Wednesday, May 24, 2017

CNN twists the Truth


John Brennan testified at a House intelligence Committee meeting on tuesday morning. Here is what CNN quoted from this meeting. "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump Campaign that I was concerned about because of known russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind about whether Russia was able to gain the cooperation of those individuals". Pretty damning stuff, literally according to CNN. "This Brennan quote, in particular, is damning".
So we get from CNN, at a House Intelligence Committee meeting, a man testified that Russia tried to contact individuals in the Trump campaign. I thought we knew this for awhile, but wow, Scary. This seems pretty damaging to Trump which led to all sorts of media outlets putting this narrative out. This exact same part of the testimony is what The New York Times picked up on, once again picked up by another CNN article, and also got put out by NPR, Democracy Now, and many others. The Quote from John Brennan that I put above is the only quote that CNN used in the first mentioned article. What you are about to read is so damning, so revealing, and so horrendous that it will shock you. Except, it's not about Trump, its what else John Brennan said. As you may remember, I already stated that the first mentioned quote is the only one used by CNN in that article, except, this is what John Brennan said next, literally right after the quote they used.

"I don't know whether or not such Collusion -- and that's your term, such collusion existed. I don't Know." -John Brennan, 2017.

Furthermore, CNN happily disregarded this quote.
" ...I don't do evidence..."
This is John Brennan responding to Trey Gowdy asking whether he has evidence. John Brennan goes on however to say this.
"and we were uncovering information intelligence about US persons and the Russians. And as we came upon that, we would share it with the Bureau."
What does this mean? It means that if they found anything meaningful, Trump would be facing charges right now, or the News would be exploding with actual evidence. This means there is no actual "damning" evidence of Trump Russia Collusion.

To sum all of this up in a way that the Mainstream media conveniently chose not to, John Brennan first states that all information goes to the Bureau which would mean if anything illegal had happened or if there was evidence of collusion, it would be out by now. Then John Brennan goes on to say, after the quote that CNN cherry picked, that there is no evidence of Collusion and he doesn't know if there was collusion. CNN purposefully attempted to deceive its audience into thinking there was actual evidence of Trump Russia Collusion when in fact we have no evidence yet, That is lying at its worst, CNN is putting out fake news.

Literally all we get from this Testimony is that there is no evidence of Collusion... CNN, NPR, Democracy Now, The New York Times, and all the others indulging in this deceitful Cherry Picking. How incredibly bias are these media sources? They intentionally cherry pick information, they intentionally fabricate a narrative, and continue to emphasize a story that has no evidence yet. To put it plainly, the mainstream media deserves no audience whatsoever.

If there was thing Trump was right on, it's the Mainstream media.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

The Washington Post: Actual News dies in Darkness



Something that should be very apparent to the Washington post visitor is there new slogan, Democracy dies in darkness, which of course is positioned within the dark background of the header for the Washington Post website. Democracy clearly isn't the only thing dying in that dark header, Real news is getting thrown out the window while the Washington Post churns out DNC propaganda at an astounding Rate. How Bias is the Washington Post, we all know that the Mainstream media outlets hold Trump to different standards than Obama, When Obama consistently leaked highly classified information about Israel that was vital to the actual lives of Israeli military operatives, there was silence, when Trump didn't even release a source, but the Evil Russians may have been able to find out who the source was, The media started bringing up Impeachment. Whether it's Political Bias, Racism against Orange men, or some other factor, the Media is clearly pushing an agenda that does not include Trump as president.
At the Head of the Anti-Trump Sheep Herders is The Washington Post. While openly pushing anti-Trump articles, the Washington Post released an Opinion article so disgusting and biased, that it belongs on Buzzfeed, not a supposedly respectable News source. The article is called Trump's bizarre and un-American visit to Saudi Arabia. You may say, but it's an Opinion article, yes it is an Opinion, an opinion so lowly and uneducated that it doesnt belong on a powerful news source. The Washington Post has the right to say what was said in the article, but really. Really...

The article lists out Six reasons for why Trump visiting Saudi Arabia was the worst thing in human history!

1:A strange Choice for the first visit.
The article stated that each of the four previous presidents visited a neighbor like Mexico and Canada. Who cares, What on earth is wrong with going to Saudi Arabia in order to build a movement for fighting Islamic Terrorism! Why is it wrong to go to the most unstable part of the world and try to build ties and fight terrorism, I know for a fact that it wasn't called Un-american by the washington post when Obama went to Saudi Arabia. No, when Obama does anything, he's okay because he's a leftist. The Washington Post stating that its un-american to go to somewhere like Saudi-Arabia for the first Presidential visit is pathetic, I hope they realize Trump can do everything he wants, over the phone with Canada and Mexico, the point of going to Saudi Arabia is to show personal interest in fighting Terrorism. This article even attempted to say that this somehow was Trump condoning Saudi Arabia's treatment of Women. "Trump chose, instead, to make his first presidential visit to an oligarchic kleptocracy which forces it's women to hide their faces and forbids them to travel without a male guardian's permission". Its nice and all that The Washington Post finally recognizes the human rights abuses common in the Middle east, but really, It's Trump condoning this behaviour when he goes there but when Obama does the exact same thing, there is nothing wrong with it?

2: A bad place to speak out against Islamic Terrorism.
The article went on to note the facts that Saudi Arabia is an odd place to go when combatting terrorism. Two things, what other place should Trump go, and why is it un-american and odd when Trump goes, but once again Obama did the same thing and there was no outrage.

3: The Sword Dance
Apparently Trump participated in a "sinister" traditional sword dance that apparently the Washington Post is apparently saying that the President should go to Saudi Arabia to talk about oil but not join in on anything. Okay, Trump dancing in a Sword Dance is not him condoning anything, its joining in on a tiny non-dangerous part of a different culture, but of Course when Trump is the one participating in multi-culturalism, the left hates it.

4:Ivanka Trump supporting Women Entrepreneurs.
Supposedly when Ivanka was reaching out to Female entrepreneurs in a country where females are oppressed is somehow cruel and evil. What is wrong with whoever wrote this article, Reaching out to people doing great things against all odds is good, not "un-american". Furthermore, the Article stated that Ivanka's Fund receiving money from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia is beyond what "Hillary Clinton ever dreamed of" except it just isn't, Hillary Clinton's foundation Received money from Saudi Arabia, over 30 million, Hillary's Foundation also received multiple millions from the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar.

