Conservatives reveal stupidity in coverage of Budweiser Super Bowl Ad

I happened to see a trending story from a website called freedomdaily.com which had an article talking about Budweiser’s Super Bowl ad that has a pro-immigrant stance. How dare they have such a stance!

I could barely get the site to load they have so much click bait loading on it, but here is the text.

Throughout the election, Donald Trump promised that if he became president he would do everything in his power to “make America safe again.” Following President Trump’s temporary ban to keep un-vetted people out of our country, the left has been blasting the move as “racist” and “bigoted,” with Hollywood celebrities and left-leaning companies speaking out. Now one of America’s favorite beer companies, Budweiser, is jumping on the libtard bandwagon, by releasing a disgusting Super Bowl commercial where they take a vile jab at our president. But unfortunately for them, Americans aren’t having it. And in less than 24 hours after their commercial began to air, karma began to smack them right between the eyes.

In the 1-minute the ad they try to ridiculously compare Americans turning away unvetted migrants from the Middle East to the treatment of the company’s co-founder Adolphus Busch when he came to America, by focusing on the fact that he was an immigrant. The ad starts off with an actor who plays Busch being told “You’re not wanted here! Go back home!”

The left has truly lost their freaking minds. There is absolutely no comparison between original immigrants to America, and the people from terror-ridden hotbeds demanding entry into our country, many of them who are ISIS terrorists. Hilariously after the commercial began to circulate, Budweiser began to panic, as their stocks began to nose dive overnight.

I generally try to refrain from titles such as the one for this post because it comes off as mean spirited and elitist. However, with the tone that the above article takes in making its case, I have opted to go mean-spirited for this post.

So, the author sets up by saying Trump promised all these great reforms, including a temporary ban on (mostly Muslim) people from 7 specific countries in the Middle East. Trump wins and keeps his word. Now the weak liberals are crying and throwing fits. Even Budweiser is jumping into the fray. I love the use of the word “libtard” here. Combining liberal with retard does not make it less offensive. The author describes the commercial as a vile jab at our president. Big badass American isn’t going to have it though. Budweiser has to deal with the wrath of conservatives now!

He then describes the ad and suggests that it compares Trump’s temporary ban on Muslims to the emigration of Adolphus Busch to America. No where is there a Muslim in the commercial. The one part of the commercial has Americans saying “You’re not wanted here. Go back home.” I guess some things in America never change.

He then says that even trying to compare immigrants from different times and countries is ludicrous. The present immigrants are littered with terrorists who are coming to harm us! No real proof, just assumptions. Then the best part of it all that made it all worthwhile. When I saw the headline and started reading, I began thinking how I should buy Budweiser if conservatives are that organized to initiate a boycott the very night the ad was released. Then I saw the nose dive in stock prices the author interprets as a real blow to the company.

If you look in the bottom left corner of the picture, it says the stock opened at $104.10. At some point, it reached $104.46 so it actually went up. At its lowest, the stock plummeted nearly 30 cents from its opening price. Not that big of a swing to burst the conservatives’ bubble. It seems the author rushed to judgment here concerning Budweiser’s stock price being the result of conservatives letting the beer company know how they feel about Trump. In big red numbers, it says this was not even a full percentage loss. After hours, the stock actually goes up.

This is the stupidity we are up against. The author looks at the 5 day stock price. Pays no attention to the scaling and writes an article acting like Budweiser is eating shit for the commercial. In reality, their stock price has held steady and has generally been trending higher. By looking solely at the graph, it is understandable to misinterpret the data. What is not understandable is to use that misinterpretation as the evidence to rally more conservatives around boycotting the beer.

Trump fails with response to Streep’s Golden Globes speech

Donald Trump will begin leading this country in 11 days. Many people, including myself, are uneasy about the future of this country because he seems to totally lack compassion and cannot accept responsibility for his actions. Case in point is his reaction to being criticized by Meryl Streep last night for an episode that occurred while he campaigned across the country where he imitated a New York Times reporter with a chronic condition affecting the movement of his arms.

[av_video src=’https://youtu.be/PX9reO3QnUA’ format=’16-9′ width=’16’ height=’9′]

It is interesting to see how Fox News defends such actions. They suggest in the video below that Trump uses this impression all the time to portray someone as incompetent.

[av_video src=’https://youtu.be/CsaB3ynIZH4′ format=’16-9′ width=’16’ height=’9′]

The problem is not the impression by itself. What he says to the audience is critically important. He actually says, “You’ve got to see this guy”.  He also draws his arm up and locks it much more so than in previous renditions. The point is that he clearly aimed to imitate the reporter and discount his article because of his disability. His basic message is that he disagrees with what this reporter has written and his supporters should too. He doesn’t suggest they actually read the article. Instead, he says they “have to see this guy” and upon seeing him with his disability and his affected arms they will laugh and point along with him.

So what would a good leader (person) do in such a case where people are upset by this message? I believe the right way to address people who I upset because of something I say or do is to first consider the possibility that I was in the wrong. Donald Trump seems incapable of such considerations. Whether or not I felt I was in the wrong, I would apologize for upsetting so many people. Whether or not I felt like I was at fault, I would apologize. Trump seems to equate apologies with weakness.  I would say something like, “I’m sorry that my gimmicks on the campaign trail upset you, and I will try to keep such gimmicks to a minimum going forward.” Instead, he reacts stubbornly by suggesting that it isn’t him who is wrong, but it is everyone who watches the video and perceives it as impersonating someone with a disability.

One person who perceived it this way is Meryl Streep. Here is what she said last night at the Golden Globes.

 


Her criticism of Donald Trump seem reasonable. She suggests that Trump shouldn’t make fun of others who he “outranked in privilege, power, and the capacity to fight back” because it only leads to people throughout society seeing bullying as acceptable behavior. How this is controversial I’m not sure. Why were we so concerned about Major League Baseball players injecting themselves with steroids and human growth hormones? Trump is basically Barry Bonds who I’m not sure ever admitted to using performance enhancing drug but certainly used them. The uproar over PEDs was due to the concern that their use would trickle down to boys at lower levels of competition who would view it as a viable means of succeeding. It is a fact that people look to their leaders and those who have succeeded in any particular field as models to base their own behaviors on. If young baseball players see PEDs as acceptable in the major leagues, they will start using in order to be like the pros. With Donald Trump making fun of a disabled reporter, people see this and emulate it hoping to be as successful as Trump.

What was Trump’s reaction the morning after?

Instead of considering opposing views of his actions, he says such people are sore losers who just can’t accept his victory. Instead of helping bring a divided country together by conceding that he has flaws and made a a mistake, he stubbornly says he wasn’t (in his mind) mocking the reporter. The fact is it does not matter what he claims. A lot of people perceived him as mocking the reporter. He fights their criticisms by suggesting their perceptions are at fault, so any criticism is invalid. He is a great model for authoritarianism, and it may not be long before the”authoritarianism” entry on Wikipedia includes Donald Trump.

I like Madonna’s take on the election

I love Madonna for her music, but I love her even more for her election analysis as it relates to women.  Women who voted for Donald Trump (including my mom) have a deep distrust/hatred of other women simply because they are women. They believe in women having a proper place in society which is the home. They looked at Hillary and saw a traitor to what being a woman meant. My mom would talk about how crooked Hillary was, and she talked about the emails as if Hillary was handing the soviets all of our secrets. In my opinion, it’s dumb to debate Hillary’s crookedness because it’s a moot point. What Trump demonstrated through the election was a lot of male rhetoric used to answer questions which allowed him to provide no details to his ideas for his policies which appeal to a society that loves discriminates.

I was amazed that my mom could still support Trump after the “grab her by the p*ssy” comments. My mom would rather her daughter meet Trump than Hillary. And that to me is terribly sad. It’s disheartening to see my sister trying to make sense of how my mom could ignore everything Trump said and hate Hillary with such vitriol. My mom would try to distance herself by saying that she really dislikes both of them, but in reality, Trump could do anything, and she’d vote for him over Hillary. What’s so sad to me is that I’m a minority! Most of the country is drinking the Trump kool aid. Will we ever wake up?

I want to ask you about ageism in the music world. In Hollywood, as you know, it’s rare for women to find great roles as they get older. I imagine it’s even tougher to be a woman of a certain age in pop music. When you go into the studio or mount a tour like Rebel Heart, are you concerned about staying relevant?
I don’t care. It’s the rest of society that cares. I don’t ever think about my age until someone says something about it. I feel that I have wisdom, experience, knowledge and a point of view that is important. Can a teenager relate to that? Probably not. But that’s OK. I understand that. “Relevance” is a catchphrase that people throw out because we live in a world full of discrimination. Age is only brought up with regard to women. It’s connected to sexism, chauvinism and misogyny. When Leonardo is 60 years old, no one is going to talk about his relevance. Am I relevant as a female in this society that hates women? Well, to people who are educated and are not chauvinists or ­misogynists, yes.

Speaking of: How did you feel about the outcome of the election?
It felt like someone died. It felt like a ­combination of the heartbreak and betrayal you feel when someone you love more than anything leaves you, and also a death. I feel that way every morning; I wake up and say, “Oh, wait, Donald Trump is still the president,” and it wasn’t a bad dream that I had. It feels like women betrayed us. The percentage of women who voted for Trump was insanely high.

Why do you think that is?
Women hate women. That’s what I think it is. Women’s nature is not to support other women. It’s really sad. Men protect each other, and women protect their men and children. Women turn inward and men are more external. A lot of it has do with jealousy and some sort of tribal inability to accept that one of their kind could lead a nation. Other people just didn’t bother to vote because they didn’t like either candidate, or they didn’t think Trump had a chance in the world. They took their hands off the wheel and then the car crashed.

Were you surprised?
Of course. I was devastated, surprised, in shock. I haven’t really had a good night’s sleep since he has been elected. We’re f—ed.

Do you know anyone who voted for Trump?
Yeah, and I’ve gotten into major arguments.

What did they say?
That they would rather have a successful businessman running the country than a woman who lies. Just absurd. But people don’t have faith in government as we know it. We live in a country that’s run by ­bankers. In a way, it makes sense that Donald Trump is the president. Because money rules. Not intelligence, not experience, not a moral compass, not the ability to make wise ­decisions, not the ability to think of the future of the human race.

Check out the full interview with Madonna here.