Lion of the Blogosphere

A scientific analysis of media bias against Trump

At The Center for Public Integrity, an analysis of journalist donations to the Clinton and Trump campaigns.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump. (Talk radio ideologues, paid TV pundits and the like — think former Trump campaign manager-turned-CNN commentator Corey Lewandowski — are not included in the tally.)

Unfortunately, the 50 who gave to Trump are not identified in the article. I assume that none of them do traditional journalism for major news media. For example, I bet that 100% of journalists at the NY Times are not voting for Trump.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

October 18, 2016 at 9:11 am

Posted in Politics

64 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. In related news, a scientific study reveals that water is wet.


    October 18, 2016 at 9:29 am

    • … and as usual, we’re taxed for this startling scientific revelation.

      Big Humpa

      October 18, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    • Best – Donald Trump impression (Kyle Dunnigan)

      Others goof on Trump’s hair etc. This guy captures the attitude. It’s from near the end of the primaries:


      October 19, 2016 at 12:25 am

  2. “A scientific analysis of media bias against Trump”

    I wonder if anyone disagrees with this? I mean if they were being honest with themselves… Pretty non-controversial stuff, I’d say.

    So we have more “proof” than ever. What doesnt it matter since apparently everyone is quite shameless about it now. It was pretty clear from 2012 that the media had their thumb on their scale and even before that from the Journolist scandal.

    But the current environment is that clickbait advocacy articles disguised as straight news get views. And that is the currency.

    Lion of the Turambar

    October 18, 2016 at 10:33 am

  3. That’s cuz folks at the Times is woke, and you ain’t woke.


    October 18, 2016 at 10:37 am

  4. Conservative types generally don’t go into journalism. There are very few avenues to wealth, and the prestige is middling. If they do, they generally become very moderate politically.

    But, this is beside the point. It’s not media bias that’s bringing down Trump. It’s Trump.

    He has left himself exposed by years of low-class public sleaze behavior. The word ‘discretion’ is unknown to him. I have no doubt that Bill Clinton has said “worse on the golf course,” but he never went on known-perv Howard Stern’s show to discuss things like his own daughter’s body, nor did he participate in a schlocky beauty pageant for the purposes of ogling women or get divorced twice.

    These are all behaviors of the American underclass. Had Trump not inherited extreme wealth, he’d be hosting wet t-shirt competitions at skeezy Fort Lauterdale bars. All well and good, but not presidential.

    The conservative proletariate sticks by Trump because he’s one of them. They’ve deified him for his wealth and revelled in the plain mean-spiritedness of his campaign– “Trump that Bitch,” being the true campaign slogan as displayed on their prole garb.

    All of this is what’s turning off the majority of people who believe the office of the presidency carries a level of importance and prestige that such a man as Trump would degrade and defile.

    Your championing of him will come to be seen as one of the most misguided choices of an otherwise wise man.


    October 18, 2016 at 10:50 am

    • “These are all behaviors of the American underclass.”

      As I keep pointing out, Trump has top-upper-class wealth but behaves prole. That’s why the proles like him. The prole were put off by Romney’s proper aristocratic demeanor.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 18, 2016 at 11:51 am

      • The proles were put off by the FBHO ad blitz in the swing states during the summer of ’12; when Romney couldn’t run ads in reply, because he wasn’t the nominee yet. Those were the ads about sending jobs overseas, he was rich, he fired people, and all the other sins. If you weren’t in a swing state, you never saw those ads, but they worked on the proles who lacked any other source of information about Romney. So they stayed home, morons….


        October 18, 2016 at 12:21 pm

      • Trump’s children isn’t prole. In fact, his children is more aristocratic than the ones of Romney’s.

        By the way, Lion, did you know his son in law, Jared Kushner, owns a line of tenement walkups in the East Village, that go for $3,500/month in rent?


        October 18, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    • …and for the privilege of clutching your pearls over relatively irrelevant matters, you’ll never get what you want if it is in line with what Trump supporters want.

      You can have your social signalling or your political result, but you can’t have both. Democrats realized this slightly before they executed the Romanovs, and have been using it to crush Conservatives ever since.

      Whoever thinks that the Presidency carries legitimate prestige, beyond that determined by American proles, is a prole of the worst order.

      Lion, is an article on the Veritas video coming? I’m just curious. The MSM has blacked out the story, probably because they would be complicit in having made violence at Trump rallies a major issue for so long, but I hope to see wide coverage in alt right style media.


      October 18, 2016 at 1:20 pm

      • “Whoever thinks that the Presidency carries legitimate prestige, beyond that determined by American proles, is a prole of the worst order.”

        That’s quotable.

        Horace Pinker

        October 18, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    • Why do you insist on remaining on a team like the Washington Generals? The Globetrotters have been mocking you for the past 60 years. They’ve been defecating on your face in earnest for the last 30.

      But at least you’re losing with your impeccable class intact.

      *slow clap*


      October 18, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    • If engaging in sleazy affairs makes one prol, then Clinton and JFK are prole.


      October 19, 2016 at 10:26 am

  5. All this silly talk about the “dignity” of the office of POTUS, come on. Have you ever read about Kennedy, Johnson, or Bill Clinton? LBJ use to pull out his giant schlong and wave it at senators to intimidate them (yes, he literally did this). He also schlonged his secretary on top of her desk. JFK had naked pool parties in the White House with the secretarial staff. Sometimes the Secret Service had to run into the pool area and break the party up because Jackie was coming home. Everyone would scramble to dry off and get their clothes back on before the First Lady made it back. Bill Clinton inserted cigars into 20 year old interns in the Oval Orifice…er…Office. The “dignity” of the office doesn’t seem to be a problem for the media when it’s a Democrat.

    some great LBJ quotes:

    “Ford’s economics are the worst thing that’s happened to this country since pantyhose ruined finger-fucking.”
    -LBJ, dignified POTUS

    “Son, when I appoint a ni**er to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a ni**er.”
    Said to an aide in 1965 regarding the appointment of Thurgood Marshall as associate justice of the Supreme Court. As quoted in Dallek, Robert (1991). Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times,


    October 18, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    • Not to mention the Bill Clinton cigar and dress episodes.


      October 18, 2016 at 2:24 pm

  6. I have a friend who is perhaps the only Trump supporter who is also a fierce defender of the MSM. He heavily consumes CNN, NPR, and the L.A Times and insists they are fair, unbiased and give both sides of the story. He refuses to read any link I send him from a non-MSM source and calls it “rigmarole”. Yet he is the most outspoken, passionate Trump supporter you could ever find. He is always wearing Trump t-shirts and engages everyone he comes in contact with. He even goes as far as hunting down Hillary signs and removing them from people’s yards in the middle of the night. Trump himself often mentions the media is against him yet somehow my friend maintains his pro-MSM/pro Trump dichotomy.

    Jay Fink

    October 18, 2016 at 1:52 pm

    • “He even goes as far as hunting down Hillary signs and removing them from people’s yards in the middle of the night.”

      A force for good. I’d say that cancels out his lack of skepticism towards the media.

      Jason Liu

      October 18, 2016 at 3:08 pm

      • Yes I admire his spirit. He is the most active Trump supporter you could ever find. A couple weeks back I hung out with him at a County Fair and it was a lot of fun. As always he was wearing a Trump T-shirt and I was heartened by how much positive feedback he was getting. More “I love your shirt” comments than I can remember. People even wanted to take pictures with him. Based on the love he gets in public he is convinced Trump is going to win. He thinks I’m far too pessimistic. We’ll find out soon enough.

        Jay Fink

        October 19, 2016 at 1:13 am

    • Most likely he’s Jewish. Prole Jews vote as opportunistic constituents. They choose the candidate best fitted for office, regardless of party affiliation, unlike guidos who are usually de facto Republicans.

      Brooklyn’s Haredim are voting for Trump. They’ve always supported Sheldon Silver and Chuck Schumer.


      October 18, 2016 at 5:54 pm

      • Guidos always vote Italian. That’s why DeBlasio won, but they are not going to vote for him again.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 18, 2016 at 10:35 pm

      • No, he is full blooded Italian. Yet his voting behavior is similar to what you say is typical prole Jew. He votes for the person, not the party (and repeats that line an annoying amount of times). Hopefully this isn’t a bad omen but he has never voted for a winner. Here is who he has voted for through the years.

        1988 Dukakis
        1992 Perot
        1996 Dole
        2000 Gore
        2004 Kerry
        2008 Didn’t vote
        2012 Didn’t vote

        He had the same obsessive compulsive passion for Kerry as he has for Trump today. He didn’t care for either candidate in 2008 and 2012 and totally ignored those elections. His 1992 vote for Perot means populists have always had strong appeal to him.

        Jay Fink

        October 19, 2016 at 12:51 am

      • Liberal guidos have never really liked Obama or black people in general. You make a good point.


        October 19, 2016 at 8:42 am

      • Guidos mostly vote Republican. And most Italian Americans ARE Republicans.


        October 19, 2016 at 11:16 am

      • @JS that would have explain why Staten Island voted against Obama even if many other typically Republican districts flipped blue for Obama.

        Jay Fink

        October 19, 2016 at 11:56 am

      • Mario Cuomo, perhaps the most famous of Italian American Democrats, never cared much for the black community. He often made empty gestures to them. Moreover, he supported the secession of Staten Island during the 1980s, which was ultimately stomped like a crushed bug. I don’t know the exact reasons for it, but Jewish politician Sheldon Silver was purportedly behind this failure. Jews are quite receptive of black people, while Italians are not. This I know for a fact, being a very observative person living in NYC. Jews believe in universalism, while Italians believe in provincialism. Interestingly, these 2 ethnic groups were living side by side with each other in lower Manhattan as immigrants, and look how they evolved so differently.


        October 19, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    • The reporting is certainly not biased to the same degree that the staffs skew liberal which is what most people seem to assume.


      October 18, 2016 at 6:21 pm

  7. While maybe you could argue that the media giving more money to one candidate than the other is media bias it’s not what 99% of people think you would be referring to when you say “A scientific analysis of media bias against Trump”. You established nothing about actual reporting.


    October 18, 2016 at 2:34 pm

  8. Jay, your friend sounds like he’s insane. Don’t let him near any sharp objects.


    October 18, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    • I am pretty sure he has Aspergers.

      Jay Fink

      October 18, 2016 at 3:56 pm

      • There’s nothing wrong with having Asperger’s.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 18, 2016 at 7:00 pm

      • Dewds with Aspergers — I always think, “here’s a guy I can relate to,” but no, they don’t have any trippy flow in their mindspace. I mean, they’re not deficient human beings like Park Slopers, and you can like them in the way you’d like a non-malevolent Bugman from Planet 9, but you can’t hang out with them. Which reminds me of a discovery I made that might interest about half of yuze guys, the half of you who are half-Jews. Ever wonder why the only people you feel comfortable hanging out with are other half-Jews? Well, I’ll tell you why. Because people who aren’t Jewish at all won’t talk about anything interesting; it’s just sailboats and sports teams and weather with them, drifting lazily from one trivial thing to the next. And people who are all Jewish insist on focusing in on some one interesting topic and analyzing it all the way through and adducing all of the latest research on it and proving that they’re right about it. While people who are half-Jewish move through a series of interesting topics in an associative way, resulting in the sort of trippy conversation that’s the only tolerable form of social intercourse for us. You see what I mean? The same way the non-Jews float from sailboats to sports teams to weather we half-Jews float from theology to space colonization to Renaissance art. (Yes, I know I’m just running my mental mouth off — but that’s what we half-Jews do.)


        October 18, 2016 at 8:18 pm

      • While people who are half-Jewish move through a series of interesting topics in an associative way, resulting in the sort of trippy conversation that’s the only tolerable form of social intercourse for us.

        And it comes in handy when the topic is theoretical mathematics.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        October 19, 2016 at 11:12 pm

  9. As this article says, the the vast majority of journalists do not give political contributions.

    So of the minority of so-called journalists that give political contributions, 96% went to Clinton.

    Most major news organization have policies against their journalists making political contributions. The line between journalism and opinion has gotten badly blurred in the last 20 years. Since they did not post the list of journalists that made contributions, it is hard to tell how many are even pretending to do unbiased journalism.

    Although I suspect that most journalists favor Clinton, there still are a lot of journalists writing very biased anti-Clinton stories. Look at all the stories that were written that basically said

    “Mr A gave money to the Clinton foundation. Mr A asked State Department for favor. State Department said no. Mr A never got his favor. This raises questions about the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.”

    Wong. This answers the question of whether Mr A got any favors from the State Department for his Clinton Foundation gift. He didn’t.

    News organization dug through all the Clinton Foundation records trying to come up with some actual example of someone getting a favor from the State Department because they were a Clinton Foundation donor. They could not come up with a single plausible case, but you would never realize that from the headlines and all the stories they wrote.

    Now we have an FBI memo of a meeting with some State Department official where classification of some Clinton emails was discussed and an FBI request to get agents into Iraq was also discussed. Depending on what news source you read, the State Department was either offering a bribe, the FBI was demanding a favor in return, or the two issues were totally unrelated and only discussed at the same meeting. And this meeting happened long after Clinton left the State Department and before the FBI investigation of her email began.

    Why is this story the headline in my local newspaper? The headlines and stories are written as if there was something illegal about this meeting, but there is no evidence of that from the memo. In the end the FBI classified the email by their standards and ignored the State Department request. The FBI never got any agents in Iraq. There was no quid pro quo and it is not clear from the memo that these issues were even discussed that way. Hillary was long gone from the State Department anyway.

    Why is a story like that even new worthy much less a front page headline.

    The media may well not like Trump, but the idea that they are giving Clinton all favorable coverage is nonsense.


    October 18, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    • What about the Clinton foundation donor who got appointed to the Nuclear intelligence committee despite lack of scientific, policy or military experience?:


      October 18, 2016 at 3:24 pm

      • The board he was appointed to was the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB). The ABC story describes this board as a nuclear security and intelligence advisory board. However in 2014 this board issued a report discussing cyber security In financial industry. This a topic that Raj Fernando was very qualified to address.

        It is certainly possible that Raj Fernando was added to the board in 2011 so the board had the expertise to address questions about cyber security and the financial sector. Apparently some other members of the board, who may not have known they would be asked to address cyber security, complained to ABC about his appointment. ABC started asking questions of the State Department. It is quite possible not many people in the State Department knew that the board was going to expand the issues it was addressing.

        Raj Fernando founded a Chicago trading company that specialized in electronic trading. He was also a board member of American Security Project at the Brookings Institution. General Stephen A. Cheney, ISAB member and CEO of American Security Project, described Fernando as a expert in cyber-security and a great asset to national security.

        This is yet another example of the media blowing something up into a scandal that really is not.


        October 18, 2016 at 8:43 pm

      • Wow thats quite a exercise in ex post facto reasoning.

        The facts are if Fernando was added because he “had the expertise to address questions about cyber security and the financial sector” then it would have been easy to explain the reasoning. Instead we have people scrambling around at State trying to figure out what the justification was. Not just other board members- the very Department he got nominated from didnt know the reason- other than he was added by Cheryl Mills. Cheryl Mills is a Hillary lawyer and advisor and knows nothing about finance, cyber security or nuclear threats and would have no reason to select Fernando other than political ones.

        Thats what the emails at the time show- no one knew why Fernando was being added.

        Then when someone asked questions about Fernando he promptly resigns. If he was so important to the report (which didnt come out for another 3 years) why did he drop out and why couldnt he explain what he was supposed to contribute???

        Why when he was question about his appointment at the DNC could he not come up with the reason you provide for his appointment?

        Why in the intervening years has the ISAB never replaced his slot as boiler room commodity trader if it was so necessary?
        There is no such person on the current or past members list. He is the only person with his thin qualifications who was every on it.

        Further if you look at the actual report, it was produced by a group where no one has a profile like Fernando. They are professors, military or office holders. If we expand the list to people who the authors consulted we see that they didnt talk to Fernando at all. And on top of that there is no one who fits Fernando’s description consulted.
        The idea that Fernando was needed for “expertise” for a report that wouldnt produced for another 3 years simply doesnt hold water. There is literally no evidence for that interpretation- probably because it is just being grafted on as a defense this year.

        “General Stephen A. Cheney, ISAB member and CEO of American Security Project, described Fernando as a expert in cyber-security and a great asset to national security.”

        What you left out of this talking point (copied almost verbatim from Media Maters) is that General Cheney didnt offer that appraisal until June of this year, and it was a limp tweet in support of someone who is a donor to his think tank. Raj Fernando is not listed on their staff or fellows page but is on the Board of Directors, along with a guy froma chemical company and someone who sells vacation real estate.

        Looking at his blog ( pet chairty balls, soccer team) or who he follows on twitter (Slate, local pet charity, Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Arrinna Huffington) its clear he has no interest in cyber security. This is not a topic he engages in. He is interested in buying himself access to political power brokers.

        Lion of the Turambar

        October 19, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    • Mikeca,

      What you wrote is almost childishly naive. D o you think corruption is dumb enough to leave a paper trail?


      October 18, 2016 at 8:16 pm

      • So from reading right wing web sites, listening to talk radio and Donald Trump, you have received the wisdom that Clinton is the most corrupt person to ever run for President. The fact that there is no evidence of this corruption just proves how corrupt she really is! She hide the evidence too!

        Did you know that Hillary Clinton is actually Jack the Ripper. He built a time machine, traveled forward in time, underwent a sex change operation and is now Hillary Clinton. Get your tin foil hats. You just read it on the internet, so it must be true. I expect Donald Trump to be making the case that Hillary is Jack the Ripper at tomorrow’s debate.


        October 18, 2016 at 11:44 pm

      • It is an amusing intellectual exercise that someone would attempt to prove the Clintons arent corrupt.

        Why dont you try on the Hillary Cattle Futures payoff?

        Lion of the Turambar

        October 19, 2016 at 12:04 pm

      • I just watched an FBI director allow a suspect to skate on charges that would have landed an ordinary citizen in prison. I just saw a former Secretary of State and ex-presidential couple file a tax return that showed a $10 million a year income, somehow generated with no business that provides any goods or services. That’s quite a GS-1000 job, there buddy. I see suspicious deaths surrounding an individual that are way out of the norm. Scandals and corruption erupt from these people well beyond even an ordinary politician.

        I suppose, by your reasoning, Al Capone was never the head of the mafia, never murdered anyone, never committed bribery, extortion or torture, because he was never charged or convicted. He was just an innocent businessman who ran afoul of the tax laws.

        If any of this were not true, then the Clintons would have a great case for libel. Yet, none. What are they afraid of…discovery?


        October 19, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    • Leaders of a pro-Clinton super pac were caught on video admitting the following: they organized violence at Trump rallies; they coordinate with the Clinton campaign (which is illegal); “protesters” are actually paid, and are often homeless/mentally ill people.
      Today a video emerged of a DNC operative saying the DNC has fixed elections for 50 years, then laid out how they do it.
      Two people have “voluntarily resigned,” over the videos but the msm isn’t reporting the story.


      October 18, 2016 at 8:59 pm

      • These video’s are from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. As is typical of all his work, they are a highly edited jumble of out of context quotes strung together to mislead the viewer. The media is now very familiar with Jame O’Keefe and his work. They know he is an unreliable source and that his videos are best just ignored, unless he is willing to release the unedited original, which he isn’t.


        October 18, 2016 at 11:56 pm

      • Too bad you didnt inform them of your advice to ignore all evidence of wrong doing before they resigned.

        Scott Foval and Bob Creamer would still be employed if they followed your reality distortion advice.

        Lion of the Turambar

        October 19, 2016 at 11:59 am

      • Yeah, right. He is just splicing words together. How come you don’t see republican employees getting the Veritas treatment?


        October 19, 2016 at 12:51 pm

      • Right. Because the regular media provides you with unedited reels.


        October 19, 2016 at 1:08 pm

    • Found the Hillary employee.

      Panther of the Blogocube

      October 18, 2016 at 10:49 pm

      • You mean I could be being paid for writing comments here?

        Who is paying you?


        October 19, 2016 at 11:26 am

    • You know perfectly well that the press is contemptuous of Trump and friendly to Hillary. It was easily observable even without the emails. CNN has slimy, smirking, manipulative anti-Trump headlines every day. The smears are coordinated. The imbalances in what gets discussed are beyond unfair. They are treasonous.

      And you are deceptive. Trying to muddy the waters so people just thrown their hands up and say, “Whatever, it’s complicated.”

      She gave a speech to a foreign bank in which she stated her dream is open borders.

      Press: “They let you grab their pussy.”

      Politico’s top political guy admits he gave editorial control to her campaign.

      Press: “Jailing the opposition just because they are the opposition.”

      Clinton’s campaign offers to bribe the FBI to change the classification of emails.

      Press: “He called that woman fat.”

      Clinton’s top advisor is intimately linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

      Press: “Islamaphobia.”

      Clinton blatantly lied about Benghazi.

      Press: “Tax returns.”

      Clinton got the questions in advance.

      Press: “Here are some women who have decided Trump’s advances were unwanted.”

      Clinton states Saudia Arabia and Qatar fund ISIS, then accepts millions of dollars from them for her NGO.

      Press: “Demeanor for nuclear codes.”

      Possible future president of USA views at least 1/4 of population (most of whom are whites) as irredeemably deplorable.

      Press: “He said immigrants are rapists.”

      Possible future president of USA says those who want restrictions on immigration are fundamentally un-American.

      Press: “Celebrities X, Y & Z had some great zingers about Trump today.”

      Russian “reset” fails.

      Press: “Trump said something unclear about Crimea.”

      We withdrew from Iraq because of politics and everything went to hell.

      Press: “Trump doesn’t understand foreign affairs.”

      Clinton people email about “placing stories” and getting help from the press with their “roll-out.”

      Press: “Trump said something rude to his maid.”

      Guy gets caught on video saying that he pays people to cause trouble at Trump rallies and Clinton knows it, and then Clinton gives speeches about how dangerous Trump’s rallies are.

      Press: “Trump’s tone is dangerous.”

      I’m sure there is pedantic hair-splitting and water-muddying to be done in response.

      Rogal Dorn

      October 19, 2016 at 11:10 am

  10. Was a study really needed?

    The Undiscovered Jew

    October 18, 2016 at 7:11 pm

  11. The filtering mechanism for journalists begins in college.When I went through journalism school the professors and students were overwhelmingly liberal. As a non-liberal, I felt like I was in a very alien environment. I took a course in editorial writing where I experimented by taking a conservative position on half the assignments and a liberal position on the other half. Guess which half I got the good grades on? The professor told me near the end of the course that sometimes I was an extremely good writer but I was inconsistent. What a bright future if only I consistently parroted the liberal party line. I ended up working in accounting for the army after college because I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life around the same types of people I met while majoring in journalism in college.


    October 18, 2016 at 7:39 pm

  12. American presidents are generally ignoramuses that wreck havoc in the world and in their own country. They generally have filthy mouth and minds. Trump is fine.


    October 18, 2016 at 8:29 pm

    • Why are you changing your part of your tune now? I thought life in America for you is good, regardless of politicians.


      October 19, 2016 at 11:18 am

      • Pay attention:

        1. America is good, but has been led in the wrong direction for a very long time. We’ve been discussing this forever on the blog, where have you been?

        2. In national elections I vote for what’s best for the country as a whole, not what’s best for me personally.

        Now back to your non-siquitur question. The discussion is about Trump and elections, not about anybody’s personal welfare. Are you getting my drift?


        October 20, 2016 at 12:28 am

      • Then America is no good.

        What good is America, when other nations have surpassed it in quality of life measures? In a post scarcity world, Americans still live as if they are trying to resurrect the 1950s — by bringing back jobs so we can keep up with the Joneses — America’s Golden Age of Frivolous Consumption.

        And how is Trump good for America? He promises to bring back more jobs — see above. And by bringing back more jobs, this signifies more affirmative action for NAMs, and as a result, more frivilous spending by them, and the vicious cycle repeats. blacks have very low future time orientation, which is why they have degenerated over the last 40 years or so, because they are more pleasure induced.


        October 20, 2016 at 10:51 am

  13. Bias isn’t strong enough a word. Prejudice or True Believer might be more appropriate terms. Have you ever noticed how when Trump supporters talk about him they always talk about issues, policies or what to expect him to do next? However the Hillary voters all talk about her in a far more and disturbingly personal way. They’re insulted that anyone isn’t voting for her. Some act like she’s they’re best friend, others act like she’s family and then are the fruit loops who act like she’s their Mother. This isn’t a political party its more like a cult. When you see Soviet Union Propaganda posters at the homes of these media loons, they shouldn’t even be allowed on media. Communism may not be against the law, but it ought to be. These people don’t just want to win this election, they want US all dead or arrested for opposing their agenda. The fact they aren’t arrested shows we don’t even have a government.

    Joshua Sinistar

    October 19, 2016 at 4:05 am

    • This is because liberals are emotion based. This has always been true but Trump brings this out more than anyone. They really believe he is the new Hitler. Many liberals have the incorrect perception that he is the most extreme conservative candidate ever to run in American history. Because they are emotion based, they can’t grasp that Trump is further to the left of Hillary on issues ranging from trade to going to war with Russia.

      Jay Fink

      October 19, 2016 at 12:14 pm

      • Trump = Hitler because

        a) He’d deport illegals
        b) He’d build a wall to stop illegals from entering the U.S.
        c) He’d temporarily ban Muslim immigrants
        d) His base is composed of angry, unenlightened, scary, narrow-minded white proles

        His other positions don’t matter because the above demonstrate that Trump is intolerant and unwelcoming and therefore he’s just like Hitler.

        Lewis Medlock

        October 19, 2016 at 3:55 pm

      • It’s quite fascinating to know that in NYC, Hispanics are more likely to vote for Trump than any other group, perhaps with the exception of the folks out in Staten Island, who live on a daily staple of pasta n meatballs.


        October 19, 2016 at 8:50 pm

  14. Lion, you should do a post on the dark ops hitmen for Hillary who O’Keefe got on tape admitting to organizing political violence at Trump rallies, amongst other crimes and dirty tricks. One of them, Bob Creamer is married to a Dem Congresswoman and Creamer also visited the White House over 300 times and met with the POTUS himself 42 times. This is potentially bigger than Watergate. It goes right to the top.


    October 19, 2016 at 5:18 am

  15. O/T but related — Donald Trump Jr. may want to run against de Blasio in the next NYC’s mayoral race:

    I would vote for him and come back to NYC, if he promises to price out all the NAMs out of NYC’s boroughs. This of course, would never happen.


    October 19, 2016 at 12:05 pm

  16. More and more burkas in Brooklyn around the Atlantic-4th Ave intersection and on 5th Ave in Bay Ridge. It’s not just a trend; it’s an accelerating trend. In between these two points, an intense Amerindian Pentacostal wave; in some cases, I believe, the pastors/ministers/mustachioed-Holy-Spirit-incarnations are Puerto Rican and therefore probably ready to lead troops into battle. Flash points will be the hill between 60th St and 65th on 5th Avenue and the intersection of 4th Ave and Prospect Avenue near 17th. Can the Amerindians learn Hoplite-tactics in time to hold Sunset Park and the South Slope against the Muslims?


    October 19, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    • Middle Eastern delights are welcome and eaten in Cobble Hill, SWPL Brooklyn, with much jubilee, but not in Prole Brooklyn. Religion is the issue I tell ya.

      Arab Christians are baking baklava and making falafel sandwiches, all to the delight of SWPLs. Prole Brooklyn is where Arab Muslims call home. I guess proles have the privilege to live with undesirables and SWPLs don’t.


      October 19, 2016 at 9:03 pm

  17. North Carolina: Clinton 46%, Trump 44%, Johnson 6% (SurveyUSA)

    Colorado: Clinton 40%, Trump 35%, Johnson 12% (Magellan)

    Arizona: Clinton 39%, Trump 34%, Johnson 6% (Arizona Republic)

    Virginia: Clinton 47%, Trump 38% (Tarrance)

    Wisconsin: Clinton 47%, Trump 40%, Johnson 6% (Monmouth)

    Georgia: Trump 46%, Clinton 43%, Johnson 2% (Clout Research)

    Pennsylvania: Clinton 45%, Trump 41%, Johnson 4% (Emerson)

    New Hampshire: Clinton 44%, Trump 36%, Johnson 10% (Emerson)

    Utah: McMullin 31%, Trump 27%, Clinton 24%, Johnson 5% (Emerson)

    New Hampshire: Clinton 49%, Trump 34%, Johnson 8% (UNH)

    Wisconsin: Clinton 50%, Trump 38% (PPP)

    james n.s.w

    October 19, 2016 at 6:22 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: