I'm sure my readers have noticed how, as soon as Kamala Harris was "anointed" as the Democratic Party candidate for the Presidential election in November, the mainstream media (most of which could be more accurately labeled "the Democratic Party support machine") began boosting her at every opportunity, while downplaying former President Trump's chances against her.
One of the most egregious ways they're supporting Harris is to "whitewash" (you should pardon the expression) her political past. How many remember that in 2019, she was ranked the most liberal Senator of all? Suddenly that Govtrack rating is nowhere to be found on the Internet (except at the Internet Archive, to which we're indebted for keeping track of potentially embarrassing cover-ups like that). Govtrack confirms that the page was deleted sometime in the past couple of weeks, despite the scoring method it used being discarded some years ago. One does wonder about the timing . . .
There have also been many opinion polls suggesting that Harris has not only drawn level with Trump in popular ranking, but even exceeded his rating. However, those opinion polls are themselves highly suspect, because the sampling is so often skewed heavily towards the Democratic Party. For example:
In today's episode of why polls are generally bullshit - a new survey of voters from Harvard-Harris has Donald Trump beating Kamala Harris 48-45, despite yet another egregious oversampling of roughly 25% Democrats which was then 'weighted to the US general adult population' - that still resulted in a Democrat oversample.
Now imagine if the poll wasn't ridiculously skewed and oversampled to Democrats:
Republican respondents: 654
Democrat respondents: 883 https://t.co/eB4iV282EO pic.twitter.com/WMzfcll4H3
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 30, 2024
This, despite the fact that Gallup has national party identification at +6 Republicans/Republican leaning independents.
There's more at the link.
I've taken a look at half a dozen of the skewed-towards-Harris polls, and in every case where the sampling data was provided, they had oversampled Democrat-leaning respondents and undersampled Republican-leaning ones. Gee - who'd of thunk it?
There are also blatant attempts to demonize factions of Trump supporters, painting them as unstable to the point of possibly representing a danger to this country. For example:
As a scholar who studies American Christian nationalism and Christian extremism, I can say with confidence that right-wing Christianity is presently experiencing mass radicalization around Trump — driven, in large part, by prophecy. The very meaning of the term “evangelical” is itself quietly shifting, with new paradigms of theology and practices moving from what were once the fringes into the mainstream.
The fallout for American politics could be quite perilous: These are some of the same driving forces that sent a mob of Trump supporters to the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Again, more at the link.
The author is, of course, quite correct in viewing organized religious support for any candidate as potentially dangerous. History is awash with claims of "God is with us!" on both sides of an issue, be it elections, wars or just plain existing . . . and there's never been a Divinely sanctioned outcome that I can identify. Indeed, if I were the Almighty (and you should be very grateful that I'm not!), I'd have washed my hands of all those who claimed Divine sanction without a single shred of evidence to prove it.
I've said before that the current "powers that be" dare not lose this election, because it would lead to all their earlier shenanigans being uncovered, and much of the damage they have done to this country being put right. They cannot allow that. Therefore, I expect even more cheating and chicanery in November. What's more, I won't be surprised if another assassination attempt against President Trump - or perhaps more than one - just "happens" to get through his security detail. Pray God such attempts will be unsuccessful, because if one succeeds, I think we're facing a very real danger of civil war.
I have no idea who will be declared the winner in November's election - but I think the next hundred days or so (not to mention the aftermath of the election) will be very dangerous for our constitutional republic system of government. The pressures on both sides to overturn the checks and balances in our system, and "go to the mattresses" instead, are going to be enormous.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: TINVOWOOT. There Is No Voting Our Way Out Of This. The powers that be are entrenched, and will not give up their position voluntarily no matter what the voters want. I expect to see that play out between now and November. For a start, watch the Democratic Party's National Convention in August; then see whether the street violence of 2019/2020 comes back afterwards. Frankly, I'm expecting it.
Peter
EDITED TO ADD: See this montage of mainstream media parroting the Democratic National Committee line about the Republican vice-presidential candidate, J. D. Vance, being "weird". It's both funny and deeply concerning, because it proves how much in lockstep the media are with left-wing and progressive talking points.
