Trump: A Fake But Accurate Popcorn Fart — Stately McDaniel Manor

Traditionally, Americans have looked for an “October Surprise,” which is some sensational—we now call them “bombshells”—story about whichever presidential candidate the media disfavors. Circa 2020, the media are the propaganda arm of the D/S/C party, and “bombshells” are exploding virtually daily, always against President Trump, and always amounting to less than popcorn farts. Professor Jacobson […]

Trump: A Fake But Accurate Popcorn Fart — Stately McDaniel Manor

Shades of Dan Rather in Jeffrey Goldberg’s anti-Trump hit piece

(Paul Mirengoff) Should we believe the story, reported by the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, that President Trump made disparaging comments about American soldiers who died in Normandy? I don’t. Trump has a very nasty side, but I doubt he made the nasty comments Goldberg’s attributes to him.

Source: Shades of Dan Rather in Jeffrey Goldberg’s anti-Trump hit piece

Here’s How We Know The Atlantic’s Hit Piece on Trump Is Pure Fiction

Plus, of the four anonymous sources, why did none of them spill the beans before now? All four waited until two months before the election.

Source: Here’s How We Know The Atlantic’s Hit Piece on Trump Is Pure Fiction

And here’s this from Scott Adams, starting where he discusses the Atlantic article:

From the autotranscript:

I will reiterate the lesson. Here are all the signs that this is an obvious hoax. And there were so many of them I literally ran out of room writing down all the obvious flags for this big hoax.

Number one, the timing. The timing, you know close to an election definitely ramps up the chance that somebody would make something up especially if Biden looks like he’s in a little bit of trouble.

If Biden had a commanding lead you wouldn’t see as much fake news because they wouldn’t need it. So in this situation do they need fake news to beat trump and I would say yes. Because the real news isn’t going to be negative enough.

Number two. We know that the democrats have admitted that they’re going to be using artificial intelligence to figure out how to manipulate and brainwash the masses. They don’t use those words but as clearly as i’m expressing it they have expressed it. They just use different words.

Now what would it look like if an AI came up with a line of attack? What would it look like? Have you seen the articles about AI trying to write a blog post and it actually fooled people? And you can look at it and you can see that when an artificial intelligence tries to write an article pretending to be a human it does have some tells in it. And the first tell is that it seems to be based on frequency of keywords.

In other words if it picks up a tendency it doesn’t have any intelligence really on that but it just it picks up the tendency. So okay people are talking about this, this word gets used a lot, I’ll throw that into the sentence, i’ll make grammar that makes sense, and boom it looks like a person said it. So here’s here’s the tell that this wasn’t human generated. Or if it was human generated somebody who’s not good at it. And what i mean is not good at writing.

Essentially, whoever wrote this missed the fact that Donald Trump had adopted a Chris Rock joke and applied it to John McCain. There’s no evidence that Trump intended to apply this to all servicemen or all POWs, except maybe Rosie O’Donnel, had she been captured.

Number three: CNN is downplaying the story.

I looked on CNN’s page because I thought okay is this going to be like the major story? Because it’s just like read meat, it’s like “oh we got another another thing”. Nope. CNN put it on the far right in one no picture — just text, and just treated it like an allegation. CNN did not pounce. …. What does that tell you? It tells you they know it’s not true and they can’t take another hit. CNN is obviously wounded by all the fake news it has promoted and it just can’t take another hit and this one is so obviously not true that even CNN couldn’t take a chance on it.

Flag number 4: It was published in the Atlantic.

It had to be in the Atlantic because who else is going to publish four anonymous sources? You know a basic journalist’s standard is if you can’t get at least one person to go on the record maybe you don’t publish that.

Flag number 5: One of the sources is Malcolm Nance.

Flag number 6: John Bolton doesn’t tell that story in his book.

What You Need to Know About Jacob Blake, Kyle Rittenhouse, and the Kenosha Violence

From the Daily Signal — looks pretty balanced to me.

Swearer: Yes. This idea of who was the initial aggressor becomes important.

Wisconsin, like most states, has a law that essentially says, look, you can claim self-defense except for in two circumstances. The first is when you do something unlawful to provoke the violence, or when you do something, regardless of whether it’s lawful or unlawful, with the intent, specifically, of provoking people to attack you so that you can then use it as a guise to kill your attacker.

In those two situations, it’s provocation, and you can’t claim self-defense anymore.

Now, at least as to this idea of, was he provoking? Was he intentionally seeming to provoke the attack? I mean, it’s hard to say that when you look at the video. You have an individual who is, in the first case, actively running away and being chased.

Now it’s possible, maybe he said something or did something prior to that. I think, certainly, the state will try to argue that if he was in illegal possession of that rifle, he was doing something unlawful.

You also have this reality that I think the state is going to play into of saying, “We’re going to paint this kid as essentially showing up with a rifle planning to kill someone.” Again, “He was this white nationalist who was trying to create a situation where he could kill protesters and claim self-defense.”

It’s just so hard because you have videos from earlier in the day where he is just cleaning graffiti, saying, “Look, I’m here peacefully. My goal is not to hurt anybody.”

Daily Signal