HILLARY SHOOTS CHILD, Media applaud compassionate non-use of hollow points.
Yes the heading is sarcastic and there for shock value, but in all honesty would it really be a huge stretch to imagine the usual mainstream pundits taking their apologist roles just that one step further? (Bear with me, there is a point to this.)
"This poor child would have suffered irreparable mental and physical damage had Hillary not made that tough, tough decision to stick with regular ammunition Connie."
"I agree Bob, it was really the difference between life and death for this young man. Though I feel, the real question should be, where on earth did she buy that gun?"
This example is extreme if only to point to the disinformation inherent within. I wrote it like this to reveal a pattern, hopefully you're aware of, that is used far too often by media in defence of a preferred narrative coming from either the political left or right.
Obviously the issue (in this fictional story) is why was a child harmed through the direct actions of a presidential candidate, but it's the last thing you will hear, if at all. I believe that the level of spin required to create the fake news quotes above is truly the same level of misdirection being engaged in by the mainstream in almost all issues with damage potential to the Clinton campaign.
When the DNC was hacked, the main word across our screens, and coincidentally out of Hillary's mouth, was "Russia". The emails actually revealed corruption on a grand scale. Talk about a clear cut case of trying to shoot the messenger. The focus was definitely being subtly guided towards the country narrative and away from the content.
Even though the techniques used in the hack appear to be Russian, is it insane to even consider that a person with the technical abilities to pull off a hack of this magnitude probably knew their techniques would match ones previously employed by the Russian government?
Sounds like a pretty good cover story to me if I were an undiscovered whistle-blower in the intelligence community, who just watched a corrupt politician face no charges for something I knew would be career ending if I did it. Actual NSA whistle-blower William Binney is inclined to agree with that assumption suggesting it to be much more likely than the Russians.
Just from a logical standpoint, imagine you're Mr Putin and you have information that could blackmail the possible new leader of the free world. Would you give it away for free and damage the reputation of the person who helped you purchase a third of their country's entire Uranium output?
The level of sycophancy required to disregard the obvious with Hillary Clinton is astounding to me. When health questions arise, as they always do with elections on the horizon, the headlines immediately start using words like 'conspiracy' if it's Clinton's health in question.
Forget the lesions on her tongue, unnatural facial expressions, mini seizures, aides close by with injectables in their hands, unsteadiness on her feet and notable physicians voicing concern just from the medical records that are publicly available.
Forget all that because it's a Trump conspiracy we're told by the New York Post. Just a little research and we find her own husband saying it took her 6 months to recover from a concussion. Dr Drew explains the rare type of blood clot she suffered from that particular concussive fall and what the long term effects of it can be. Call me crazy but I can pretty safely say neither of these people are involved in some grand right wing conspiracy to derail Mrs Clinton.
There is a million dollars on offer right now for Mrs Clinton's medical records. Should both candidates' records be presented to the public so we can decide for ourselves whether they can handle the rigours of the position? Seems fair to me. I would prefer them being offered up rather than someone's privacy being impacted by a hacker. That being said I doubt Mrs Clinton would ponder privacy of any rival for more than a couple hundred milliseconds. "Don't ask permission, seek forgiveness" is her motto, literally. There is video of her campaign staff being told to operate in this manner.
So you're probably already thinking "He's voting for Trump" and if I were an American citizen you may be right on that one. Very little research is needed to reveal Hillary's true nature to any human being with a heartbeat and basic critical thinking skills. The patterns are so obvious that the difference between her and Trump ethically are night and day at this point.
One candidate repeatedly sells out their country and it's people for their own enrichment, brags about killing people, has a proven record of corruption and poor decisions negatively effecting the lives of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people around the globe, laughs at their child rapist client somehow beating a polygraph test and the other candidate says arguably mean things to some very vocal, very well funded people who don't like him and never will. I don't care if you hurt my feelings, so if I were American it would be a no brainer.
Just for good measure, I don't agree with Trump's comments on surveillance, Edward Snowden and with a bit more digging maybe I would add use of eminent domain laws to that list. Part of me wonders whether Mr Trump was a recipient of intelligence at some point in his business career and that's why someone like Mr Snowden annoys him, but I freely admit that is speculation on my part.
So in conclusion it just seems to be more of the same ol' "Nothing to see here folks", "Go back to sleep America" with all Clinton issues in respect to accurate media coverage. There does seem to be a large awakening happening with more people joining an anti establishment spectrum of politics this time around. It's an exciting time to be alive and November can't come quick enough as far as I'm concerned. With two million or so less democrats voting this time around compared to last and a lot of those democrats being screwed-over, TPP hating Bernie supporters who revile Hillary, it's anybody's guess what will happen there. In contrast to that add seven million or so new votes on the republican side and you may start to at least question the poll numbers you're seeing.
This is my first attempt at writing an opinion piece, so go easy on the comments! (If there are any). It's all off the top of my head and accurate to the best of my knowledge and can be backed up. I just wanted to try and write something mildly entertaining and contribute to steemit.com the best way I know how. Forgive my either incorrect, excessive or non existent punctuation and spelling mistakes. All responses are welcome but I tend not to reply more than once to angry people looking for a back and forth with which to provide their anger demon its sustenance.