5:Tillerson Speaks about Human Rights abuses in Iran
Tillerson spoke out about the common rights abuses in Iran, how Un-American, because if there is anything a president should do while trying to gain support, its telling Tillerson to target Saudi Arabia, the country they are speaking in, instead of Iran. The Washington Post tries to ridicule the idea that Tillerson speaking out about Iran's Civil Rights Abuses is terrible since he was in the also terrible Saudi Arabia. There actually isn't anything wrong with that, Obama did similar things all the Time!

6: Tillerson holding a news conference without any American press
Oh no... According to The Washington Post, this is a deliberate attempt to hide what Tillerson said from American eyes... Or, as it turns out, according to CNN, the State department "later apologized, adding that it couldn't notify the press in time". How sinister, Who ever wrote this Washington Post article didn't even research! It wasn't an issue of banning American press, it was a late notification from a separate entity.



Also, aside from this Opinion article, there is more stupidity coming out of the Washington Post, Oh no, Trump mocked Obama for Bowing, but he Bowed!!!!! 
This Requires but one tiny paragraph to tear apart, its completely moronic stuff in reality. The story coming from the left goes, Trump mocked Obama for bowing to the Saudi Arabian royalty, but then Trump Bowed!
Oh dear, He lowered his neck to have a necklace placed on him! I don't know if you have ever worn a necklace, but if someone is going to put it on you, you need to lower your head to receive it unless the person giving it to you is Giant. This is not Trump Bowing and this supposed bowing is utter Fake News.

What's surprising about this is not that the Washington Post tried to push complete and utter lies, we can expect that, What's surprising about this is that this story is not under Opinion, it's under analysis on "the Fix". Wow... nice job @The Washington Post.

Monday, May 22, 2017

Google+ Polling: Trump Impeachment

Down to the serious stuff. Trump has been threatened with impeachment, "what for" is a question many may ask, and it is indeed a good question. In reality, perhaps many of those pushing for his Impeachment may not know why, but deep in their hearts, the reasoning is there. Deep in their triggered hearts that is.
There were two Questions asked today, first, "should Trump be Impeached?" and second, "Does the Media treat Trump fairly". These questions were asked to two communities on Google+, the clearly right leaning Fox News community, and the also clearly left leaning Democracy Community. Let's get right into the news!

With the combined totals of the Two Communities, this is what the chart looked like.
While there was a clear majority saying No Trump should not be impeached, it is important to note that this is the combined totals, the Fox News Community is vastly more active, and has far more votes in this total and so it is certainly skewed to the right.

This is the Individual communities with separate graphs.
Certainly there is a vast Partisan divide, the Left and Right don't agree on many things, and this certainly is one of them. About two thirds of the Left support the movement to Impeach Trump, compared with about a little over one tenth of the Right, according to this polling.

Another poll I conducted asked members of the Fox News Community if they felt that Trump was Treated fairly by the Media, here are the results.
Apparently, the Fox News community feels that Trump doesn't get treated fairly by the media, Shocking.

First of all the conclusion that we should get from the shockingly high percentage of left wingers that want Trump impeached is indeed shocking because this majority is calling for the impeachment of a president purely based on their biases, not the fact. There is no evidence whatsoever which links Trump to anything remotely impeachable, yet the Democracy Community still calls for Trumps Impeachment. Certainly Emotion is at play here, and a lack of tolerance for other ideas is leading to a vast number of left wingers wanting to take apart anything that doesn't line up perfectly and totally with their point of view.

Fox News viewers don't seem quite so swayed by the Mainstream media which disproportionately attacks Trump to the tune of negative coverage being on a 4-1 ratio with positive news.
I find it hard to believe that over half of what Obama did is somehow positive but 80% of what Trump does is negative, the two are at least on equal planes when it comes to the negativity of their actions.
Fox News viewers seem to agree with this sentiment, decrying the clear and blatant bias of the mainstream media. This sort of negativity towards the mainstream media not only translates to a stronger support for the outsider, Fox News, but it also translates into a stronger support for Donald Trump, since they perceive him as a man under siege by the nefarious insiders.

Clearly there is a split between the Right and the Left on this matter, one rightfully saying that there is not enough evidence yet of anything, in fact there is no evidence of anything, thus impeachment should not even be a consideration as of yet, You can't just impeach someone because you disagree with their politics, that would set one of the most dangerous precedents in American History. The other of course doesn't much care for Trump and while there is no actual evidence of Trump and Russia collusion, they still use that as the hammer with which they hammer away at Trump.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Trump and the Evil Russians

