Obsession,
or, Misdirection and Diversion,
by Liviana (Giovanna L.)
On Friday, the 7th of October, in the Common Era year 2016, a video from 2005 was released by NBC and The Washington Post, featuring Donald Trump and Billy Bush with a hot mic recording their conversation. To say that their chat was "Not Safe For Work" would be an understatement, as the reader will note from the link just provided. Earlier in the week, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks held a press conference in which he promised that the first batch of leaks in his "October Surprise" would be released that week. That release also came on the 7th of October. Included in the leak were excerpts from the long-withheld paid speeches which were given by Hillary Clinton to various big banks and Wall Street firms. Included in those excerpts were some statements by Mrs Clinton which demonstrated that she is, as progressives have long held, a two-faced person who says one thing in public and another in private, that her public statements cannot be trusted, that her publicly stated positions on issues cannot be viewed as an accurate presentation of her actual views.
Most of the main stream media obsessed over Mr Trump's comments, and said nothing about the revelations from the excerpts of Hillary's paid speeches, for over 24 hours. One of the few exceptions, surprisingly, was The Wall Street Journal. Another was CBS, perhaps recalling fondly the days when Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and Dan Rather were among the most trusted people in America. The author still recalls Mister Rather ending broadcasts with the word "Courage" in September of 1986 and catching flak for it, but the author loved it. He was right to say it; the American people needed to hear it at the time.
The recent narrative over which the main stream media obsessed was essentially "Trump is a bad man, he's a misogynist, he said all these deplorable things, Republicans are deserting him."
The author has said it before since these two releases, and she will now say it again.
Men may not want to admit this, but they do talk among themselves in exactly the same way in which Donald Trump and Billy Bush were speaking on the tape. Such speech is not particularly uncommon among men. It is also a form of male posturing, and should be taken as such (in other words, it amounts to more hot air, trying to impress one another with how sexually active and "Alpha" they are; i.e., the same blowhard routine which has already been seen from Trump throughout the primary season and continuing into the lead-up to the general election). The author has herself heard much worse talk from guys when they did not realize a woman was within earshot. Why anyone is surprised at the comments of Mr Trump is a bit mysterious; the public already knows that Trump is a chauvinist, after all. Yes, the comments which Trump made were lewd, but they pale in comparison to Hillary being a condescending, two-faced, corrupt criminal. Progressives have been saying all along that Trump's words cannot compare to Hillary's actions.
In addition, every woman with a story about "Slick Willy" misbehaving which came to Mrs Clinton's knowledge was apparently mocked and insulted by Mrs Clinton, who tried to silence them and furthermore attempted to discredit them and besmirch their reputations. The obvious example is Monica Lewinsky. whom Mrs Clinton referred to at the time the story was breaking as "a narcissistic loony toon." Paula Jones accused Mr Clinton of exposing himself and sexually harassing her. In January 1998, as part of Paula Jones' case, Mr Clinton testified under oath that he had sexual relations with Gennifer Flowers. In 2016, Ms Flowers stated that Hillary is an enabler of Bill Clinton's affairs. Juanita Broaddrick accused Bill Clinton of rape. Kathleen Willey has accused Bill Clinton of groping her without consent. And all of this is still with Mrs Clinton.
But wait, there's more! Ms Clinton herself, who has more recently parroted the demands of certain so-called "Third Wave Feminists" that a woman who says she has been raped should be believed (perhaps the example of Tawana Brawley has been forgotten, but that said, not every woman who says she was raped is Ms Brawley, and while automatic belief would be an example of inappropriate credulity on the part of investigators, those taking her testimony should absolutely not interact with the woman making the claim in the same way they would deal with a suspect in a crime), has a history of denigrating, mocking, attempting to silence and smear, and defiantly refusing to believe women who made such claims about Mr Clinton.
Trump did at least offer something which some are taking as an apology for the remarks, and some have doubts about it being an actual apology due to the wording. The author will say that it was more of an apology than any she has heard from Hillary Clinton; indeed, Ms Clinton never admits fault, but says "I misspoke" or "I made a mistake," or blatantly denies anything was wrong with what she said or did, or denies it ever even happened.
So once again, people are afraid of or upset by some words used by Trump, but willing to overlook the actions of Hillary Clinton, exactly as Trump stated in his apology. And exactly as progressives have been pointing out for over two months now, they're obsessing over Trump's speech, while giving a pass to Hillary's behavior. Why, exactly?
The answer is simple: misdirection and diversion. Indeed, the very timing of the released tape of what Trump has accurately (as unpleasant as that reality may be for some women to hear) referred to as "locker-room banter" seems to be rather convenient, since the main stream media folk were aware that Assange's first batch of leaks would happen some time in that week, and the main stream media outlets have largely promoted Hillary's candidacy since the two conventions ended.
Meanwhile, the Democrats, for their part, do not explicitly deny the truth of what has been revealed in the leaked emails and speeches. Some have danced around the question, alluding to "doctored" emails, without ever explicitly claiming that the leaked emails themselves have been altered, but for the most part, they attempt to portray themselves as "victims" and point their fingers at Russia, as if the source of the leaks would somehow absolve them, and Mrs Clinton, of responsibility for the contents of the emails and speeches. Thanks to WikiLeaks, the public has seen evidence of collusion between the DNC and the main stream media, the public has seen excerpts from Mrs Clinton's paid speeches (which reveal, among other things, what progressives already knew, that she changes her message depending on her audience, or, in other words, that she is two-faced), the public has seen that Mrs Clinton's economic views are (as progressives already knew) Right Wing, the public has seen evidence that the DNC colluded with the Hillary for President campaign during the primary (in violation of the DNC's own charter) and attempted to undermine Senator Sanders' campaign (in defiance of the democratic principle of fair and honest elections) -- and these leaks led to the Chair of the DNC stepping down (how's that for evidence of the authenticity of the leaked emails?), the public now knows that Hillary at least gave some thought to naming a billionaire as her running mate but already planned to name Tim Kaine as her running mate over a year prior to the Democratic National Convention, the public now knows that Hillary colluded illegally with Super Pacs, the people know that the DNC punished Tulsi Gabbard for endorsing Senator Sanders, hints have been revealed that Hillary's campaign was in contact with the Department of Justice while she was under investigation by the FBI, the public has seen confirmation that Hillary as Secretary of State approved the sale of weapons to Daesh (also known as "ISIL" and "ISIS"), the people have seen that Hillary still supports fracking, the public has seen that Hillary will sell out American workers, the people have seen that Hillary believes that the very people who caused the economic recession should be trusted to resolve the situation and suggest regulations on themselves (Cenk of TYT calls her on this, but fails to realize that his previous talk of electing Hillary and then getting money out of politics is the same fallacy, as the author pointed out in a post on Google Plus: "Hillary isn't going to cooperate with you or us to get the money out of politics for the same reason the bankers aren't going to help the government successfully regulate the banks: she has benefitted from money in politics!"), and the list goes on. What Julian Assange has done in releasing this information is what journalists are supposed to do, and what they did do once upon a time.
But Trump said bad things, and that, and alleged Russian hacks, became the focus of the main stream media in an effort to bury the revelations of WikiLeaks.
 |
| Walter Cronkite |
Once upon a time, the news media did journalism.
 |
| Edward R. Murrow |
But now, they are another of the circuses in the bread and circuses which the establishment uses to distract the voters.
When the people have revelations of actual wrongdoing, of subversion of democracy, of criminal collusion, of the deception perpetrated by Hillary Clinton on the voters, of Hillary's real viewpoints, that should be news.
But no, Trump said bad things, and that has been used to distract from the dystopia which Hillary Clinton has planned.
The author has shown in this blog already that the Democrats who blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's defeat in 2000 are in denial of the facts. More than that, however, anyone who votes for anyone is "spoiling" the election for another candidate. This horseshit about "spoilers" is so illogical as to merit only disdain.
But but but ... Trump! Yeah? Progressives have the numbers to defeat both of the rich assholes and put a progressive in office. The American people should listen to that progressive and give her platform the consideration it deserves.
The title of the post comes from Star Trek (The Original Series), Season 2, episode 13; episode 42 overall; production code 47.
Fair use notice
This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc.
I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.
For more information: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
