I just saw a headline wherein Donald Trump ‘admitted’ his supporters were ‘violent’. This was on a tour (the “Thank You” tour) at a stop in Orlando, Florida. The President-Elect made an attempt to ‘calm’ them, not for the first time, by the way. The story was carried on CNN, NBS, and of course, the Huffington Post.
I have to wonder what is meant here by ‘violent’ or ‘mean and nasty’. I wonder just how many automobiles where destroyed by ‘Trump supporters’? How many people where attacked and beaten for being ‘other’? How many police officers were called out and then attacked by ‘Trump supporters’ in the course of riots? I do recall some ‘Trump supporters’ being less than sympathetic when all the idiot liberals cried, sucked their thumbs and wailed over the prospect of having to get a job.
Oddly enough, I don’t remember ANY liberal candidate, politician or alleged “reporter”decrying or demanding any of the liberal inspired rioters cease and desist in the aftermath of Secretary Clinton’s overwhelming defeat. All I heard from the left wing propaganda – excuse me, I mean ‘news’ – outlets was sympathy and understanding for the confusion, disappointment and ‘fear’ (of getting a real job?) for the rioters.
As long as I’m on the subject:
What about the ‘conflict of interest’ problem possible with President-Elect Trump’s business holdings and his responsibility as President? He ‘might’ have a problem.
But never mentioned by the Democrat Propaganda Machine – excuse me, I meant to say, the ‘news media’ – is any hint of Secretary Clinton’s up-to-the-moment conflicts of interest when acting in the official capacity of Secretary of State. Nor any comment about the very questionable activities of the ‘Clinton Foundation’.
President-Elect Trump’s choice for Secretary of State has been innuendoed regarding his dealings with and relationship to Russia and Russian leadership. Really? Having a working relationship with others is a bad thing? Being competent in dealing with others is a bad thing? I guess it depends on one’s viewpoint.
I recall during much of the Cold War how the liberal side went to great extremes to take the side of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), colloquially referred to as ‘Russia’. The Soviets were all decent people, their leaders honorable and all problems arising between the two powers (the U. S. and the U. S. S. R.) were always the total fault of the antiquated and reactionary United States.
Now, that Russia is no longer the champion of socialism/communism, the liberals seem to think dealing with them is not such a good idea. How odd.
I’m not going to start on First Lady Michelle Obama’s statement about “… no hope…” Once again, I suppose it depends on one’s viewpoint. (Being productive and earning an income or welfare.)
Actually, this whole problem is summed up very adequately in one word. “Crybaby”.