This is not the article linked in the earlier post, about the process of picking Trump for Person of the Year. This is the article about him. It's written in a fancy style (by Michael Scherer) with sentences like — referring to Trump's apartment — "It’s gilded and gaudy, a dreamscape of faded tapestry, antique clocks and fresco-style ceiling murals of gym-rat Greek gods."
And if you can wade through enough heavy prose, you'll find the dark side of journalism:
By seeking to condemn the dark side of politics, Clinton’s campaign may have accidently [sic] validated it. By believing in the myth that Obama’s election represented a permanent shift for the nation, they proved it was ephemeral. In the end, Trump reveled in these denunciations, which helped him market to his core supporters his determination to smash the existing elite. After the election, Trump’s campaign CEO Stephen Bannon—the former head of a website known for stirring racial animus and provoking liberal outrage—explained it simply. “Darkness is good,” he told the Hollywood Reporter.In the space between those 2 paragraphs is a black-and-dark-gray photo of Steve Bannon, brooding. Keep scrolling for similar dark pictures of Kellyanne Conway and (unrecognizable) Reince Priebus.
This is the method of a demagogue. The more the elites denounced his transgressions, the more his growing movement felt validated....
पोस्ट्स
७९ टिप्पण्या:
-NEWS FLASH-
LameStream Media© is in the tank for Liberals/Democrats, and will slant their coverage any way they can to make Conservatives/Republicans look bad.
Remember, you heard it here first...
So they still don't get it. I doubt they ever will.
To paraphrase Sally Field: "You hate me. You really hate me !"
"Darkness is good." Catchy. Like "winter is coming."
Or, "The stupid, it burns."
Yes, Trump being mean to the press is a threat to freedom. Not that the press is laden with hacks.
Rules for Radicals # 5 and #13 wrote this article:continuously ridicule the target after you freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Go after people, not institutions.
But the Destroy Trump Radicals had better be careful when targeting Mad Dog Trump. He doesn't play games.
Was this the magazine that was sold to a new owner for $1 or is this the other crappy liberal rag?
Trump’s campaign CEO Stephen Bannon—the former head of a website known for stirring racial animus and provoking liberal outrage...
As opposed to the sorts of websites that stir racial animus that doesn't provoke liberal outrage, i.e., in the correct way against the correct targets.
So, here I sit; I read this post by Ann Althouse and agree with all of it. I have nothing but admiration for the Althouse "Fisking" of the mainstream media. Trump sure isn't the first or only Republican to get that sort of grossly unfair treatment.
But at the same time, I listen to Trump and it is obnoxious, bordering on the horrifying. Trump has bloviated about vaccines causing autism. General Pershing dipping bullets in pigs' blood to execute Muslim prisoners. Saying of John McCain that he (Trump) preferred people who weren't captured. Claiming blandly and stupidly that "we need to open up the libel laws." Making a stupid threat about 35% taxes for imported cars/car parts if auto makers don't locate assembly plants in a manner that pleases Trump. Trump, recorded speaking with Alex Jones and telling him what a tremendous show he is doing.
There is a very good case to be made, critical of Trump. That case, made intelligently on the pages of the National Review and the Weekly Standard, was clearly not enough to deny Trump the Republican nomination. Trump's low-grade, loose-fact, populist message triumphed over the critical analysis. I suspect that Time magazine is doing the same thing; a low-grade, loose-fact populist anti-Trump message.
Trump will have to drag the MSM kicking and screaming to the new American greatness.
Mike said...
Was this the magazine that was sold to a new owner for $1 or is this the other crappy liberal rag?
It was Newsweek that sold for a dollar in 2010.
"represents" - interesting use of the word.
The Press is anti-freedom, anti-capitalist and frankly anti-American much of the time. Americans hold the Press in lower esteem than any other profession, including lawyers.
1. President-elect wins with 306 votes in the electoral college (known as a mandate).
2. President-elect takes Press to the woodshed.
3. Press blames American people it looks down on for their abuse.
4. Americans' esteem for press drops.
Rinse and repeat. MAEG2020* Baby!
*Make America Even Greater in 2020
"a black-and-dark-gray photo of Steve Bannon, brooding. Keep scrolling for similar dark pictures of Kellyanne Conway and (unrecognizable) Reince Priebus." There they go again, stirring racial animus.
@Chuck. So, here I shit
FIFY
“The Democratic Party forgot about its base. It’s all less for us and more for someone else,” Dougherty said, explaining how he could betray the party he was born into.
Isn't he by every interpretation describing how the party "betrayed" him? Journalism. Sad.
Emmanuel Goldstein, call your office.
The MSM never ceased in trying to portray Obama as likeable and of the people. Didn't work.
The MSM will not cease in trying to portray Trump as un-likable and not of the people. Won't work.
Chuck, first of all I was being sardonic. Perhaps too obtusely I was suggesting it doesn't matter because they are both worthless liberal rags. Secondly, what is your obsession with things Trump said long ago before he became the nominee or was elected?
Trump spent his life as a NY democrat doing and saying the bad things that liberals do and getting away with it. Who besides you and the Kos crowd even cares what he said about vaccines or General Pershing? He has (or in my estimation had) the same tenuous relationship with the truth as every other liberal democrat in office. You could (if you cared to) find just as many crazy stupid comments by the current occupant, especially before he was president. "White peoples' greed drives a world in need," anyone? But things are different now.
Maybe it was the horrifically damaging two terms of Barrack Obama that changed him, but now Trump has declared himself a conservative Republican and he appears to be acting within that definition and doing a very fine job. Try and live in the present and anticipate the future. Stop living in the past, demanding explanations for things no one cares about. Take a page from the democrat playbook and move on for God's sake. Criticize Trumps actions, tweets and appointments if you like. But you're just wasting time rehashing shit from when he was a reality star and democrat. That was another life.
Trump is realistic, oddly egotistical while humble, a man who knows how to interact and work with people on all levels. He is a man of worldly success. Trump will dominate those never able to mature beyond the idea of being perpetually in school. The elites, those who have never matured beyond the idea of being in school--lawyers, politicians, media, teachers/professors, and thousands upon thousands who have only used a higher education to advance delusion and self-importance cannot honestly work with others, only able to manipulate within the realm of conviction they and their friends are something above, able to relate to others only as inferiors in need of their instruction and guidance. I always viewed Obama as nothing more than a product of a broken education system. This blog is enlightening as I am convinced the creator represents academia while also being able to penetrate to a deeper truth.
Trump's taste in interior design is somewhat alienating. Those aren't the choices I would make, but it would not take much of an effort to get used to living there.......I have objections to some of the things that Trump said, but I have far more objections to the things Hillary did not say. It would be impossible, for example, for Hillary to criticize Colin Kaepernick for taking a knee during the national anthem. Despite previous statements otherwise, nowadays she would never denounce the flag burners. She would, however, be quite forthright in her denunciation of those who drew cartoons of Mohammed........Trump lives in a different dimension than me, but his response to passing events is far more in sync with mine than any current Democratic politician.
"This is the method of a demagogue" the writer certainly knows of what he speaks.
There's that picture of Melania on the white piano and Trump playing Liberace in black. I guess that supposed to be alienating to the average guy, but it makes me laugh.
The flip side of Trump's despicable self-regard is a kind of giddy comicality that is almost refreshing.
No envy. Although, a beachfront estate in Hawaii would be nice.
Trump is realistic, oddly egotistical while humble, a man who knows how to interact and work with people on all levels.
Last week, Trump started out the day (learning, apparently that his meeting with the New York Times editors was not going as he had planned it) by Tweeting that the New York Times was a "failing" newspaper. They worked out the details, apparently, Trump met the Times, and by the end of the day Trump was calling the Times "a national treasure."
So; Trump alternatively treats people with insults and lavish praise. That's normal?
Not only is the tonality of the photographs ridiculous, the framing is too. Ordinarily you leave space in the direction in which the subject is facing. Otherwise the subject seems cramped and boxed in. Look at the images of Pence and Priebus. The frame ends right in front of their faces, portraying them not as men of vision but the opposite. The framing of the Conway photo has her swimming undersized in the middle of too much blank space, minimizing and marginalizing her, making her a girl-child adrift in the world. The Time photographer and/or photo editor deserves a prize for most heavy-handed propoganda photos of the year.
"So; Trump alternatively treats people with insults and lavish praise. That's normal?"
No, that's called training.
Mike; first of all I'd ask you to not bring Obama into it, because I can't and won't defend Obama. I've never voted for Obama and wouldn't support him.
Second, Trump's not just a problem of a few things said a long time ago, or some position reversals. (I will say that on his own, Trump probably reversed more personal policy positions than all of the other 13 Republican candidates combined.)
I still think that the hardest thing to explain about Trump is the several repeated episodes from the 1970's, 80's and 90's in which Trump called reporters to brag about Mr. Trump while impersonating a nonexistent public relations person, alternatively named "John Miller" or "John Baron."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html
I'm happy with Trump in the sense that he is not Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders and not Barack Obama. I'm distressed about Trump in any sense that he might be regarded as the leader of the Republican Party.
There is a headquarters, an organization, that coordinates national political coverage and determines the daily propaganda line across the MSM.
It would be useful to identify these people and their system, and their sources of funding, and for that matter the interests and goals of their funders.
Looking at this situation from the point of view of an adversary, I would certainly like more information on the enemy command and control system, and its leadership. Its disturbing that this all is so obscure.
Rob: great comments about the photos. Between verbal and graphic framing, the NYT delivers.
Apparently somebody thinks its 1938 all over again. They'll be explaining this to us rubes to are too dumb to get it for the next year or two. Then we'll have another election.
Is anybody else eager to see how this works out for them? Not proud of it, though.
Chuck said...I still think that the hardest thing to explain about Trump is the several repeated episodes from the 1970's, 80's and 90's in which Trump called reporters to brag about Mr. Trump while impersonating a nonexistent public relations person, alternatively named "John Miller" or "John Baron."
What do you want explained about that, Chuck? Like...literally, what about those episodes do you not understand? It's odd, of course, but it doesn't seem difficult to explain. Also, and more to Mike's point, what do those episodes have to do with anything we're talking about now?
Trump's an odd guy, with odd tastes, and he has behaved oddly (with less restraint, politeness, and circumspection that we're used to from national political figures). His interior decoration choices are odd, his hairstyle is odd...etc. What's your point, Chuck? It's odd that he was elected President! So?
I'm distressed about Trump in any sense that he might be regarded as the leader of the Republican Party.
Well the way to avoid that was to beat him in the primary and get someone else elected President. The Republicans failed to do that--he's their guy now; however recent his "conversion" he has an (R) after his name now and there's not much point being distressed about that fact.
The smarter course of action (if you'll allow me to give some advice), Chuck, is to do everything you can to highlight the distinction between conservatives/conservatism (which Trump is definitively not) and Republicans/the Republican party. They're not the same, and when we allow the Media to get away with claiming that Republicans=conservatives=Tea Partiers=alt-right we really do harm ourselves--that's something to work against, for sure.
I still think that the hardest thing to explain about Trump is the several repeated episodes from the 1970's, 80's and 90's ...
There you go! But you don't see how that is just as irrelevant to current events as Obama's racist past, stupid statements etc. I was trying to show you the folly of your single-minded obsession on pre-2016 Trump. But my showing absurdity to reveal absurdity went right over your pointed head.
[end of thread]
Que será, será!
P.S Trump the de facto leader of the Republican party for at least the next four years. Any other notion is rooted in unreality. People who disagree should take up drinking or pursue non-political adventures for their own mental health to improve.
Chuck is somewhere "on the spectrum."
Oh, no, no, no! On the political spectrum, of course, it's just hard to say where.
EDH said...
“The Democratic Party forgot about its base. It’s all less for us and more for someone else,” Dougherty said, explaining how he could betray the party he was born into.
Isn't he by every interpretation describing how the party "betrayed" him? Journalism. Sad.
Back when he was running for president, Ronald Reagan was asked why he left the Democrat Party to become a Republican. His answer was that the Democrat Party left him. I think a lot of working class people who voted for Trump came to the same conclusion. While Hillary was bragging about putting coal miners out of work, Trump was talking about improving the business conditions in America to create more jobs. Most people vote for what they believe is in their best interests, and the Democrats were more interested in the radical fringe than working people. Let's see what Trump does to deliver on his promises.
70s 80s and 90s is so 20th century.
of gym-rat Greek gods.
What's the name of the contest where people strive to write the worst possible first paragraph of a non-existing novel? Because that phrase sounds like it should be in that contest.
So nope, not going to read it.
Rob: great comments about the photos. Between verbal and graphic framing, the NYT delivers.>
It's Time. The NYT is too busy using Dutch angles. Or was that The New Yorker? I can't keep my photo propagandists straight!
I think Chuck should focus on Making Himself Great Again. ; )
Trump's low-grade, loose-fact, populist message triumphed over the critical analysis.
Why yes, Chuck. It did. Or at least Trump triumphed. Introspection beyond, "Trump's stupid, his voters are stupid, stupid voters" might be called for.
I guess time and Newsweek are just dead set on irreparably damaging their brand.
By the way, looking at that interior decoration, it's highly likely Donald Trump is a Goa'uld.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa'uld
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Goa%27uld+interior&view=detailv2&&id=5681105868F81C83CC0D970827B1B4A0178D61DF&selectedIndex=56&ccid=AUHjMIvs&simid=608005471592451274&thid=OIP.M0141e3308bec92fb5cceae2cad9265dco0&ajaxhist=0
Trump's taste in furnishings and decor is tacky, tacky, tacky. As someone else said, it is a poor person's idea of how a rich person lives. Perhaps this is a part of Trump's appeal to working people...their shared bad taste.
Or maybe it's because it is less about Trump--though he would never believe it--than that working people could see that Clinton had no interest in helping them. Trump doesn't either, but he fooled them. They'll be wised up in time.
As someone else said, it is a poor person's idea of how a rich person lives.
That 'someone else' is John Mulaney
They act as if Hillary's homes are less opulent or tacky.
Again, you cannot say "Man, why did he get elected" unless you look at who the options were.
People, for years, wondered why my state kept re-electing Strom Thurmond or why we keep electing Lindsey Graham. We can only vote for the people running. You need to see how terrible the people running against them are.
I'm distressed about Trump in any sense that he might be regarded as the leader of the Republican Party.
I'm old enough to remember when the Chuckles of the time said the same thing about Reagan.
Comparing Time magazine's June 2016 circulation rates with Sports Illustrated:
Time = 3,032,581
Sports Illustrated = 3,057,047
All Things Considered and Rush Limbaugh both have about 13,250,000 listeners weekly. Those are radio, the most outdated source of news. Time magazine is meaningless as a news source. Nobody reads it.
You can't bowl a strike when you aim the ball down the left gutter, as the biased article shows. We're smart enough to see through their agitprop.
Evidently Times believes only black people should have fake Roman columns and only appropriate in public.
Trump's taste in furnishings and decor is tacky, tacky, tacky. As someone else said, it is a poor person's idea of how a rich person lives. Perhaps this is a part of Trump's appeal to working people...their shared bad taste.
Or that poor people aren't fooled by Armani jackets as in, "that jacket is so tasteful it must be cheap."
There is a very good case to be made, critical of Trump.
Yes there is. of course the same could be said of any politician except Saint Thatcher.
That case, made intelligently on the pages of the National Review and the Weekly Standard, was clearly not enough to deny Trump the Republican nomination.
Primarily because the majority of Trump supporters don't read those magazines and oppose their and the Establishment's attempt to dictate to the Republican base.
Trump's low-grade, loose-fact, populist message triumphed over the critical analysis.
Heaven forbid, a candidate appealed to the people rather than rolling over for the Establishment elites........
I suspect that Time magazine is doing the same thing; a low-grade, loose-fact populist anti-Trump message.
In other news, a dog bit a man today........
I've read that Fidel had about twenty separate private residences, not counting yachts. I'd be interested in seeing a photo essay of his various homes. I bet the twenty homes were furnished with the kind of decor that working men could relate to. Fidel's assorted wives and mistresses were not supermodels. They were good looking sure, but they didn't have that haute look. Is it any wonder that Fidel appealed to the humble of the world.
> Nobody reads it.
I do pick it up at the barbershop just to see how amazingly thin it has become. It isn't dead yet, but it is anorexic and starved for content.
Though I hate to give Time the clicks, I went to Sherer's piece in Time and after about 6 or 8 paragraphs I had to stop--it is incredibly condescending, nasty, and most of all, stupid. Really, really ignorant and unintelligent, which is OK in dealing with some people, but combined with arrogance and condescension is NOT a pretty thing.
FDR was a very wealthy Hudson River grandee, so why pick on Trump's penthouse apartment as proving he cannot have sympathy for the common man? JFK and Edward Kennedy? For all his vulgar language, did Trump ever abandon a young woman to die while he plotted political damage control for hours before calling in that there had been an accident?
Sherer says the skaters at Wollman Rink, which Trump rebuilt, nothing more than "static" on a screen, and people walking in front of Trump Tower "mites." That's Sherer, not Trtump saying that, and it seems a perfect reflection of how Sherer views the hoi polloi, at leats those who voted for Trump. It tells us nothing at all about Trump, though it is clearly intended to in a most snarky and dishonest way.
And to write that Castro would have a problem with Trump saying he represents working people... Castro is now our authority on how to treat working people? OMFG!
I held my breath if not my nose to vote for Trump, mostly because Clinton horrified me. But everything--EVERYTHING--I have seen from the Left since Nov. 8 confirms that I made the right choice.
The only saving aspect of this is that it is EXACTLY what I thought it would be, another "fake news" hit piece.
The "dark" photo of Steve Bannon is not only brooding but absolutely hilarious!
Time Reporter: Who's Steve Bannon again?
Time Editor: He's part of the Alt-Right! He ran the Trump campaign! He consorts with Neo-Nazi's and racists!
Time Reporter: Hmmm, ok.
Time Editor: Use an unflattering photograph, make it black and white, make it dark, we can't be seen to be endorsing hate.
Time Reporter: Shouldn't we just write a story, who, what, where, when, why and how?
Time Editor: You're fired!
One problem with TIME magazine, I can promise you, is that while it is the standard Manhattan/media elite left-leaning bias (just like NBC) its readership skews far older, whiter, wealthier, and more managerial than the general population. In other words, a demographic that is extremely high in voter turnout. Suburbanites and lots of retirees who watch NBC news right before Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! and who have done so for years, and for whom it is hard to convince that NBC and TIME are biased productions by media elites, which they are. The TIME readership is a readership that all political parties need to reach.
Chuck said: "So; Trump alternatively treats people with insults and lavish praise. That's normal?"
It may or may not be normal to most ordinary relationships, however in the business world and in politics as well------> It is a tactic. A good one that works.
You don't get out much do you?
Trump's taste in furnishings and decor is tacky, tacky, tacky. As someone else said, it is a poor person's idea of how a rich person lives. Perhaps this is a part of Trump's appeal to working people...their shared bad taste.
Bitchy, bitchy, bitchy.
Trump's taste in furnishings and decor is tacky, tacky, tacky. As someone else said, it is a poor person's idea of how a rich person lives. Perhaps this is a part of Trump's appeal to working people...their shared bad taste.
With no offense meant toward eastern Europeans, their taste is quite different from ours and I suspect the furnishings are influenced by Trump's former wife and subsequent wives. Maybe he doesn't personally care about taste. Oddly, or perhaps not, neither did W.R. Hearst.
oopsy daisy said...
Chuck said: "So; Trump alternatively treats people with insults and lavish praise. That's normal?"
It may or may not be normal to most ordinary relationships, however in the business world and in politics as well------> It is a tactic. A good one that works.
You don't get out much do you?
This thing about Trump's great business acumen and dealmaking genius is something I don't get. I don't think Trump really has a lot of friends in business, if any at all. If he sold all of his holdings in marketable equities this summer, and it was $40 or $50 million, he -- as a reputed billionaire -- is a freak. His net worth cannot possibly be all that he claims, if he only had $40 million in stock. It would be a crazy way to structure net worth. I don't think the great businessmen of America are impressed with celebrity, and I don't think that they would readily do any business with someone who alternatively abuses them and then lavishes flowery praise on them. I suspect that U.S. Senators aren't going to take any risks for the sake of Trump's image, reputation or vanity either.
Chuck wrote of Trump: ' Claiming blandly and stupidly that "we need to open up the libel laws."'
You wouldn't seriously contend that the dishonorable, lying mediaswine are still entitled to an elevated level of protection against defamation suits, would you? Given the level of their bias and irresponsibility, a better case can be made that they are entitled to less protection than ordinary citizens. Surely the media has a higher duty that ought to result in a higher standard of accountability.
Dehumanizing photographs, as to be expected.
Back in the day, we used to say, "Life (magazine) is for people who can't read. Time is for people who can't think." Nothing's changed.
hombre said...
Chuck wrote of Trump: ' Claiming blandly and stupidly that "we need to open up the libel laws."'
You wouldn't seriously contend that the dishonorable, lying mediaswine are still entitled to an elevated level of protection against defamation suits, would you? Given the level of their bias and irresponsibility, a better case can be made that they are entitled to less protection than ordinary citizens. Surely the media has a higher duty that ought to result in a higher standard of accountability.
In that case, Alex Jones and Breitbart had better lawyer up in a hurry. There are all sorts of "mediaswine."
Cook: "Perhaps this is part of Trump's appeal to working people... shared bad taste."
Peggy Noonan may have had the "egalitarian" Mr. Cook in mind when she wrote (roughly), "It is a sign of the times that we will be patronized by our inferiors." I doubt that Peggy would have excluded working people from the "we."
Chuck wrote: 'In that case, Alex Jones and Breitbart had better lawyer up in a hurry. There are all sorts of "mediaswine."'
What is that, the PeeWee Herman response: "I know you are, but what am I?" Don't I remember that you used to be capable of something other than smart aleck rejoinders? Has your hatred for Trump brought you the MSM as your new, strange bedfellows?
Despite the well-deserved epithets I apply to the media, my point was that there was nothing "stupid" about Trump's observation about libel laws.
As for Jones and Breitbart, unlike the NYT, WaPo, CNN, the networks and the rest of the MSMediaswine, I suspect they are aware of their extremism and would have less difficulty adapting to a more rigorous standard.
Chuck said...
This thing about Trump's great business acumen and dealmaking genius is something I don't get. I don't think Trump really has a lot of friends in business, if any at all. If he sold all of his holdings in marketable equities this summer, and it was $40 or $50 million, he -- as a reputed billionaire -- is a freak. His net worth cannot possibly be all that he claims, if he only had $40 million in stock.
Not everyone invests heavily in the stock market. Trump apparently invests in other things like property (golf courses, hotels, etc.) more than stocks. I don't know what percentage ownership he has in properties like Trump Towers in NYC, but that's one expensive piece of property and would likely make up a significant chuck of his net worth.
Man the tb of acid that the writer dropped before writing this codswallop must have been wicked strong.
Chuck concludes that because the real estate mogul only had $40-50 million in stock, he must be overstating his net worth. I cannot follow the logic of that, but I'm sure it can't flow from TDS. Can it?
hombre said...
Chuck wrote: 'In that case, Alex Jones and Breitbart had better lawyer up in a hurry. There are all sorts of "mediaswine."'
What is that, the PeeWee Herman response: "I know you are, but what am I?" Don't I remember that you used to be capable of something other than smart aleck rejoinders? Has your hatred for Trump brought you the MSM as your new, strange bedfellows?
Despite the well-deserved epithets I apply to the media, my point was that there was nothing "stupid" about Trump's observation about libel laws.
As for Jones and Breitbart, unlike the NYT, WaPo, CNN, the networks and the rest of the MSMediaswine, I suspect they are aware of their extremism and would have less difficulty adapting to a more rigorous standard.
The "stupid" part with Trump was his inarticulation. He seems to have nothing to express, apart from rage. If he had something interesting to say about the New York Times v Sullivan standards, or something of his own valuable experience in defamation litigation, it might be worthwhile. But Trump's own litigation history is just laughable; embarrassing, for anyone other than the impossible-to-embarrass Trump. I can't think of anyone in American public life, with a more ludicrous history of bogus lawsuits and threatened lawsuits, than Donald Trump.
Time may be clueless, but at least it's not racist, like CNN.
Black CNN employees file class action lawsuit
This is a really, really great Christmas season!
@Chuck: I'm pretty sure there were many who understood what he meant about opening up the libel laws. I think that is an interesting issue he raised. I'm not interested in his articulation or history of litigation. Neither is relevant to the issue.
In fact I'm guessing that his articulation will improve and he will be less litigious as POTUS. You have already made your case for "I told you so," if he turns out to be a shitty President. Your constant bloviating about what an inept ass he is, while clearly your prerogative, is beginning to sound unhinged.
So what does it mean, "to open up libel laws"?
Trump: "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected."
So Trump would like a constriction of the First Amendment's concerns for a "free press." And he'd like more litigation (more action for trial lawyers), presumably much higher insurance premiums for small businesses involved in journalism. And E&O policies for board members.
Trump is of course mistaken beneath the level of a First Year law student when he suggests that media operations are "totally protected" when they "write purposely negative and horrible and false articles." Because that goes directly to the heart of New York Times Co. v Sullivan, and the limits of First Amendment protection for news publishers.
(W)orking people could see that Clinton had no interest in helping them. Trump doesn't either, but he fooled them. They'll be wised up in time.
All due respect to his sincerity, but there's something truly awesome happening when someone like Cook, whose entire worldview consists of ignoring the obvious, talks about other people wising up.
Sebastian,
A nontrivial subset of Hill voters were ABT
Hmm, difficult to accept uncritically. 3rd party voters maybe...but what "ABT" voter would vote Clinton? What groups are you thinking?
Mike on 12/7/16, @9:06 AM: The other one. Which went paperless and then came ack.
There's also U.S. News and World Report, which seems to have disappeared and the second coming of the Literary Diigest, otherwise known as "The Week."
It really does look like the Literary Digest of the 1920s (not like what it was at the end, in 1937, when it was a kind of oinferior TIME.
Glad the media learned not tone so biased. What a joke.
"the party he was born into"
Gack. What a thoroughly unAmerican notion.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा