Wednesday, 26 October 2016

The New York Times once again tilts the scales

The NYT continued to show their bias towards Clinton with their article.
The New York Times today published a section in their paper entitled
‘All the People, Places and Things Donald Trump has insulted on Twitter since declaring his candidacy for President’

Where is the insults Clinton has given to those who supported Trump, to Trump himself? Hillary isn’t a clean person, she has insulted, she has offended, it isn’t just Trump. So where is the 6000 words of Hillary’s insults. While, granted, she may not have used as many strong words as Trump, she may not have struck up as many insults, they are there and they shouldn’t be ignored. But I suppose that the media will stand in the way of anyone they don’t approve of, especially Trump, as we have already seen, and as Wikileaks has already highlighted.

How is the media getting away with this so easily? Where is a source of news that isn’t so tainted or biased. Where is the share of news that poses the situations on an even playing field, instead of forcing Trump to fight an uphill battle? This unfairness is so obvious, and so obviously harming Trump.

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

Clinton's email once again spreads hypocracy

The following correspondence played out between myself and Mini Timmaraju, the National Women’s Vote Director for Hillary Clinton.

Dear Mini,

Image result for Mini Timmaraju
Mini Timmaraju, National Women's Vote Director for Clinton
I know I will have no luck corresponding with you, like my last correspondence, but, despite this, I still email, faithful as ever. 

Number one, You are a hypocritical bunch of people. How can you and Hillary complain about Trump complaining about her looks, when you have been doing it all along the campaign trail. There have been cracks at what Hillary calls 'his toupee' and cracks about how Trump doesn't look like the sort of person who is fit to lead. Hillary is the first one to start this physical feud.

Secondly, Hillary tells Trump off for apparently 'groping women', which he actually didn't do, nor did he admit to doing it. Nonetheless, you Hillary supporters are always correct, and don't let me get in the way of your bias, and corrupted perspective. I've seen what you do to people that do. Also, you incorrectly inferred from his comment that he did grope women, when he actually didn't say he did. You have contorted the truth to your purposes, and in doing so, have misadvised, and essentially lied to the people of America, and your followers. You are trying to get these people on yur side, to tell them that you are a good person for presidency, and yet you lie to them? The people of America really are stupid if they fall for this lying scandal.

Thirdly, like I told Robby Mook, I don't like what you people say, and I don't believe in it. Now, that doesn't mean that I hold the same hatred for Hillary that she holds for Trump, or his supporters, that she abused. I feel hurt by that, and I don't think that Hillary will be an inclusive president, if she abuses people that don't agree with her, like she has shown she has done. That is what a dictator does. That is what Hitler did. Is Hillary another Hitler. I am not your greatest follower, and I don't want to be. I am on the Trump side, and I will stay there, until you convince me otherwise, and looking at your current performances, that won't be happening soon, and after the election, when you plunge America into further debt, I will be laughing at your incompetence, and stupidity, and the idiocracy of your supporters. They aren't beasts, like Hillary said Trump supporters are, but they are idiots, and I will stand by that, until Hillary says a word of truth, or sense.

Kindest regards,

Richard Mills.

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 11:40 AM, <> wrote:
Richard, after a week dominated by stories about Donald Trump’s fundamental lack of respect for women, we were treated this afternoon to another example.

At a rally in North Carolina, he said this about Hillary at the last debate: “I’m standing at my podium, and she walks in front of me. You know, and when she walked in front of me, believe me, I wasn’t impressed.”

Now, this doesn’t mean that I support Trump’s comments in the least. I don’t agree with what he said, and I agree with Mini, it was disappointing to hear it from Trump who, for the majority of this campaign, has been the underdog, but I guess, with the polls down, he is getting desperate.

Friday, 14 October 2016

La Trobe shows how ‘politically correct’ it has become, and how stupid this concept really is

Image result for la trobe university trigger warnings
Trigger Warnings is the name given to an action where you have to warn people about what you are speaking about  if it contains inappropriate or ‘scary’ or ‘hated’ things. The University ‘Student Union’ has passed a motion that means that essentially, the university has been turned into a ‘safe space’. How on earth are people meant to learn about the world, and the controversial issues, if they are constantly being shielded from the issues or topics.

Rita Panahi wrote this:

La Trobe University’s student union passed a motion to use trigger warnings in student council meetings. Its list of issues requiring a trigger warning is extensive, including the usual fare such as eating disorders, rape, suicide and violence, but also includes vomit, snakes, spiders, Islamophobia, needles, slimy things, insects, classism, food, eye contact, misophonia (hatred of sounds), pregnancy, queerphobia, transphobia, transmisogyny, weapons, sex, and any discussion of “isms” including “shaming, or hatred of any kind (racism, classism, hatred of cultures/ethnicities that differ from your own, sexism, hatred of sexualities or genders that differ from your own, anti-multiple, non-vanilla shaming, sex positive shaming, fat shaming/body image shaming, neuroatypical shaming).”
Image result for la trobe university 
However, not all universities s are following La Trobe’s example. The University of Chicago released a statement saying:

“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so called ‘trigger warnings’, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”...

To sum up the situation at what Andrew Bolt called an ‘anti-intellectualism’ university, Richard Dawkins tweets;
“A university is not a ‘safe space’. If you need a safe space, leave, go home, hug your teddy and suck your thumb until ready for university.”

He really gets to the point. People go to university to learn about the world, and better prepare themselves for properly entering it on their own. If they’re not ready for it, tell them to go back to pre-school. If they are ready for that, that is, because nap-time, in the middle of the day, may offend them.

Vanessa de Largie shows the unfairness of the modern world

In a world where Section 18C can be enforced, you never know what you can say, but this quote by Vanessa de Largie shows that the unfairness of the real world means that some people can say some things more than others can.

Image result for Vanessa de largie
Feminist Vanessa de Largie supposedly speaks for all female
victims of domestic violence, yet she wishes Kardashian was killed.
Yet, I have a confession to make. When I heard the news that Kim Kardashian West had been gagged and robbed at gunpoint in her private Paris apartment last week, my first thought was: Why couldn’t they have killed her?

Can you imagine the outrage and bitterness that would have erupted had Donald Trump said that? The headlines would be all over that quote, yet when this female writer on the women’s section of the Daily Telegraph writes it, it manages to keep itself hidden, as if nothing had ever been said. Had Abbott said this, the Daily Telegraph would have printed pages of the sexism, hate and arrogance that Abbott possessed because of this quote, yet the Daily Telegraph printed this themselves. You have to wonder, who are the editors of the Daily Telegraph, and what are they doing, and further, can this be considered as hate speech? Who really is Vanessa de Largie.

Now, I am not a Kardashian supporter. I had to search up how to spell the name. She is not a person I am particularly familiar with, and I certaintly don’t keep up with the Kardashians. I just don’t know why some people can say some things, but others can’t. Aren’t we meant to live in a world where everything is fair, and just in the world. Had a male commentator said this, they would have been labelled sexist, mysognist, the list goes on, yet this de Largie manages to write this without a scrape. She is probably being patted on the back for her brilliant work, and de Largie is very lucky the affairs of a Kardashian isn’t front-page news.