboard with Donald Trump.  They don't see him as a politician, most don't even really see him as a "Republican", but they like that he is beholden to no one, and for the most part they like what he has to say in simple concrete terms.

I'm curious as to what your experience is... who do you see supporting Donald Trump? Do you think he can steal votes from the Democrats in a general election?  

  

Uncivil Liberties

Loring Wirbel, a boardmember of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado had the following to say:

“The thing is, we have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump and say, ‘This is Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before Election Day.’ They’re not going to listen to reason, so when justice is gone, there’s always force…”

He is from Colorado Springs and the CSPD says they're not going to investigate... his post is covered by free speech.  Of course if he was a conservative those would be "terroristic threats".

CBS Denver


"It was intended totally as a joke," Wirbel said. "They are taking that stuff out of context. It's smear politics."

CS Gazette

Just keep digging...

“But see, most people don’t even know what reason is. They don’t use anything other than the lower brain,” Wirbel wrote, “and would no more make decisions based on logical conclusions than choose milk based on a theme song. The base of the Republican Party is unfamiliar with a cortex.”

The Blaze

KRDO

In separate posts, the ACLU board member wrote that Trump is engaging in “extreme fear-mongering,” adding he’s a “hate-speech felon who should be in prison.”  Hmmm... I don't recall Trump threatening to shoot people.

Mediaite

 

The Outsiders

Photo: Michael Vadon

Photo: Gage Skidmore

Currently the top two contenders in the Republican Party primary race are outsiders.  From CBS to ABC, Monmouth to Quinnipiac they are the only ones with poll numbers in the double digits.

An RCP Average of the polls give Trump 29.8 and Carson 17.8, a significant margin over the next closest runner up Bush III at 7.8.  Together the two outsiders muster 47.6% of the support of Republicans, throw in another party outsider (Carly Fiorina) and you're over 51%.

This is a powerful message from Republican voters, do you think the Republican Party is going to hear it? Do you think it means anything?  Do you think it bodes well or ill?

Playing Trump

Photo: Michael Vadon

THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE*

Despite or perhaps because of coming off as a braying jackass, Donald Trump has surged to the lead in the polls.  The little tiff between Trump and McCain started when McCain stated that Donald Trump was bringing out the crazies in the GOP, if that's the case so be it, he's bringing out 26% far surpassing any other GOP hopeful. In fact, gaffes that would have brought other contenders to their knees seem to add fuel to the Trump fire.

The question is why?

My opinion is that the electorate is sick and tired of politicians and Donald Trump doesn't talk like a politician.  He gets more credit for speaking his mind like Joe at the bar than he gets negativity for speaking politically incorrectly.  In many ways he's the Republican answer to the populism of Barrack Obama, I keep half expecting to come across a commercial on TNT "Next on Reality TV... the Trump Campaign" 

What do you think is the basis of Donald Trump's popularity?

*There Can Only Be One is an off-handed reference to the movie Highlander, Donald Trump's mother was Mary Anne MacLeod of the Clan McLeod.