Democrats Select Failed Gubernatorial Candidate and Unhinged Conspiracy Theorist Stacey Abrams to Deliver SOTU Rebuttal

The Democrats and the Media (but I repeat myself) is very much against any conspiracy theory they didn't think of themselves.







On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters that Stacey Abrams, who lost the Georgia governor�s race in 2018, will deliver the Democrats� response to President Donald Trump�s State of the Union speech. Schumer said he and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) both agreed that Abrams should give the response. "She has led the charge for voting rights, which is at the root of just about everything else," Schumer said while making the announcement. Abrams still refuses to concede the election, and has since launched a campaign to question the legitimacy of the results. Remember when Democrats and left-wing media outlets freaked out when Trump wouldn't say if he would accept the results of the 2016 presidential election if Hillary Clinton won? Clinton herself said questioning the results of the election was "a direct threat to our democracy" on Twitter and in person. ... After Clinton lost the election, however, she and her media supporters attempted to delegitimize Trump's win -- and they continue to do so today.

This isn't the only case of leftwingers now reversing themselves on Sacred Principles. As you know, for the past three years, Butterball Powerbottom has been claiming that any criticism of the press by Trump was a false and dangerous agitation against the very Constitutional scheme of self-government itself.

But then Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez started using the same attacks Trump uses, calling the media "Fake News" and disputing the small handful of fact-checks they've done on her pig-ignorant, I-saw-it-on-twitter-once claims.

And what did Butterball Powerbottom say then?

Well, he decided that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's press attacks were useful and necessary push-back against the press' biases.

And does the press have any biases that must be pushed back in Trump's case?

Naaah. Not at all.

See, they're too biased against Cortez, who they plainly love, and not biased at all towards Trump, who the plainly hate.

This reminds me of all the various criticisms of the press for being biased.

Oh, and it wasn't just conservatives saying the press was biased against them.

Blacks claimed the press was biased against them. The media decided that they were too biased against blacks, and pushed diversity hiring, and stopped reporting on the race of criminals, except if they were white, and in fact stopped reporting on crime altogether, except if the crime was committed by a white.

This was done because black activists claimed that crime reportage reinforced prejudiced attitudes about blacks.

Women claimed the press was biased against them, and the media again decided they were too biased against women, and pushed diversity hiring, and started pushing more "women-skewing" news and features, and pretty much became a PR firm for Planned Parenthood.

See, women claimed that reporting on abortion as if it was a controversial thing at all demeaned and harmed women. So the media stopped.

Muslims claimed the press was biased against them, and the media again decided they were too biased against Muslims, and pushed diversity hiring, and started pushing more "Muslim does good" news and features, and pretty much refused to report on the religious affiliation of any terrorist (unless he was a Christian, of course).

As was the case with black activists, Muslim activists said that reporting on Muslim crime (terrorism, here, of course) perpetuated negative stereotypes about Muslims that harmed them.

So the press said "Yeah we're biased against you" and changed.

Now, for forty years, conservatives have been making the case the press is biased against them.

And what is the press' response?

Go fuck yourselves, you're lucky we don't call you Nazis more frequently.

How strange it is that the leftwing press is willing to admit to a series of biases it does not have and yet be so damnably recalcitrant about the one bias it obviously does have.

One might even say, "Ah yes, it's a noted psychological phenomenon that people will admit to flaws they either don't have or barely have, or are pretty mild and unimportant, while getting angry and defensive if you bring up their real, serious flaws."

Or one might say: they are simply corrupt liars incapable of telling the truth.

And they are Enemies of the People.

Open thread. Early night. This dry air makes me wake up a lot during the night and I'm demolished the next day.