8 comments:
Those who ignore history are doomed to be destroyed by it.
For a possible (probable?) preview of the election and its aftermath, take a look at Venezuela. Or "Christmas in Romania". :-x
The Demedia is gushing over Camela telling us how GREAT! she is and always was. Smells like week old fish guts to me.
Because it is installed on my computer and is convenient I click on Google News. Every day there is a story of another national business closing (bankrupt) or scaling back. Today, Rite Aid and Walgreens. If most voters vote their wallets, and we have anywhere near an honest election, The Democrats will lose. I won't be too surprised if the Democrat Convention ends up with someone other than Harris as the nominee.
There is an incredible number of Christian conservatives in the USA who believe that God is punishing us or going to punish us for the sin of abortion. These people vote single issue on this belief. Trump is anti abortion and Harris is abortion until birth. The choice at that point becomes who is most aligned with that singular belief, Trump.
"The author is, of course, quite correct in viewing organized religious support for any candidate as potentially dangerous." Peter
This is completely incorrect. America was settled by organized Christian religions and founded by organized Christian religions. Those organized Christians established our constitutional republic on Christian values and laws almost straight from the Bible.
Matthew Taylor works at the Institute For Islamic Christian Jewish Studies and as such writes with an extremely progressive pen. The ICJS about us page states: "We engage religious difference in a society marred by inequities rooted in race, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, abilities, socioeconomic status, and other differences. These inequities should have no influence on how we value each other. However, our religious traditions continue to be complicit in the perpetuation of these inequities, and interreligious dialogue often reflects them."
This is another statement that Christians who believe the Bible are bad and should be taught how to worship false Gods. It is support for every false religion that tears down the foundations of America.
"We use scholarly and educational resources to challenge religious bigotry and to confront the historical injustices that have divided our religious communities." ICJS about page
If Taylor really believes this statement from his institution, why isn't he writing about the Palestinian supporters destroying property at colleges, attacking Jews in LA or burning American flags and in NYC chanting "Death to America"? Because he does not believe in supporting Christianity in any form except that which destroys America's social fabric.
Decades ago, the mainstream churches in America started drifting away from teaching the Bible and instead started teaching on social justice and at the same time allowing the Federal government to take away responsibilities that belong to the church. For example: Taking care of the poor is a church function; but, now it is a bloated, ungoverned welfare system making slaves of Americans.
If you read Taylor's other articles, he is against Christian Nationalism and writes about how dangerous it could be. What is more dangerous than allowing all of the non-Christian religions to rule in government and the forefront of our society? We are currently ruled by homosexuals, transsexuals, drug users, child traffickers and every other ungodly faction that can gain a foothold in our government.
Nope. We need organized Christian religion in our lives putting worship first and calling upon the one true God for our troubles, even if as small as finding a parking place.
Christian Nationalism is defined here: "Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”" Matthew 28:18-20
Dave, incredibly well stated. So very well. Thank you.
All glory be to God.
I have seen multiple montages like this over the last few years. Some of them frightening in the cohesive message across literally 100's to 1000's of stations both national and local of the major media companies. Word for word messaging down to the local news desk. I wish you could hit them with some sort of anti-trust/collusion. However sadly I don't think it is illegal to cooperate in using your media companies to manipulate the electoral process. I don't even disagree that a media source can be partisan to a candidate and against another. I do think that should be kept to an opinions page or show that is explicitly that but thats just my opinion :) However the massive hidden conspiracy level crafting of the nations opinions should be illegal. Even if we don't have a contract in front of us saying it the statistical likelihood based on evidence such as these montages showing the word for word messaging across platforms and companies is pretty much 100% proof that someone out there is sending out a memo to the heads of all major media and platforms that is then being sent down from there to every show and local news desk in the nation with instructions that this is the messaging you will use when talking about this. 1000 stations saying the same thing with the same wording in a 24 hour time period isn't a coincidence. It's a well crafted campaign.
Post a Comment