                                              "Blame the Russians" -DNC motto 2017

In a meeting with the Russian foreign minister, and Ambassador, Trump disclosed classified information that puts "lives on the line". What is this Classified information that Trump gave the Russians, was it the nuclear codes? Was it details on the American defense system? Was it information about individuals Putin wants dead?  Or could it have been, perhaps, Information regarding the threat of Isis, something that affects both America and Russia, Information that could directly save civilian lives?
Trump disclosed Classified information, which it is in the legal rights of the president to do, regarding Isis bombing airplanes by the use of laptops. Something that should be concerning to every Country at all hostile with Isis, and Russia happens to be one of those nations. The idea that Revealing Classified information to Russia about a shared enemy is somehow going to make Russia do something horrible is a joke.
The only qualm I have about this, is that security officials have said that Russia may be able to trace this information given by Trump back to its source, which would be... terrible, maybe? The Funny thing about this is that without even knowing if Russia was tracing the information to it's source, the very people going out and trumpeting how terrible it is that Trump released this information and now Russia might find the source, are stating that the information came from Israel! Thanks for keeping it secret. That's literally like saying, "Oh no, I think the my boss might fire me, I might as well resign because it's going to happen, I don't have evidence, but I know it will(might) happen."
Is it bad that this could be traced back to someone, most likely. Is Russia going to do something terrible to Israel now, in hopes of pushing their Pro-Assad stance in which Iran is a factor, and Iran might be aggressive with Israel, Probably not, not if Russia has it's own interests in mind.
The fact is, America can easily cripple Russia's economy, we've done it before, we can do it again, Putin should know, and probably does know better than to do anything that could endanger and ally as close as Israel to the united states, and this is of course on the assumption that Putin will or is able to trace the information back to its source.
So to sum it up, Trump gives information that is in the interest of the USA, and Russia, to know, Regarding a terrorist organization that neither nation would ever side with, and the Democrats start calling for impeachment!
Democratic Representative Al Green, went out today, and called on the house to impeach Trump. On what grounds you may ask. All sorts of grounds would be the answer, unsubstantiated claims about Trump and Russia colluding, unsubstantiated claims about Trump firing Comey in order to obstruct justice(which in reality, the Investigation won't be ended just because Comey is gone, the only suspicious action would be if Trump hired a clearly Partisan FBI Director to take Comey's place.), and now claims that Trump taking a legal action has somehow endangered America or its allies, let alone the fact that Israel responded to these allegations by renewing its vow to work with America on counter-terrorist subjects and wants to "deepen" its relations with president Trump.
If you ever were worried about Washington insiders clawing back in order to restore their stranglehold on America, now is the time to be most worried. The Mainstream Media is pushing a fully unsubstantiated narrative about Trump somehow colluding with Russia and obstructing justice, neither of which hold any actual ground in reality.
On the subject of Trump firing Comey, we have had substantial evidence going to show that Trump fired Comey on the grounds that he was angry with the man, after dismissing Trump's wiretapping claims, Trump had been furious with Comey, this is according to all accounts, Clearly not a flattering motive, but far better than the purely speculative claims put forth by the left that Trump did this to obstruct justice. This ignores the fact that the investigation can still continue without Comey! Some people I have spoken to say it's crazy that I could even consider the possibility that Trump fired someone because he was angry. "no president would ever fire someone just because the president is angry", is what I hear, my response to this is very simple. Do you even know who the president is, this isn't any President, it is within Trumps character and history to fire anyone he wants and the idea that he morphed when he became president is millions of times more absurd than me suggesting he fired Comey because he was angry at him, ever could be. Trump is not the regular president, he still has the mindset of a businessman, and in business you can fire someone if you're angry about how they are performing in their job, Trump did this expecting to be applauded by Democrats but was quickly taken back when the Democrats swiftly put together a new narrative to attack his latest action.
The Mainstream Media is pushing one of the most fabricated narratives yet to be seen, but let's look back at the past to see if they always worked this way. 2008-2016, the good old days, or mediocre old days, with a lot of them being really really bad, Barrack Obama time as president, clearly completely devoid of any leaking...
-Obama offers to share Classified information about Isis with Russia (2016)
-Obama Discloses Military plans to raid Al-qaeda positions in a fit of grandstanding giving Al-qaeda  ample time to retreat before US forces reach the aforementioned positions
-Obama Administration leaks classified information about General Michael Flynn's conversation with  Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak.
-Obama administration Leaks classified information about Seal Team 6 
-Obama administration leaks Classified information about Israeli military operation to Iran(ironically the same people who are worried Israel will somehow get hurt, are for the most part, all supportive of Obama)
-High Ranking Official in Obama administration leaks classified information about Cyber attacks on Iran Nuclear Facilities 
-Multiple instances of Obama administration purposefully leaking classified information about Israeli military operations in Syria. 
Where was the Media. Where was the Mainstream Media, on any single one of these vile cases. the left wants to talk about protecting Israel, where was the left during Obama's reign when Israel was continuously being harmed by leaks that Obama purposefully put out. Talk about an anti-Israel regime.
The Media's Bias against Trump is so blatantly clear, they didn't worry when it was Obama purposefully putting Israeli "Lives on the line". A quote that, Ironically, I used earlier, said by one of the people exclaiming how terrible Trumps disclosures were, and who also happened not to once complain about Obama's much, much more dangerous leaks. If there ever was a time to call the Mainstream Media dishonest, Bias, slanted, Agenda pushing, Elitist, anti-outsider, or any other suitable phrase, now is the time. The media's crusade against Trump, one purely based on speculation, is a clear manifestation of a deliberate attempt at getting Trump impeached, if your not worried about this, your missing an awful lot about what is going on.

Google+ Polling: Fox News Viewership

In today's part in the series where we poll people on everyone's favorite Social Media site, Google+. for today's series, we take a look at the Fox News Viewership, by polling the Fox News community, Many of you may be wondering, why is it always Fox news getting polled, Perhaps the reason is that I'm addicted to Fox News, but a more likely story is that the Fox News Community is literally the only Community active enough to get a sufficient number of votes on my polls, sufficient being more than one, and preferably more than two, three, or four.

The questions posed to these Fox Pups((baby Foxes)tied to a particular new station) was as follows, "what would you define your political ideology as", and "does Fox news generally align with your political views". This of course was directed at the Fox News Community, or as I will jubilantly call it the Fox Skulk(group of Foxes) in order to keep the running chain of Homonyms.

As for the Question "how would you define your Political Ideology, here were the fairly predictable results, although Neocons were nowhere to be found.
As you might see from this chart, There is an awful lot of Traditionalists on Fox News. Sadly to me, not quite as many Libertarians.

For the second question, People were asked how often their political views aligned with Fox.

Another Predictable Result as you may see, while there were three utter loyalists to Fox, The results were mainly people who just generally aligned but had a few qualms, with a couple people who either only sometimes agreed with Fox's overall agenda, or were completely against it.

As it would appear from my results, Traditionalists were the most likely to either always agree with Fox or usually agree with fox, with 2 of the people who always agreed with Fox being Traditionalist, and 1 being a Libertarian, surprisingly enough, no liberals said they always agreed with Fox, how odd.

