And Original Mike says:
You are in an abusive relationship and you're the enabler. Isn't there a hot line you can call?
March 24, 2017
"I love the NYT. I have been reading it for 50 years. I'm begging it to go straight."
I say in the comments, half an hour after posting "The NYT struggles to fight off Trump's use of that NYT headline 'Wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aides.'"
And Original Mike says:
And Original Mike says:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
101 comments:
That's why schools don't teach critical thinking anymore, it can only lead to heresy.
I am sure it is a disappointment to you to come to understand this about the New York Times. What other institutions do you believe in? Might any of them be unworthy of your trust and respect?
Then stop reading the paper.
It's a new media landscape. Companies have to follow the money and people are willing to spend more for confirmation bias. Honest journalism just doesn't bring home the bacon anymore.
The New York Times still provides the news as long as you read between the lines, as the expression goes. Wouldn't want to rile up the Trump haters to point out that there is not any actual print between the lines.
A new media paradigm has developed. The NYT talks to its coastal readers. The NYT tells CNN, MSNBC, ABC etc what to think. But blogs like Althouse undercut whatever credibility the NYT has left. So the Trump narrative of fake news becomes the TRUTH.
If it is true that Obama spied on Trump, then the Dems and MSM are finished.
The NYT seems seems to be trying desperately to enforce an overall message discipline despite even the original reportage of its own journalists.
Time to bring in Linda Qiu to do an opinion piece disguised as a "Fact Check" in order to set the narrative, or what's left of it, straight.
I'm just curious how direct the line is between the Obama/Clinton/DNC camp and these "news" sources.
It seems highly coordinated between outlets at a very rapid rate.
My feelings toward NYT are more elegiac. Though maybe I idealize how much better it used to be, back when its readership was smarter & mostly in NYC. At least then the articles pretended to objectivity, even if they missed (or misplayed) several of the biggest stories over the decades (Stalin, Holocaust). But now they don't even seem to try (with occasional exceptions).
Althouse and the NYT is getting very "Brokeback Mountain."
The obvious: "I wish I knew how to quit you."
But here's another line: ""Bottom line is... we're around each other an'... this thing, it grabs hold of us again... at the wrong place... at the wrong time... and we're dead."
The NYT and the NYT Reader are locked in a relationship where they both know the truth about themselves, but can't admit it to others.
I think this came to mind because of the " I'm begging it to go straight" headline.
Ennis Del Mar: We can get together... once in a while, way the hell out in the middle of nowhere, but...
Jack Twist: Once in a while? Every four fuckin' years?
Ennis Del Mar: If you can't fix it, Jack, you gotta stand it.
I am Laslo.
They sold their soul when they started to lose readers in Manhattan for honestly reporting on Bill Clinton.
Imagine the mental gymnastics it must have taken to abandon their beliefs to defend Clinton.
The Wall Street Fake News Journal is even worse. So stick to the NYT. All they do is predictably pro Resistance. The WSJ has no excuse for its War on Trump.
If what Original Mike says is true, shouldn't those of you who purport to care about Ann Althouse initiate an intervention and rescue her from her abuser?
Meade
It is your job as husband to rescue your wife.
" I love the NYT" -no shit red ryder. Actually what you love is the appearance of of being a pseudo intellect through association. That little scared girl from Wayne is finally realizing that the emperor has no clothes.As the song says "Looking for love in all the wrong places".
The New York Times will never become Breitbart. You can't have it both ways. If you have expectations that the Times will treat conspiracy theory as serious reporting, just stop reading it, it won't happen, thankfully.
I started reading the NYT back in my college days. Every day, rain or shine. Coffee and the NYT. I gave it up a few years ago. Back in the day there were a few topics that the NYT would spin so badly that you couldn't see through to the facts. (Central America was such a topic in the 70s, IIRC.) But I would say the majority of national/world news is spun that way now.
"If what Original Mike says is true, shouldn't those of you who purport to care about Ann Althouse initiate an intervention and rescue her from her abuser?"
If you received the dead tree version I could steal it every morning. Don't know what to do about the digital version.
"If what Original Mike says is true, shouldn't those of you who purport to care about Ann Althouse initiate an intervention and rescue her from her abuser?"
Like any real-life intervention, this thread is half "you need to go cold turkey" and half "maybe you should just cut down a bit so I don't lose my drinking buddy".
How they have gotten a huge part of of the press to focus on denying Trump figurative speech is impressive. But then, effective use of speech is Trump's biggest weapon.
Saidthe Unknown Troll who has been pushing conspiracy theories about Trump since election day.
Or the Times is the enabler and hasn't noticed.
The NY Times is a dealer and its readers are junkies.
Friends don't let friends read the NYT.
The only thing I remember Althouse writing about Breitbart was dismissive. But Unknown Troll needed some alternative facts, so she made some up!
The NYT is a constant source of Red Meat for our Hostess to throw to us Guests. Without that, what would we discuss ?
"Then stop reading the paper."
The alternatives are worse.
I still want to read something. That could end.
The best an honest person can do is to collect their news from a multitude of sources, preferably from both sides of the spectrum, and decide on their own where the truth lies. Stay out of the silo.
The alternatives are worse.
The gap between reputation and reality is wider at the Times than at any other media source.
Breitbart is terrible as a news source. It's more hyped-up opinion. I like to read NEWS and think of my own opinion. Breitbart doesn't even attempt to serve the need I am expressing.
To convert this into the love-life metaphor. Breitbart is a hookup who blatantly lets you know there's no hope of a relationship.
I blame the liberal baby boomers, the sorriest generation destroyed the universities too.
I wonder what the NYT will do today when Drudge's big red siren light is flashing with the news that it was bigshots, in the Obama White House, who surveilled / wiretapped Trump and his compadres.
"The best an honest person can do is to collect their news from a multitude of sources, preferably from both sides of the spectrum, and decide on their own where the truth lies. Stay out of the silo."
Conservatives are inundated with the liberal perspective so they don't live in a bubble like liberals who only get their news from the liberal media.
"To convert this into the love-life metaphor. Breitbart is a hookup who blatantly lets you know there's no hope of a relationship."
If you love something (like the NYT) set it free. If it comes back, it’s yours. If not, it was never meant to be.
Ann Althouse said...
"Then stop reading the paper."
The alternatives are worse.
This sounds a bit like Brokeback Mountain, "I wish I knew how to quit you".
This post made me smile.
I don't think the WSJ is waging war with Trump. Trump's not infallible, and I expect him to be held accountable for missteps and praised when he wins. Today could be a big day. Especially with a Badger victory in the Garden.
@ Althouse
Sunk costs.
NYT is a news aggregator. Most of what it writes is from secondary sources. Its original stuff is not trustworthy.
Perhaps you just need another news aggregator.
AA said: " I like to read NEWS and think of my own opinion."
Where oh where is that? Every alleged news piece is opinionated, whether covert or overt. Heck even the much beloved Walter Cronkite misreported the Viet Nam war.
Alright, I've done some research and this is what I've learned from the scientific journal, Psychology Yesterday:
The abandoned newspaper will explore different ways to cope with the abandonment. If the newspaper discovers that being completely independent and not sharing its feelings with anyone is the best way to bury the pain, it will normally continue that pattern. If it discovers that manipulating people into being its friend or into being there for it, it will normally continue this behavior. The first coping mechanism leads to an avoidant attachment style and the second leads to an anxious attachment style.
Though anxious types tend to form longer and more committed relationships compared to the avoidant types, their relationships rarely last a lifetime. They may even be quite short, as it’s only a matter of time before their readers will be sufficiently fed up with the controlling aspect of the anxious newspaper's behavior and will want out.
Why not try the Daily Mail? The Brit stuff tends to be better than anything from the US anymore. Sure, there's the side bar of various celebrity gossip/ focus on how undressed half of today's females are, but nothing worse than Laslo here.
And they tend to provide just the facts, not "Democrats were shocked today by revelations from unknown sources found by the Huffington Post confirming that Trump grew a set of horns overnight. Pelosi claimed ' what took him so long to reveal he is the worst human in history and should be assassinated?'" like today's US media thinks is unbiased reporting.
--Vance
I now subscribe to the NYT as a form of resistance in the Trump era of alternative facts. And yes the Trump tower was bugged as it was a den of Russian money laundering criminals and foreign agents like Paul Manafort.
Good job Meade.
Back in the 60's I had a History teacher in Grade School that made us read the NYT and report on an article once a week. They were pretty sloppy about being objective even then to my early teen eyes. I did love the Sunday Times sections for a while on arts and leisure and the magazine articles, but that too slowly waned in value as the progressive infection became more and more obvious. I liked reading the New Yorker, but mainly for the cartoons and movie reviews. Once Addams was gone, I lost interest. I could say the same about Playboy ...
tim in vermont said...The New York Times still provides the news as long as you read between the lines, as the expression goes. Wouldn't want to rile up the Trump haters to point out that there is not any actual print between the lines.
It's half between the lines and half what's not there at all. You have to develop a sense for what the writer is intentionally avoiding.
I tried the NYTimes way back but gave up entirely when they devoted their "news" pages to attack articles against Augusta National. It was really shameless. I switched to the Washington Post as a more evenhanded news reporting source (also they carried George Will and I liked him since I was a kid). That sounds like a joke now; the WashPo is close to unreadable and their OpEd conservative, Rubin, is worse than David Brooks most of the time--and that's not easy to pull off. I guess they're catering to their audience but it's pretty sad.
Professor, have you checked out the WSJ lately? I used to read it daily back when I got a student rate (for several years after school) but the full rate is a bit much for me. They seem to use a lot of non-AP sources for their international reporting and their lifestyle stuff is pretty good (though focused on tech and gadgets more than real estate and travel, I think).
Especially with a Badger victory in the Garden.
That would be nice. But I'll be asleep. Too much work travel this week.
"If you love something (like the NYT) set it free."
Careful Meade...
"To convert this into the love-life metaphor. Breitbart is a hookup who blatantly lets you know there's no hope of a relationship."
Breitbart is a john.
In my former line of work, I got to meet plenty of abused spouses. Almost without exception, they would answer the "why do you stay with the guy who beats you?" before being asked. And the answers were almost all the same...
"I can't help myself. I love him, and he needs me."
It's a national tragedy that the New York Times decided to model their political news on Rush Limbaugh. Now, there's no news source that we can rely on to be accurate and unbiased. I the lack of a reliable news source contributes to the polarization; each tribe reads mostly its own partisan news. So we can't even agree on the facts.
I now subscribe to the NYT as a form of resistance in the Trump era of alternative facts
Isn't that special......
It's a national tragedy that the New York Times decided to model their political news on Rush Limbaugh.
See the difference is...Limbaugh never pretended to be an unbiased reporter of the news......
David in Cal:
I read the local paper here in Philly six days a week for which I pay $1.50 per day or $9.00 a week or $450 per year.
It sucks and, like the NYT, it is far left lib propaganda mostly. I don't think the polarization was caused by the news media. The country is polarized because one-half think the fed govt and its money printing press and its sheer power and size should determine how we all live our lives, educate our kids even how we should think. The other half wants to downsize the fed and its instrusins into our daily lives and restrict its role to those stated in the constitution.
The conservative news sites were birthed by the MSM going full left. So IMO, neither the lib nor the conservative news media caused the polarization.
The New York Times will never become Breitbart.
The thing is, it already has.
To convert this into the love-life metaphor. Breitbart is a hookup who blatantly lets you know there's no hope of a relationship.
Or stated in the inverse: The NYT is Meat Loaf in "Paradise by the Dashboard Light," and you're Ellen Foley.
I used to enjoy skipping the obviously bogus "news" in the NYT and just go to the comments section. It gave me a profound sense of just how demented the typical liberal NYT reader really was. But every once in a while the article was so blatantly BS that even the Times commentors weren't buying it. Those were the real gems.
For some reason they aren't opening up many of their articles for comments anymore. That's the real tipoff. Either that or you have to be a subcriber to see them now.
I think most of us struggle with "what to read". I ran across an interesting blog post a while ago-
It was posted on The New Atlantis, written by Professor and author (How To Read Well in the Age of Distraction) Alan Jacobs:
I have come to believe that it is impossible for anyone who is regularly on social media to have a balanced and accurate understanding of what is happening in the world. To follow a minute-by-minute cycle of news is to be constantly threatened by illusion. So I’m not just staying off Twitter, I’m cutting back on the news sites in my RSS feed, and deleting browser bookmarks to newspapers. Instead, I am turning more of my attention to monthly magazines, quarterly journals, and books. I’m trying to get a somewhat longer view of things — trying to start thinking about issues one when some of the basic facts about them have been sorted out.
(I hope this hyperlink works; preview results in error)
It's very depressing. I don't know where to go for news anymore either. It's all bullshit. All of it. I've started, for the first time in my adult life, tuning out. I cook, read books, crack open my prayer book, meet friends for lunch, travel, take photos, journal, watch The Office on Netflix, play with my kids and let you guys worry about who's wiretapping who and so forth. I don't like it, but it's necessary for my mental health these days.
Ah, but the spell of Bob Dylan...that will be a tougher nut to crack.
Maybe a week at an all-Dylan, all-the-time retreat with die-hard fans?
Maybe you come back with new interests, maybe you're in deeper than ever.
Who knows? It's your life.
David in Cal,
The NYT bias started long before Rush Limbaugh had a radio show.
You have loved the New York Times, and yet you have found reason (rightly, and often brilliantly) to criticize it.
You have loved Meet the Press, and yet you have found it lacking (and I don't blame you, although I try to make a point to watch).
I just don't understand why you don't adopt the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News Sunday. Actually, I sort of do. And it is because, I surmise, your interest in Trump has very little to do with Republican politics and conservative principles. Except insofar as Trump may be changing (I sure hope not) the fabric and foundation of the Republican Party.
"It's a national tragedy that the New York Times decided to model their political news on Rush Limbaugh. "
Problem is NYT does not have the brains to emulate him.
I like what Woody Allen said about the NYTimes:
"It's a New York, Jewish, Communist, left-wing, homosexual newspaper. And that's just the sports section"
The demise of news credibility may have the ultimately beneficial effect of helping us all to enjoy what is left of our all-too-brief existence by, as Misplaced reports, doing real stuff.
Had to turn on the Gonzaga/West Virginia game last night, though. Great game! Go Zags!
And yes the Trump tower was bugged as it was a den of Russian money laundering criminals and foreign agents like Paul Manafort.
3/24/17, 9:25 AM
Ah yes. Comrade roesch/voltaire has received his new talking points du joir. From "No, Obama didn't bug Trump and how DARE Trump make such a ridiculous assertion!" to "Yes, he did because Trump is bad!"
roesch/voltaire is the perfect Times reader. Completely credulous and with the memory of a firefly.
I still want to read something. That could end.
Yep. It ended for me when I canceled subscriptions to the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Sun-Times. A liberating experience that still makes me feel good. I don't read newspapers any more. I don't watch TV news and political talk shows either. Most news is just headlines anyway. I get those when I open my browser in the morning. I then make the rounds of various websites that I have determined, over time, to be reasonably reliable. For specialized analysis of breaking events, which typically do not appear until c. three days or more after an event, I go to other websites whose reliability I have likewise established. Again, most of what we call "news" consists of breaking events, and for that a headline a few lines of copy will suffice. As for feature articles, articles on culture, the arts, fashion, etc. etc., -- that what the Internet does; and it does it far far better than newspapers.
Journalism is bullshit, mostly. Always has been. And journalists are, by definition, full of shit. They started to develop an exalted view of journalism after World War II, a process accelerated by Walter Cronkite's Vietnam War reportage and the Woodward-Berstein Watergate fooferah. After that journalists virtually apotheosized themselves and their profession. In the past journalists -- i.e., "reporters," "newsmen" -- were full of shit but they understood this about themselves and actually cultivated and reveled in their image as hardbitten, hard-drinking, semi-disreputable characters.
Journalism is bullshit, mostly. Always has been. And journalists are, by definition, full of shit. They started to develop an exalted view of journalism after World War II, a process accelerated by Walter Cronkite's Vietnam War reportage and the Woodward-Berstein Watergate fooferah. After that journalists virtually apotheosized themselves and their profession. In the past journalists -- i.e., "reporters," "newsmen" -- were full of shit but they understood this about themselves and actually cultivated and reveled in their image as hardbitten, hard-drinking, semi-disreputable characters.
Very true, roughcoat! One of the main reasons I supported Trump was that he didn't bow and scrape to these self-exalted assholes.
I blame the liberal baby boomers, the sorriest generation destroyed the universities too.
Assigning blame or credit for societal and cultural developments to an entire "generation" is a stupid and intellectually lazy exercise. But if you insist on doing so, you should blame the so-called Silent Generation (which comprises the Greatest Generation and more) for wrecking the universities. College professors born in the 1920s and 30s were chiefly responsible for radicalizing higher education -- and Hollywood, for that matter -- with leftist ideology. I was a college freshmen in 1968 and by then the humanities departments were well on their way to being dominated by leftists. At the three universities I attended between 1968 and 1974 the humanities professoriate at all of those institutions was thoroughly leftist/liberal in its cast. At the time Baby Boomers in were still in their 20s, all of them; none were older than thirty and none were teaching in the universities.
