Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Liberal and Media Bias, Hypocrisy, Outrage, and Bad Precedent (Part II)
Yet, the media is defending the effort of Jill Stein, and now backed by the Clinton campaign, to raise money for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Trump won Wisconsin by 1% or about 28,000 votes; Trump won Michigan by 0.3% or about 11,000 votes; and Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.3% or about 70,000 votes. Most states do an automatic recount if the election is decided by less than 0.25% which none of these states qualify. Hence, Jill Stein has started to raise money for a recount and thus far a recount has been granted in Wisconsin. What is odd is why is Stein leading this charge? She earned more votes as the Green Party candidate in all three of the states in question to put Clinton in the White House. Remember, Green Party votes are 90% more likely to take a vote from the Democratic candidate than the Republican candidate (Libertarian candidates usually take more votes from the Republican candidate). Liberals claim that Trump outperformed Romney numbers, especially in rural areas, by huge margins (10 to 20%) and that seems unlikely. In fact, Trump won 38 more counties in those three states than Romney won (Republicans win most counties in general elections, so winning that many more is an amazing feat). But there are several reasons as to why this recount will not change anything. First, there is no evidence of any cyber security hack. Secondly, the urban and rural voting patterns in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were similar to what happened in other states such as Ohio, Iowa, and Minnesota (strong correlation in voting patterns) and even to a lesser degree – Florida and New Hampshire (moderate correlation in voting patterns). And there is even some weak correlation in other states that Clinton won: Colorado and Nevada. Thirdly, some may argue that results may have been “rigged” in those other states as well. However, each state has a different method of voting and in some cases voting methods are mixed. For instance, Iowa and Minnesota elections are not electronic – they are entirely paper ballots. Hence, there is no way to “hack” these elections through cyber security breaches. Also, rural counties in Wisconsin use paper ballots. The bottom line is there is a paper trail that supports the election results: a trend of Trump outperforming Romney big league. Fourth, Trump can lose any one of these states and still win the election. In fact, he can lose both Wisconsin and Michigan and still win the election. And his lead in Pennsylvania is the largest and most secure of the three states. Fifth, these are huge leads in all three states. Finding tens of thousands of votes just does not happen. Fifth, Trump under performed the results of Republicans in U.S. Senate races in rust-belt states. Finally, what most people fail to realize is that Obama outperformed Gore and Kerry by large margins in rural rust belt counties and the trend just reversed itself? But where is the criticism of the left in the media for dragging out this election and failing to conform to our democratic ways? Stein is obviously doing a favor for the Clinton campaign why else would she select three states that Trump barely won. Why not contest states Clinton barely won - Minnesota (1.4%) or New Hampshire (0.3%)? It is because Stein is working in cahoots with the Clinton campaign. This behavior sets a bad precedent for our democracy as do the violent protests. I am not condoning any type of biased media coverage. But my biggest beef is that they fail to be consistent on issues. They cover Trump different than they do Clinton over the same issues i.e. “rigged elections” and failing to trust our election system. The media failed to cover Obama in same light over similar issues especially over national security as Bush: war (Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq), drone strikes, NSA metadata, and civil liberty violations (killing of American terrorists without due process). Did the media cover Benghazi, fast and furious, IRS and DOJ targeting, the Clinton email server, or the VA cover up with the same veracity that they covered the outing of Valarie Plame or the firing of federal judges? Is the appointment of Bannon being reported equally as Obama controversial Czar Appointments? Has controversial Obama associations been covered as much as the Alt-Right and KKK supporting Trump (even though he has disavowed them dozens of times)? Has Clinton ever disavowed radical groups such as Black Lives Matter? The public is tired of this blatant bias as they are tired of narcissistic college youths coddled by liberal parents and professors. Liberal youths that want to stifle free speech by hiding in safe spaces on college campuses free of opposing points of view. Everything that the media or liberals accuse Trump and his supporters of, they in turn do the same thing: Protesting elections and having no faith in our democratic system, discrimination, hateful words and acts, and so forth. As long as the media and liberals behave with hypocrisy, bias, bad precedent, and outrage the Trump movement will gain traction. It is so blatant that no one wants to give the guy a fair shot before he even gets into office. I debated my vote for Trump. It was difficult. However, the more the media covered the election in an unfair matter, the more I saw my vote for Trump as a vote against the media.