Traditionalists have "traditionally" been the major viewing block of Fox News and the major voting block of the Republican Party, however it is interesting to note that Libertarians made up the second largest block, outpacing Other which I would suppose is most likely moderates. Libertarians have increasingly been leaning towards the Right as their party becomes better known among Millennials who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. This would suggest that Libertarians are increasingly becoming a card in politics as they have only recently actually become a voting block, yet they already make up the second largest block of Fox Viewership, which is obviously by far the largest Conservative News station. With Libertarians becoming a larger base in the Republican Party, and Trump becoming the President, We may begin to see a real shift away from Neocons, and traditional Republican stances, and into a slightly more authoritarian Libertarian party where things like Gay marriage are more widely accepted. This shift could be hugely detrimental to the Democrat Party because the reality is, there is a large amount of people who find the Republican Party to be better suited to dealing with a fragile economy, but find some of the purported aspects of the Republican party to be unpalatable.

Another thing to note is that almost 3/4s of Fox Viewers almost always agreed with Fox news, or 100% agreed with everything Fox says. Once again, going back to the last addition to the series "Google+ Polling", there is a clear Loyal base of Fox that other News stations just don't have, I personally find CNN, ABC, and MSNBC to be generally interchangeable but finding a replacement for Fox is a much, much, more difficult task.

That's all for now, I want to Remind you, that you can influence the next addition to the series by offering suggestions as to what I should ask as my next questionnaire down in the Comments below, or by Emailing me at Sean.pereksta@gmail.com.
                                                 Thank you for Reading

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Google+ Polling: Fox News and Mainstream Media

Second in line for this glorious new series, I conducted two polls in only the Fox News community on Google+, to get their feelings on the Subject of Mainstream media and Fox News' ties to it. The responses were somewhat predictable although as I think you will agree with me on, there may have been a very small amount of trolls, a factor one must always be weary of when conducting polls in social media, even if you are on such an illustrious platform as Google+.

The First Question I will give the results of today, is as follows. Is your connotation of the phrase Mainstream Media, positive, or negative. as many would guess, the results are as follows.
As I stated before, I can only suppose that there must have been trolling because I have never, and probably will never, meet someone, in the conservative community, who calls Mainstream Media positive. Whatever the results were, I still wanted to get an accurate gauge of the Fox News communities feelings towards Mainstream Media, and as you can tell, the feelings are not warm nor fuzzy.

The Second question I gave was as follows. Is Fox News a member of the Mainstream Media. The results are as follows.
Clearly a bit of a difference here, A larger amount of people stated that they thought Fox was Mainstream, than in proportion to those who stated they had positive connotations of Mainstream Media.

Now with this information decided, its time to build some conclusions. The first and probably most obvious is that a somewhat significant chunk of Fox News viewers are cynical as to their own preferred media source. If a larger percentage of people thought Fox was Mainstream Media, than people who were positive towards Mainstream media, and of course there was a larger percentage, in the area of about 33% versus 10%, then at least 23% of people have a negative connotation of their own news source. This offers a few suggestions, First of all, this may mean that People hold no actual allegiance to their favorite, or preferred new station, but rather only watch it because they can't bear the others. If people in the Fox News community do not like mainstream media, but watch fox regardless of the fact that they think it is mainstream media, that implies that other sources such as CNN and MSNBC are just so hopelessly worse in their eyes, that Fox is a refuge from utter Propaganda or whatever else they think of the other Mainstream Media sources.  Second, I think that this offers another suggestion as well, and that is that Perhaps some people's view of the word Mainstream is different from others, Many may just consider mainstream to mean large and well known, as Fox News clearly is. If that is the Requirements for being Mainstream in the eyes of some, than many may watch and enjoy Fox News, believing it to be Mainstream, but still thinking that the Majority of Mainstream Media sources are negative, Fox, most likely in their view, being the exception to the rule.

However, as remarkable as the third of people who called Fox News, Mainstream Media, are, it is just as important to look at the larger block who believe Fox News to not be Mainstream Media. In this case, this would offer Fox News a sort of power that competitors like CNN, MSNBC, and ABC just can't find. This power would be that of the ability to have viewers that believe them to be the last sanctuary of real news. Mainstream Media obviously getting a bad rap from the Fox News Community, a whole two thirds of the community believe Fox to be clean of that muck, and thus Fox News, to that two thirds would be something of a hero, standing up against the masses of Mainstream Media, and saying it "like it is".  Clearly this is an advantage that warrants loyalty from many of the Fox News supporters, and this also suggests a much stronger staying power, Fox can most likely take a lot of hits, but since it is the last major television news Source that is not classified as just another Mainstream Media source by the majority of its viewers, it will be able to maintain support.

As a final Conclusion in this survey, I would say that, as a relatively new "mainstream" phrase, Mainstream media has clearly lodged itself in the conservative community. With 90% of Fox News watchers stating that they had negative views of Mainstream Media sources, it is very unlikely that CNN and MSNBC are going to be granted any credibility from the conservative masses anytime soon, Fox News on the other hand, only has to grapple with basically every Liberal television star, or late night show host ever, attacking it at every chance they get.

And as a follow up on the last poll conducted, I can state the Fox News community is very heavily in support of Republicans, with 100 votes cast in the Poll, 77 people wanted Republicans to gain more power in 2018, 17 people wanted Third Parties or Independents to make gains, and only 6 wanted Democrats to make gains. Very close to the results released before. The polls of course don't end immediately, and so I continue to have results trickling in, I'll generally post follow up, in the next part of the series.

If you want me to take a poll for a specific question of yours, comment below, or email me at Sean.pereksta@gmail.com
                                           Thank you for reading.

The Democrat Party still exists?


