joeygoespolitical

[joeygoespolitical]

Morning Joe Trashes Trump/Kim Jong Un Meeting After Praising a Potential Meeting Between Obama and Iranian President Rouhani

It was one of the biggest foreign policy announcements of this presidency that President Donald Trump was going to meet with North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Un. According to South Korean national security adviser Chung Eui-yong, this meeting is entirely reliant on North Korea's commitment to "denuclearization" and that Kim Jong Un has said they will stop their missile tests.

After months of tough talk between the two world leaders, specifically about the "size" of their buttons and their nicknames for each other like "Rocket Man" and "Dotard," even the tiniest of prospects for potential peace in the Korean Peninsula is obviously something any administration would pursue and if achieved would be the biggest foreign policy accomplishment since ending the Cold War.

But if you watched Morning Joe on MSNBC, it's all one big joke to them.

Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski kicked off Friday morning’s show by immediately concluding that the White House's announcement regarding potential peace talks with North Korea is a "distraction" from the brewing controversy of Trump's alleged affair with Stormy Daniels. They listed the negative headlines from the resignations of White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and economic advisor Gary Cohn to the messy debate on tariffs and pointed to the front pages of various newspapers like The Washington Post who have bumped the porn star to make room for the breaking news to prove their point. Scarborough dismissed the significance of this meeting, calling it "easy."

Then in an effort to keep talking about Stormy Daniels, Brzezinski mocked the president by saying "he can't even make a deal with a porn star" let alone with the North Korean dictator.

And on top of that, The Atlantic editor and Morning Joe panelist Jeffrey Goldberg is already handing a victory to Kim Jong Un, insisting he's "getting something for nothing" simply because he's meeting with President Trump face-to-face, which is unprecedented in American politics.

It is reasonable to be skeptical or cautiously optimistic about these peace talks. After all, Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all made attempts to bring peace and to prevent North Korea to become a nuclear power in the region and they all failed. And yes, there is a chance that Trump too can fail, but there's also a chance that he can succeed. If successful, North Korea's denuclearization will define Trump's presidency and will help pave the way towards his reelection in 2020.

What's so puzzling is that Morning Joe sang a drastically different tune in 2013 when a potential meeting between President Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was in the works.

Long before the Obama administration struck a nuclear deal with Iran, it was questioned whether or not the two leaders would meet at the U.N. General Assembly. Columbia University's Jeffrey Sachs joined the panel, referring to the reports at the time as "positive vibes" for potential peace and believing they were "exciting" and "significant."

"I think this is a lot smarter for the United States, a lot safer, and it opens up a new way to have some kind of a constructive relationship with Iran," Sachs said. “Of course, the right wing in the United States is screaming, ‘Oh my God, peace is breaking out! This is horrifying!” But the fact of the matter is this is what the American people want.”

“It's amazing the tonal shift in the last three or four weeks from brink of war to all of the sudden to a warm and fuzzier Iran," MSNBC contributor Donny Deutsch reacted.

"And so much criticism!" Brzezinski exclaimed.

“At at time when everybody was just banging on Obama, how he was stumbling but somehow he kinda stumbled into a victory lap,” Deutsch continued. 

“Mhm,” Brzezinski agreed. 

So what changed? Both Iran and North Korea are nuclear threats. Both Rouhani and Kim Jong Un are brutal authoritarian rulers. Yet, when a potential meeting between Obama and Rouhani was in the works, it was embraced by Morning Joe and when a potential meeting between Trump and Kim Jong Un is in the works, it’s dismissed as a “distraction.”

It's no secret that Scarborough and Brzezinski have a bitter relationship with the president. They went from palling along during the primaries to throwing mud at each other via Twitter. But this is a classic case of the media’s blatant double standard when it comes to a Republican president versus a Democrat. If the White House announced Thursday night that they found a cure for cancer, Morning Joe will still call it a “distraction” from what they really want to talk about, aka Stormy Daniels. 

Partisans on both sides of the aisle have the same problem; they can't praise this president when he deserves praising and criticize him when he deserves criticizing at the same time. It's one or the other depending on who you're listening to. The media's animosity towards Trump is already baked in, but for them to not even throw him a bone for something that would be celebrated with a President Hillary Clinton only feeds into the American people's disdain of them will continue the distrust that exists.

No matter who you voted for in the 2016 election or how you feel about the president now, the American thing to do is to root for resolve with North Korea. And if it ends in failure, Trump will be in good company with his three previous predecessors. But Morning Joe's immediate rejection of the meeting in less than 24 hours since it was announced was one-dimensional, laughable, and shameful.

[joeygoespolitical]

Despite Their Efforts at the Oscars, Hollywood Still Doesn't Understand What Diversity Truly Means

It was a celebration at the 90th Academy Awards of not just the best in film but of inclusion and representation. You saw it among the presenters, among the nominees, and among the winners.

Mexican filmmaker Guillermo del Toro won two of the biggest awards of the night, Best Director and Best Picture, for his film The Shape of Water. Black actor/comedian Jordan Peele won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for his film Get Out and was also nominated for Best Director. Gay screenwriter James Ivory won Best Adapted Screenplay for his film Call Me By Your Name. Latino songwriter Robert Lopez won his second Oscar for writing the song “Remember Me” from Coco with his wife Kristen Anderson-Lopez. Actress Greta Gerwig was the fifth woman to be nominated for Best Director for Lady Bird. while Rachel Morrison became the first woman to be nominated for Best Cinematography for her work in Mudbound. Black actors Denzel Washington and Daniel Kaluuya both earned Best Actor nominations while black actresses Octavia Spencer and Mary J. Blige were nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Presenters Kumail Nanjiani and Lupita Nyong’o gave a shoutout to DREAMERs and fellow immigrants and trans actress Daniela Vega introduced one of the Best Song nominees. And there was plenty of praise for women throughout the night as the #MeToo movement had a heavy presence.

Between gender, race, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation, it seemed like everyone was represented at this year’s Oscars, right?

Well, that all depends on how you define “diversity.”

Hollywood made it very clear at this year’s Oscars that diversity, at least to them, literally only goes skin deep. If you’re white, straight, or male, you’re automatically deemed “privileged” and what you have to say is irrelevant because things like “the patriarchy” and “systemic racism” have suppressed women and minorities for decades.

Any rational, open-minded, and sympathetic person is able to understand the importance of inclusion among various underrepresented groups both on the screen and behind the scenes and the Oscars have certainly made strides in recent years in giving them recognition. That being said, Hollywood’s biggest problem isn’t necessarily about the diversity of race and gender; it’s about the diversity of thought and opinion.

Politics have polarized this country and have tainted virtually all aspects of life including the media, college campuses, the NFL, and especially entertainment. And because those who either run or participate in those institutions mostly identify as liberal, many have been willing to cast conservatives aside. There isn’t any desire to have bipartisan appeal. Just ask Jimmy Kimmel, who no longer cares if he loses Republican viewers. Kimmel mocked President Donald Trump during his monologue at the Oscars (again) and when he isn’t hosting awards shows, he’s lecturing Republicans on a constant basis on health care, gun control, and immigration and virtually exclusively mocking conservatives just like every other late-night comedian. And between the demonization of the GOP from various celebrities and the “artistic” depictions of the president’s death, it’s as if Hollywood doesn’t mind alienating nearly half the country.

Hollywood preaches to the rest of the country to be tolerant of people of different races and nationalities, yet they aren’t tolerant of people with different ideologies. Actor/comedian Tim Allen compared Hollywood to Nazi Germany for conservatives like himself. In order to make it in such an industry, you must either follow the liberal indoctrination or you must bury your political beliefs until you’ve become as successful and established as Clint Eastwood. So when it was announced that in the Roseanne reboot that Roseanne Barr’s character was going to be a Trump supporter like she is in real life, it had sparked so much intrigue on the right because maybe, just maybe, one TV show out of Hollywood can give Trump supporters a fair shake instead of labeling them as “bigots,” “racists,” or “deplorables.”

Tribalism has poisoned civil discourse and partisans on both sides of the aisle are guilty. However, A-listers calling for open hearts are often the most closed-minded. If Hollywood wants to continue championing diversity, perhaps they ought to reevaluate what diversity really entails. By all means, they should continue to give women and people of color a voice. At the same time, they should respect those with a point of view that’s differs from their own. After all, a certain someone once said it’s not the “color of their skin” that should be judged but rather “the content of their character.”

One can only dream.

[joeygoespolitical]

After Aziz Ansari, The #MeToo Movement Is At a Crossroads Between Empowering Victims and Emboldening Victimhood

It has already been over three months since the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke there has been a tectonic shift in our culture. We have the witnessed the downfall of movie stars, TV anchors, journalists, celebrity chefs, and politicians who've been accused of harassment, assault, child molestation, and rape. And while the #MeToo movement has empowered the victims of sexual abuse who have suffered for decades, there was always a potential danger that it would get carried away with its cause.

