There seems to be a strange trend within the liberal community of self-destruction. Not exactly sure why. In all honesty in any community there is the danger of its members turning on each other, especially when power and greed are present.
We saw that in the Republican Party during the 2015-2016 primaries. Donald Trump’s shocking rise in popularity made many conservatives terrified. Early on, they didn’t understand his motives or agenda. Was he doing this for fun? Did he mean what he said, or was he going to back out and destroy our chances? That gave rise to the NeverTrump movement.
Yet where Trump succeeded in pulling the majority of the party together to accomplish something many considered impossible, the left is very good at driving people apart.
I can go on and on about how factions within the political left so frequently eat each other. I can cite how Black Lives Matter and minority college students demand—of all things—segregation. They consider even complicit, liberal white people the enemy (try to figure that one out).
Or I can go back and cite the fragmenting of the Women’s March movement, when they turned on pro-life feminists or how, again, racial activists were demanding white people be at the back of the parade (so much for equality).
I can even cite the recent story of Hillary Clinton, who has been going on a blame game tour in recent weeks. I’m not sure why she thinks we care; she lost the election. It’s time for her to ride off into the sunset. It's almost as if she has to prove to the world she was a victim- as if we need her to tell us what really happened.
Fitting, considering she and most liberals don’t think Americans are smart enough to think on our own.
Clinton has blamed Russia, James Comey, Barack Obama, racism and sexism for her loss. Apparently, all those things weren’t enough, because she’s now blaming the Democratic Party. Here it is in her own, confusing words.
“I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation. I get the nomination. So I’m not the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party…”
“I mean it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong,” Clinton responded. “I had to inject money into the DNC to keep it going.” (Milo)
Really? The DNC was insolvent? The party with a sitting president and many supporters around the country? This massive, national political party lacked the funds to run a presidential campaign?
Not that a lack of cash would be a big problem for Clinton, who reports say had over $2 billion in her campaign. Plus, she’s rich. To blame the DNC for having a poor data operation is even weirder—and is a clever mask to hide the truth. I mean, do you even understand what that means?
She went on to claim that the Republican Party—which failed to get a man elected in 2008 and 2012—had a better system in place. Sure. We’re buying that.
Hillary heaped the blame on her inability to win on the DNC—even though their top people colluded with her to squeeze out Bernie Sanders. Wasserman-Schulz was exposed as working against Sanders, even putting moles in his team to undermine him. Brazile was slipping debate questions to Hillary ahead of time to give her an advantage.
I mean honestly, who won’t Hillary throw under the bus?
As it turns out, the party isn’t very happy about her accusations.
Hillary Clinton’s latest narrative of blaming the Democratic National Committee and its “poor” data operation for her election loss has not been greeted kindly by those who worked for the DNC in 2016 — with a former data director calling her claims “fucking bullshit.”
Former DNC Data Director Andrew Therriault tweeted…
“DNC data folks: today’s accusations are fucking bullshit, and I hope you understand the good you did despite that nonsense,” he tweeted.
“Private mode be damned, this is too important,” he added. “I’m not willing to let my people be thrown under the bus without a fight.” (Breitbart)
I’m not a fan of the Democratic Party, but I expect this large institution had a well-oiled mechanism for acquiring necessary data to run campaigns. They may not be very honest about what they are doing, but I’m sure they have data to back up their agendas.
I’m convinced that Hillary Clinton is delusional. That explains much of her behavior. But this latest excuse is pretty offensive. Imagine all the people who busted their asses acquiring data and vital information, so that she could become the leader of the Free World. And now she’s stabbing them in the back.
It’s almost like not showing up to your campaign headquarters on the night of the election. Oh, wait…
This is not just a Clinton problem. Throughout the political left, we see people eating themselves. This hasn’t been truer anywhere than in Hollywood.
I love movies. I love TV shows. I love all forms of fun entertainment. But you know what I don’t love? When filmmakers and creators allow their personal politics to pollute what should be simple entertainment.
There is a place for politically-charged content. But the vast majority of our programs should be free from this bias. Most Americans hate politics; even those loyal to a party. They go to the movies to forget about that murky realm for a little bit of fun.
But time and again we see liberal actors and institutions thrust their virtue signaling noses into our good times.
From actor Chris Evans (Captain America) to director Joss Whedon, the Marvel Comics franchise is committing harikari in the most unbecoming of ways: through unapologetic, partisan bashing of a democratically elected president they can’t stand.
Evans has expressed deep contempt for what he considers to be in the ignorant masses of Americans that voted Donald Trump into the White House. These are, however, the very masses that make up the core viewership of Marvel’s superhero movies…
“They just want something new without actually understanding,” he continued. “I mean, guys like Steve Bannon — Steve Bannon! — this man has no place in politics.” (Breitbart)
Really? Captain America is bitching about Steve Bannon? Is that even appropriate? It’s bad enough that this guy is slandering millions of Americans for exercising their right to vote. But for him to be using the empty and pathetic argument that liberals have been dragging out—that Trump supporters are ignorant racists—is only exposing Evans’ narrow-mindedness and stupidity.
Smarter liberals have acknowledged the many reasons people voted for Trump. While they may not like our new president, at least they are honest about the facts. Yet a man who represents one of the most patriotic superheroes on film cannot help but insult a large portion of the people who go to see his movies—using empty slander.
Now, I don’t think that an artist’s personal views should affect what I watch or read. I know that Chris Evans’ liberal opinion has no bearing on the next Cap flick. But I’m only human. The next time I try to enjoy a Captain America film, I’ll no doubt remember how much Evans hates our actual president.
Perhaps I won’t be too keen on seeing his next movie.
But it doesn’t stop there. Many of our beloved actors have expressed their toxic hatred for conservative values.
In large part, the bizarre rants the Marvel folks carry out on Twitter and elsewhere are abortion driven. Spitting in the face of their conservative fan base that is overwhelmingly pro-life, Whedon and Evans, along with other Marvel stars such as Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow) and Mark Ruffalo (Hulk), fawn over Planned Parenthood while painting abortion foes as backward and unenlightened.
Yeah, Twitter’s not a vacuum. Those comments do come back to haunt them. And if they think they can continue to attack the very people upon whom they depend for ticket sales, they are sorely mistaken.
I was a big fan of the Netflix series Stranger Things, until star David Harbour went on his crazed rant.
Harbour’s entitled to his opinion. But I’m also entitled to mine, that he’s a virtue signaling asshole that has no problem slandering the people that watch his show.
Then there’s the cancellation of Last Man Standing. Despite high ratings, ABC killed the show claiming “scheduling conflicts” and other nebulous reasons. It’s pretty hard to divorce the fact that this show had a history of criticizing President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and even cast Donald Trump in a positive light.
ABC announced it canceled Allen's show after six seasons on Friday telling Fox News "this was a scheduling decision." The network was immediately hit with criticism that the show was axed due to its conservative values and a petition on Change.org to have it reinstated in the lineup has racked up more than 200,000 signatures in less than a week.
Allen finally took to Twitter to respond to the news.
"Stunned and blindsided by the network I called home for the last six years," he wrote Tuesday night. (Fox News)
Keep in mind that the show was averaging over 8 million viewers, an amazing number in this day and age. But I guess ABC wants more room for shows that will tank after a few episodes.
It’s hard not to imagine the uber-liberal executives, chaffed by an unapologetically conservative show, in light of Trump’s victory. They were more than happy to have it air during the Obama years; hell, if Hillary had run, what would it have mattered? But the fact that Trump is president perhaps suggests that Last Man Standing might have actually influenced people! We can’t have that! So the successful show was killed.
Sounds crazy? These are liberals we're talking about, so it’s right up their alley.
The continued hate for conservatives in Hollywood is already reaping negative results. For the liberals. Actors and filmmakers who are openly antagonistic towards Trump and conservatives are suffering.
The decision to put politics ahead of the best interest of their business has been ethically misguided and flat out stupid. This move has isolated and offended millions of Americans and certain outlets are now paying a hefty price for this misstep. We’re currently witnessing the slow death of leftist Trump-hating media outlets ranging from Us Weekly, ESPN and CNN to the Hollywood careers of previously beloved stars such as Amy Schumer and Shia LaBeouf. As their burial plots are getting deeper, entertainers and members of the Trump friendly alternative media are flourishing, and this phenomenon will only grow. (Daily Caller)
You can have your own opinions all you want, but if you starting biting the hands that collectively feed you, you’re going to regret it. Once upon a time, Amy Schumer could do no wrong. From her popular TV series, she launched a movie career. Critics and comedians fawned over Trainwreck, a predictable comedy.
Yet her fate was radically reversed, just as she pushed her political views and shilled for Hillary. People walked out of her shows. Her Netflix special tanked so bad, Netflix had to change their rating system to cover it up. And her latest summer movie was so bad, even liberal critics panned it, calling it racist.
“At the end of the day, the movie executives and producers in Hollywood who supported Hillary Clinton still need to make money,” the insider explained. “The dollar is still important so they are not going to take a risk alienating a large audience simply because a star like Meryl Streep wants to mouth off and disrespect President Trump. The celebrities who chose to attack Trump over the past year – it’s starting to bite them in the ass now and they are receiving less movie offers.”
While some in Hollywood are learning this lesson and adapting, apparently many more refuse. ABC will most certainly suffer for canceling a popular show. Already there is talk of moving it somewhere else.
Folks like Schumer and Streep will have to shoulder the burden of attack potentially large portions of their audience. You might not see Robert De Niro in many big films in the near future. Nor Kathy Griffin.
What’s the conclusion? The tendency for liberalism to craft a hierarchy of victimhood has broken it into fragments and factions. They are quick to turn on their own kind, if they are triggered hard enough. Their dogged allegiance to broken policies and massive egos causes them to attack their own supporters and alienate those who disagree.
You might call it “having convictions,” but I call it stupidity.