March 3, 2017
Three months after the election, TIME magazine was still calculating scenarios that would’ve resulted in a win for Hillary Clinton, as TruthRevolt reported. But liberals continue having a very hard time with the results, leaving some to wonder if perhaps we’re all in a computer simulation gone wrong.
Adam Gopnik, writing for The New Yorker, thinks the Oscar mix-up for Best Picture might be the clue that we have stepped into the Matrix.
“The people or machines or aliens who are supposed to be running our lives are having some kind of breakdown,” he writes. “There’s a glitch, and we are in it.”
Gopnik pointed to the unexpected outcome of the Super Bowl as another reason to seriously consider this theory:
What happened, then, one realizes with last-five-minutes-of-“The Twilight Zone” logic, is obvious: sometime in the third quarter, the omniscient alien or supercomputer that was “playing” the Patriots exchanged his controller with his teen-age offspring, or newer model, with the unbelievable result we saw.
Then Election Day:
There may be not merely a glitch in the Matrix. There may be a Loki, a prankster, suddenly running it. After all, the same kind of thing seemed to happen on Election Day: the program was all set, and then some mischievous overlord—whether alien or artificial intelligence doesn’t matter—said, “Well, what if he did win? How would they react?” “You can’t do that to them,” the wiser, older Architect said. “Oh, c’mon,” the kid said. “It’ll be funny. Let’s see what they do!” And then it happened. We seem to be living within a kind of adolescent rebellion on the part of the controllers of the video game we’re trapped in, who are doing this for their strange idea of fun.
Yet, Gopnik holds out hope that one day, our “overlords” will notice that something important got unplugged and they will plug it back in “and then normalcy again.”
That’s about as sad as The New Yorker and GQ magazine commissioning artwork depicting a victorious Hillary Clinton and then publishing them anyway when she lost. Creepy.
And then there’s The New York Times, which just published “Russia’s Attack, an Alternative History” by managing editor David Leonhardt of The Times’ The Upshot. His piece focuses on yet another New Yorker piece, “dreamed up by a top adviser to Hillary Clinton,” that reimagines a what-if scenario of President Obama taking a tougher approach to these alleged Russian ties in his last months in office and how that might have altered the outcome.
Leonhardt excuses the former president for his lackadaisical response because no one thought a Trump win was possible:
Lamenting the Obama administration’s low-key passive response to Russia’s attack obviously depends on 20/20 hindsight. Obama had reason to play it safe: As a Democratic president, he was rightly worried about politicizing national security and using his power to hurt the Republican nominee. But it seems likely that the administration would have nonetheless chosen a different route if it had realized that Donald Trump was a serious threat to win the election.
Apparently, grasping at straws is the new liberal pastime.
This article was posted: Friday, March 3, 2017 at 8:01 am