The LA Times' Scathing Attack on Donald Trump

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

The LA Times' Scathing Attack on Donald Trump

Post by Ad Orientem » Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:57 am

I don't believe I have ever read such a blistering indictment of a sitting president from a respected organ of the mainstream press/media. Certainly not one written in my lifetime.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-o ... president/
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: The LA Times' Scathing Attack on Donald Trump

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Apr 02, 2017 11:47 am

Ad Orientem wrote:I don't believe I have ever read such a blistering indictment of a sitting president from a respected organ of the mainstream press/media. Certainly not one written in my lifetime.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-o ... president/
I'm sure they wrote a blistering indictment of the previous President for his outrageous lies, e.g., "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period!"

Right?

By the way, exactly who respects the lamestream media these days? I guess those who have been living in a cave for the last year or two...
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The LA Times' Scathing Attack on Donald Trump

Post by Pointedstick » Sun Apr 02, 2017 2:22 pm

I read the article but wasn't too impressed.

Leading with simple left-wing criticisms of his policies were a mistake, since they leave the authors open to the charge of political bias (which would be true). The criticism of his personality is largely on point, but weakened by the fact that they've so obviously hampered Trump in his two short months. Instead of wielding "unimaginable power," Trump has been totally ineffective and gotten almost nothing done.

Next, the LA Times commits the same error that Trump himself does: by considering the Presidency as a kind of king-lite, as opposed to the powerless figurehead celebrity position it really is. They do the same thing again when they consider his rhetoric instead of his actions. Though Trump has indeed challenged the legitimacy of individuals and institutions in the government, his actions havs so far been to generally follow the law and the courts. He has abided by the decisions of judges who have blocked his executive orders, and nominated people before the Senate, accepting their role in the process. Actions speak louder than words.

Overall, the LA Times editorial board takes more issue with Trump the totemic symbol than they do Trump the president. And I can sympathize: Trump's persona and words constitute a kind of anti-left that is currently driving Democrats mildly insane. This is a real and worrying phenomenon, no matter how cathartic is may be to those on the right. But let's face it: Trump is no megalomaniacal dictator. Rather, he's a naive, inexperienced, ineffective president who's not so great at rallying the troops or cutting deals with his enemies, instead inviting total obstructionism and resorting to weak and impermanent executive actions instead of doinbg the hard work of wrangling Congress.

Sound familiar? It's what we were all saying about Obama.
User avatar
craigr
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2540
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:26 pm

Re: The LA Times' Scathing Attack on Donald Trump

Post by craigr » Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:35 pm

I didn't know the LA Times was still in business.

When hasn't the MSM been saying these things about Trump?

Although I am a bit disappointed that he went after healthcare. I think he did it just to hang a noose around Ryan's neck which happened with aplomb. Ryan is neutered now and Obamacare will continue its completely planned downward trajectory as scheduled. Out of the ashes will probably be some kind of single payer system which was the intention the entire time.

However a single payer system can not work in a country with wide open borders and a penchant for bringing in charity cases without regard to how much they cost taxpayers.

Which brings me to my next point that behind the scenes more immigration enforcement is happening. People are getting distracted by shiny objects the media gets wound up about, but there is progress.

However, it's not bold enough and I do fault Trump for not acting more decisively so far.

I'm also extremely concerned he is going to get us into Syria after the bogus gas attack propaganda came out today. I hope he remembers what he said back in 2013 about the place and gets us the hell out of there, and Iraq, and Afghanistan.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: The LA Times' Scathing Attack on Donald Trump

Post by Mountaineer » Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:52 am

craigr wrote:I didn't know the LA Times was still in business.

When hasn't the MSM been saying these things about Trump? <snip>
1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.
4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand The New York Times.
5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could find the time and if they didn't have to leave Southern California to do it.
6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country.
7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who is running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
9. The Chicago Tribune is read by people that are in prison that used to run the state, & would like to do so again, as would their constituents that are currently free on bail.
10. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.
11. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure if there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are gay, handicapped, minority, feminist, atheists, and those who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy, provided of course, that they are not Republicans.
12. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
13. The Seattle Times is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: The LA Times' Scathing Attack on Donald Trump

Post by Ad Orientem » Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:24 am

Mountaineer wrote:
craigr wrote:I didn't know the LA Times was still in business.

When hasn't the MSM been saying these things about Trump? <snip>
1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.
4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand The New York Times.
5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could find the time and if they didn't have to leave Southern California to do it.
6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country.
7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who is running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
9. The Chicago Tribune is read by people that are in prison that used to run the state, & would like to do so again, as would their constituents that are currently free on bail.
10. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.
11. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure if there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are gay, handicapped, minority, feminist, atheists, and those who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy, provided of course, that they are not Republicans.
12. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
13. The Seattle Times is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.
OK. that was funny.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: The LA Times' Scathing Attack on Donald Trump

Post by dualstow » Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:56 am

A friend sent me that LA Times opinion piece. I guess I'll have to read it now.

More on Mountaineer's list - http://www.friesian.com/newspapr.htm
...
In response to this page, Gary O'Brien sent this British version of the list, whose provenance he identifies as from a December 1987 episode of the BBC series "Yes, Prime Minister." Link below.

Unfortunately, I understand that the Sun has now discontinued its traditional topless "Page Three" girls. I don't know what the world is coming to.

The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country.
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country.
The Times is read by people who actually do run the country.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country.
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is run by another country.
The Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
I don't know what the friesian is, but I'm a huge Yes, Minister fan.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: The LA Times' Scathing Attack on Donald Trump

Post by Mountaineer » Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:14 pm

Desert wrote:Great list, Mountaineer! Now if we can figure out a good line for Breitbart and Infowars.

Trump likes the National Enquirer. It was his source for a couple crazy stories during the campaign. The National Enquirer's readers are also big Trump supporters:
An army of crazed monkeys. John Belushi’s drug dealer. Lee Harvey Oswald’s autopsy photo. The contents of Henry Kissinger’s trash cans. A woman who used her son’s face as an ashtray.
The presidential candidacy of Donald Trump.
Over the years, an array of jaw-dropping oddities has drawn readers to the National Enquirer, the supermarket tabloid that pioneered the paying of sources and subjects for salacious scoops. Now it is the real estate developer’s turn on top.
“Our readers have a great affection and fondness for Donald Trump,” editor-in-chief Dylan Howard said in a recent interview. “It’s a readership that is disenfranchised. They do not like the political establishment. They see Donald Trump as someone who will champion their cause, just like the National Enquirer has championed their cause for many decades.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016 ... -enquirer/
Hey Desert, I guess you do not respect the Men in Black? ;) ;) ;)
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: The LA Times' Scathing Attack on Donald Trump

Post by Mountaineer » Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:19 pm

Ad Orientem wrote:
OK. that was funny.
Agreed, but not my original. I'm not that creative. :)
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Post Reply