2019.07.31 One Redeeming Quality?

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
One Redeeming Quality.png
The Boston Globe newspaper published a mock front page on April 10, 2016, as commentary arguing against then-candidate Donald Trump's presidential campaign. All of it was deluded hate-fiction, from what is becoming a FakeNews outlet.
One of the perfect examples of FakeNews and the left losing their mind, and causing distrust and contempt by their informed readers is an OpEd in the Boston Globe asking whether Trump has a single redeeming quality, and answering "no". Which shows how out of touch the author is, and more than that, the Globe Editorial staff to think that this was News and to fail the fact checking on the error ridden hate-piece. 55 different lies is the best that the Globe can manage as impartial journalism?


This piece is even worse than the Atlantic's similar crap piece from October: Cruelty is the point. It's like they don't have any fact checkers or editors that know what journalistic standards are in the leftist media, that this is "news"?

Details

Here's a bit of deconstruction on the piece:


Mere weeks after attacking four Democratic congresswomen of color... - It wasn't an attack... it was a counter attack. They had been attacking America, and Trump for 18+ months. Just like assault and self defense are different, based on who started it, the context here matters. And omitting it, is a lie of omission. Lie #1. See Racist attack on fab-four for more.

The fact that they were "of color" offers no bearing on the argument, as anyone that knows Trump, knows he would gladly say the same of those of Russian or European descent. So the Fake Racism implied is the ignorance or dishonesty of the writer, and paper that let it run unchallenged. Lie #2


...and saying they should “go back” to where they came from - Actually he didn't. He said if they hate America so much (which they do, based on their constant hits against us), that perhaps they should try to fix the Utopias they came from, and then come back and show us how it's done. There's a huge difference in context between saying they should go visit and repair, and that they need to get out. #3

he took to Twitter to launch yet another racist diatribe - Again, false (#4). It's not racist to say that a shithole city is falling apart because of the failure of it's leadership, after giving them $16B to help improve it, as Trump had done. See Racist attack on fab-four for more. See Baltimore for more.

Oh, and remember that if you read the globe OpEd you wouldn't know that Elija Cummings was a race baiting, never-Trumper, that had been attacking Trump for 18 months before this. That Bernie Sanders, Orkin Pest Control, Baltimore's Mayor, PBS, and even Elija Cummings had said similar things about Baltimore first. Lie (of omission) #5.

So we're one paragraph into the piece, and 5 lies, and zero value added, as readers that read that would be mislead on everything that happened and sets the context for the rest of the screed.


It reminds me of the one indisputable and remarkable fact about the president: He doesn’t have a single redeeming quality. - Nothing of value but an unsupported hyper-partisan opinion. Show me a similar piece they ran against Obama, and it would show that they are about the free exchange of opinions. But if you can't (and you can't), then it shows the paper is about one-sides propaganda to consider this piece worthy of Press. #6

I realize this might sound like hyperbole. Everyone has at least one good thing you can say about them, right? But try as I might, when it comes to Trump the cupboard is empty. - It doesn't sound like hyperbole, it is hyperbole. Trump gave widely to charities. There. He employed thousands of people, he lowered taxes which helped stimulate the economy, he has gotten some better trade deals, he appointed constitutionalist judges, we could go on, and on. You can hate his style, but if you can't think of a since redeeming thing he's ever done, then you're either a moron, or a hyper-partisan. Period. As is the paper that prints it. #7

First and foremost, he’s not a nice person. - That's not what people who know him say. #8

He’s mean, unpleasant, and regularly insults, demeans, and attacks anyone and anything that doesn’t provide him with constant veneration. - False. He is neutral or won't mention people that don't praise him. But he generally only attacks people that have attacked him first, or done some pretty insult worthy things. Virtually all of his smacks/insults are against those who have a record of smacking him first, ruder, and usually more than once. That doesn't make it a good trait that he doesn't "let it go", but it's dishonest to imply he can't work with people that don't adore him. So lie of exaggeration at best. #9.

He calls political leaders “crazy,” “low IQ,” “dumb as a rock,” “very dumb,” a “loser,” - Generally, if they insult him or America first. Again context matters. #10

He calls political leaders “crazy,” “low IQ,” “dumb as a rock,” “very dumb,” a “loser,”... - Generally, if they insult him or America first. Again context matters. #10

...and for some, like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, hurls racist epithets at them. - Calling her Pocahontas because she lied about her Native American heritage to defraud the government and universities to get ahead in her career, isn't a racist insult. He wasn't insulting all Native Americans, he was attacking her dishonesty and behavior. #11

He derides their physical appearance and makes up juvenile nicknames for them. - The closest to truth we got. He does that... and in what context? Oh, they usually insulted him first. His fight with Rosie O'Donnell isn't because she's a fat lesbian, it's because she's a nasty partisan that attacked him for multiple years, so had attacked back that she was nasty, dumb and ugly. Is that nice? No. But without the context, the reader is mislead. #12

He lies not some of the time or most of the time, but all the time. According to The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker".... - First "all of the time" is complete bullshit. #13. Even if he exaggerates a lot, he must tell the truth occasionally.

Second WaPo is a known hyper-partisan FactChecker, riddled with it's own errors and bias. Read my Fake News section on WaPo and I have 4 dozen+ examples of them getting it wrong. So try using a credible source, or admit the bias of your sources #14.


He’s a well-documented racist - False. You scratch the surface of any example the far left can offer, and that's not what racism looks like: Is Trump a racist?. There's a difference between racist and asshole. #15

...and misogynist. More than 20 women have credibly accused him of assaulting them, which includes allegations of rape. - If you even casually glance into that list of Trump's sexual assaults, you find that the majority are claims that he might have gone backstage at beauty contests (not sexual assault by the way), and have witnesses that supported Trump. And the rest sound like bullshit or were discredited. One woman E. Jean Carroll who described rape in promoting her new book, but said it was not Rape, offered no evidence and there was tons of circumstantial evidence against every point she made. So again, a Globe reader would be duped into thinking this was a closed case against the President, when it's a strong case against the irrational hatred against him by those who either don't know the facts, or don't care. #16

He makes bigoted and racist comments about immigrants. - False. He makes them about ILLEGAL immigrants, and often/usually says this isn't about all Mexicans/etc. -- it's about the ones breaking our laws and coming here illegally. Not understanding that, takes a special kind of stupid. #17. P.S. since they're not of any one race, it's not about race. Mexican is not a race you dimwit. His point is clear that he cares about letting in people from all the same countries, as long as it is by merit, and not by who can pay the coyotes to get in illegally or by lottery.

He regularly attacks African-American politicians, journalists, and sports figures and uses words like “infested” to describe their communities. - He attacks figures that attack him, regardless of race -- not because of it, you dimwit. And he used "infested" after, PBS and the Mayor and Representative said the same thing about those communities. Two lies of omission. #18, #19

He praises and employs white supremacists and refuses to condemn neo-Nazis. - Example please. I have plenty of Democrats voting for them. But I don't know of any that were in, or would have stayed in the administration, had they been found out. #20

He has kind words for sociopathic dictators and authoritarian leaders, primarily because they say nice things about him. - False. He has said nicer or less abrasive things out of powerful leaders that he's negotiating with. Flattery while trying to make a deal. Not as nice of things as Obama or Hillary had said about many of them. But Trump documents this in his book The Art of the Deal -- he puffs up the leaders and makes them think he likes them or they're smart, so he can get the best deal for him, the people, or America. It's called diplomacy you dim-witted troll. #21

He’s even mean to children. - It's a double lie, omitting the context and thinking that it was intentionally mean. Trump asking a little girl he was talking with if she still believes in Santa is not being mean to children. At worst it was a gaffe half as bad as sniffing their hair or kissing them on the lips like Pedo-Biden. Puhlease. #22, #23

He has no discernible moral core. - False. Based on what? He seems to have a code too close to the left's -- and the left doesn't like it. For him, it seems to be that the ends justifies the means -- and his ends are things like getting America/Americans the best deal he can. You might not approve of the code, but it does appear to be a code. #24

He’s devoid of integrity, empathy, and selflessness. - Integrity gets fuzzy. But empathy and selflessness has hundreds of examples of his Charities doing good things, and what he did when the cameras weren't on him. He won awards from the NAACP, and others. Politicians and journalists praised him. Right up until he ran for office, then they rewrote the record. Cohen knows this and is lying, or is ignorant and lying by incompetence. #25

He’s vain and self-centered. He never takes responsibility for anything, and blames everyone else for his mistakes. - OK. I'll ignore "never" and call this "usually" and it's the first correct thing in the piece. He does that a lot. So 1 truth to 25 lies. Not a good ratio... but at least an almost accurate sentence, wrapped in a paragraph and article of crap.

Even the quality that he seems to venerate more than any other — strength — is one that he consistently fails to uphold. He is a bully who attacks the weak and vulnerable and he can’t even be relied on to keep his word or stand firm in a negotiation. - There's no context on this. He does offer strength sometimes. He does bully in others... but again, context is that he bullies people that pushback on him first. As for standing firm in negotiations, I'm not sure of his point... all negotiations is about this balance between bluff, and give and take, and getting the most you can get, or walking away. Trump seems to be better at it than Obama, Clinton or others that the author venerates, so I'm not sure of the point other than it's an unsupported, out-of-context, hit, with lies of exaggeration at best. #26

He’s not intelligent or insightful. - Yawn. Based on what? He seems intelligent enough to be a billionaire that had a successful TV show, and became President. He baits and outsmarts the media and the democrats on a regular basis. The Master Baiter. You don't have to like him, but I have no evidence he isn't intelligent, and isn't at least media smart. #27

Everything he seems to know about politics and public life he’s gleaned from watching Fox News. - Exaggeration to stupidity. #28

He doesn’t read books, or go to the movies, and spends much of his time watching television. - Exaggeration to stupidity. He might not do as much as others do, and pop-culture awareness is hardly the sign of an intelligent leader anyways. #29

The only hobby he appears to have is golf, and he is legendary for cheating at it. - False, he was also known for charity events, but is a bit of a work-a-holic. That's hardly a vice. And the cheating on it, was based on one haters claims. #30

He’s not funny, and he hardly ever laughs. - False, I've seen dozens of videos where he's done that. Less since President, but even his scandal tapes he was laughing on them. #31

He has the diet of a 14-year-old boy, and eats his steaks well done and drenches them in ketchup. - Again, unsupported hyperbole, by a couple anonymous sources or haters, that's irrelevant to anything. I like steaks well-done too, much but not all of the time, which hardly makes me a bad person. #32

He’s incompetent at his job. - He's been successful and his approval ratings are higher than Obama (at least occasionally), so a lie. #33

He appears to have no understanding of how the federal government, of which he is the chief executive, works; how laws are passed; how the economy functions; and he is seemingly unable to differentiate between the three branches of government. - False. He's certainly had his advisors correct him, like every administration before him. But he seems to have the basics down just fine... then occasionally might overreach until his side stops him. Like every other President. #34

There is hardly a political norm or tradition that he hasn’t violated. - Lie of exaggeration. #35

He has no respect for democracy or the Constitution. - More than Obama did based on his judges, and how many more rulings ultimately go his way versus Obama. #36

He doesn’t even appear to like dogs, and he’s the first occupant of the White House in more than 120 years who doesn’t have one. - This is perfect. A friend (Mark Goldblatt) wrote in 2016, that he could concede a dozen absurd exaggerations about Trump but ask the left can we at least "can we at least say that he doesn't torture puppies?".... and that the left would retort, "How can you say that? How do you know? Have you ever seen him with a puppy?"... and this is the perfect example of that. He kicks puppies? Really, that the most mature attack they have against the President? I far prefer someone who knows they're too busy to have/train a dog, that those fakers that have one but don't put in the time to care for them right. #37

He surrounds himself with bootlickers and enablers. - False. Many are strong Women and minorities, as well as many CEO's of other huge corporations, and who disagree with him. #38

He has no loyalty to those who work for him. - False. In fact he showed more loyalty than he should have to some like Omarosa. He will hit back, if they hit him first. But he's defended many of his cabinet and friends, even when unpopular. #39

Anyone with even a scintilla of ability or integrity has long since stopped working for him. - False. #40

All this might have something to do with the fact that he appears to be a lousy boss. - Baseless and unsupported claim. Especially in the face of Hillary being reported as screaming racial epithets at people, and stuff like that. #41

He’s even bad at the thing that brought him to public attention — being a businessman. He regularly lost money, including as an owner of a casino, which I didn’t think was possible. - Having hundreds of successful businesses and deals, and having a few go sour is still a good record, and he made Billions. And if you don't know that all of Atlantic City crashed and everyone lost money in that, then you're a moron. #42, #43

He short-changed contractors, treated his employees badly, and has declared bankruptcy six times. - Bankruptcy is part of business, context is the ratio of successes to failures. Not that you had to restructure and come back during a huge NY economic downturn that ruined other people, but he came out of. And labor disputes aren't evidence of a bad person either, you need to know the contexts and conditions. (Example, not paying for sub-standard work or late delivery, etc.). #44

He had a ghost writer pen a book titled “Art of the Deal” to showcase his alleged ability to negotiate deals — and yet he’s actively bad at negotiating deals, both in business and in politics. - Virtually all Presidents/famous people had ghost writers, and many/most have disputes about how much they did. Yawn. Again, context. And he's more successful in business deals and politics than Obama and Carter. #45, #46

Perhaps the only thing he’s been successful at is being a reality star and con man (remember Trump University). - There's a point in there that he was a successful reality star... and that there's a certain film-flamming to being a celebrity. But both are lies of exaggeration to say "the only thing", or "con man", unless you apply those same standards to other politicians. #47, #48

Then there is the fact that he is corrupt, a serial law-breaker, and is actively profiting from his presidency. - False by exaggeration. #49

According to the Mueller report, he has repeatedly and brazenly broken the law — including obstructing justice on 10 separate occasions. Before he was president, he engaged in a scheme to avoid paying his taxes and is possibly guilty of committing tax fraud. We know that he engaged in a conspiracy to subvert campaign finance laws during the 2016 campaign. - False. The partisan hit job, that had no good legal justification for being executed, and failed to do it's job of finding Russian Collusion and abuse of power, said there was nothing to charge Trump with, with regards to obstructing justice -- since there was no crime for him to obstruct. This misrepresentation of it, is dishonest. #50

To be sure, there are other disreputable public figures in American political life. I was no fan of the 43rd president, George W. Bush. But at least one could say that he appeared to be a good father and his wife seemed to like him (also his AIDS initiative saved millions of lives). - Truth #2. But the author shows his partisan nature by admitting that he hates Republicans, and dodging the many more recent examples of bad behavior by Democrats.

Not the case with Trump. His kids are as morally deficient as he is. The only adult exception appears to be his daughter Tiffany, who, not surprisingly, was largely raised by her mother. - Bullshit hyperbole, no examples given. #51

His wife Melania doesn’t appear to be a big fan either — which is not surprising since he cheated on her with a porn actress, just as he cheated on his first two wives. - Again, no evidence that Melania hates him or his kids. #52

From all appearances, Trump doesn’t have any actual friends. - Only to a clueless fanatic. Many people claim to like and support him, despite the heat they get from far-left haters like the author for saying it. #53

At the 2016 Republican National Convention his family members gave speeches speaking approvingly of him. They spoke of what a good and caring person he was and yet they could not point to any specific anecdotes highlighting those qualities. - False. There were many given at various times, even if short speeches aren't the time to do it. #54

The one positive thing I can remember about Trump is a January 2016 Republican debate in which he criticized Ted Cruz for attacking his “New York values” by pointing to the city’s response to the 9/11 attacks. - First, that negates the headline. Second, if this is the only thing, then you're an idiot -- there are lots of things he says -- some good, some bad. But if you can only find one that you approve of, that's a reflection on you more than him. And of course, this partisan only approves because it attacked another conservative.

And then this week, Trump claimed falsely that he was at Ground Zero after 9/11 and compared himself to a first responder. So no points for that. - There's video of Trump at Ground Zero you dimwit.[1] It took literally 10 seconds and one google search to find it. #55)

This is far from a complete list. Trump’s list of iniquities could go on for thousands of more words. But as far as coming up with a positive attribute: That page is and will remain blank. Somehow, in a country of 320 million people, the American electorate found a way to elect one of our singularly worst citizens as president. - Completely balanced ending to reflect the editorial position of an objective Newspaper?

Conclusion

So #55 lies, 2 truths, in an accidental exposure of how much contempt for Americans the Boston Globe and Michael Cohen have. Great job, the media took an approval rating lower than Lucifer, and managed to insult half the country directly, and the entire countries intelligence by publishing and not firing this guy for thinking of writing such an irrational and dishonest screed.

I sincerely feel bad for other journalists at the Globe for having this published in their paper, and tarnishing their reputation by proxy. (Shit splatters, and this was complete shit).

GeekPirate.small.png

📚 References