Well, that danger may have arrived.

Last weekend, actor/comedian Aziz Ansari was accused of sexual misconduct, but unlike Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, and Al Franken, his alleged misdeeds weren't in a professional setting; they were on a date.

In a piece published on the blog Babe, a woman using the pseudonym "Grace" shared her story about meeting Ansari at an Emmys after party last year and their date that followed roughly a week later.

Their date began at his New York apartment where they had a drink, then they walked to a nearby restaurant for dinner. Grace noted that Ansari rushed to get the check and they went back to his place. She complimented his marble countertop and he asked her to "take a seat" on it. He began kissing her, touching her breast, and undressing her and himself. Grace recalled "feeling uncomfortable."

After he told her he was going to get a condom, Grace told him something in the lines of "let’s relax for a sec," but he proceeded to kiss her and performed oral sex. When he asked if she would return the favor, she did — but not for long. Following that, she said Ansari took two fingers and put them in her mouth and throat and then put them in her vagina. He also made numerous attempts to pull her hand towards his penis.

Grace described moving around the apartment as a "football play" where every time she'd walk away, Ansari would follow. But here is the part of the blog post that was worth emphasizing:

Throughout the course of her short time in the apartment, she says she used verbal and non-verbal cues to indicate how uncomfortable and distressed she was. “Most of my discomfort was expressed in me pulling away and mumbling. I know that my hand stopped moving at some points,” she said. “I stopped moving my lips and turned cold.”

Whether Ansari didn’t notice Grace’s reticence or knowingly ignored it is impossible for her to say. “I know I was physically giving off cues that I wasn’t interested. I don’t think that was noticed at all, or if it was, it was ignored.”

Throughout the night, he kept asking her where she wanted him to "fuck" her. And after telling him, "I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you,” he would later ask her to perform oral while they sat on the couch, which she did- although she "felt pressured."

It wasn't until he had her bend over and pantomimed intercourse as he requested again for intercourse when she allegedly said "no, I don’t think I’m ready to do this, I really don’t think I’m going to do this." He then suggested putting their clothes back on and watching TV. But it didn't take long for Ansari to start kissing her and put his fingers down her throat again as he attempted to take off her pants. That was when she decided to leave. She requested an Uber, he hugged her, gave another "aggressive" kiss, and she left, noting that she cried on her way home.

In followup texts, she explicitly told her he made her feel uncomfortable and he apologized.

Ansari had released a statement since this story went viral. He admitted to sexual activity, but alleged "by all indications [it] was completely consensual." He said he was "surprised and concerned" and that he "took her words to heart."

My initial reaction from reading Grace's story is that Ansari acted like an immature horndog and his relentless efforts for sex resulted in a nightmare date for her. As an A-list celebrity, the Master of None star probably feels entitled in his sexual conquests, which isn't an excuse for his obnoxious behavior.

However, for Ansari to be swept up as a villain of the #MeToo movement over this is a step too far.

First off, in many of these cases, the victims and the high-profile predators had professional relationships that escalated into sexual misconduct. Here, it began and ended as a romantic relationship.

But here's the biggest problem: Grace shared that she felt "violated" and relied on "verbal and non-verbal cues to indicate how uncomfortable and distressed she was." She never flat-out said, "No, I don't want to have sex with you" and there was never a time where she shoved him off of her. And judging from the post, Grace seemed to have stayed in his apartment for a very long time even though his unwanted physical contact was constant throughout the night and there were plenty of opportunities where she could have left. How much blame are we supposed to place on Ansari for not picking up on her "cues"?

Caitlin Flanagan of The Atlantic described Grace's retelling of events as "3,000 words of revenge porn" and said that she and the writer "may have destroyed Ansari’s career." Bari Weiss of The New York Times determined that she too is "apparently a victim of sexual assault" after reading the "exposé" about Ansari. Both of their pieces are spot-on, but Flanagan went off message at the end when she invoked race, saying she "thought it would take a little longer for the hit squad of privileged young white women to open fire on brown-skinned men." This isn't about race. This is about the emboldenment of victimhood.

Respect should be given to the victims of harassment and abuse who have found the courage to come forward in recent months, but its cases like this where it's unsettling that an accuser like Grace is allowed to remain anonymous while Ansari's life could be ruined because he wasn't a Prince Charming on their date.

Early on when the #MeToo movement picked up steam, its critics have said it would lead to a "witch hunt." And maybe they're right because in the current climate, to be accused is virtually a conviction in the court of public opinion.

This accusation could be the tipping point for a movement in which criminalizing bad dates becomes the new normal. To group Ansari with monsters like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey for what he allegedly did would be so unprecedented and so harmful, it would do more damage to how we interact as human beings than it would help any victim of abuse.

Being a sexual assaulter is illegal and being a jackass isn't, which leaves Ansari somewhere in between. If Grace truly feels he assaulted her, she should take him to court. But to crucify him for not being a gentleman on a date, especially since he failed to pick up on her "cues," is completely irrational. It's time for us to instill a degree of caution into this movement, a movement that began to combat misconduct in the workplace, not in order to silence victims but for us to determine who we should and shouldn't punish for such actions.

But be warned; if we do start punishing men for their embarrassing attempts at romance, which is exactly what this accusation did, then it will wrongfully paint the women of the #MeToo movement with frailty instead of strength. This movement was supposed to empower victims, but after it railroaded Aziz Ansari, it may embolden victimhood.

[joeygoespolitical]

ABC News Just Needlessly Handed Trump a YUGE ‘Fake News’ Victory

This week was arguably the craziest news week of the year. Between President Trump’s remarks on “Pocahontas” Elizabeth Warren, his retweets of anti-Muslim videos, more accusations made against Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), North Korea firing another missile, the downfall of NBC’s Matt Lauer, the battle over the GOP’s tax reform bill, the acquittal in the Kate Steinle murder case, and the guilty plea of Gen. Michael Flynn, there was never a dull moment in this news cycle.

The ongoing investigations surrounding possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the election have dogged this administration for almost a year now, especially from Special Counsel Robert Mueller in recent weeks.

While Trump supporters see Flynn’s indictment for lying to the FBI as minuscule and non-important, others see a deal struck between the former national security advisor and Mueller. At this point, it’s unclear what sort of dirt Flynn has on other staffers or the president himself.

However, an even bigger bombshell dropped shortly after it was announced that Flynn was being charged. And that bombshell came from ABC News.

ABC’s chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross reported that according to a source close to Flynn, he was going to testify to Mueller that Trump “directed him” to make contact with the Russians during the campaign.

Here is what Ross said Friday morning:

According to confidants to Gen. Flynn, he feels he has been abandoned by President Trump and he is now he’s prepared to testify about Trump. He says Mr. Trump directed him to be in contact with the Russians during the campaign.

When George Stephanopoulos followed up by asking what those contacts were about, Ross reported that they initially were about cooperation in Syria to deal with ISIS but that it “evolved beyond that.”

The country’s reaction to that report: Oh. My. God.

This ABC News report was so damning to Trump. Obviously, the implication was that the then-candidate ordered Flynn to reach out to Russia to aid his campaign. The legality of those alleged actions would have been debatable, but it would have certainly been a political nightmare for Trump. For almost a year, the president kept telling (and tweeting) the American people that there was “NO COLLUSION” between him and Russia during the election, so if Ross’s sources were credible, Trump would have easily earned the “lie of the year” title.

Well, it turns out Ross’s sources weren’t so credible.

Hours later on World News Tonight, Ross offered a “clarification.”

“A clarification tonight on something one of Flynn’s confidants told us and we reported earlier today. He said the President had asked Flynn to contact Russia during the campaign. He’s now clarifying that, saying according to Flynn, candidate Trump asked him during the campaign to find ways to repair relations with Russia and other hot spots, and then after the election, the President-elect asked him, told him to contact Russia on issues, including working together to fight ISIS.”

Is this a joke?

For starters, that’s not a “clarification.” That’s a correction. And a big fat one.

Secondly, even calling it a correction is still whitewashing the initial reporting. Ross told the world that Trump directed Flynn to contact Russia during the campaign when the reality was that Trump asked Flynn to find ways to repair relations with Russia and then told him to contact Russia after the election.

Does Ross not even realize that his little nugget of inaccurate reporting literally tanked the stock market?!? And how does ABC News “punish” Ross? With a four-week unpaid Christmas vacation.

All day Friday, we’ve heard the media declare that Trump no longer could say that Russia collusion is “fake news.” Fox New’s Shepard Smith concluded that Trump calling this “fake news” was “a lie.” CNN’s Carl Bernstein said that “We can put away the fake news charge once and for all.”

Except we can’t “put away the fake news charge” because what Ross reported was fake news.

The media cries about Trump’s treatment of the press. They see him as a threat to the First Amendment simply because he mocks them on Twitter. While he really hasn’t proven to be an actual threat to journalism, him discrediting news outlets solely based on reports that make him look bad (which not all of the is “fake news”) is wrong and only encourages people, particularly his supporters, to live in a “fact-free” society where you don’t have to acknowledge the truth when it goes against your personal politics or beliefs. The media has an uphill battle not just because trust among Americans is still at all-time lows but because they’re essentially obligated to prove Trump wrong.

And so far, they’re failing.

ABC News is unfornately in good company. CNN falsely reported that former FBI Director James Comey was going to refute Trump’s claim that he was told he wasn’t under investigation. The New York Times falsely reported that Trump campaign officials had communications with Russian intelligence during the election. NBC News falsely reported that Paul Manafort’s notes he had at the infamous meeting with the Russian lawyer included “donations” tied to the RNC. And that’s just stuff about Russia.

While 100% accuracy should be the goal from the press, it isn’t feasible. It never was and it never will be simply because human error will always exist. But since the media has an overt animosity towards this president and the president has an overt animosity towards the media, they can’t afford to hand Trump these “fake news” victories.  It’s no secret that they want to make the Trump administration look bad (and that’s on top of their bias against conservatives and Republicans). Frankly, there’s plenty of bad press that this president deserves. It’s difficult to prove that certain news outlets purposefully publish inaccurate reports, but the stakes are too high to be incredibly wrong. ABC News needlessly provided Trump a ton of “fake news” ammunition. He will feel more emboldened to lash out at the press over this report. And until the media reports the truth and nothing but the truth, especially when it comes to the Russia investigation, Trump will continue to prevail with his “fake news” narrative.

[joeygoespolitical]

NBC's Cover-Ups For Its Misbehaving Employees Paved The Way For Trump's Presidency

Many have said that we're in the midst of a "cultural revolution." Over the past two months, we have witnessed some of the most powerful men in America be taken down for sexual misconduct. From Hollywood producers, A-list actors, news anchors, and politicians, both women and men who have been alleged victims of abuse have felt empowered to seek their own justice.

While the actions of these sexual predators should be addressed, the institutions that shielded them for decades needs to be a part of the national dialogue. And one institution that really stands out among these ongoing scandals is NBC.

NBC has been a recurring culprit of sorts during this open season on high-profile creeps. Shortly after the Harvey Weinstein bombshell broke, NBC reporter Ronan Farrow revealed that despite spending months on his own exposé on the now-disgraced film mogul, his own network tried to bury the story, which was why he had it published in The New Yorker.

Then came the accusations made against MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin. Although his alleged sexual harassment took place in the 90s when he worked at ABC News, his behavior was apparently an "open secret" in the industry. He was fired just days after the story broke.

And now, we have longtime Today Show host Matt Lauer also out of the job for being a pervert. NBC alleges that in his 20 years of being the face of its morning news program, it wasn't until Monday that an accuser filed a sexual harassment complaint. But perhaps the network wanted to get ahead of the news stories that were being developed about him these past two months. And like Halperin, Lauer's behavior was reportedly an "open secret" as well.

As these various scandals erupted, President Trump has been foolishly weighing in, most recently with Lauer. Obviously, he and frankly many of his supporters continue to pretend that his own accusers don't exist. Over a dozen women came forward with allegations that range from forced kissing, groping, to assault. As you may recall, these accusations came to light after the infamous Access Hollywood tape was leaked just a month before the 2016 election.

If Hillary Clinton wasn't such an awful candidate, that 2005 tape would have destroyed his presidential campaign. Trump's remarks were vulgar, degrading, and absolutely shameful. And the fact that he has reportedly questioned the authenticity of the tape despite giving an apology when it initially emerged is indescribably absurd. However, what's often forgotten about was that NBC sat on that footage for 11 years, when he used to be one of their employees.

For over a decade, long before he came down that golden escalator to announce his candidacy, Donald Trump was a lucrative, reality game show host for NBC and there was a conscious decision on behalf on the network to sweep his disturbing remarks under the rug. People had to have known about what he said at the time and nothing was done. And after its "rediscovery" of sorts, they only leaked it to The Washington Post when they thought it would do the most damage shortly before an election. Even if we bought into the narrative that the tape came out of nowhere, NBC could have at least released it during the primary. Instead, they strategically withheld it just in case Trump miraculously became the GOP nominee, which he did, and hoped it would put the nail in his political coffin within days of the election.

But imagine for a moment if NBC didn't keep Trump's Access Hollywood tape a secret.

Had NBC been upfront about its Apprentice star, Trump would have faced severe backlash- perhaps on the level of Mel Gibson, who was banished by Hollywood for roughly a decade for his sexist, anti-Semetic remarks. Perhaps the network would have been forced to cancel The Apprentice and you wouldn't have seen or heard from the celebrity billionaire for a very long time, thus ruining any sort of political ambitions he may have had.

In other words, if NBC didn't cover up for Trump back then, he wouldn't be our president today.

Think about that. NBC's blatant dishonesty and unethical standards for its employees ultimately paved the path from Trump Tower to the White House. And what's so ironic about all of this is that Trump constantly attacks NBC despite them inadvertently aiding his political career. He shouldn't be hateful... he should be grateful!

Sure, there are plenty of reasons why Trump beat Clinton in the 2016 election, but his name wouldn't have even been on the ballot if it weren't for his former employer. So whether you love or hate Trump, you can thank NBC for single-handedly allowing this presidency to happen.

[joeygoespolitical]

Based On How They're Handling Franken/Conyers, Dems Are Begging For a Roy Moore Victory

Last week, President Trump pardoned Drumstick and Wishbone as part of a decades-old Thanksgiving tradition, but there are still two turkeys on Capitol Hill that deserve to be stuffed.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) have been exposed in recent weeks for sexual misconduct, both of them are facing multiple accusers. Franken has already offered numerous apologies for his groping and while Conyers admitted to the settlement he made with a former female staffer and has stepped down as the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, he denies any wrongdoing.

Both politicians are being subjected to an ethics investigation, which most people believe is meaningless. What it comes down to is whether or not they resign and who calls for such actions to take place.

It's fairly obvious that such sexual harassment claims are a bipartisan problem, especially in the Alabama Senate race where GOP candidate Roy Moore has been slammed with child molestation and assault allegations from almost 40 years ago, all which he denies. But how both parties have reacted to their own politicians' scandals couldn't be more different.

When the initial bombshell broke, the GOP quickly denounced Moore. Funding was pulled from his campaign, several senators withdrew their endorsements, and countless Republicans have called on him to drop out of the race. Some have already sparked conversations of expelling the judge from the Senate if he wins the election. The White House stayed quiet as long as they could, but ultimately they've taken the position of "that Senate seat should not go to a Democrat," which is basically an endorsement for Moore.

Meanwhile, Democrats were able to condemn the actions of Franken and Conyers. And that's about it.

Do you notice an unbalance?

With the exception of Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY), there has virtually been no calls from Democrats demanding that these two alleged perverts to resign from office.

Some have tried to dismiss the allegations made against Franken and Conyers because they aren't as severe as the ones made against Moore. But Franken only grabbed women's butts while Moore's an alleged pedophile is often the argument, to which the counter-argument can be, So are you saying that grabbing women's butts is acceptable? Democrats should be asked if they're comfortable with a senator who has groped multiple women and a congressman who will fire female staffers if they don't accept his sexual advances. Another important distinction is that Franken has given numerous apologies and Conyers has admitted to the settlement, and despite the credible accusers, Moore still denies any wrongdoing. The severity of their allegations are wide-ranging but they have a common thread of abuse of power and disrespect of women. If one faces punishment and not the other, then the other will carry on, which is exactly why Democrats need to do more than condemn Franken and Conyers.

Speaking of which, let's see how Democrats have handled Franken and Conyers so far.

Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both seen as the faces of the modern Democratic Party as well as 2020 hopefuls, shied away like cowards when asked if they thought their colleague Al Franken should resign. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who just days ago said that President Bill Clinton should have resigned back in the '90s, has yet to say the same thing about Franken. After declaring that sexual harassment is "never acceptable," Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has stayed quiet on Franken's political future. It's puzzling why it's so difficult for these senators to take such a stance since half of voters think Franken should resign. Congresswoman Jackie Speier, the House Democrat who shed light on the secret slush fund Congress has been using for harassment and discrimination settlements for decades, stopped short of calling Conyers to resign, despite the fact that he himself made a settlement funded by taxpayer money. Congressman Jim Clyburn gave a half-hearted defense of Conyers, saying that the allegations made against him "could be made up."

And then there was that shameless performance given by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Meet The Press. She honestly made a better argument that she should resign for being so pathetic than for Conyers to resign for being such a creep. Not only did she sheepishly not answer whether he should resign, she couldn't even answer if she believed his accusers and on top of that, she praised him for being an "icon."

