PARTLY FACETIOUS: ‘I am ideologically on the same side as Harris…’

“I saw the Harris-Trump debate, and you know I don’t quite agree with the analysis by one major US news outlet.”

“Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that Western media has deep-rooted prejudices/bias in favour of one candidate from one of the status quo parties over another!”

“No really!”

“Yes really. The bias could be for financial reasons, it could be for ideological reasons, and it could be for personal reasons.”

“Personal defined as one candidate reaching out to one newspaper editor or anchor and convincing him or her that he or she is the best candidate going forward.”

“And so what analysis did you not agree with?”

“I am ideologically on the same side as Harris, but I thought her look of incredulity every time Trump lied was way overdone, and I thought she came out poorly on foreign relations, I mean I hate to say it, but I agree with Trump that the war in Ukraine must end because too many Ukrainians are dying and Putin is clearly winning…”

“Gaza?”

“She tried to have her cake and eat it too – the 3000 pound bombs that Israel is dropping on Gaza are those that the US has supplied, so the US is complicit, and then she said the Israelis are killing too many Palestinians and so a ceasefire that the US can execute in a minute if it stops supplying arms and ammunition to Israel……”

“And ironically Blinken accused Iran of supplying missiles to Russia, I mean what about US arms and ammunition supplies to Israel where a genocide is ongoing and to Ukraine where the Ukrainians are still losing…”

“The world has gone mad.”

“Right so my point is if our channels have a favourite or shall I say a preferred narrative with or without any financial interest then we are in great company.”

“And you know what – it won’t matter whosoever is elected – Trump or Harris.”

“Do you think the same applies here in the Land of the Pure?”

“I will not answer that on the grounds that it may incriminate me.”

“You are not in a court room and…”

“Speaking of court rooms, if the government’s intent to appoint 23 Supreme Court justices comes to fruition, then I would like to point out one lacuna.”

“I would shut up; here, we don’t put up.”

“No, no, let me finish, have you ever visited court number One in the Supreme Court Building?”

“Yes, and I don’t see why?”

“There is not enough room for 23 seats in case a full court is…”

“They could break down a wall, or wait, they could narrow the space between each seat.”

“Like in the Metro or pink bus?”

“Don’t be facetious.”

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024