While Chuck Schumer’s the one who’s taken the leading role in anti-Trump vilification, he’s not been heard from in the past few days. However, Nancy Pelosi's now spoken up, as reported by Kyle Olson @theamericanmirror.com, who wrote today: “Has Nancy Pelosi completely lost her mind? Or does she just have to complain about everything President Trump does?
“During a press briefing on Thursday, the House Minority Leader criticized the president’s choice of visiting Saudi Arabia first during his inaugural foreign trip.
“I thought it was unusual for the President of the United States to go to Saudi Arabia first. Saudi Arabia!” Pelosi said.
“It wasn’t even alphabetical. I mean, Saudi Arabia.”
Whereas Pelosi’s comment makes no sense whatsoever, Mr.Olson went on to note that: “If Trump were to begin visiting foreign countries by alphabetical order, he would first visit Afghanistan, followed by Albania, Algeria, Andorra and Angola.
“Is Nancy Pelosi really advocating for a Sesame Street strategy to boost foreign relations?”
As for the POTUS himself, according to Franco Ordoñe @mcclatchydc.com, although terrorism tops Trump’s agenda, “European leaders keep pressing him on climate change and the environment.”
“French President Emmanuel Macron worked on Trump during lunch Thursday, urging the U.S. president not to ditch the 196-nation Paris Agreement on climate change before getting on a plane to Sicily, Italy.
“My wish is that the United States takes no hurried decision,” Macron said Thursday after meeting with Trump in Brussels.
“Trump arrived to this seaside community late Thursday for the Group of Seven conference where allies will talk about a series of issues from trade to Russia. But Trump’s position on the Paris accord—particularly his pledge to leave the accord—is one of the most urgent matters for European leaders, who are committed to keep the Americans involved.”
European leadership’s pressure on climate-change is remindful of the posting here two days ago, that said: “Doing some quick research quickly disclosed why those nations would most certainly be concerned about the U.S. possibly withdrawing from the agreement, whereas according to Wikipedia: “In early March 2016, the Obama administration gave a $500 million grant to the "Green Climate Fund" as "the first chunk of a $3 billion commitment made at the Paris climate talks.”
“Which means that if the U.S. really leaves, the deepest pockets of the bunch whose checks will never bounce is what’s really lost. Because, when it comes to the actual climate, Mother Nature will take care of it, just like she always does.”
And then, some astute readers posted their reactions as well.
John Mattaboni commented: “Global warming is a scam that steals money and power. I'm sure the governments of Europe would LOVE to steal more money and power. Trump should just say the treaty needs to be ratified by Congress and let them kill it.”
Pete Morris wrote: “Could this be the reason Europe is in turmoil? They think (stupidly) that global warming is more dangerous than Islamic terrorism? I'm glad I moved here 30 years ago!”
Barry Forster Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) wrote: “By all means, my European friends, let us save the whales, save the snails, save the trees, save the seas, save the worms, and save the germs for population control. And let us carbon tax all the greedy capitalists into bankruptcy under one world government at the UN for the greater glory of Gaia.”
Real Men Don't Need Guns took a more amenable tack on the topic, while still finding the urgent emphasis on warming versus terrorism ridiculous, as follows: “While Conservatives and the GOP are in outright (“the earth is flat”) denial mode when it comes to MM global warming, given the terror attacks in Europe, the focus on climate change is, to say the least, bizarre. Terrorism, like any gaping bleeding wound that’s putting life in immediate peril, should be the top priority; the slower growing cancer of climate change should come next.”
And then, on another subject, anyone doubting FoxNews shift to the left need only to scan their website where they’ll still find an article from April 26, a month ago, titled: “Fox News Poll: President Trump's first 100 days getting mixed reviews”
Dana Blanton wrote: “A Fox News Poll taken as the Trump administration nears its 100-day milestone gives mixed messages to the president.
President Trump’s job ratings are underwater by three percentage points. Currently 45 percent approve of the job he’s doing. That’s down slightly from the 48 percent approval he received when he first took office -- and far below Barack Obama’s 62 percent approval and George W. Bush’s 63 percent approval at this same point in their presidencies.
“Trump’s victory came from voters’ desire for change -- a big part of which was “draining the swamp.” Yet only 43 percent think the president is succeeding in bringing real change to Washington. More, 50 percent, say he’s failing.”
While there may be some other reason for keeping the aged article on their website, it certainly appears that the Fox objective is to prolong the POTUS in the most negative light possible for as long feasible.
The same subject, polling, was addressed today by Fox’s Howard Kurtz who writes about what he calls “big time backlash” he received after reporting about a Fox News poll that came out the other night.
According to Kurtz, he offered no analysis or commentary, “just a few numbers” showing “Trump’s approval at 40%, down from 45% last month. 53% say his agenda is coming apart; 44% say he's shaking up Washington.”
“Well, you’d have thought I had called for the president’s impeachment,” Kurtz wrote.
“I practically got buried under an avalanche of angry tweets.
“Most of them didn’t seem to want to engage in an actual discussion. They just attacked me, Fox, and polling in general”
Kurtz then provided a sampling of tweets he’d received, all of them similar to the following: “The way Fox is headed. This poll is wrong. I talk to people from all over the US everyday. Trump is still tops. No one unhappy. All cool.”
In support of his belief in Trump’s decline in popularity, Kurtz wrote: “The Fox poll, which surveyed more than 1,000 people with a 3-point margin of error, was hardly an outlier. In the last two days, Gallup has Trump’s job approval at 39 percent, Quinnipiac at 37, Ecoomist at 40 and Reuters at 37. The exception is Rasmussen, which puts Trump at 48 percent.
“The everyone-I-talk-to argument betrays a lack of understanding of how scientific polling works.
“For the record, the final Fox poll before Election Day gave Hillary Clinton a 4-point lead, overstating her margin, but keep in mind that she won the popular vote. Trump is president because he won key Electoral College battlegrounds.”
However, by taking a purely arithmetical approach to justify his premise regarding Trump’s poor poll performance at present, Kurtz is making the same mistake as most typical mainstream media journalists who discredit the mass of voters residing in flyover country. Yet, those voters gave Trump 304 electoral votes.
“If everything is fake news, then the role of news in fostering intelligent debate is decimated.
“And I don’t need a poll to be sure of that.”
And it’s in that thought stream that Kurtz, most likely unintentionally, clearly identifies what’s caused the demise of the mainstream media he finds so troubling. Because it isn’t the role of news to “foster intelligent debate.” The job of news is to report the five “W’s” of: What happened? Who was involved? Where did it take place? When did it take place? and Why did that happen?”
Opinions belong on the editorial page, not in the daily columns.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment