atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#6730: As if we could trust them?

Googe is telling us who "won" last night's Democrat debate. But we have evidence that Googe is not impartial but pushing certain candidates over others. The Project Veritas video of Googe executives talking about how to "prevent another Trump" is more than enough evidence.

So, how do we know that these two candidates were the "most searched"? We don't. What we know is that these are the candidates Googe wants us to believe are the most-searched. But based on what their executives have said, I don't think we can really trust them.

Can we?

I do know this much: from what I have heard outside of Googe, Tulsi Gabbard would probably be the absolute best candidate for the Democrats to front in 2020. She comes across as a serious candidate, has not spouted any pie-in-the-sky leftist lunacy that I'm aware of, seems reasonably intelligent, and understands what it means to send troops into a war zone. If she has the ability to go the distance--if she doesn't flame out, or start talking about killing pro-life protestors, or sign onto the "Green New Deal" idiocy--Trump has trouble in 2020. I mean, what I've seen of her, so far, has been impressive. Granted it is not hard to do better than Elizabeth "1/1024th" Warren and the rest of the clown parade last night, but when I first heard Gabbard talk I thought she was a Republican. What I saw was impressivly clear of SJW horseshit and leftist claptrap.

If Googe's numbers can be trusted, then that would be why she was "most searched" after the debate.

A candidate who's not from the lunatic left fringe of the party, who is not catering to them, who looks and sounds like a serious person and not Lenin's handmaid--and who's a woman to boot--that would cause a lot of trouble for Trump. Moderate Democrats would vote for that over Trump, I'm pretty certain.

The reality of the situation, however, is a lot more murky. Recall that, going into the 2016 convention, Bernie Sanders had a plurality of delegates, but the Democrat leadership ramrodded Hillary through. Who the people vote for is considerably less important to the Democrat National Committee than who they want to be the candidate, and the "superdelegates" end up deciding who that will be.

So, next year ought to be interesting. I would prefer that the DNC nominate, in all seriousness, someone who's a total clusterfuck of a candidate. Some frothing-at-the-mouth socialist who has zero actual appeal to anyone outside of the elite citadel, but whom the DNC thinks is just the greatest EVAR.

...most of the turkeys on display last night would approximate "speed bump" for Trump 2020.

This is a perfect example. I'd like to say that any candidate who claims a man can bear children is doomed to failure, but this is 2019 and we are supposed to believe that someone who was born with a penis and testicles is somehow able to gestate a child and is therefore entitled to an abortion whenever he/she/it wants one.

Daniel Greenfield pulls no punches and he's not impressed by Gabbard. To be fair, my opinion of her is based on two articles I read about her, so I'd expect my regard for her to be demolished if I heard her speak. Greenfield says, "Tulsi Gabbard constantly reminded viewers that she had served in the military," and if that's all she's got...well.

Ah, well: "Tulsi Gabbard claimed that appeasing Iran would put the American people first."

So much for that opinion.

* * *

The photos were shot weeks ago and it's a fricking parking lot. Fake, fake, fake. Nothing but pure propaganda, 100% horseshit. Much like the representative herself.

But hoaxes are all they've got to offer. The one time you can be absolutely certain that a hate crime is not a hoax right away is when it's perpetrated against white heterosexuals.

* * *

To be honest I had to read this twice before I understood the point he was making. The point is that while we are told that the Democrat party was never racist, somehow all those racists showed up in the Republican party on July 2, 1964.
...the Great Magic Party Switch of 1964 (hereafter, GMPS). Y'all know this one. It's that mysterious day of days--July 2, 1964--when all the Southern racists who absolutely weren't Democrats, no way, no how, no siree, suddenly became Republicans, in protest over the signing of the Civil Rights Act.
The Civil Rights Act was passed over the objections of Democrats and signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson:

What gets me the most is the 1972 electoral map. Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. were the only places that went Democrat; the entire rest of the country was for Nixon. Geeze, no wonder the left went all-out to destroy him.

* * *

Speaking of speed bumps Danny Glover once again shows us that if he had not been an actor, his career path would have been considerably limited by his intellectual capacity.

To call Glover a "useful idiot" is to do a major disservice to idiots, who--after all--come by their idiocy in honest fashion and are at least capable of understanding cause and effect to some limited extent. This is a man who loved Fidel Castro, calling him a genius. He is strangely silent on the results of Hugo Chavez and his institution of socialism on Venezuela. No doubt it's yet another example of how socialism wasn't done right.

Anyway, that old communist is insisting that he is owed "reparations" because after all he is black and this is America. I would say that the hundreds of millions of dollars in his bank accounts from his extremly lucrative acting career is reparations enough; he certainly would not have become that rich had he been born anywhere else in the world.

On the other hand, though, I think it would be worth it if we could make him, as a condition of enacting reparations, renounce his citizenship in America, the country he hates so much, and go live in one of those communist dictatorships he loves so well.

* * *

The 737 MAX 8 is a bad design and must be scrapped. Boeing has found another operating regime which can lead to a catastrophic loss of aircraft.

* * *

"Apparently, the sexual revolution did not turn out as promised." The real problem with the sexual revolution is that it tore down a lot of rules and moral guardrails and replaced them with...nothing.

This worked fine if you were a teenager in 1965 or so. Even if your behavior broke the rules, you did it in a society where most people still obeyed them, so you benefitted from them.

Fifty-odd years later, it's all been trashed, and people don't know what to do. The results are what we see.

* * *

If it could be a person but you're not sure it is not a person you should take every precaution. Except that argument doesn't work because abortion advocates don't give a crap whether a baby is a person or not. If they did, there wouldn't be laws allowing abortions right up until birth.

* * *

Web pages are getting festooned with horseshit again.

* * *

So, today it is actually hot outside. Temps are over 90 and there's enough humidity to give it some oomph.

The back yard is still a swamp with standing water in it, but it's no longer on the patio.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.