Red State along with HotAir and Powerline are among the most Anti-Trump blogs on the internet. I was a fan...well until they banned me earlier in the year for being Pro-Trump because they are arrogant ignorant pussies. But I do go there occasionally to read our buddy Evil Blogger Lady who writes a diary there. I mean it is no Melania Trump's Diary but it is pretty good and I highly recommend you check it out.
So much to my surprise I see an actual fair post by the total #nevertrump knucklehead streiff who illustrates how the lying media is trying to sow discord among Trumps supporters and sabatoge his presidency. You know the way some people who post here are doing every day.
Check it out:
Trump, Climate Change And The Fake News Cartel
"On Tuesday, Donald Trump met with New York Times reporters. During that meeting the subject of anthropogenic global warming came up. This is how the media reported the story.
The overall media take on the story was that Trump was backtracking on his campaign positions on climate change. In fact, based on the news coverage of the meeting, I followed suit. (You can find examples of how the meeting was spun here and here.) Now the transcript is out and it shows a remarkably different meeting than the one portrayed.
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: Mr. President-elect, can I ask a question? One of the issues that you actually were very careful not to speak about during the campaign, and haven’t spoken about yet, is one very near and dear to my heart, the whole issue of climate change, the Paris agreement, how you’ll approach it. You own some of the most beautiful links golf courses in the world …[laughter, cross talk]TRUMP: [laughing] I read your article. Some will be even better because actually like Doral is a little bit off … so it’ll be perfect. [inaudible] He doesn’t say that. He just says that the ones that are near the water will be gone, but Doral will be in great shape.[laughter]FRIEDMAN: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even
…
SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.SULZBERGER: Not like this.TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.
…
JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.
…
MICHAEL D. SHEAR, Just one quick clarification on the climate change, do you intend to, as you said, pull out of the Paris Climate …TRUMP: I’m going to take a look at it.
Quite honestly, on reading this I don’t find a lot to disagree with. He shoots down the alarmism, he clearly states that he has doubts about the veracity of the climate change syndicate, he ties his level of concern about global warming to damage attempt to mitigate that alleged event have on the US economy, and he says he’ll “take a look at” the goofy Paris Climate accord.
I’d be the last person to ever claim that I knew what Trump was thinking but the substance of the interview does not comport with the storylines of Trump softening his opposition to warmist scaremongering.
Why, then, if the news coverage of Trump’s interview differs markedly from what was actually said is it not treated as “fake news?” Simple reason. The news coverage supports the liberal orthodoxy and it serves a second purpose of trying to drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters. This is why Sean Hannity was so correct a couple of nights ago when he encouraged Trump to cut the traditional media out of the process entirely."
(This is exactly right. The press is lying. They are lying about Trump said in this meeting and are slanting the news to conform to the "narrative" that they are peddling. The same bullshit with the transition. Trump is far ahead of the schedule of prior administration but every story is about "turmoil" and "infighting" as if they know what they are talking about. Trump needs to totally cut off the news media from the White House. No news pool. No White House Press Corp. They can report all they want. But don't make it easy for them. Force them to carry stuff live the way he did in the campaign. Go on the show and talk to the people directly. But don't let them be the gatekeepers because they have forfeited that right because they are strictly partisans.
There are a whole bunch of people like Allahpundit and Glen Beck and Karl Rove and some people here who are invested in Trump being a bust so they will slant everything and try to drum up controversy and separate Trump from his voters. It didn't work in the nominating process. It didn't work in the general election. It won't work now. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
And it is driving them crazy. Seriously batshit crazy. It is only going to get worse. Sad.)
9 comments:
Of all the RedState regulars, Streiff is not friendly to Trump, but at least tries to be fair in his bias--and recognizes how bad Hillary would have been.
The guy who banned you, however, must have gone on a three day bender when Trump won. Even Hillary managed to pull it together after a day melting down.
I am barely tolerated at RS, but they recognize they need someone pro Trump. That would be me.
American Pravda is evil. Via Drudge, here's the latest example. I wonder if the original Pravda was this bold and corrupt.
At least I think even low info people are catching on to the bull shit that's presented as news.
I take it the money finally stopped.
BTW If you look at 1720 - the original crotchless panties.
Politico headline: trump rages as clinton helps [wisconsin] recount
from article: Trump delivered a measured response — measured by his standards — attacking Stein directly but refraining from criticizing Clinton.
"“This recount is just a way for Jill Stein, who received less than one percent of the vote overall and wasn’t even on the ballot in many states, to fill her coffers with money, most of which she will never even spend on this ridiculous recount,” Trump said in a statement released by his transition team. "This is a scam by the Green Party for an election that has already been conceded, and the results of this election should be respected instead of being challenged and abused, which is exactly what Jill Stein is doing."
In his only mention of Clinton, the president-elect -- who frequently raised questions during the campaign about voter fraud and the prospect that the election process would be rigged against him -- reminded that the Democratic nominee had already conceded."
Sickening.
Not sure about the legalities here.
Does a concession mean a recount can't be demanded?
Sounds like The Donald may be rethinking his wish not to order any new investigations in the very near future.
I'm under the impression that as long as the state deadline to file for recount is met, concessions don't matter if the vote was not accurate. Go to the article, a guy said that even the least margin among the three states in question, Michigan, is an amount a recount has ever overcome.
I'm just ticked about the suggestive headline...he 'raged.'
That's Politico.
nobody should take it any more seriously than the WaPo or MSLSD.
Post a Comment