Julio Gonzalez makes an excellent point regarding Progressive-Democrat Party Presidential candidate and Senator (D, CA) Kamala Harris’ attitude about voters.
Kamala Harris says her campaign is failing because people aren’t ready for a woman of color to be president.
The funny part is, this is the primary, not the general election.
So the people she is accusing of racism are Democratic primary voters.
To which I add: Harris is projecting.
From the October jobs report as summarized by The Wall Street Journal.
That’s what that icon of the Left, Juan Williams, says.
The reality is that [Facebook CEO Mark] Zuckerberg doesn’t seem to understand, from my perspective, that he’s undermining his brand by allowing political lies to be put on his platform. That, to me, lessens the trust that the consumer has.
Because censoring speech—especially politically speech—is the way to win the hearts and minds and trust of the consumer.
Certainly, controlling speech and allowing only that which the Left approves—what Juan Williams personally approves—can be a tool for winning controlling the hearts and minds of citizens, but trust? No. Censorship destroys trust.
The Chicago Teachers Union struck Chicago (closing out the children of the city from 11 days of education; although, that may have been a net benefit for the kids, given the lack of education the city’s public education institution provides), and it got everything it demanded.
The Wall Street Journal led off one of its Wednesday editorials with this gem.
The great counterfactual of the Trump Presidency is how much faster the economy would be growing without the damage of his trade protectionism.
Never mind that the great counterfactual of the FDR and Wilson Presidencies (among others) is how much better off the nation would be without the damage of their warfighting.
Once again, WSJ Editors choose to misconstrue the nature of tariffs as tools of international diplomacy and conflict with the nature of tariffs as protectionism. International conflict unavoidably involves domestic damage.
Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, has struck again. Now he’s banning “all political advertising on Twitter globally.” He’s justifying this move with this bit of fantastical rationalization:
We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.
I suppose, then, he believes television, radio, print media—along with his competitors, Facebook, Alphabet, et al.—also should ban political advertising on their platforms. After all, political message reach should be earned, not bought.
A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people.
Donald Trump, Jr, says The Washington Post is destroying its credibility with its gaffes. Young Trump is correct on the first part (except, perhaps, for the tense), but he’s being generous with the last part.
This newspaper headlined its article purporting to be an obituary about Daesh’s head, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, styling the…person…an austere religious scholar. Earlier, the newspaper smeared a high school student, saying he’d mistreated in some way a Native American who had, in fact, accosted the boy, banging a drum in the boy’s face.
Trump said,
They don’t even pretend to be objective[.]
That’s what the UAW hopes to use its bludgeon of GM as when the union turns to Ford and Fiat Chrysler.
The United Auto Workers will use the agreement at GM as a template that is expected to reach similar terms on wages and benefits in separate contract talks with Ford Motor Co and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles….
However, there’s no reason for Ford or Fiat Chrysler to succumb to this. These are three separate companies, with separate goals, revenue streams, and cost structures; there should be three separate contracts with the UAW.
Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D, HI) had an interesting campaign advertisement op-ed in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal. One campaign promise she made in it jumped out at me.
A Gabbard presidency would mean the end of trying to police the world….
Who does Gabbard think would police the world if we don’t? Can she really believe that a police-less world would be benign, or that our enemies won’t divide up the policing among themselves explicitly for their benefit and just as explicitly for our detriment? Or that their squabbling among themselves over the spoils won’t spill over into serious regional or even global conflict?
And we have to learn about this from a German newspaper. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council functionary in the Trump administration, appeared in Congressman and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff’s (D, CA) Star Chamber earlier. Among other things, he claimed, on the matter of asking Ukraine to investigate corruption, including Burisma’s and the Bidens’ possible roles in the corruption,
was “inappropriate.” It “had nothing to do with national security,” he said he told [US Ambassador to the EU Gordon] Sondland.