If there is one thing from the 2016 election that has been ignored way too much, it would be the Democrat party's conduct during the Primaries. Let's not forget that Dona Brazile was feeding Hillary questions before the debates, let's not forget that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was as far from impartial as humanly possible, actually favoring negative pieces about Bernie Sanders being put out. The DNC had unfairly colluded to ensure that Bernie supporters wouldn't have a say, and to ensure that Hillary would be the nominee.
Let's just imagine the outrage that would blow up all over the media and throughout Trump supporters if the Republican party had been feeding Ted Cruz questions before debates and trying to push him to victory over outsider Donald Trump.
This is the hallmarks of an elitist party, a party that is willing to cheat it's own base in order to get what it wants does not deserve either a base or what it wants. This is still news, even if Rightlens has to make it news, The democrat party cheated against a candidate. Was it legal, yes, however it was as far from the democratic process as one can get. The fact that Bernie supporters have just for the most part quieted down about this is astounding to me, for many, it appears that they are more concerned with what they see as the greater threat of Donald Trump, to worry about their own party abandoning them, and then jumping up and down on their candidate of choice like a trampoline.
If there ever was a call for third parties to take the place of the corrupt main parties, now is the time. There has never been such solid evidence that only Washington insiders get what they want in the elitist democrat party, and while this may very well be how it is in the Republican party, we have solid evidence all weighing against the Democrats. It would be inconceivable that the Libertarians or Greens are more corrupt than the Dems, and if so maybe it's time that both Republicans and Democrats start considering other parties. To stick to your own beliefs is more important than sticking to your own party, and surely many Republicans are more alligned with the libertarians than the Republican party now, and many Dems are probably better alligned with the Green party or Libertarian Party. The problem is that both parties are to afraid of the third parties. They throw the balance, but in an election where two major outsiders almost, or did win their primaries, both calling for fundamental change, I fail to see how third parties mixing things up would be a problem. What better way to get back at the elitist Washington insiders then by bringing in a new age of politics where the insiders are outdated.

Monday, May 15, 2017

Google+ Polling: 2018 Midterms

Today, I decided to go on to a platform that has long been forgotten, trampled over continuously by the behemoths of Facebook and Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat, and even probably by Kik. Google +,  perhaps one of Google's few endeavors that did not push the entire internet world forward 10,000 years. As it turns out, there are still fairly vibrant communities alive on Google+, vibrant in relevancy to MySpace that is. One feature that I appreciated was the ability to take polls, one which I put to my own uses.
Without further adieu, I bring you the first ever RightLensNews Google+ Polling article. Todays poll asked everyday internet goers which party they would like to see make the largest gains in the 2018 midterms, The options being Republican Party, Democrat Party, or Third Party or Independent. This Poll is by no Means representative of America as a whole, but it can give us some interesting conclusions to build off of the results.
The First clearly notable result is that out of the 87 respondents, well over half of them went for the Republican Party, However before I indulge in conclusion making, it is important that I point out, this data is collected from various different Communities on Google+, some of which clearly have political leanings.

The first and largest poll I conducted was in the Fox News Community, clearly it will lean right, however as I will go through later, the heavy lean to the republican party is remarkable in someways.

The Second Largest poll conducted was in the Politics Community, I should note, However, that all these polls were started at similar times, and ended at the same time. This poll was conducted in a Community with no declared leaning, and which by visuals alone, looked fairly balanced, however as it would appear, that is not so.

The Third Largest poll, and clearly the outlier in this circumstance was conducted in the Democracy Community on google+, which clearly leans left, and appears to just by looking at the most recent posts, all of which tend to bash Trump or Republicans.

*there are other polls but none of them had enough respondents to elicit their own graph

Now when making conclusions, it is important also to note that these communities are not the same size, the Fox News community being by far the largest of the three, with 30,500 members, compared to the Democracy Community with 6,500, and the Politics community with 2,500. Now when adjusting for size, It would be expected that the Democracy Community would have about 13 Respondents, and the Politics community would have about 5 respondents if they were to respond at the same rate as the largest community, Fox News. Why this is remarkable is that it shows that the Politics Community significantly out-performed their expected respondents number, while the Democracy community significantly underperformed.
While these results don't clearly denote anything for certain, it is possible that this sort of result may indicate a higher vigor among conservatives, or more political activism on the internet when it comes to conservatism. Clearly, Fox News members responded disproportionately higher, and went heavily in favor of the Republican Party, than the Democracy Community, which while Leaning left, Responded disproportionately lower than expected. This Result may indicate a growing Right Wing stronghold on certain social media sites. As we all know, in the "great Meme war of 2016", The Republicans took the victory. Republicans not only control the Meme scene which as it turns out, according to google searches, are statistically more popular than Jesus, but in places like 4Chan, Republicans are also dominating. This sort of Internet dominance, which comes directly from a higher willingness to engage in the political arena, at least on the internet, is something that may be heavily indicated by this polling data.

Aside from willingness to engage in Political Activism, other Conclusions can be reached from this Survey, one such conclusion may be the interesting result that the Other option received more support than the Democratic party, Aside from just Republicans, parties like the Libertarian Party and Green Party may also have significantly more sway online then they do in the actual elections. Even in the Politics Community which has no declared leaning and tends to be non-partisan, People were significantly more likely to say third party than democrat. Just by Speculation, it is very possible that The Bernie or Bust democrats are much more likely to say they are Libertarian or Green party now, rather than Democrat, after the clearly unfair treatment of Bernie in the primaries.

Another Significant factor may be excitement for Trump, while this clearly is not expressed by the entire Country, Trump maintains a strong base that won't split away from him for anything, and I think that was put on clear display when the Fox News Community went a solid majority Republican. According to Pew Research, in 2012, Fox News viewership was composed of 40% Republicans, 33% Independents, and 22% Democrats, however in the Results from the poll, only 7% went for the Democrat Party. This may be an indication that the since 2012, Fox News and other media sources have only become more polarized, and more partisan.

Whatever you may think, This is a clear indication that at least on Google+, The Republican Party holds a powerful advantage.


Comment below or Email me at Sean.Pereksta@gmail.com if you have a question that you want me to use as the next polling question.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

The Root of Problems

Today in America, it seems that it is the new Norm to blame anything but actual individuals for the problems that plague this world, It's never the man holding the gun that kills people, no it's the gun, it's not a possibility that Hillary just didn't run a good enough campaign, it must be the Russians "Rigging" our election. We always want to blame something else, and with good reason too.
Placing blame on something clear is palpable, if you paint all guns as evil, it's much easier to come up with easy short-term solutions that make us all feel good about ourselves for a little while before realizing nothing changed.
 Gun control starts growing like a vast weed as soon as school shootings start taking place and no-one ever stops to think about why these sorts of things happen,  of course there are always things to blame, some people blame video games, claiming they cause aggression, others blame guns. Yet for all the blame going towards guns, there is little reasoning to actually think guns are the problem, school shootings are a relatively new thing, guns have been around for hundreds of years, it's not like they all the sudden gained mind control abilities. Of course guns don't cause people to harm others, that sort of logic, if applied to any other situation, would never make sense. How many people build a house, and then talk about how the hammer did all the work, No! The worker is the one who built the house, not the hammer. This of course makes the video game idea more feasible, and maybe video games do make people more aggressive, but what is the actual root of the problem.