As a few have been consistently pointing out, Althouse has steered into the rhubarb on Trump issues and therefore I think it's unreasonable to expect that the NYT is going to reflect her thinking and priorities on many of these matters. Regardless, Althouse perceives herself as somebody who consumes news critically. Does she think nobody else does that? To use cable news as an example, I choose to watch CNN as the closest thing to factual and intelligent 24 hour news reporting. That doesn't mean I am not constantly parsing and filtering for bias. It doesn't mean I don't noticed when a subject is beaten to death, or some other angle is underplayed. It doesn't mean I don't notice unprofessionalism when it occurs, which it does, often, in this era of Trump. It seems to me that what people are angry about is that any given media source doesn't perfectly customize and cater to THEIR particular bias, like the media has one, but they don't. In short, no, the NYT doesn't need rescue, and neither do the people who read it.
Said somebody who buys CNN's bullshit as close to the truth.
Blogger tim in vermont said...
Said somebody who buys CNN's bullshit as close to the truth.
3/24/17, 11:30 AM
24 hour cable news is a limited and imperfect medium. But in my judgement, yes - of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN I find CNN the most useful baseline. Which takes in, yes, my bias. I'm aware I have one. Can you say the same about your own?
One thing I don't do is belly up to the trough of constant propaganda from any source. Have they found the pony in all of that horse shit about Trump and the Russians yet?
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...
It's very depressing. I don't know where to go for news anymore either. It's all bullshit. All of it. I've started, for the first time in my adult life, tuning out. I cook, read books, crack open my prayer book, meet friends for lunch, travel, take photos, journal, watch The Office on Netflix, play with my kids and let you guys worry about who's wiretapping who and so forth. I don't like it, but it's necessary for my mental health these days.
---------------------------
Ditto.
And it's sad because there are things I want to know, too! But I'm sure not going to find out any of it from my usual news sources.
The good news is, I'm reading more books and listening to Audible while I knit (God bless Irene's memory).
Blogger tim in vermont said...
One thing I don't do is belly up to the trough of constant propaganda from any source. Have they found the pony in all of that horse shit about Trump and the Russians yet?
3/24/17, 11:40 AM
I find CNN's reporting on this currently full of too many of what have been called 'weasel words'. It has the feel of something that people should be talking about less and investigating more. That said, 'horse shit' is definitely premature.
I am sure CNN covered the tens of millions Hillary took from Putin cronies fully.
Blogger tim in vermont said...
I am sure CNN covered the tens of millions Hillary took from Putin cronies fully.
3/24/17, 11:50 AM
I don't remember. Regardless, Hillary has been rejected for her choices as they were understood, at least in an electoral college kind of way. Isn't it more useful to assess current news and coverage?
If they do finally find a pony,I am sure I will hear about it,same as you probably heard on CNN about Hillary using her foundation to pay off political operatives.
The shadows and pay-for-play that hung over the Clinton Foundation was definitely widely covered on CNN.
That is a new one! "Let's ignore past performance because it feels good to pretend I care about the facts all the while... not really."
Keep hope alive about that pony!
HoodlumDoodlum wrote:
"It's half between the lines and half what's not there at all. You have to develop a sense for what the writer is intentionally avoiding."
Well put! That is the right way to read any news reporting, and it is the why of needing to read the news written by people of broadly differing points of view.
I'm not ignoring past performance, I'm saying I don't remember those specifics in any level of detail. I remember only that a general impression was left with me that the foundation was shady and the Clintons self-enriching.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/politics/clinton-foundation-explainer/
LOL, never mentioned Uranium One, never mentioned Sydney Blumenthal getting $10K a month. All covered by the New York Times. Could have been written by Gazprom shareholder John Podesta himself.
But unsubstantiated rumors spread by political operatives that Trump hacked the election by putting out true stuff about Hillary? Well, we have a lot of time to fill!
Snark opines: But in my judgement, yes - of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN I find CNN the most useful baseline.
That's like comparing turds in a toilet bowl.
>>I find CNN the most useful baseline.
So, is Trump really afraid of stairs?
Blogger tim in vermont said...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/politics/clinton-foundation-explainer/
LOL, never mentioned Uranium One, never mentioned Sydney Blumenthal getting $10K a month. All covered by the New York Times. Could have been written by Gazprom shareholder John Podesta himself.
3/24/17, 12:13 PM
That piece is kind of a breezy-ish overview/primer for people looking for general context. The Uranium One allegation was covered here: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/17/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-ties-donald-trump/index.html. Was the Blumenthal 10K per month sourced anywhere other than the Politico story? Point is, whatever CNN reported on this general issue, they managed to leave me with the sense that the foundation was shady and the Clintons self-enriching.
Blogger DanTheMan said...
>>I find CNN the most useful baseline.
So, is Trump really afraid of stairs?
3/24/17, 12:35 PM
Not sure. Does it matter if he is? Does it matter if he isn't?
@ Snark
So your saying your baseline is CNN, which reports things that don't matter? And you're the pro-CNN commenter? Interesting! I hope you're not in sales.
Jeanne Moos' whole gig is off-beat, quirky pieces. Off beat, quirky pieces are not really meant to matter. She wondered why President Trump looks at his feet all the time when he's descending airplane stairs. Mildly interesting observation, doesn't really matter. Certainly doesn't rate the time or weight it's been given by people who are looking something to be annoyed at.
"So your saying your baseline is CNN..."
You're.
@ Snark
That would be true if the show was devoted to icanhazcheeseburger cats and water skiing squirrels. That would potentially be true if the same show had treated Obama similarly.
As it is, you're not a very good salesman.
@ 55
Grate contribution.
roesch/voltaire:
I now subscribe to the NYT as a form of resistance in the Trump era of alternative facts.
That is a howler, given your own proclivity for alternate facts.
roesch/voltaire: While the students at Middlebury College were terrible wrong, it is a bit of an exaggeration to say this doesn't happen on the right. given that colleges like Hillsdale for instance do not list any left speakers in their series.
My reply: (linked sources at the link):You really need to get out more.Bernie Sanders speaks at Liberty University:
The Vermont democratic socialist and the conservative Southern evangelical university were both on their best behavior Monday as worlds collided and both sides attempted to find common ground.
From God and Man at Hillsdale.
The list of past speakers reads like a history of the modern American Right.. From time to time, a liberal dares to show up–Ralph Nader, Michael Kinsley, and Duke University professor Stanley Fish, who, after two trips to Hillsdale events, says he delights in playing "designated scapegoat."
You should not make claims you cannot back up: "given that colleges like Hillsdale for instance do not list any left speakers in their series." Right wingers Ralph Nader, Michael Kinsley and Stanley Fish. Yup
Alternate facts, indeed.
Just poking you Birkel.
>>Not sure. Does it matter if he is? Does it matter if he isn't?
But this was the headline feature on CNN a few days back, along with a half-page picture of Trump walking down (running away from?) stairs.
Clearly, this was the most important question of the day. At least on Planet CNN.
Blogger Birkel said...
@ Snark
That would be true if the show was devoted to icanhazcheeseburger cats and water skiing squirrels. That would potentially be true if the same show had treated Obama similarly.
As it is, you're not a very good salesman.
3/24/17, 1:29 PM
President Obama didn't treat stairs similarly. Not that it matters.
I'm not selling anything, except the idea that it's not very reasonable to expect every source of information to perfectly match your own biases and your own preferences for focus. Neither is it very reasonable to think that people need to be rescued from the terrible media when intelligent people are perfectly capable of parsing the strengths and weaknesses of any source or story, particularly when many are taken together, if they make it a regular part of their media consumption habits to do so.
@ 55
Your just bean an ass whole.
@ Snark
I'm quite sure I won't bother unpacking all the ridiculous assumptions you managed to include in that paragraph. But with that many strawmen around, I'm sure you'll be able to stay nice and toasty through many a winter.
"Hillary has been rejected for her choices as they were understood, at least in an electoral college kind of way. Isn't it more useful to assess current news and coverage?"
Oh I don't know. Trump has been accepted for his choices as they were understood, at least in an electoral college kind of way. Isn't it more useful to assess current news and coverage?
You can't move on from one without moving on from the other, although CNN seems damned determined to try.
>>President Obama didn't treat stairs similarly
I'd forgotten: O was the Gold Standard for everything, even how to walk on stairs.
No need to report me. I will wash my own brain, and then drive myself to the Re-education Center.
On a road I didn't build.
I like that Althouse reads and blogs about the New York times. I like reading about a strange, unreal world, that I'll never understand.
rcocean claims: I like that Althouse reads and blogs about the New York times. I like reading about a strange, unreal world, that I'll never understand.
Kinda like science fiction. Without the science.
"President Obama didn't treat stairs similarly."
As I recall, Barry had some difficulty with umbrellas.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef013486a73dbf970c-500wi
Post a Comment