Friday morning links

In the history of politics, there is no precedent for the media’s entire focus to be on undoing the last presidential election.

True, the left has wanted to impeach every Republican president, but at least they used to wait a decent interval between the inauguration and concocting some preposterous “impeachable offense.”

Did anyone really think the Democrats were serious when they put on those long faces for the nightly news and cast their impeachment votes?

Democrats impeach. America yawns

Tucker on Democrats’ Impeachment Vote: “It Is Kind of a Jonestown Dynamic Where They All Know It’s Going to End Badly”

Kimball: The real impeachment scandal. The Democrats are always guilty of what they accuse Trump of

Get The Hell Out Of Afghanistan Now

Margaret Thatcher's Amazing Prophecy On The EU

Europe's Humiliation

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:00 | Comments (15) | Trackbacks (3)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Dec 22, 09:53

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Dec 22, 10:05

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Dec 22, 10:25

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Nixon was effectively impeached by the media in 1972. He won re-election in 49 states, excepting only Massachusetts. It took an entire year of relentless negative coverage from the media to swing public opinion from a favorable opinion to a negative one. It was 100 % media finessed; the first time in history that the Fourth Estate wielded that authority over a governed people effectively. Since then they have been consolidating their position and improving the product, innovating technology to better spread the message. But the tactics are the same. And now the coverage is, what? - 95% negative. All bad all the time: the media sets the stage and grooms the playing field, and the Democrats take it from there.

#1 Aggie on 2019-12-20 08:20 (Reply)

...and never forget that Deep Throat , Woodward's and Bernstein's top secret source that informed their Washington Post anti-Nixon work, was the Associate Director of the F.B.I., Mark Felt.

#1.1 Aggie on 2019-12-20 09:25 (Reply)

...but the media were not a laughingstock in '72. These days the media are entertainment, often of the slapstick variety, except to the true wacko believers.

#1.2 BillH (Link) on 2019-12-20 11:10 (Reply)

But the internet didn't exist back then. That's the difference, and it's huge.

#1.3 gospace on 2019-12-20 18:54 (Reply)

" America Has World’s Highest Rate Of Single-Parent Households" So many children living with single parent is really hurting the children and our culture. Try as hard as they can something is still missing and it is showing up, often in young males with violence and misbehavior. Wasn't it Lindon Johnson that started some of it with denying monetary assistance if a black family had a husband living in the household which led to the father's leaving so the mother's could get money? It is very hard to raise kids in a two parent family let alone on your own. Someone needs to let these women know how difficult it is to "have a child" with some guy that isn't around in the child's future. I'm sorry for the kids.

#2 JC on 2019-12-20 09:31 (Reply)

While what you say may be accurate it is not the cause. The cause pure and simple is welfare. As odd as it may seem to you or I or any normal person to believe that a human would choose welfare over a normal life in fact that is the case. these are people who generally are not too smart, not too honest, not too moral and the idea of having three kids by three dads just so they can get free stuff actually appeals to them. End welfare and this problem will fix itself. I might add that with rampant immigration and out of control national debt and spending we will have to limit welfare in the future or welfare and our other excess spending will limit us. Do it now and avoid the next great depression.

#2.1 OneGuy on 2019-12-20 11:25 (Reply)

Well actually they did a study here that if a single mother has 3 kids out of wedlock, she will get more than $60,000 a year in payments and benefits from the government. So the government is financing this behavior, they don't work, and make more than the average worker. They have 3 kids because that's the number to max out the benefits vs. costs. And then we support them all.

#2.2 Jim on 2019-12-20 13:18 (Reply)

Impeachment: This may be premature cause I keep expecting another shoe to drop, that the Dems are smarter than they appear, and they have more dirty underhanded tricks to pull off.
But I think that the last weeks can be summed up with the question:
Who's the stupid party now?

#3 Exasperated on 2019-12-20 09:45 (Reply)

Sundance (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/19/impeachment-as-a-means-to-an-end-and-not-the-end-itself/) thinks the impeachment in the House is a disposable exercise toward gaining access to the Mueller Grand Jury materials as well as Trump's financial information. As with all of this kabuki, the information is almost certainly already known by Nadler/Schiff et al because of well-established back-door access and leaks; the question becomes how to finagle getting it aired in an official forum for official action. Don't forget that the Democrats have been using a group of Lawyers known as 'Lawfare' to put together their plotting and do their gunslinging. They are in the same stripe as Andrew Weissmann, highly partisan, cunning, and ethically corrupt. Sundance's coverage as a citizen journalist has been devoted and exceptional.

#3.1 Aggie on 2019-12-20 10:58 (Reply)

I was pleased that the nuclear power/climate change story is probably satire. I can understand why someone might think it was real, however.

#4 Assistant Village Idiot on 2019-12-20 10:30 (Reply)

The courts wanted a rationale why the Trump administration wanted a headcount of illegals through the Census, so why not just point-out how their presence can/will change the Electoral Map, and whether that needs to be remedied. In the least studied.

The democrats are counting on all those illegals to give them over-representation and to swing elections. Excluding illegals from proportioning seems like a no-brainer if the democrats want to keep hounding about the Electoral College.

#5 Hoss on 2019-12-20 10:30 (Reply)

"Surge in immigrants to take 24 House seats"

That was the plan. In the 60's Sen Ted Kennedy and his fellow Democrats planned to flood the country with immigrants legal and illegal in an attempt to replace/dilute American voters. It's working as planned.

#6 Anon on 2019-12-20 11:12 (Reply)

I really don't understand why President Trump is supporting racially segregated universities. Taxpayers would never approve of that expenditure. And that's the problem. Americans are being taxed to support programs which they do not want, and do not need. The problem is that these spending decisions are made at the Federal level; where there is no oversight.

What would happen if Federal spending were divided among all the states? Each state could contribute to each program as it sees fit. And the citizens would have much more influence concerning which programs get supported.

#7 Ron Lieberman on 2019-12-20 13:18 (Reply)

The only reason some states will lose house seats is because the House is unconstitutionally too small. Both the original Constitution and as amended by the 14th say the same thing: "2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers,...

Representatives cannot be apportioned according to their respective numbers if the number of congresscritters is limited to 435. Each state should have (# of congresscritters)=(State population)/(Smallest state population). Based on the last census, 39 of 50 states would see an increase in numbers of representatives. Nebraska and West Virginia at 3 each would be the largest states by population not to receive an increased number. Delaware and Montana would double their number going from 1 to 2.

#8 gospace on 2019-12-20 19:06 (Reply)

The pizza maker is way cool and it's definitely automation.

It is not, no matter how loose the definition used, a "robot", or even "robotic"

The constant use of "robot" to describe things that are not robots drives me straight up the wall.

I have more than 40 years working with automation and robots. Also write about them in the industry publications.

So perhaps I'm a bit over sensitive.

John Henry

#9 John Henry on 2019-12-21 13:48 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, December 20. 2019

Friday morning links