The day after inauguration and the left is in full propaganda (lie) mode. Some examples that perfectly sum up the integrity of the left (and why I disassociate myself from their extremism) is below. Not all of the left, of course, it’s the vocal 90% that give the silent 90% a bad name. But the followers that regurgitate the meme’s without fact checking them, or think that lying (misleading) for their cause is OK are at least complicit in the problem. They are dividing us into two groups: the informed and the democrats.
The issues of the day (based on my FB feeds) are:
- Photos of the inauguration show this President is unpopular – lie/distraction
- Purging LGBT or Climate Scaremongering from the Whitehouse website – lie/distraction
- Lack of diversity (Latino’s) in the administration, and the racist implications of that – lie/distraction
Each of those issues are fake news, that will make you a more ignorant hater by believing them. So while I’m not a Trump fan, I am a fan of the truth, and an enemy of polemic propagandists.
Photos of the inauguration
Fake News sites like the NYT, and many leftist meme factories (they’re hard to tell apart now days), are running around trying to share photos that Trump’s crowds were smaller than Obama’s, which implies the illegitimacy (unpopularity) of this Presidency. (Or that’s their implication). If that’s the best the left can come up with, it’s really kind of sad.
Let’s see 2017 is colder, wetter, Obama was the first black President, democrats are historically far more violent when they lose (there were many hate rally’s planned in advance that everyone knew about, and riots are not kid friendly), dems are younger (less mature) and more about the cult of personality/celebrity/followers (not a good thing), oh and more republicans work for a living. Why wouldn’t we expect fewer people?
And still the leftist media and memes lied about it (showed unlike things): like the photo of Trump most popularly used was taking early (while people were still coming in) not at the peak of speeches. In the end, we know Bill Clinton had an anemic 250,000 or so in 1997, George H.W. Bush had about 300,000 in 1989, and Trump appears to be averaging double those (but still smaller than Obama). Reagan had only like 10,000 (this was the first time they moved venues). The point is where the other Presidents less legitimate that Trump? Or are we intelligent enough to recognize that a single event has nothing to do with predicting a President’s legitimacy and efficacy — thus those trying to equate the two are trying to dumb down America? Pick one.
Purging LGBT or Climate Scaremongering from the Whitehouse website
The histrionics about how the first thing the new evil overlord Trump did was purge Gays and Climate Revisionism from the Whitehouse records was over the top. Oh the humanity!
Only that’s not how any of this works.
The way it works is Whitehouse.gov is just a marketing campaign of each administrations top issues. Each new administration replaces the Whitehouse.gov website with their top issues, and the old Whitehouse.gov goes into archive (in this case: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov). There was no purging, there was the normal replacement, and we knew that divisive identity politics issues that were so popular with the last President were not going to be the focus of this one. But that’s hardly a Stalinesque purge of history. You get dumber by believing the leftist links/news on this topic.
Lack of diversity (Latino’s) in the administration
You read the splashy headlines from your gullible friends, "Trump Press Sec. Says Hispanics Aren’t Part Of Cabinet Because Only ‘Best And Brightest’ Can Serve”, or just slightly less click-bait from places like L.A. Times. Wow, how can you not hate the racist asshats in the administration. And if you’re a good Democrat you stop at the headline without question. But if you’re a good human, you read, research and think about whether that’s true or not.
So what they’re saying is that Trump isn’t playing the identity politics and affirmative action game, and hiring people just because of their race, to make other bigots happy and feel good about themselves? That’s not so bad.
What the Press Secretary actually said is they were hiring the best and brightest (that applied) regardless of race. Well, that’s not so bad either.
Identity politics bigots start quoting number of hispanics in the population, instead of how many candidates were hispanics that applied for the roles — and those are two completely different things. Maybe Latino candidates didn’t apply because of the bigoted backlash they would get from their communities? (And thus it’s more a reflection of bigotry in the latino community than in Trump administration). We just don’t know. What we do know is that the Trump administration freely hired blacks, asians and women, so the implication that there’s some racist or sexist agenda is laugh worthy. And we have zero evidence that he singled out latinos for exclusion. Mainly he hired millionaires and successful people for key roles, and Carlos Slim didn’t apply.
Instead of hate labeling (as the article implies) a journalist that wanted to support the inferences, would show what candidates applied that were qualified, and didn’t get the jobs. They’d ask Trump and the candidate as to why each latino wasn’t hired, and compare that to others. You know, try to use some data, instead of slanderous unsupported allegations, to make a point? Big data instead of the big lie? Then there would be something there beyond smearing (hate labeling someone as a bigot without any evidence). So once again, if you read the liberal view of events, you get dumber, more racist and more spiteful towards Trump, than if you think beyond a headline.
There were more. From hate meme’s to absurdities. And these aren’t just 3rd rate clickbait sites doing it. They’re taking bad articles in CNN or L.A. Times and so on, and just further omitting some context (that was mostly buried in the article), all to fit the left’s delusions of the world.
Take this one: Trump hikes taxes on the middle-class, his first day in office. (Or variants of the same). Even the L.A. Times got in (or was the Jonny Appleseed) of that one. Of course if you have a triple digit I.Q. and think through what actually happened, you realize that another way of wording it is, while Obama wanted to re-inflate the housing bubble (that had hurt so many people last time it was tried), by lowering the insurance standards (as an act of spite as he left office?). And one of the first things the Trump administration did, was reverse the lowering of insurance standards. What a bastard, right? One is left to wonder why lowering the standards was so important for the Obama administration to do, that they had to wait until their waning days in office to do it? It’s almost like they colluded with the Press to do this, so that if the Trump administration did the right thing by raising them again, then the media could jump on him with their disinformation campaign. Where’s the Pulitzer Prize winning journalists diving into that conspiracy/collusion?
Those lies of omissions (distortions) are a perfect reflection on the integrity of the left. If you glance at what fills the fake news (Facebook) from the left, every one of the stories appeals to the ignorance, hate, divisiveness that has become the Democratic Party agenda. And anyone that reads the headlines (and nothing more) is outraged at how illegitimate and embarrassing Trump is. And anyone that has any critical thinking skills can read past the headline and is embarrassed at how illegitimate the media and embarrassing your friends that repost that tripe is.