ELECTION 2016

Election 2016

So the Election of 2016 is now past, described by the discredited media as an upset outcome.  I followed the entire presidential election avidly and am not surprised that the media is sticking with their fallacious polls, still using them to discuss the election. 

In the Primary, the polls were limited to a subset of voters, those qualified to vote in any given primary, thus raising the likelihood of accuracy.  During the Presidential, some polls were shown to sample voters most likely to vote for their partisan candidate, rather than a representative sample of the population.  After this bias sample was taken, then their candidate was declared ahead in the polls and the media chitchat proclaimed the Democrats the winning candidates.   The Los Angeles Times polls were the most accurate showing Mr. Trump ahead nationally, but were discounted by conflicting polls. 

Online the polls suggested different results.  Donald Trump had more followers on social media and the phone polls online indicated that Mr. Trump would win the election.  I followed the poll discrepancies during the election and was not surprised to find that an NBC poll was allegedly stacked against the Republican. 

And how about the cheating during the debates?  It was proven that the Democrat cheated by accepting purloined questions from Donna Brazile, employed by CNN.  How many other debate questions were provided by network staffers?  Some of the media creeps were even taking suggestions for them to ask Mr. Trump during future interviews.  Isn’t this cheating also?  These morally bankrupt media people were bought and paid for by the Democrat Machine, which surely will be dismantled as a threat to Democracy.  The media news networks need to clean house and they need to do it now, before a new administration gets underway.  Any ‘journalist’ who was proven to take orders from the DNC or any other political organization should be fired immediately in order for the networks to regain journalistic credibility. 

I believe the intensely partisan nature of the Washington DC atmosphere lately is due to the entrenched power brokers begun by earlier administrations and continued on through the loss of the White House to the present.  30 years of this line of thinking has produced a declining USA economy, a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, huge student debt and fewer good jobs, plus an expensive unwieldy insurance debacle.  This is an unsustainable trend.   I view with relief the Republican controlled presidency, house and senate. 

As for Mexico, we have important, beneficial trade to maintain with Mexico.  About 30% of Hispanics voted for Mr. Trump, so the basis for trust is present.  The deep water port in Guaymas can be an asset for continued commerce through Pima County and maybe the border towns can have revitalized tourism and trade as banking problems in border communities are resolved.  Governor Doug Ducey has initiated better trade relations with Mexico and our representative is Juan Ciscomani, a local Tucsonian.  Things are looking up in our relations with Mexico. 

The Supreme Court nominees will be those who would preserve the integrity of the Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches of the government.  Mr. Trump has already mentioned some candidates who don’t scare people.  The Justice Department needs to be cleaned out and the partisans removed from any position of power or knowledge because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.  And for Mr. Podesta, who obviously cultivated sources within the FBI and the Justice Department, will have his own day of reckoning as his reputation has plummeted.  Mr. Comey also needs to clean house and continue any investigations underway.  Mr. Comey has escaped blame for the Democrats’ loss by warning people there were investigations before the election, then bringing it up again in the Weiner Abedin case, then again on the eve of the election, announcing the Democrats innocence of a very narrow range of the investigation, reminding us all of possible, even probable malfeasance.  I’m beginning to believe Mr. Comey is a cop after all. 

Is it possible to pardon anyone before they can be investigated and charged?  The idea of that makes me view it as a coverup, which the current administration cannot want on record.  Subverting an investigation using the power of the pardon is not my idea of justice.  It’s like a hydrogen sulfide bomb in a high school hallway. 

MATT LAUER AND THE TOWN HALL WITH MR. TRUMP AND MS. CLINTON

MATT LAUER AND THE TOWN HALL WITH MR. TRUMP AND MS. CLINTON

So it looks like the presidential campaign has entered the last weeks and both candidates have their ways of facing the future. 

Ms. Clinton is more afraid of being indicted than of losing the election, or she would not have used a faulty memory as an excuse to avoid prosecution for security lapses.  A concussion and subsequent health problems would not have been mentioned in front of the voters, except out of desperation.

I did watch Matt Lauer’s Town Hall featuring Mr. Trump and Ms. Clinton.  I am not familiar with Mr. Lauer’s work, but this Town Hall was good, respectable work.  He does have a reputation to hold up and I think he did well towards that end during this program.  He did put Ms. Clinton on the hotseat when he asked he about all the pay for play scandals.  He also asked Mr. Trump if he really knew more than the generals, like he had said earlier.  Mr. Trump adroitly dodged the direct question but did deal with the dicey situation with the generals.  Maybe Mr. Trump does know more about Isis’ finances than the generals.

Ms. Clinton complained about lack of time to talk, but she attacked Mr. Trump six times after giving her word at the beginning that she would discuss the issues rather than her opponent.  I mean this woman made a promise on worldwide media and then broke it six times in the next thirty minutes.  Mr. Lauer had anticipated the attack dog problem and attempted to handle it by asking for a commitment from Ms. Clinton to discuss only her views on the issues at the outset.  She happily agreed then broke the agreement six times.  She can be counted on to be agreeable to whatever, then doing what she impulsively chooses to do. 

I thank Mr. Lauer for bringing this out. 

The media has been under fire lately.  I’ve seen stories of rampant bias ordered by the huge honcho owner and I’ve seen stories of reporters influencing the news with their own inclinations, whether real or paid for by special interests.  How about the one that the liberals had infiltrated the media with friends, associates and family members, exemplified by Chelsea’s $600,000 starting salary?  Ms. Kelly viciously attacks a Republican presidential candidate on the basis of what he used to do in show business and this is condoned in the media and she is temporarily elevated but like Humpty Dumpty is she destined to be.   Editorializing should always be identified instead of being embedded as fact.   

A $20,000,000 lawsuit settlement over sexual harassment and stories of the old casting couch still in use in the show business the news media has become.  Sleeping your way to the top was always an option, apparently.  No wonder the mission became flaunting legs and influence peddling, rather than reporting the news.

Whatever happened to the morality of the media?  Whatever happened to the old ideal that journalists were committed to the telling of the truth and the achievement of justice?  What happened to commitment to truth and justice by the media?  If the media cannot be trusted, then their influence is waning because people have other sources of news.  Remember that bias is a form of lying if you are being paid to spout it.  And due to the tremendous literacy rate in the USA, WE WILL SEE THE LIARS.

SO WHO IN THE MEDIA IS GOING TO SURVIVE THE COMING PURGE OF LIARS AND FOR SALE JOURNALISTS?  The journalists chosen to moderate the debates are going to be scrutinized very carefully by a very literate and alert population.  If the candidates are not treated fairly, we will see it and your careers will suffer as a result.  I hope they realize that their own careers are in jeopardy and that they are not in charge of the results of the debates, even if their purpose is to slant the coverage in favor of one candidate or the other.  Impartiality is the key if they want to keep their credibility.  I’m tired of left right games and I feel we deserve some impartiality from the news media around here.    

Republican Primary Debates

Thoughts on the Infamous ‘Debates’ held by Biased Networks and Biased Journalists

The media hostile to certain candidates is soooo disappointed at their lack of control over our electoral process, even to the point of featuring a RNC past chair talking about dislodging candidates from front runner positions as if that were the way to win a national election.   Maybe that’s why we lost.  The idea of the RNC is to back the candidates the people want, not the candidates they want the people to want.  I’m tired of RNC chairs, pundits and PACs choosing our candidates for us.  Could it be that the media wants Republicans to choose weak candidates so the Democrats can retain power? 

The Internet Age has brought unprecedented literacy to the populace in the form of cell phones with full internet capability.  The media is still operating like the Dark Ages when the church controlled all the information.  The media does not control the information anymore, except for the stories they choose to highlight or manufacture and they are apparently unaware that the population does not believe everything they say.   This educated populace now has the whole internet to learn from.  And people use this capability every day, using Facebook and other systems that disseminate information.  We are no longer dependent on what the media chooses to serve us!  And we know when they are lying, spinning, slanting and otherwise jacking with news stories BECAUSE WE ARE EDUCATED. 

