Simple Answers to Stupid Questions

Adam Alabaster keeps asking:

"In the 2012 election, Obama picked up more big newspaper endorsements than Romney. 

In both 2008 and 2004, the Democrat running for president obtained endorsements from the majority of the 100 biggest newspapers in the United States. In 2008, Obama beat McCain, 65-25, with 10 giving either no endorsement or a split endorsement. In 2004, Kerry gained 54 endorsements, compared to Bush' 37 (9 of the papers gave no endorsement). 

If the mass media is so conservative, how did Kerry and Obama gain so many endorsements from big newspapers? "

Simple, Adam.  In a rational country, after the miserable failure of the Bush administration and their worthless Republican policies, no newspapers would endorse the exact same policies from Bush, McCain and Romney.  Even a single media source endorsing Bush in 2004, McCain or Romney is a sign that they didn't give a damn about what is best for the country.

Now, Adam and Dikran, don't think you are going to worm your way back in here by pretending to be reasonable a couple of times.  We all know you are both trolls who don't give a damn about the truth, any more than a newspaper that could endorse George W. Bush in 2004.  So, don't waste my time any more.

Comments

Zog said…
When has Dikran even pretended to be reasonable?
April 15, 2016 at 9:36 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's Okay, Never Mind

Image
The woman in this picture, equipped with the weapons and ammunition shown, was found outside a National guard base. She is apparently a big Glenn Beck fan, and believed that the base was a FEMA concentration camp. Think she's the only one out there? You just know this sort of thing is not going to end well.
Read more

If a Tree Falls In the Woods

Image
 And nobody hears it, is it really running for President at all? First of all, a note about my absence lately:  My wife got me to sign up for an account at Threads, which is sort of like X without the assholes.  I've spent a little time establishing myself there, and I have to say, I do like the relatively immediate exchange of views, but I don't mean to give up my blog- there are still so many things that can't be dealt with in a couple hundred words, so, perhaps to your dismay, I am back. So, what motivated the above question is the fact that the Sunday New York Times today had seven articles about Trump, and absolutely zero about Kamala Harris.   The Republicans have a problem with Harris, in that virtually everyone who sees her likes her and immediately understands how qualified she is to be President.  They have tried mightily the last month to find some way to smear her, but have been spectacularly unsuccessful- the tactics of character assassination ...
Read more

Wingnuts Slightly Annoyed about that $83 Million

Image
How can you look like a decrepit old geezer and an out of control two year old at the same time? I thought it might be nice to look in on wingnut world to see how they are taking yesterday's $83 million dollar Trump legal loss.  You kind of know that they will decide it shouldn't affect their opinion of him in any way, but it might be helpful to see just how the Republican party has trained them to reject any fact they don't like.  Not that surprisingly, a lot of the usual wingnut suspects didn't touch this loss at all, preferring to just ignore anything that interferes with their hateful daydreams, but here are a few excerpts from an article at Gateway Pundit, along with a sample of the hundreds of comments it received.  Enjoy.  Or not. "Trump attorney Alina Habba WENT OFF after the crooked New York City court slapped President Trump with an $83 million judgment for speaking out against the disgusting lies of a crazed woman who said he lured her into a Bergdorf Go...
Read more