Video games have become extremely popular is the last couple decades, but what else has surged? Single parent families. Up about four times since the 1960s according The Atlantic, Single Parenthood is on the Rise, and this comes with various damaging effects. The first and most obvious is that with only a single parent in a family, the parent must work long hours to provide for the child, this means less interactions between the two, and can lead to less values being imparted on the child. Not only this, but mothers in married families have a median household income of $80,000, An incredible sum which puts married families at well over the current holder for highest household incomes, Luxembourg, in which average household income is a hefty $60,000.  This means married families in the United States are raking in not only what families in the current highest average household income nation make, but an extra third of what they make as well. So how do single parent families compare? Single Parent families scrape in an average $25,000 a year, or only a little over one fourth of what American married couples make, and only a little under half of what families in luxembourg make.
These factors lead to some tremendously damaging effects on the children of single parent families, Studies shown in this Slate article all go to show how terrible this really can be for the kid. One study by the University of Arizona showed that a whopping third of girls whose fathers left them before they were six became pregnant before reaching 18, this of course leads to higher single parent family rates, and just perpetuates some of the problems i'm about to write on. This statistic is in comparison to the puny 5% of girls who become pregnant before adulthood when both parents are in the family. Studies also showed that Children in married families did better financially, In low income families, Children of married parents were more likely to climb the income ladder, and much less likely to fall into poverty, furthermore, in families in the top third of income earners, Children of married parents had a 54% chance of remaining in top third of earners, while children of single parents had only a 37% chance of remaining in the top third. Even more damaging, single parenthood families are much less likely to send children to college, while children that do attend college are much more likely to get married and stay married. There is a widening gap between college alumni and only high school educated families, and to think that this moral decay of Single parenthood families would not have damaging effects on america is silly and ignorant.
While Hollywood continues to pump out movies that glorify the single parent family, and Single mother families continues to be the Feminist dream, despite the fact that it remains one of the most damaging things that can happen to a child. Some Radical feminists see it as an actually good thing, an Article on Jezebel Paints single motherhood as a symbol a Female Self sufficiency, and those who would attack it as misogynists that think women need men. According to Michael Kimmel, the issue is actually that Women are having children without a spouse more often because they "have adequate coverage, education, and retirement benefits." Excuse me if I struggle to see a case where $25,000 a year in America makes someone think they are set for life. Even more so, Kimmel argues that the solution to "illegitimacy" of children which he also notes is a "manufactured" problem created by Society, is none other than "Birth Control and Abortion" access. While Feminists may write off problems like illegitimacy as mere effects of some "patriarchy" and that any women if perfectly fine raising a child by herself, nothing is more evident than the fact that a two parent household is statistically better for the child in all cases. When it comes to motherhood, it is no longer about if the mother is self sufficient but rather if she is fully adequate for taking care of a child by herself, and of course there will be good examples of single parents, but the fact is a single parent family is statistically inadequate for child rearing, it is better for the child to have two parents, and the healthiest families tend to be those of the Mother, Father, and children.
In the Aforementioned article, Jezebel makes an even more disturbing claim, It calls the rising rate of Single Motherhood, "progress". Perhaps Jezebel writers are completely ignorant of facts, or perhaps they are malevolent beings, because nothing else could explain why anyone would be pro-something that so clearly damages children, Apparently women are increasingly becoming single mothers because they can afford to be "Choosy" except that nothing is further from the truth. $25,000 a year is not an area where one should be choosy, $25.000 a year is only great when you became unemployed and need a job, or when you're trying to get through college, It certainly is not great for having a child. With the clearly less wealthy single parent families, this means children will often have to be sent to less wealthy school districts which almost always perform worse, this also means that with more single parent families which make less, when they pay taxes, the schools continue to make less, and with single parenthood on the rise, this trend will only continue. Schools will be continually degraded as Children go without ever receiving assistance from their constantly busy parent, schools will continually be degraded as they receive less and less taxes from already poor districts.
Single Motherhood could be tied directly to a moral decay in America. Of course this will seem odd to some people, undoubtedly, many atheists and feminists out there will look at this as if it is just some christian pushing his beliefs on people, Moral decay, what even is that. But it seems blatantly clear that we live in a world now where everything sexual is glorified and this of course translates to more children outside of marriage which leads to more single parent families. It is clear that when children are exposed to content that should be reserved for adults, this can lead to unwanted effects. This of course is in no way saying that we should ban certain content, but perhaps parents should start teaching their kids to think about the future and start playing a more active role in their child's lives. The reality of the matter is that most problems can be tied to parenting, everything a child becomes is in someway tied into the way he/she learns from his parents, there is a reason certain people are successful, and it's not by oppressing others, but by pushing onwards and taking smart risks.
Today, on mother's day, we take a look at Twitter to see people consistently celebrating Single motherhood, "Also I want to say happy mother's day to all the mothers, but especially to the single mother,s the most powerful women on earth". and yes, I typed that word for word, they put a comma in mother,s despite the fact that " ` " and " , " are on opposite sides of a keyboard. As it would turn out, based on all the facts I have listed, the thing this tweeter celebrates is about as effective as his writing abilities.
Should we look down on single-parenthood, of course not. Circumstances do not always allow for the healthiest of families, however, In every scenario, Two parent families should be celebrated, and put as the standard for child rearing. This is not a case of feminism, meninism, or any other type of -ism, the argument for a two parent family is one of protecting the child and his/her future. Despite the myth that more government involvement can help families climb out of the lower rungs of income classes, the fact is, nothing, Nothing, is more effective than a strong family, In fact this is so important, that perhaps it should be a class for high schoolers. In order to ensure America's future, we look not to the government, but rather to the building blocks of society, the families, and two support beams will always have the capability of being more sturdy than one.  Escaping poverty is possible with a strong work ethic, lowering crime is possible with solid values, excelling at school is possible with a plethora of support and guidance, and the one thing all of these have in common is that they all originate from the family. We can all clamour and yammer on about the need for better schools or better teachers, but in the end, none of these things will build the students, only a family can do that. In order to truly "make America great again," we can't look to the family, but rather to the building up of America's families, and restoring the goal of a two parent family.

Friday, May 5, 2017

Losing faith in Humanity's logic

In this article, we will run through multiple surveys, look at the responses, and just wonder how asinine people can be.



First stop, A poll by gallup on American views towards Socialism
This one has a lot of asininity to go through, Be prepared to lose all faith in People's ability to know simple words and their meaning.

95% of Americans have a positive view of Small Business, versus 4% of Americans having negative views, and presumably 1% had no idea what business was.
However, only 86% of Americans had positive views of Free Enterprise, and only 84% had Positive views on entrepreneurs.

There are two crossovers here, One is that somewhere out there,  a fairly large group of people, around 10% of Americans are thinking to themselves, "I really Like Small Business, But entrepreneurs, we could do without them." I question where they think those small Businesses are coming from, if not from entrepreneurs, whose starting them? Are employers just getting hired by nameless, non-existent entities? That's minorly pathetic, but it becomes even more incredible when you realize, about 8% of Americans are pro-Small Business, but anti-Free enterprise. Presumably, they would like partially free-enterprise, or perhaps no enterprise at all, but anyone with any logic would realize, it is remarkably difficult to own a business when you don't have the ability to freely produce and sell goods. What even more remarkable is the fact so many people are anti-large business. 49%, which begs the question, if so many people are Pro-Small business, and 8% of Americans are anti-Free enterprise, who do they think halting free enterprise will help? I would presume someone who is anti-Free enterprise would be anti-big business, but they have to understand, if they are pro-small business, Small businesses always get hit harder, will less free enterprise eventually start to kill big business, of course, but it will decapitate small business in a split second.

The Next issue in this poll is really the incredible one. Liberals, oh the all knowing self-identified liberals! Happily, 97% are pro-Small business, Hallelujah, 87% are pro-free enterprise, Praise the lord, 84% are pro-Entrepreneur, YES! 61% are in favor of socialism... Wait, hold up. What on earth...
Free enterprise: An economic and Political doctrine holding that a capitalist economy can regulate itself in a freely competitive market through the relationship of supply and demand with a minimum of governmental intervention and regulation.
 -Dictionary.com
Socialism: any of the various economic and political theories advocating for collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
-Dictionary Socialism definition

Did any of these self-Identified liberals, ever stop and think to themselves, hmm, being pro- Freedom from governmental intervention and pro- Government intervention, is somewhat self contradictory?


Now time to look at utter ignorance from our favorite generation, Millennials!
According to a You-Gov poll when asked whether more people died under George W. Bush or Stalin, 26% of millennial said more people died under George W. Bush. Incredibly, it appears despite Education being Compulsory, People are still morons!

Next, Millennials were asked who killed more people, Hitler or Stalin. 68% of people said Hitler which means 68% of those respondents were historically ignorant but at least they are more forgivable than the utter morons who thought George W. Bush killed more people than the Communist dictator Stalin, Depending on what you link to Stalin, we can link between 3 million, to 60 million deaths to Stalin, although his policies can be directly linked to the entire 60 million deaths in question.

This next bit is particularly disturbing, 70% of Millennials promptly state, Communism was and still is a problem, Problem, I would assume, means they think communism is bad. Then these Millennials rush onwards and answer all the next question exactly as a communist would, 64% were favorable towards the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Incredible Knowledge of our nation's dearest document
Not only do Americans have trouble stating basic historical facts, 39% of Americans could not tell you a single example of a freedom granted by the first amendment.
And according to the Annenberg Public policy center, only a third of Americans could name all three branches of government, another third could not name any of them.
If you ever wonder why the Patriot act passed, just look to these surveys, You saw people yammering on about how they worried Trump would be a tyrant or fascist. Well, in order to be either of those things, Trump would have to override the constitution, it turns out, he could do so and most people wouldn't know anyways. This is exactly why things like the FBI and NSA spying on everyday americans blew up for a couple weeks and now we barely talk about them, Americans have to know their fundamental rights or else the government will run over them like a steam engine.

In a nutshell, Go tell your friends some basic facts, because chances are, they don't know any.

Liberalism Defies Definition

Liberal, According to Wikipedia, this means to support Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Free Market, Civil Rights, Democratic Societies, Secular Government, Gender Equality, and International cooperation. According to all common knowledge, the Democrat Party is the party for liberals, and this is shown very clearly in this graphic.
Clearly, Consistently Liberal people, according to their characterization of themselves, are Democrat. But the question does not lie in which party consists of more self identified liberals, it lies upon which party is actually more liberal.

The Republican Party was founded on the 20th of March, 1854, in Ripon Wisconsin. It was a strongly Liberal Party, according to the definition of liberal, It strongly opposed slavery, it was in favor of a free market, fought for free speech, and never encroached on freedom of religion. By all accounts, It was clearly the Liberal party in the eighteen hundreds, The Republican party pushed the 13th amendment, 14th amendment, and 15th amendment, all in order to help deliver equal rights to oppressed Minorities, was it perfect, of course not. And their opponents, the Democrats, who at that time identified as Conservatives opposed these measures. Once again in a fight for Civil Rights, the Republicans helped pass the nineteenth amendment, giving women the right to vote, and then even in 1965, the Republicans pushed the 1965 Civil Rights act, 94% of Republicans supporting it, compared with 70% of Democrats.

However Democrats have a handy tool for discarding this argument and just about everyone has heard it, "well yes the republicans did all of that... but the parties switched platforms in the early to mid 1900s."

So if Republicans and Democrats switched platforms, When did that happen, Many people like to argue that it happened between the 1940s and the 1960s, however the clearly from looking at the civil rights act of 1965 as well as this electoral college map, that just is not the case If the Parties had flipped and Democrats were truly liberals, they would have pushed the civil rights act. The first signs of a possible switch in platforms can be found in 1964 where the only states to vote Republican against Democrat Lyndon Johnson were in the deep south. However, other factors were at play, Barry Goldwater was portrayed as a strongly pro-war Candidate, versus Lyndon who was much less pro-war. The South happened to be more supportive of the Vietnam war and so of course the south sided with Barry Goldwater, and of course the very next year, the Republicans would show their classical Liberal beliefs and push the 1965 civil Rights act to its signing. When I look at the map, the first signs of the parties switching their places on the map, North vs South, Mid-America vs Coastal America can be found in 1988. In fact, the 1980 election showed the strong southern democrat presence, It may be surprising but one of the few states Ronald Reagan lost in 1980 was actually georgia.

How odd it is, I type in "When did parties flip" on Google and find, livescience.com telling me that they flipped somewhere between the 1860s and 1936. This is a complete and utter joke, No, the Parties did not simply flip between that time, or else someone's going to have to explain why democrats performed significantly better in the south than they did in the north up to 1988. What if in reality, Democrats never were a liberal party, What if they never switched platforms with the Republicans. Democrats merely became bigger government, they never became liberal, and the reasoning is clear.

If Democrats are Liberal and Republicans are conservative by the classic definitions, then wouldn't it be clear that Democrats fit into the liberal definition.

Time to myth bust.

On the Topic of Free Speech, if Liberals, by the classical definition, are more pro-free speech, the liberal party should be in favor of free speech in all cases. Remembering, free speech is to protect controversial speech, not speech that everyone agrees with.
According to Pew Research, on the topic of censoring offensive speech against minorities, 28% of Americans believe anything perceived as offensive to minorities should be censored by the government, The Liberal Party, being pro-free speech should be in favor of free speech even when they think what is being said is wrong, the old idea that "even if I don't like what your saying, i'll die for your right to say it."
Which party is more Liberal, well 35% of Democrats support censoring free speech in this regard compared to 18% of Republicans. by this regard, Republicans are definitionally more classically liberal than Democrats on the subject of free speech.

On the Topic of Freedom of Religion, Liberals would be very pro freedom of religion, in the same way as if kids are not allowed to wear hats in school or head coverings, they still can if it is for religious purposes, shouldn't this apply across the board. On the topic of whether businesses should be forced to serve gay marriages. If someone is against homosexuality for religious reasons, as a member of the private sector and not the government, they should have the right to stick to their own beliefs and not be compelled by force to engage in something they don't believe is moral, It is the same issue as if doctors should be forced to perform abortions, if the believe it morally wrong, most Americans think doctors should not be forced to perform the abortion, by a overwhelming majority. To be pro Freedom of Religion means you let people practice their religion and not force them into something they believe to be wrong, and this actually gives a huge advantage to secular businesses because whenever you refuse someone a service they should just go to another place, give that other rival company the money that you, the refuser, would have gained, and now you are at a disadvantage.
So how do the parties compare. Well according to this pew Research poll, Republicans are much more likely to say that a business should not be forced to service something it finds morally wrong, 68% of Republicans believe this, compared to merely 33% of Democrats, a vast difference between the two parties. Thus a majority of Republicans believe that people should be able to practice their religion without being forced to do things in the private sector that they find wrong, compared with only one third of Democrats believing the same.

On the Topic of Free Market, clearly this isn't even an argument, Democrats are the big government, higher minimum wage, and pro-regulation party. Republicans are certainly more free market except for the more Trumplican Republicans who constitute a minority, compared with the vast majority of pro government intervention democrats.

Civil Rights speak for themselves, Women's rights, Minority's rights, from voting to citizenship, Republicans lead the way. In fact the only percieved civil right fight that Republicans didn't push would be Gay marriage but in reality, something such as gay Marriage may not be as clear cut as it seems. We can all define any person as human and therefore give them equal rights, it is scientifically probable that we are all indeed the same species, however Gay Marriage, rather than giving a natural right to a person, it seems to change the definition of a word and that's where many had a problem with it, being gay had already been legal, but many people believed that Marriage was a religious institution that meant a union between a Man and Woman. Therefore people, rather than withholding rights, were merely following what they believed to be definitionally true, marriage was for a man and a woman. Historically this had been true, and unlike showing that all people are equal, there is no way to show that marriage could mean any union, thus it was a fight to change a definition rather than a civil rights fight. Historically and recently, Republicans have proven to be more Liberal under the classic liberal definition on the topic of civil rights.

As for Democratic societies and secular governments, it does not seem as if either party pushes for a theocracy or pushes against democracy.

As for gender equality, the reality is women's rights were pushed for by the Republican party, unless your going to argue that all the recently made up genders are being fought for by the Democrat party, this part goes to the Republicans. But even more so, not only did Republicans fight for women's rights, they also don't spread as many myths as the Democrats which create a victim culture. One thing is blatantly true, there is no wage gap, I'd you disagree, argue in the comments, but facts will win out.

In almost every category listed, Republicans fit the definition of Liberal better, so why do Democrats identify as Liberal. One obvious reason might be that Democrats know liberal is linked with civil rights, if they identify as liberal, they are granted moral superiority on the grounds that their self description is linked to great historical movements, which of course didn't originate from their party, but at least they feel good.

Based on these findings, the conclusion must be as follows. The Democrat Party overall is not, by definition, Liberal. It fits into very few of the categories that are define Liberalism, just as the feminist agenda has been warped by pseudo Feminists, The liberal agenda has been warped by Pseudo liberals. To be in favor, ever, of restricting free speech in hopes of keeping people from getting their feelings hurt is a direct assault upon liberty itself. The first Amendment wasn't designed with the hope everyone would fit into one category and say what everyone else wanted to hear, the First Amendment was made in the hopes that the most controversial voices would not get shut down by force but rather in a forum of free debate in which ideas are tested. To claim Liberalism is merely a virtue signal that says, look, I identify as the side that fought for civil rights.

Today, according to this Gallup Poll, a disturbing 61% of self identified liberals have positive views towards socialism. While we are at it, why not throw the entire enlightenment philosophical writings out the door, as it seems that people are fine with throwing out history. Here is a fairly innovative line of reasoning, You can not be pro-Free market, and pro-Socialism. Self Identified liberals, at least a large majority, merely on the subject of free market, are disqualified from the definition of liberal.

Lets make Liberalism liberal again!