President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

This Roy Moore story really does sicken me.

But, there are a couple of ideas that have been brewing the last couple of days that astound me.

First of, the idea that Republicans -- and only Republicans, the one true religious party, or whatever he likes to call it -- are hypocrites on matters of morality is ridiculous.

Hollywood gave Roman Polanski awards despite his history, and Whoopi Goldberg said that what he did wasn't "rape, rape."

I have no idea how she wasn't drummed out of polite society the next day.

Barbara Walters was offended when Corey Feldman made his accusations, and acted like Roger Goodell "defending the shield".

Bill Clinton was re-elected even after we knew who he was, and the Dems nominated his chief enabler as their Presidential candidate in just this last cycle. Bill is still a star in the party, and not someone people are looking to disassociate themselves from.

The idea that FOX News watching drones live in a bigger bubble, and view their political rivals as evil, as opposed to democrats is laughable.

And, lets look at Johnstown, PA. These people are Trump voting racists, who we should pity at best. But, until 2016, they were what we called Democrats. They were Joe Biden's best friends, the folks Regular Joe could connect with, and who Pennsylvania's "third senator" was called on to go court every election cycle. They were the hard scrabble, white working class that Chris Matthews identified with, and loved.

Only now, when they've voted for Donald Trump have we realized what racists they are, and always have been.

And, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the media's failings and fake accusations made in just the last several days.

There was the claim that he didn't know that Japanese car manufacturers made cars in the good old US of A, when a full reading of what he said made clear that he did.

There was the accusation that he was a buffoonish vulgarian, who couldn't feed Koi fish as nimbly as Obama had, or as the Japanese Prime Minister did, when the video shows him following the Prime Minister's actions.

And there was outrage that, unlike Obama, Trump had backed down to Chinese pressure, and agreed to not take questions from the press during his joint appearance with the Chinese Premier. I read -- from Obama officials no less -- how the Obama team faced the same pressure from the Chinese, but pushed back against it, and won, because Obama was string, and brave, and wanted to show the Chinese people how much we value a free press.

Of course, it turns out that Obama and the Chinese Premier did not take questions from the media during Obama's first trip to China, during their appearance together.

 

Yes. This is a good assessment of the differences between the papers.

The Times is a national paper. The Post really isn't, but it covers national political news because of where it's located, and because it decided to allocate resources there to compete with Politico and others.

 

Not just national political news, but nuts and bolts coverage of the federal government, with attention to issues of interest only to the bureaucracy. After all, bureaucrats are a major part of their subscriber base.

 

He won't withdraw. He is utterly shameless, and he's got his eye on the perks involved in being a crucial vote in the Senate. Moreover, the state party is defending him and claiming that the attack is purely politically motivated. Look at the timing! Liberal media! To which my reply is "You have not read the article, have you? Go read it, look at the level of detail, the thirty people they interviewed including all the women who went on the record and think for yourself. Don't base this decision on what someone's telling you."

 

You are responding to an imaginary post.

In fact, we expressly talked about how urban liberals live in a bubble, too.

Find those posts yet of people laughing at you about Biden being the nominee?

 

My problem with the Times isn't that it isn't as comprehensive as the Post about politics.

It's that it fucks up political stories.

 

One more thing about the Post. It has by far the largest comics section of any American newspaper, and has since I first read it as a kid at my grandmother's DC home. This was and is because God forbid what would happen to the government if Congressman X from East Nowhere or East New York couldn't keep up with Dick Tracy.

 

There's a whole lot of "fair enough" to be said back to this post.

 

Times also buried (to the extent one can do so while still putting it on the front page) the Moore story, too.

I’d rank it behind the Post AND the Journal these days. Times too often slips into its news reports opinions treated as fact (I’m sure they’d call it “analysis”*), writes incredibly slanted feature stories, and just in general panders way too much to its readers. And I think it’s going to get worse and worse as it relies more and more on its subscribers for revenue.

 

The bolded is something I have a huge problem with and I get slammed here, typically, when bringing it up.

Despite ongoing rebukes over his defense of white supremacists, President Trump defiantly returned to his campaign’s nativist themes on Thursday.

 

I think this is true.

The Times also tends to shy away from stories that aren't "theirs".

If some big story is broken by another outlet, the Times won't cover it much unless and until they can add something significant to the story.

Now, I appreciate the original reporting, and the reluctance to just report what others are reporting,, but on some level, you've got to be writing about the big news story of the day/cycle.

 

So, is this a longstanding tradition of the Times, or is it a conscious decision to be tough on Trump?