Willis Hart (A Misogynist) Incredibly Eager To Believe Any & All BS He Reads About Hillary Clinton & "Flunkies"

A total FAIL from the misogynist Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: On Clinton Flunky, Bill Ivey, Articulating to Fellow Clinton Flunky, John Podesta, that the Best Way for the Democrats to Garner and Maintain Power Is for Them to Take Advantage of an "Unaware and Compliant Citizenry"... But he didn't use the word, pussy, and so the media ignores it. (10/14/2016 AT 6:06pm).

So, it's only the WORD "pussy" and NOT the fact that Trump was bragging about sexually assaulting women that explains why the media is covering this Trump hot mic conversation? Of course not. That Willis suggests this is totally absurd. Everyone who isn't of a certain persuasion knows what Trump said was wrong. And it had little to do with a specific word, crude and offensive as it is.

That persuasion is a man who thinks it's OK to joke about sexual assault (or a woman, unbelievably). Willis Hart has proven himself to be such a man. Someone who would brush off what Trump said as "locker room talk". Which is why I wonder how many women he has sexually assaulted (OST #136).

As for Clinton "flunkies" writing that they (The HRC campaign/Democratic "ruling elites") will benefit from an "unaware and compliant citizenry", I plugged the phrase into Google and the following debunking by Snopes came up. Snopes says FALSE.

Snopes: A more objective reading suggests that Ivey was actually stating the opposite... that a lack of awareness and a tendency toward compliance on the part of the citizenry in recent years was the result of the conflation of entertainment and the electoral process (as exemplified by the rise of Donald Trump), and these phenomena present a problem for democracy which must be countered. (Wacky Leaks).

This more objective reading makes a hell of a lot more sense, BTW. The rubes supporting Trump are the ones who are "unaware and compliant". Proof of this is that they think a inexperienced and politically stupid reality TV star is a good choice for president of the most powerful nation in the world.

In my strong opinion - when people are aware (politically informed) they tend to vote Democrat. An opinion that studies tend to bear out. For example, Pew reports that "Republicans have leads among whites – particularly white men, those with less education" (A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation, 4/7/2015).

Also, according to political analyst Larry Sabato, "the higher the education level, the more likely they are to vote Democratic". PoltiFact ruled that this statement is "mostly true" (Is education level tied to voting tendencies? 11/5/2012).

So why the HELL would Bill Ivey (a Democrat) write that we need more stupidity (unawareness) when that is EXACTLY what is benefiting Trump? Which is why I knew this story was BS before I found the Snopes article. Willis, on the other hand, believes it because he thinks everyone who isn't for Gary Johnson is "unaware" (stupid or misinformed). Something that points to this country being in VERY bad shape, if it were true, given the fact that less than 1% of voters selected Johnson the last time he ran.

Me, I think it's a sign that we aren't in that bad shape. People not being dumb enough to vote for Johnson, that is. There is still the issue of so many people being dumb enough to support Trump. And dumb enough to believe idiocy like HRC and "flunkies" thinking an uninformed and compliant citizenry will benefit - instead of hurt - Democrats.

But the Hartster is clearly THAT dumb. I mean "dumb" politically, not intelligence-wise. Willis Hart is not uninformed. I'd say he is misinformed. VERY misinformed.

OST #182

Re A Misogynist Moron's Post On Hypothetical Hypocrisy

Another commentary by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart that gets filed in the WTF category. To be clear, the "hypocrisy" Hart refers to in his post never actually occurred. He's just guessing and getting offended by what he guesses would happen (which is something he LOVES to do. Get offended by hypocrisy, that is. But the dope usually posts about actual/perceived hypocrisy. As opposed to hypothetical. AKA it didn't happen).

Willis Hart: On Billy Bush Getting Suspended by NBC Because He Once Had a Conversation with Donald Trump About Chicks 11 Years Ago... And I suppose that if Trump and Bush had been two gay guys talking suggestively about a handsome man the punishment would have been exactly the same. Yeah, right. (10/11/2016 AT 4:16pm).

A conversation about chicks? During which they (Trump and Bush) spoke "suggestively". You see my issue here? This is worse than getting offended by something that didn't happen. Donald Trump referred to what was said as "locker room banter", but Hart downplays it even more! Anderson Cooper was correct when he pointed out (during the 2nd potus debate) that what Trump and Bush were talking about was sexual assault.

SEXUAL ASSAULT! As opposed to "talking suggestively", you piece of shit! Oh, and YES, I think anyone talking about sexually assaulting someone should be treated the same. Although that person was Donald Trump, not Billy Bush. So it's (I'd say) at least debatable if Billy Bush should be punished. Perhaps. Wikipedia says he laughed (and more... see video below). Maybe a suspension is in order for laughing? Although Wikipedia says that he's now fired.

But, in regards to Billy Bush being fired... (1) I don't know why he was hired to begin with. I suspect his last name might have something to do with him getting a well paid but easy job. (2) Actual hypocrisy that Willis does not point out would be that nothing was done AT THE TIME. I mean, the exchange exists on video, so obviously other people were aware of what happened. I presume.

Yet nothing came of it until now. Now that it's out and causing bad publicity for NBC. They caved re "criticism online and calls for his resignation". Not that I care. But if there is any hypocrisy (REAL hypocrisy, not hypothetical) this would be it, you idiot Hart.

An idiot as well as a misogynist. I mean, "talking suggestively" about a woman and sexually assaulting her (grabbing a woman by the genitals) are two very, VERY different things. Also (in another context) referring to a woman as a "chick" is OK (I guess). But remember, we're discussing sexual assault. So, to refer to the victims of such an assault as "chicks"... I find that offensive as well.

And, yes, I think Trump has groped. In fact, there is a victim who alleges he did exactly what he says in the video.

Jill Harth, a pageant owner who dealt with Trump in the mid-1990s, sued the businessman in federal court in Manhattan in 1997, alleging "relentless" sexual harassment and assault by Trump, Newsweek reported. In her lawsuit, Harth described a 1992 business meeting she and Trump had at a New York restaurant in which he allegedly reached under the table, touched her thighs and grabbed my intimate private parts. (These Women Say They Know First-Hand Trump Lied When He Denied Really Groping Women Against Their Will by Tierney McAffe. People Politics 10/10/2016).

So he was telling Billy Bush the truth. Looks like it to me, anyway. But, according to the Harster, when Donald Trump recounted his exploits to Billy Bush, it was just "two gay straight guys talking suggestively about a handsome man beautiful woman". NOT sexually assaulting women.

But this is not at all surprising coming from a blogger who has written multiple posts in which he suggests that drunkenness equals consent (if the man and the woman are drunk and have sex and the woman later aserts she was raped... she's lying and the truth is that she changed her mind. Also rape culture is a "thoroughly discredited concept").

Yeah, right. (Note that this a-hole Hart has a history of defending Donald Trump. Although he says he's voting for the liar Gary "what's Aleppo" Johnson).

Video: Donald Trump brags to Billy Bush on how he cheats on Melania and sexually assaults women. Access Hollywood video recorded sometime in 2005 (3:19). Billy Bush was fired after the release of the video on 10/7/2016 while Trump went on to be predisent.

OST #181

AGW 97% Consensus Figure Based On 4 Sources... According To The Voices In Willis Hart's Head

File this commentary by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in the WTF category. I mean, if you can make sense of what he writes (re his severe climate change denialism)? I say you're guessing. Because that's all anyone can do re the following nonsense.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that One of the Sources that NASA Used to Substantiate its Fully Discredited 97% Consensus Figure Was an Op-Ed Piece by Some Socialist, Feed-the-Leviathan Historian (Naomi Oreskes) that No One Has Been Able to Replicate Yet (the Others Being Two College Papers and a Cartoonish Hit-Piece by that Delusional and Impudent Nonscientist/Jerk Who Founded "Skeptical Science")... Well, being that these are the same "scientists" who've constantly "adjusted" their statistics to make them fit their theory, we probably shouldn't be shocked. I sure as hell don't give it much credence. (10/4/2016 AT 4:34pm).

The key phrase in WTNPH's commentary is "the others being". Meaning he's wrapping it up as far as the "sources" go. NASA used just 4 sources to substantiate it's "discredited" 97% consensus figure is what this idiot is saying.

This is a "fact", even though Willis cites zero sources. And, get this, the very next day Willis Hart criticized "Alex Jones's multiple unnamed sources", and asked "do the voices in his head qualify?". Good question, I say.

I've really got to wonder if Willis isn't getting these facts concerning the AGW consensus via the voices in HIS head. Given the FACT (a real/sourced fact) that the 97% consensus figure was arrived at after looking at 12 THOUSAND "peer-reviewed climate science papers" (as per Skeptical Science).

Note the use of the term "peer reviewed". A historian is not a peer of a scientist. Neither are college students. Obviously a non-scientist is not a "peer" of an actual scientist. Although, maybe you could say all these unnamed (3 of 4) authors could be classified as "academics", and therefore academic peers. But I seriously doubt any papers from college students were included in that survey (of 12 THOUSAND papers). But I can't say for sure, given the fact that Willis doesn't source his claims.

So, given that he often declines to cite a source AND I can't comment on his blog (and ask him), I'm going to guess. And my guess is that "the voices in his head" are very likely his source. But even if there is a source (and he simply forgot to say what it is), I'm still not going to give what he says much credence. In fact, I say HELL NO, I absolutely don't buy his ludicrous claim of 4 sources, and give his claims ZERO credence.

BTW, if NASA looked at 4 sources to arrive at a 97% consensus figure, then at least 1 of those sources must have disagreed that global climate change is occurring and is human-driven. But 3 out of 4 is 75%, not 97%... so his numbers don't even add up.

Am I shocked? No, not really... given the fact that the Hartster is a total moron.

OST #180