You know who else were icons? Charlie Rose. And Kevin Spacey. And Louis C.K. And Bill O'Reilly. And George H.W. Bush. And Clinton. And Trump. And countless others accused of sexual misconduct. Just because they've made contributions to society, that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye from their wrongdoings.

But imagine being an Alabama voter and watching that Pelosi interview. She said Conyers deserves "due process," but would she ever say that about Moore? Of course not! That's because of tribalism. She'll denounce the alleged actions of any Republican and refuse to hold members of her own party accountable. And yes, Republicans are guilty of the same thing. President Trump's tweets mocking "Al Frankenstien" and essentially throwing his support behind Moore days later is proof of that.

We are in the midst of a cultural shift when it comes to how we handle sexual misconduct. Ever since the downfall of Harvey Weinstein, women as well as men have felt empowered to come forward as victims of abuse from the powerful who have allegedly gotten away with it for decades. And in D.C. we're witnessing a litmus test for elected officials being caught up in such scandals. 20 years ago, Democrats failed that litmus test when they gave Clinton a pass for his assault and rape allegations, which arguably paved the way for another alleged sexual predator to be elected. Since it was tolerated then, it was tolerated in 2016.

Now, all the chips are on the table and so far we have two sitting Democrats accused of harassment and one Republican accused of molestation on the cusp of joining them on Capitol Hill. Democrats have roughly two weeks to decide whether sexual harassment is truly "unacceptable." If they really are the "party of women," they are obligated to demand the resignations of Franken and Conyers. And if they don't by Dec. 12, Alabama voters will take that as a renewed toleration for sexual misconduct and that such a standard should be applied to both parties. In other words, Democrats are begging for a Roy Moore victory if they refuse to do nothing.

[joeygoespolitical]

Whether It Involves Trump or Clinton, All Russia Collusion Matters

Our country has gotten so divided that we all can't agree on virtually anything. There has been such a polarization about what we perceive as important or unimportant that there is animosity felt towards others simply because we don't see eye-to-eye.

Just take a look at Russia. It's unanimous that they attempted to interfere in the 2016 election. From the troll farms that plagued the comments section of every politically-driven site to the spread of disinformation on social media, our Cold War adversary wanted to fuel tensions in America and they succeeded.

Now that we know that Russia meddled in our democracy (without actually affecting the votes I should add), there's now a concerted effort on both sides to pin our own political enemies to this foreign enemy. Team Trump is trying to paint Team Clinton of colluding with Russia and Team Clinton is trying to paint Team Trump of colluding with Russia. What very few people will acknowledge is that each team has legitimate points to make.

Let's delve into how both Team Trump and Team Clinton have colluded with Russia.

The FBI launched its Russia investigation back in July 2016 though it wasn't known until after the election. And while its focus was possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, only two individuals repeatedly emerged for their shady (and potentially illegal) behavior during this entire investigation: Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn.

Manafort served as Donald Trump's campaign manager for a relatively brief period during the election, but beforehand he was a foreign agent for Russia (which he didn't disclose until years later). He was paid millions of dollars for lobbying on behalf of a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and has been suspected of racketeering and money laundering.  Flynn, the former general who served as the national security advisor for an even briefer period in Trump's young presidency but was fired for not being honest about his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the transition period. But he too accepted money from Russia over the years that he never disclosed to the U.S. government never registered as foreign agent either. He even had a relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Both Republicans and Democrats thought he didn't comply with the law. And the fact he was looking for immunity is a bit of a giveaway of any sort of wrongdoing.

It's Team Trump's fault for not properly vetting these two men when they entered the picture. They were often given warnings- especially about Flynn, and they went ignored. But much of the "collusion" if not all of it took place before the election. And while many on the left are still hoping for Trump's impeachment, I suspect that the charges that Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly filed late Friday are against one of these men if not both.

There was a lot of noise made by Trump allies Roger Stone and Carter Page and dubious claims that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner has all these Russian ties that likely amount to nothing, but Donald Trump Jr. definitely made an attempt to collude with Russia knowing that the dirt he was promised on Hillary Clinton came from the Kremlin. Sure, he may not have gotten anything out of that meeting, but it was still a failed effort to collude. It's difficult for me to seriously believe that what he did mounts to treason, but he was certainly careless in that he should have reported such a contact with the authorities. Attorney General Jeff Sessions added unnecessary smoke after he wasn't forthcoming about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the election at his confirmation hearing, which led him to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

The left has dedicated so much of their time and energy on this Russia investigation that anything that doesn't result in Trump's impeachment would hand them a massive failure on the same level as the 2016 election results.

And speaking of the left, now let's talk about the Russia collusion surrounding Team Clinton.

The suspicion of collusion dates back to 2009 when the Obama administration was in the middle of its Uranium One deal. In summary, a committee of nine agencies (including then-Secretary Clinton) approved the allowing of a Russia company to control 20% of our country's uranium.

However, it was recently discovered that the FBI had gathered evidence that corruption on behalf of the Russians took place as the deal was being made and that it had ties to the Clinton Foundation.

Former President Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from the Russians and Russian nuclear officials involved in the Uranium One deal gave millions to the Clinton Foundation all while his wife ran the State Department.  It's worth pointing out that the FBI director at the time was Robert Mueller, so a potential conflict of interest with the ongoing Russia investigation today is concerning.

The left continues to dismiss this as a "Fox News" story because it's about something that took place roughly eight years ago, but if they're so confident that there was no wrongdoing committed, then why did the Obama administration put a gag order on the soon-to-be whistleblower?  And while colluding with Russia isn't a crime, pay-for-play is and that's what the Clintons are being accused of.

Next is all the controversy behind the infamous Trump dossier. There has been wide misreporting on it so I will do my best to explain it plainly.

During the 2016 primary, there was a Republican-funded opposition research conducted on Trump. It is currently unclear if another GOP candidate was actually involved but it was just discovered that the conservative news site The Washington Free Beacon provided funding. This funding went to an intelligence firm called Fusion GPS. However, while Republicans gave up on the project when Trump clinched the GOP nomination, the DNC and the Clinton campaign essentially picked up where they left off and starting paying Fusion GPS themselves. It was only then when former British spy Christopher Steele got involved with Fusion GPS and used Russian intel to author that dossier.  So to be clear, Republicans did not fund the Trump dossier because it wasn't created until Democrats began paying Fusion GPS. Make sense?

Like with Donald Trump Jr., conducting opposition research isn't a crime.  That being said, campaign finance laws may have been broken.

And like with the Uranium One controversy, the left also dismisses this as a non-story. If that were the case, then why did Team Clinton sanctimoniously deny that they had anything to do with the dossier for months? FAIR POINT Why not just own up to it? What's hilarious is that everyone from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Clinton herself to this day deny they knew anything about the dossier even though they literally spent millions of dollars on it. In the end, Democrats funneled money directly to Russians when pursuing it.

It was also reported earlier that the left-leaning lobbying firm the Podesta Group (which Podesta founded with his brother Tony Podesta) was being targeted in Mueller's investigation.  What's ironic here is that they're tied to Paul Manafort and the questionable Ukraine nonprofit European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. A source who was formerly a senior-level staffer at the Podesta Group alleges that the Podestas, who are close allies to Hillary Clinton, hired a former top State Department staffer named David Adams who essentially served as a “direct liaison" and that ties between the Podesta Group and the State Department as well as the Clinton Foundation were “explicit” all while Manafort wanted to strengthen ties on behalf of Russians to Secretary Clinton, assuming she was going to be the next president.

Whether you're on Team Trump or Team Clinton, no one has clean hands when it comes to Russia (except for Mitt Romney who warned us about Russia back in 2012). In hyper-partisan times, many refuse to acknowledge facts that don't fit their own narrative. People need to take off their rose-colored glasses and see things the way they are.

Trump/Russia collusion matters.

Clinton/Russia collusion matters.

All Russia collusion matters.

[joeygoespolitical]

Blaming Sexism and Shaming Female Trump Voters For Hillary Clinton's Defeat is Beyond Pathetic

If we all had a nickel for every time Hillary Clinton blamed sexism for her election defeat, poverty would no longer exist.

With the launch of her What Happened book tour (which has been more like a comedy tour because her lack of self-awareness is hilarious), she has been reliving the 2016 election over and over and over again. The failed presidential candidate has been mocked not just by conservatives but by late-night comedians and even by some people in the media for her never-ending blame game that included James Comey, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Matt Lauer, Russia, WikiLeaks, Facebook, Fox News... you name it, she blamed it.

While passing the blame on all those things is laughable, it's when she uses sexism and misogyny as a crutch for her own self-imposed victimhood that has me chuckling. For over nine months, she has been pretending that more people hated her because she's a woman and not because she's corrupt, dishonest, un-relatable, inauthentic, and untrustworthy.

To me, it's always funny when Clinton points to sexism for her epic loss. However, I don't think it's funny when prominent, important American figures who supported her campaign do it. In fact, it's sad.

Just take a look at what said this week. First we have Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was asked by Charlie Rose if sexism played a role in the 2016 election. And big shocker, she thinks it did. She called it a "major factor."

Look, are there real misogynists out there who would hate to see a woman president? Sure, but in no way was that a "major factor" in Clinton's defeat. You know what's a major factor in her not winning Wisconsin? Not visiting Wisconsin! Even if you delve into her blame game, you can argue that Comey and maybe Russia were "major factors." We're learning more and more about Russia's efforts to influence voters on social media and pushing fake news- that if all of it was geared to take down Clinton, then she has a solid case. She certainly does with Comey, who reopened the investigation into her emails just eleven days before the election. I mean, if it weren't for Anthony Weiner being a pervert, Clinton may be sitting in the Oval Office today instead of a Barnes & Noble. But for a sitting Supreme Court judge and one as respected as Justice Ginsburg to invoke sexism so effortlessly diminishes actual sexism. Because the standard Ginsburg is setting is that if any woman doesn't get her way, she can look down at her private parts instead of taking responsibility.

And then came former First Lady Michelle Obama. In front of an audience at a conference, she insisted that "any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice," adding that they "don't like" their voices.

In other words, Michelle Obama was saying women were obligated to vote for Clinton because she was a woman. That the 43% of all women who voted Trump aren't capable of making their own decisions. Does she not understand how degrading that is? To be forced to vote for someone because you both have vaginas? I'm Jewish and not once during the election did I feel the need to vote for Bernie Sanders because he's Jewish. It'd be silly for me to vote for him because of that. Yet, such a reason was embraced by women this past election cycle from feminists like Madeleine Albright who said that there's a "special place in hell" for women who didn't support Clinton and Gloria Steinem who dismissed women who supported Bernie Sanders because they were simply chasing boys. Such characterizations for women who think for themselves instead of thinking with their ovaries is in itself sexist.

What's absolutely shameful is that this came from a First Lady and one who is so well-liked and respected as herself. However, we shouldn't be completely shocked. After all, this is the same woman that said she was proud of her country "for the first time" when her husband Barack Obama was clinching the Democratic nomination back in 2008. Apparently back then she was "going against her voice" because she didn't support Hillary Clinton. In fact, she even attacked Clinton as a wife and mother, saying "if you can't run your own house, then you certainly can't run the White House."

For Michelle Obama to delegitimize millions of female voters because they didn't vote the way she wanted them to vote is a disgrace.

What I find humorous is when Clinton supporters pretend like she was a "champion" for women. While they can point to Trump's infamous Access Hollywood tape and the numerous allegations made against him, they conveniently ignore how the former First Lady stayed married to a serial cheater and accused sexual predator just so she can ride his coattails and shamed his accusers along the way. And whether you like Trump or not, having the ghosts of Bill Clinton's past (Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Willey) as well as Kathy Shelton, the child rape victim whose rapist was found not guilty with the help of then-attorney Hillary Rodham, at the second debate was an evil genius move on his part, especially since Clinton put herself in a corner during the campaign saying that sexual assault victims "have the right to be believed."

Liberals refuse to acknowledge that this type of condescension and identity politics had a bigger role in Clinton's defeat than sexism ever did. Ultimately, the 2016 election came down to who had the winning message and strategy. Donald Trump ran on promising economic prosperity and strengthening national security while Clinton ran on "breaking the glass ceiling." Trump embraced the media that desperately wanted him to lose while Clinton avoided doing any interviews for nearly three months since launching her campaign and went over 200 days during the election without doing any press conferences. Trump alone excited crowds of thousands at his rallies while Clinton relied on Beyoncé and Jay Z to give free concerts. Trump represented change and Clinton represented the status quo.  You only have to compare the slogans "Make America Great Again" and "I'm With Her" to figure out who was better at connecting with voters in battleground states.

In the end, Democrats made a huge mistake making Hillary Clinton their party's nominee because she ended up being the one person who could lose to Trump. Her email scandal dogged her campaign from beginning to end and over half the population thought the FBI made the wrong decision in not pursuing charges against her. And do you want to know how sexism had little to do with Clinton's defeat? Replace her with someone likable and trustworthy like Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) or even Oprah Winfrey and they probably would have beaten Trump.

No one can stop Hillary Clinton from blaming sexism for her defeat. She's practically programmed as a default setting. But for highly-respected women like a Supreme Court justice and a former First Lady to stoop to such levels to defend the worst presidential candidate in U.S. history only makes them look pathetic.

[joeygoespolitical]

What If The Cure For The Current Political Climate... Is More Political Debates?

There is no doubt that the current political climate is toxic. The 2016 election cycle was nasty, vicious, and downright ugly. Worst of all, it made Americans more cynical, fearful, and hostile with one another. We are almost nine months since Donald Trump's victory shocked the world and our country is still as divided.

Many have thought that such a climate led to the shooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-SC), who was just released from the hospital last week. For a solid 48 hours, the country came together, Democrats and Republicans alike, and called for unity and to tone down the rhetoric that has fueled everyone's emotions. Sadly, such unity did not last very long.

Scalise was literally fighting for his life and those in Congress, the White House, and in the media didn't change one bit. Even if he died, I doubt it would have led to meaningful change our country desperately needs from the people we all look up and listen to.

So if the assassination attempt of GOP lawmakers couldn't cool down the political climate, what can?

We'll get to that later.

Last weekend, the annual Politicon took place in Pasadena, California. If you aren't familiar, Politicon a giant convention for everything politics. There were countless panels made up of countless pundits and politicians on both sides of the aisle to discuss anything and everything related to politics, from the election, the media, to the current Trump presidency.

Arguably the most anticipated events at Politicon are the debates. Two of them this year include a policy debate between The Daily Wire's editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro and The Young Turk's founder/host Cenk Uygur and an interview-style discussion between Chelsea Handler and Tomi Lahren.

In terms of the political spectrum, you can't go more opposite. Shapiro is one of the strongest conservative voices in the modern era while Uygur is the face of progressive political media. Handler has become one of the more outspoken liberal comedians in Hollywood while Lahren emerged as one of the more outspoken conservative millennials on the internet.

What was amazing about these two debates in particular was how the participants handled themselves. There were plenty of heated moments between Shapiro and Uygur, but they never shouted each other down nor attacked either other personally. And when the audience was giving Lahren a hard time, Handler actually defended her and shamed the hecklers. In other words, despite the ideological differences between them, there was common respect, something that's truly lacking in today's society.

It's uncertain as to whether everyone in those audiences attended these events was rooting for one side or the other. We don't know if everyone was a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, or a Trump supporter or a Trump hater. Perhaps there are somewhere in the spectrum and were attending such debates to make up their own minds. Whatever the case may be, these debates are the epitome of civil discourse.

But in the era of Trump, civil discourse still might not be enough.

When you Google "civil discourse," the definition reads "the engagement in conversation intended to enhance understanding." It's always good to have a better understanding of people you don't associate with. To this day, the people who despise Trump can't comprehend the people who voted for him. Some will even dismiss them all as a "basket of deplorables." So it's one thing to put yourself in someone else's shoes, it's another thing to prove who's right and who's wrong, which is why me need more political debates in this country.

The reason why there's so much chaos today is because people are focusing on their own emotions and not the facts. People allow their love or their hatred for Trump to determine how his presidency is doing. To those who love him, President Trump has been fantastic. To those who hate him, he has been a disaster. In reality, the truth is in between even though the partisans will say otherwise.

Last February, CNN hosted a televised debate between Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on health care in America. I'm no fan of CNN, but I thought it was brilliant of the network. Here you have two sitting Senators who couldn't be further apart on policy discussing their views on health care for an hour or so. Just imagine if CNN did a weekly debate with other elected officials on other topics:

Paul Ryan vs Nancy Pelosi - Tax Reform

Mitch McConnell vs Chuck Schumer - The Debt

Marco Rubio vs Kamala Harris - Immigration

Lindsey Graham vs Dick Durbin - National Security

Joni Ernst vs Tammy Duckworth - Veterans Affairs

Rand Paul vs Elizabeth Warren - The Economy

Tim Scott vs Cory Booker - Race Relations in America

Mike Lee vs Dianne Feinstein - The Role of Our Justice System

Trey Gowdy vs Adam Schiff - The Powers of the Legislative vs Executive Branches

Not only would these make great television, these senators and representatives can sway public opinion and even boost their own profiles, especially if they eventually want to seek the highest office in the land. I personally cannot believe CNN has gone this long without any sort of followup to their Cruz/Sanders debate.

Someone else who also deserves praising is Bill Maher. He is as liberal as they come, but he doesn't shy away from those across the aisle. His show Real Time on HBO is at its best whenever he sits down with people like Roger Stone, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Matt Schlapp, Jeffrey Lord, Kellyanne Conway, and Breitbart's Alex Marlow. In the age of Trump, he has arguably become one of the greatest interviewers on television today.

Our country is suffering because there are those who refuse to open their minds and allow those with differing opinions to speak. This now often occurs on college campuses, particularly when conservative speakers (including Shapiro) are not only met with protests, they're met with violence.You don't win discussions by ending them and retreating to your safe space. You win discussions by using facts to prove your opponents wrong.

If we stopped only embracing those who think like us and embrace those who think differently, we can eliminate the partisan tribalism that has been festering on both sides. So be brave. If you voted for Trump, find someone who didn't. If you hate Trump, find someone who loves him. Have a drink and a robust debate and make sure you don't leave respect at home.

In the end, something we often forget is that there is so much more that unites us than divides us. If you don't agree, then let's debate.

[joeygoespolitical]

President Trump Should Tweet Less and Rally More

Wednesday night, President Trump held a rally in Cedar Rapids, IA where he played his greatest hits from the campaign trail from building the wall, repealing Obamacare, to draining the swamp and slamming the “fake” news media and he incorporated his accomplishments as president thus far as well as some current events like his shoutout of Rep. Steve Scalise, his victory lap with Georgia special election, and the passing of Otto Warmbier. 

While watching this rally, it dawned on me. Why isn’t he doing rallies more often?

Republicans used to mock President Obama for being the “campaigner in chief.” Frankly, so is Trump. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. 

Like Obama, Trump has an incredible gift to connect to his voters, especially in person. At his rallies, not only is he pushing his agenda, he’s also having fun. 

Rallies fit Trump like a glove. He gets to brag about himself, crack some jokes, mock his political enemies, and push his ambitions to “make America great again.” The crowd always goes wild. He sure knows how to entertain. That said, this is only one side of Trump we’re seeing. 

We keep hearing reports how livid President Trump gets with all the coverage dedicated to the Russia investigation. If I were him, I’d be livid too. That said, If I were him, I wouldn’t be expressing my anger via Twitter like he has been. 

Trump supporters love his tweets and I can see why. He can speak directly to the American people (in 140 characters or less) without any sort of filter from the media. However, his tweeting has gotten him into trouble time and time again. Just last week, he admitted that he was under investigation. His surrogates claim he was referring to the WaPo “bombshell” that said that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was investigating Trump. Even if that’s true, then Trump has the responsibly to make that clear in his tweet. He didn’t. And he got major blowback from it. 

So if he wants to speak directly to the American people, why can’t he simply do that in person?

When Trump won the election, he launched a “thank you tour” shortly after and visited every state he won. But why stop there? Trump shouldn’t just excite his base; he should expand it. He should go to states he could have won but didn’t like Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia. He should visit deep blue cites in deep blue states like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Boston. After all, he isn’t the president just to his supporters, he’s the president of every American. 

How is it that the White House staff isn’t encouraging Trump to do more rallies?Perhaps he can do one once or twice a month. Realistically, Trump only needs to be in D.C. if foreign leaders visit, if there’s a crisis, or if Congress sends a bill to his desk. If none of those are happening, he might as well be on the road instead of being miserable and obsessing over every leaked story that hits the press. 

President Trump has become America’s mascot. It seems he lets his advisors, his cabinet, and Republicans on Capitol Hill to do much of the heavy lifting. All he has to do is to sell his agenda to the American people. And being a businessman for his entire adult life, selling his agenda should be a piece of cake. 

[joeygoespolitical]

Forget Climate Change, We Need to Address the Political Climate

For months, people have been saying that the political climate in this country has been bad, but this week we’ve hit a boiling point. 

Wednesday’s shooting at the GOP baseball practice has brought some much needed attention to the political climate. The shooter, a Bernie Sanders supporter, sought to kill as many Republicans as possible and his social media history shows his animosity towards them as well as President Trump. 

For the record, this shooter does not represent all Bernie supporters. Any reasonable American should draw that conclusion for themselves. That said, this insane thug was clearly encouraged by the hostility the left has had since the election. 

Before I go into the current political climate, it’s worth noting how we got here. 

Nasty political discourse has been going on for decades. From Bll Clinton to George W. Bush, the animosity slowly built, yet the political climate was still manageable. However, the climate began to increase under the Obama administration and both sides were to blame. The right was to blame for such things like promoting birtherism (including now-President Trump), pushing the narrative that Obamacare would lead to “death panels,” the fringe’s expressed racism towards the First Family, and individuals like Ted Nugent who had threatened to kill President Obama.  The left was to blame for embracing identity politics and political correctness, their knee-jerk pro-gun control reaction to any mass shooting, and for the mainstream media’s overly slanted reporting that was too soft on the Obama presidency.

Sadly, the 2016 election brought out the worst in all of us.  And since Trump became president, the left has become unhinged. 

Between elected Democrats, the media, Hollywood, and social media, they have contributed to such an environment where it is okay to have utter hatred for not just President Trump but for the Republican Party as a whole. 

The constant comparisons lefties make of Trump to Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini had become nauseating. The calls for his impeachment, which came just days after he was elected, are ludicrous and to this day are still premature. Despite all the smoke, the push of the so-called Russia collusion conspiracy by Democrats and the media have made a valiant attempt to paint Trump as an “illegitimate” president, which many anti-Trumpers believe.

The political discourse has hit new lows in recent months. Talk show hosts make completely vulgar jokes, employees of certain cable news networks tweets out expletives to express their hatred for Trump, and numerous entertainers have depicted Trump’s assassination. 

Even before Trump ran for president, Democrats relied on fear-mongering and identity politics to make their arguments. You hated the old/sick/poor if you opposed Obamacare, you hate immigrants if you want to enforce the border, you hate women if you’re anti-abortion, you hate gays if you’re against same-sex marriage, you hate Muslims if you use the term ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ No longer were Democrats interested in having a civilized debate on policy. If you stood against them, you were seen as evil or immoral. 

And that’s the problem with this “resistance” movement. It implies that the Trump presidency has become a dictatorship, that human rights are being violated by this administration. None of that has happened. The “resisters” are allowing basic political differences and hurt feelings to heighten the political climate. 

That said, Republicans have also played their role in the political climate. Trump’s bombastic campaign was divisive and often times ugly. The far-right embraced numerous conspiracies including #Pizzagate, which led to a shooting at a pizza parlor. Just days ago, Eric Trump claimed that Democrats “aren’t even people” despite once being a Democrat himself not too long ago. And Trump supporters need to embrace the bad as well as the good that this presidency has brought so far. 

However, anything that people on the right have done is easily overshadowed by the wrongdoings of the left. 

This shooting has shed some unity among both parties, but I’m not optimistic that it will last. With the 24-hour news cycle, this incident will be ancient history by next week. Democrats need to tone down their rhetoric, the media needs to stop letting their own politics dictate what they report, Trump supporters need to acknowledge when the president is in the wrong (and he’s in the wrong often) and Hollywood simply needs to stop acting stupid. And above all, President Trump needs to do a better job at uniting the country because his tweets aren’t doing it.

The political climate has shown that it is at a dangerous level. If we don’t address it now, more blood will shed and chaos will hit the streets. Our country cannot afford to kick the can down the road any longer. 

[joeygoespolitical]

Despite How Awful Alex Jones Is, NBC Shouldn't Pull Megyn Kelly's Interview With Him

NBC News and its newest anchor Megyn Kelly are facing major backlash after a preview of her sit-down with far-right radio show host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was released, which is currently scheduled to air this Sunday on her new program Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly.

Much of the outrage surrounds Jones's insane theory that the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre staged their own children's deaths. Some of the victims's families have expressed how upset they are with Megyn Kelly for agreeing to do an interview with him. JP Morgan has already announced that they plan to pull their ads from NBC News until after the show airs. #ShameOnNBC was trending on Twitter in reaction to the interview and vocal critics are demanding NBC to pull the interview altogether. Oddly enough, Jones himself is calling for NBC to pull the interview because he claims Megyn Kelly "misrepresented his views."

If you aren't familiar with Alex Jones, he is best known for pushing ridiculous conspiracy theories like how 9/11 was an "inside job" by the US government and was prominent in the pushing of #Pizzagate during the election, which was something he would eventually apologize for in order to avoid any legal troubles. Aside from his radio program The Alex Jones Show, he also runs the website InfoWars.com, which pushes such conspiracies and other fake news on social media that now has White House credentials.

Jones is offensive, polarizing, and absolutely crazy. And his conspiracy theories are appalling. That said, NBC should not cave to the mounting pressure and pull Megyn Kelly's interview with him.

Those who are outraged by the interview believe Megyn Kelly is giving Jones a platform to spread his hate and nonsense. Will this interview give Jones more exposure? Sure, but do you know what's giving him even more exposure? The outrage.

Shutting down this interview resembles the ongoing battle on college campuses, where far-left activists have used threats and even violence to cancel speaking events featuring prominent conservatives. At the heart of it, it's not enough just to ignore those they don't agree with, they feel the need to silence thoughts and ideas they personally find reprehensible or as Hillary Clinton would say "deplorable."

What I find puzzling about the specific outrage over this interview is that it will come two weeks after Megyn Kelly sat down with Russian President Vladimir Putin. You can call Alex Jones a bigot or a nut job, but Putin's a thuggish, ruthless, authoritarian who's responsible for the wrongful imprisonment of peaceful protestors, the deaths of his political opponents, and Russia's interfering in the 2016 US election. Yet, there wasn't this level of outrage aimed at the Putin interview.

The latest trend in the grievance industry is to not only go after the person they see as the wrongdoer (in this case, Megyn Kelly), they go after the advertisers and pressure them to pull their ads, which is the big moneymaker. Just look at recent events. Amid accusations of sexual harassment, Fox News gave Bill O'Reilly the boot after over 50 companies pulled their ads from The O'Reilly Factor. Bank of America and Delta Airlines have pulled their sponsorship from New York stage production of Julius Caesar that depicts President Trump being assassinated. However, such campaigns don't always work. Sean Hannity managed to fight back against the outrage machine after they tried going after his advertisers while he was getting blowback for pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy. 

Judging from the preview, Megyn Kelly's interview with Alex Jones looks more like a character study, as if she was a psychologist and he was her patient. She'll ask tough questions and attempt to pull the answers she wants out of him. At least from that clip NBC released, this interview won't be glorifying him at all.

Nonetheless, if you personally have a problem with Megyn Kelly interviewing Alex Jones, you don't have to protest outside of 30 Rockefeller Plaza or boycott certain products for having their commercials air during her show. All you really need to do is not watch. It's that simple. Do you not want to hear Milo Yiannopoulos or Ann Coulter speak on your college campus? Just don't go hear them speak. But if you're like me, you want to expose yourself to people whose thoughts, ideas, and opinions are different from your own, even if it's someone like Alex Jones. Ultimately, you become a greater thinker that way.

[joeygoespolitical]

The 71st Annual Tony Awards: The Least Political Award Show in 2 Years

Since Donald Trump announced he was running for president, every single award show became less about the art they were celebrating and more about celebrities airing their political grievances they had for the man who would eventually become our next Commander in Chief.

The Oscars, the Emmys, the Grammys, the Golden Globes, it seemed like every televised event for the past two years was about Trump. However, we might have had a breakthrough.

On Sunday, the 71st Annual Tony Awards were on. Between Hollywood and Broadway, you'd think it would be another anti-Trump affair. Surprisingly, it wasn't.

That's not to say that this year's Tonys were politics-free. They weren't. That said, we're making progress.

For starters, no one, not the host, not the presenters, and not the winners ever uttered the word "Trump." Crazy, I know. And we managed to go 45 minutes straight without anything going political. That in itself must be a record! It could have lasted longer had it not been for Cynthia Nixon's politically-charged acceptance speech, where she applauded those who "aren't doing nothing" in 2017.

Besides the occasional call for social justice in other acceptance speeches and the blue ACLU ribbons many of the attendees were wearing, no one made an overt attack on President Trump. That was until Stephen Colbert showed up.

To give Colbert credit, he was actually creative when he ripped the Trump presidency (again without referring to Trump by name) by comparing it to a bad musical revival. While most Trump supporters were probably nauseated, I was able to appreciate the humor, and I'm no fan of Colbert at all.

Aside from that, we were overall spared from the dead horse that actors, musicians, and comedians have been beating for 24 months straight. It was quite refreshing actually. And it makes me wonder why we were spared.

One reason is obvious: Kevin Spacey.

Spacey, who has never hosted an awards show, arguably was the greatest award show host in recent memory, certainly within the last two years. He was humorous and extremely talented. No one really knew how good of a singer he was until he performed his opening number. Not only that, he gave us an incredible impersonation of the late Johnny Carson and an hysterical Bill Clinton (while it was political, it definitely was good-natured). Even when he appeared as President Frank Underwood, he resisted any temptation he might have had to bash Trump. Perhaps he should host the Oscars instead of Jimmy Kimmel.

Another reason why this year's Tonys lacked the Trump hate could be the winners themselves. Most of them were not household names and many of them have won their first Tony. Of course we all know that they're all given a such a short amount of time to speak (except for Bette Midler, who refused to get off the stage when she won), they can't afford to waste any of it on Trump. They have to thank their families, their agents, their directors, their playwrights, their companies, it was about them and their art, as all awards shows should be.

Now if you hate Trump, then you don't mind all the Trump bashing that has become common at these award shows. In fact, you probably relish it. However, this country is made up of more than Trump haters.

There are Trump supporters. There are people who neither love nor hate Trump. There are people who hate Trump but hate Hollywood's bashing of Trump even more. And then there are those who don't care about Trump at all and just want to watch the show.

I'm not sure if the producers of this year's Tonys had that in mind or not. If they didn't, they should have and so should the producers of the next Emmys, the next Golden Globes, the next Grammys, the next Oscars, and beyond.

Am I saying that award shows should avoid politics altogether? Of course not. That being said, award shows should respect their viewers no matter what their political views are, especially if they want to further increase their viewership.

I sincerely hope that the 71st Tony Awards isn't just a fluke. The more we don't inject bitter politics into everything like we as a society already have, the more we can heal the political divide in America. Don't let 2017 be the curtain call of civil discourse in this country.

[joeygoespolitical]

We All Know President Trump Has A Credibility Problem, But We Can’t Forget Comey Does Too

Former FBI Director James Comey kicked off his testimony on Capitol Hill by making blistering attacks towards President Trump and his administration for the “lies” they spread about him and the FBI and he felt “defamed.” He told senators that the reason why he had written memos on President Trump and not for previous predecessors because he “didn’t trust” him and feared that Trump would lie about their private conversations so he created them as a safeguard of sorts. 

And he has a point. 

Throughout the presidential campaign and five months into his presidency, Donald Trump has proven to not be the most credible person in D.C. From saying he had met Vladimir Putin, saying he never supported the Iraq War, claiming “millions of illegal votes” prevented him from winning the popular vote, claiming he had the largest crowd size at his inauguration, to his constant denials of confirmed news reports, Trump’s relationship with the truth is frankly unhealthy. 

Sadly, the same can be said for his administration. They said President Trump’s travel ban wasn’t really a “travel ban” (even though Trump confirmed on Twitter that it was a “travel ban”). They said President Trump fired Comey over his handling over the Clinton investigation when he himself said on television he fired him over his handling of the Russia investigation. And they asserted the FBI was “in disarray” under Comey when it really wasn’t. 

Saying that the Trump administration has a credibility problem is simply stating the obvious. That said, we can’t forget that James Comey also has a credibility problem. 

His credibility began to tarnish in July 2016 when he held his infamous press conference that let Hillary Clinton off the hook. He made the case to prosecute the former Secretary of State for mishandling classified information, but ultimately determined it wasn’t prosecutable because “there was no proof she intended to break the law,” which isn’t even an actual statute in the Constitution. 

After officially closing the Clinton investigation, he reopened it eleven days before the election because he was obligated to correct his testimony to Congress, which sparked a political uproar and likely impacted the outcome of the election.

Fast forward to the June 8th hearing, Comey did his best to clear his name, yet his own credibility took a hit. First, he kept implying that President Trump obstructed justice even though he couldn’t say it himself, and if he truly thought the president committed such a crime, Comey was legally obligated to report it to the DOJ as it happened or immediately resign. He did neither. Instead, he’s passing the buck to Special Counsel Robert Mueller to determine whether or not Trump obstructed justice.  

Second, he revealed that he himself leaked his memo to the press by giving his friend who had the memo the green light to contact the New York Times. He said he saw his memo as documents of a private citizen, even though he wrote them as a public servant and had sensitive information on his private property. Last July, he scorched Hillary Clinton for doing the same thing. And now the DOJ may look into the potential criminality of Comey’s leak! 

Finally, he told the Senate that then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch told him to refer to the Clinton investigation not as an investigation, but as a “matter.” He added that he believed Lynch had a conflict of interest of heading the email probe after she was busted for having a secret tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. 

Here’s the kicker. Lynch never recused herself from the investigation and Comey said he didn’t feel the need for there to be a special counsel. With the Russia investigation, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself and after being fired by President Trump, Comey leaked his memo so that a special counsel (aka Robert Mueller) can take charge. Do you see the double standard? 

This hearing overall was bad for the Trump administration, but the president can tout a victory because Comey confirmed that he was never being investigated and that he nor anyone in the administration attempted to stop or influence any investigation.  

However, the events that took place on Capitol Hill doesn’t change the fact that Comey deserved to be fired. He was too political, he was incompetent, and he had to go. So while President Trump deserves criticism for his credibility issues, he’s certainly in good company. 

[joeygoespolitical]

Megyn Kelly’s NBC Debut: A Great Career Move or A Great Mistake?

Last weekend, Megyn Kelly made her official television debut on NBC since her departure at Fox News in January. On her first episode of Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly, which rivals 60 Minutes on CBS, she arguably nabbed one of the biggest exclusive interviews you can nab these days: Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

Putin should have been a gold mine for Kelly. Aside from the fact that he’s one of the most powerful, controversial, and ruthless leaders in the world, his country’s involvement in the US presidential election is still the driving discussion in America. 

During the interview, he put on an act. He pretended he knew nothing about anything and that Russia’s hands were clean (although he did say that “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction” on the subject of the US and other nations interfering in each other’s elections). He used the interview to mock those who keep pushing the Russia narrative. 

As an interviewer, Megyn Kelly did fine. She was polite and professional. She asked most of the right questions but didn’t exactly push back hard enough on some of Putin’s most ridiculous responses. For her big debut, she was probably hoping to create more news than she did. 

After her relatively-short Putin segment, all she did on camera was introduce the following segments, which involved a corrupt drug company, an American activist who saves elephants in Kenya, and a segment of cute kids talking about how to have conversations (a clear attempt to make something from her show go viral) and then she closed the show with a preview of next week’s episode that will feature an interview with sportscaster Erin Andrews. 

So now that we have an idea of what her magazine show is like, it begs the question: did Megyn Kelly make the right career move?

It’s worth noting that Sunday Night isn’t all Megyn Kelly is doing. Her role at NBC is very broad so I’m sure we’ll be seeing her constantly. That said, just because you’re getting a lot more exposure, that doesn’t necessarily mean success. 

I have been a long-time fan of Megyn Kelly. She was my favorite star at Fox News and I watched every single episode of The Kelly File since its debut in 2013. She was confident, intelligent, funny, feisty, and down-to-earth, but what made her so great was that she was aggressive to both Democrats and Republicans. During the election, she tackled Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s controversies head-on (and there were plenty for both of them). In such polarizing times, she seemed to be one of the only objective journalists left in the industry, certainly in cable news. 

On Fox News, Kelly was a news analyst. She dissected stories and pulled out the crucial information that should be discussed and shared with her viewers. 

So when I watched her show on NBC, I didn’t see the Megyn Kelly I came to know and love. I saw a calm, almost subdued host. Comparing this Megyn Kelly to the one we saw on Fox News, it was as if she was wearing restraints. 

Don’t get me wrong, I still love Megyn Kelly. That said, what made her a cable news star wasn’t on display at NBC. Frankly, any pretty face can host a talk show. When she was at Fox News, she had this remarkable gift of cutting through the crap of partisan politics. She called out people from both sides of the aisle for their wrongdoings and nonsense and acknowledged double standards whenever they occurred. 

Megyn Kelly is sure to have a long, successful career ahead of her whether she becomes the next Barbara Walters or not. I just hope that at some point, she returns to her roots.

[joeygoespolitical]

How Bill Maher Finally Caved to the PC Police

Bill Maher has sparked major controversy when he dropped the N-word in Friday night’s episode of his HBO show Real Time w/ Bill Maher. 

Maher was interviewing Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Sasse had encouraged Maher to come visit his home state of Nebraska sometime and “work in the fields” (which is a simple reality in a state like Nebraska), to which Maher crassly responded, “I’m a house n----r.”

The audience had a mixed reaction, but when Maher reminded them that it was a joke, he earned some applause from his biggest supporters.

That didn’t stop the outrage that followed. The next day, Maher issued an apology, a rarity for someone we thought was an unapologetic comedian. 

If you’re familiar with Maher, then you’d know about his politically-incorrect humor, but as the liberal left has gotten more and more politically correct over the years, this incident did not blow over so easily. 

It seems we were all thought in grade school never to use the N-word, yet somehow it keeps resurfacing and we always have this debate as to when it can or can’t be used if at all. 

In 2015, President Obama used the N-word when actually talking about the N-word during an interview. And when that was part of the news cycle, CNN’s Don Lemon held up a sign with the full word written on it. They ruffled some feathers at the time, but both Obama and Lemon got to keep their jobs.

The same can’t be said for Michael Richards of Seinfeld fame, who back in 2006 went on a racist tirade during a stand-up routine at The Laugh Factory. Despite being apologetic, whatever career he had left back then was destroyed. 

There has been numerous incidents over the years when politicians, celebrities, and other public figures on a local or national level have used the N-word. When the term is actually used to be racist, the person who says it (typically a white person) rightfully suffers the consequences.  For the most part, it seems like black people can get away with saying it (whether it be in music or in everyday conversation) simply because they’re black. However, just because they can say it, that doesn’t mean they should. And there’s never really widespread outrage whenever a Quentin Tarantino film comes out as his films are infamous for the use of the N-word because he is shielded by the cinematic art form. So if that’s the case for Tarantino, why can’t that standard be set for Bill Maher whose humor is his own art form?

Instead of defending himself like he did immediately after he said it, he caved to the PC police (I’m sure HBO played a role in Maher’s apology). People are still calling for his show to be cancelled. This comes just days after comedian Kathy Griffin destroyed her career by posing with a severed President Trump head in a photo shoot. 

What’s different with Maher though was that for the last several years, he has railed against his fellow liberals for being too sensitive and too fixated on political correctness. He has become an outspoken critic of safe spaces on college campuses and the ongoing silencing of conservative speakers. Especially in the Age of Trump, he has argued for months that Dems need to be tougher, meaner, and not be such babies. 

Most people don’t believe Maher is actually racist. And most people can see that his use of the N-word was in reference to himself for comedic effect (which you can argue was good or not). Was it the best idea to say the N-word anyway? Of course not, but Bill Maher didn’t make a career for himself by playing it safe. He took risks, risks that got him fired from ABC, risks that had him chastised by fellow liberals regarding his blunt talk on Islamic extremism. 

In a time when political correctness has run amuck in this country, Maher used to be the voice of reason among liberals. Perhaps those days are gone. 

[joeygoespolitical]

Kathy Griffin Has Become the Most Pathetic “Comedian” in History

And the Oscar goes to...

Kathy Griffin held a press conference with famed “feminist” attorney Lisa Bloom (daughter of Gloria Allred) by her side and they put on quite the show. 

Griffin is claiming to be the victim of “bullying” by the Trump Family after she held a severed bloodied head of our president as if she were an ISIS terrorist. Yet she’s the victim of bullying. She claims that “never in the history of this great country has the sitting president of the United States, his grown children, the First Lady are personally trying to ruin my life forever.”

Maybe Melania Trump was onto something when she questioned Griffin’s mental health...

She is pretending to be a martyr for comedy (if you think mocking the death of a sitting president is comedy) because she ruined her career and members of the Trump family rightfully shamed her. She actually placed blame on President Trump by saying "I'm not afraid of Donald Trump. He's a bully. I've dealt with older white guys trying to keep me down my whole life, my whole career.”

How exactly did President Trump “keep her down?” It was CNN that decided to fire her from their New Years Eve special. It was Squatty Potty that decided to dump her (pun intended) from their ad campaign. It was Al Franken that decided to cancel his joint event with her. Trump had nothing to do with any of that. 

She had also mentioned that she has been receiving constant death threats, which is probably true. However, in this day and age, if you do something so polarizing and particularly disgusting, you’re sorta asking for anonymous nut jobs on the internet to go after you. And if you saw her behind-the-scenes video, she even joked about all the backlash she’d receive by saying she’d flee to Mexico to avoid prison. She knew exactly what she was doing. 

Lisa Bloom chimed in by saying that Griffin’s photo shoot was “a parody of Trump's own sexist remarks taken to an extreme, absurdist visual” and that “Ot is Trump who should apologize ... for being the most woman-hating and tyrannical president in history.”

Bloom is a better comedian than Kathy Griffin!

Griffin’s press conference completely voids her apology she gave hours after her photo shoot went viral. She has doubled down as some “brave” comedian and now she’s relying on this feud to revive her career through an anti-Trump resistance prism. She wants to be a folk hero of the left instead of the has-been clown she is today. She couldn’t even force herself to shed any actual tears during her “emotional” performance. She and Hillary Clinton have become the Batman and Robin of self-victimhood. 

Honestly, there was a solid chance that Griffin could have gotten through this ordeal if she just simply gave her apology and disappeared until this incident was in the rearview mirror. Instead, she revived it and made an absolute fool of herself (again). 

She said that Trump “broke her.” In the end, she broke herself.