How about the non-story of Vice President Biden running for president?  This drug on for months as the media blasted this man with their opinions and even bringing his family into it.  This ‘story’ emphasis was hurtful at worst and a time waster at best.  The media even kept Vice President Biden in the polls when he was not running.  Why did they do that?  To siphon off support for Bernie Sanders?  To make Hillary look good?

When John Boehner announced his resignation, the liberal media went crayzy with rabid speculation about the demise of the Republican Party, the need to bring in an outsider to restore order among the Republicans, and in general criticized the whole party and predicted ongoing chaos.  The draft Paul Ryan movement immediately caused a media circus and I don’t know how Speaker Ryan or others shut them up about their endless negative speculation.   The media bashed John Boehner, bashed the process of choosing a new speaker, and bashed everybody who expressed an interest in the position.  The process to choose a new speaker was actually quite orderly and fair, despite the media prediction of fatal Republican disharmony.   Some of the media even found negativity in Speaker Ryan’s insistence on spending time with his family, which reflects true Republican family values. 

As for the MSNBC debate debacle, the media really showed their rears.  That business station blew it by allowing John Harwood to ask unvetted questions since he obviously was there to push a negative agenda towards Republicans.  Why did they trust that man?  It was a set up but hopefully Harwood has trashed his own ‘career’ by abusing his position as a journalist.  Did the Democrats pay Harwood for his hostility?  Since Harwood damaged himself by asking vicious ‘social’ type questions and lying on the air, what did he actually get out of his miserable performance???   

I avidly watched this flawed debate, hoping that CNBC would ask good business and economic questions that would show the knowledge of the candidates.  Donald Trump did shine when talking about the economy, which may have been the reason so few of those types of questions were asked.   Why was the focus on personal questions rather than political, military and economic issues?  Becky Quick and Carlos Quintanilla are experts in economics, so why did they focus on areas out of their expertise?  Why didn’t they ask questions about interest rates, the Federal Reserve and foreign trade?  What a missed opportunity!  Were they given questions or did they make them up?

How about a Democrat and a Republican debate moderated by Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Hugh Hewitt?  The Democrats would never agree to that, claiming bias in advance.  Maybe somebody could ask if Hillary rode in on her husband’s coattails?  Or about Monica?   Those questions would be considered rude but it is open season on Republicans flying away from the podium?  Harwood is evidently academically deficient in that he phrases questions in emotional terms, rather than using a systematic approach using facts to frame the question.  The emotional attack questions are easy to dream up and require no research or learning.

I like the idea that the candidates are taking over the debate terms and conditions.  As Donald Trump pointed out, the networks are making money on the debates.  The networks then want to dictate all concerning the debates, leaving the candidates at their mercy to answer every stupid question asked, while the networks rake in the money. 

How about a debate focused on issues instead of personalities, histories, criticisms, infighting and personal agendas?  And why can’t the candidates sit down at desks while debating?  All this standing looks too much like a cop show criminal lineup.    

Possible debate topics

• Discuss the Middle East. 
• How do you view cooperation with the Russians in the Middle East?
• Please briefly explain your tax policy. 
• Explain job creation and maintenance.
• Explain economic sustainability.
• What would you do about the problems in the Veterans healthcare?
• What about organized labor?
• What about Common Core?
• What about climate change?
• What about the infrastructure?
• What about the Bill of Rights?
• And many more but how many could be discussed by all who volunteer in a two hour span?

Or let candidates choose one of those topics to expound on and others to common upon.  The isolated question debate structure where they all get different questions is not a debate.  A true debate has to have interchange among the candidates on the same topic.   Divide and conquer.  Let’s all get together and actually talk about the issues and compare ideas.  And then the viewers can see for themselves all the ideas.  I would even give the candidates the topics in advance.  A debate is when you come prepared to discuss and defend your positions on the issues. 

Let’s have a real debate!