United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Destroying Donald Trump is all that matters in the newsrooms of the mainstream media
Source:
The Washington times
URL Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news ... rump-all-that-matters-to-some/
Published: May 19, 2017
Author: Wes Pruden
Post Date: 2017-05-19 15:07:15 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 5604
Comments: 17
Destroying Donald Trump is all that matters in the newsrooms of the mainstream media By Wesley Pruden The Washington Times Thursday, May 18, 2017 ANALYSIS/OPINION: Now anything goes. All restraints are loosened, all self-discipline trashed. There’s no cure or even treatment for Trump Derangement Syndrome, a disease as wild and as swiftly lethal as anything imported from the Ebola River valley of the dark continent. The rules and taboos that once guided even the sleaziest excuse for a newspaper no longer apply. Destroying Donald Trump is all that matters in the newsrooms of the mainstream media, so called, and by any means necessary. Rarely have so many hysterics contributed so much of the national conversation. A columnist in The New York Times, ground zero in the epidemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome, suggests that a mutiny at the White House is the “more appropriate” way to rid the nation of the legitimate 46th duly elected president of the United States. Why waste time on impeachment? Mike Pence, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell could organize the ambush. The columnist likens them to “stewards for a syphilitic emperor.” Ross Douthat is regarded as a “conservative” at The New York Times, and he thinks impeachment would take too long, be too messy, and recommends invoking the Twenty-fifth Amendment, which permits the president’s Cabinet to remove the president if a majority of the secretaries tells Congress that the president can no longer perform his duties. Ultimately, he writes in the newspaper once known as “the old gray lady” and which has become “the old crazy lady,” he does not believe “our president sufficiently understands the nature of the office he holds, the nature of the legal constraints that are supposed to bind him, perhaps even the nature of normal human interactions, to be guilty of obstruction of justice in the Nixonian or even Clintonian sense of the phrase.” A half-century ago a certain magazine thought a long-distance psychiatric examination of a presidential candidate was in order, and asked 12,000 psychiatrists (who knew there were so many headshrinkers on the fruited plain?) whether they thought Barry Goldwater was crazy, and 1,189 responded with a diagnosis: Mr. Goldwater, the Republican nominee for president in 1964, was nothing less than nuts. The American Psychiatric Association, sensitive to the public outrage that followed, told their members never to do it again. But since the psychiatrists wouldn’t do it, Ross Douthat was fitted out with degrees in medicine and psychiatry (honorary degrees, we must hope), and told to get to work. (He is expected to retire his shingle once President Trump has been dispatched to the nut house, but who knows? On the Upper East Side there’s never enough psychiatrists.) Dr. Douthat writes that the president has no aides, friends and confidantes who have any remaining regard for him. “They have no respect for him, indeed they seem to palpate with contempt for him, and to regard their mission as equivalent to being stewards for a syphilitic emperor.” Since impeachment would take so long, Dr. Douthat would “respectfully ask Mike Pence and Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to reconsider their support for a man who never should have had his party’s nomination, never should have been elevated to this office, never should have been endorsed and propped up and defended by people who understood his unfitness all along.” It’s hard to imagine anything more calculated to invoke a Second Amendment answer to such a Twenty-fifth Amendment coup, and it would be nothing less than a coup by the Republican elites and the press that so many Americans believe have “rigged” the elections meant to express the nation’s will. You don’t have to be a Trump friend, supporter or voter to see where this would inevitably lead. The United States has never been a banana republic or a third world dump where elections are ultimately determined in the streets, but this would be the ultimate national indignity, wrought by just those who would go to civil war to depose an indignity. The two stories that have dominated the news this week were the work of the very two newspapers, The Washington Post and The New York Times, that have become the not-so-loyal opposition, drivers of the coup with tales told in every edition. The Post accuses the president of dispensing national secrets to the Russians, based on the word of an anonymous source who concedes he wasn’t in the meeting, and denied by those who were. The New York Times says it heard a passage read from a memo written by James Comey, telling how the president asked him go easy on Mike Flynn, and denied by the White House. All this to support tales of Trump campaign collusion with the Russians, which Democrats and Republicans agree that no one has yet found any evidence of. There’s no fire and only a few wisps of something that might be smoke, or more likely, the passing of partisan gas. • Wesley Pruden is editor in chief emeritus of The Times.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
#3. To: nolu chan, Trump cultists (#0)
(Edited)
calculated to invoke a Second Amendment answer Emeritus = Retired, over the hill neocon NWO globalist bushbot... Locked and loaded!
Bushbots are utterly opposed to Trump and conservatism. Neocons emanated from NYC socialists. Locked and loaded Ready, fire, aim.
Kushner, Wahab, Bannon
[nc] Neocons emanated from NYC socialists. [hondo 68] Great photo of Stephen Bannon sitting next to the grandson of Mohamed Bin Abdul Wahab. Kushner and Bannon sat next to somebody's grandson. That is powerful evidence that there was an occasion where they sat in very near proximity to somebody's grandson. Roosevelt and Churchill sat next to Joseph Stalin. As for the intellectual influences of neo-conservatism, the historical evidence is just a tad more specific. https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoconservatism [excerpt] Among their intellectual ancestors neoconservatives count the ancient Greek historian Thucydides for his unblinking realism in military matters and his skepticism toward democracy, as well as Alexis de Tocqueville, the French author of Democracy in America (1835–40), who described and analyzed both the bright and the bad sides of democracy in the United States. More recent influences include the German-born American political philosopher Leo Strauss and several of his students, such as Allan Bloom; Bloom’s student Francis Fukuyama; and a small band of intellectuals who in their youth were anti-Stalinist communists (specifically Trotskyites) before becoming liberals disillusioned with liberalism. The latter include Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, and Norman Podhoretz, among others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky
Ok,I wuz wid ya,right up to the point you typed the name "Roosevelt",and shot yourself in the foot. Roosevelt ADMIRED Stalin. Churchill,on the other hand,would have cheerfully set Stalin on fire and used the fire to light a fine cigar. Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher were the two best things that ever happened to England.
Roosevelt ADMIRED Stalin. Churchill,on the other hand,would have cheerfully set Stalin on fire and used the fire to light a fine cigar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin sat next to one another at the Yalta Conference in 1945 as pictured at above link. As you point out, Roosevelt and Churchill held very different opinions of Stalin. Sitting next to Stalin did not make Churchill a communist. Sitting next to Churchill did not makle FDR a conservative. Such a photo is meaningless. And that was THE Joseph Stalin, not his grandson. The photo of Bannon and Kushner next to the grandson of Mohamed Bin Abdul Wahab is less meaningful than someone in a picture sitting next to someone three degrees removed from Kevin Bacon.
I agree,and it's not like Mohamed Bin Abdul Wahab was a terrorist on the order of someone in the Bush or Clinton Crime Families.
The picture showing Mohamed Bin Abdul Wahab, somebody's grandson, sitting next to two upstanding, conservative Americans of Christian or Jewish faith, proves 2-1 that Wahab is an upstanding, Republican-leaning conservative of Christian or Jewish faith.
Damning with faint praises,or praising with faint damns?
There are no replies to Comment # 17. End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest• Wesley Pruden is editor in chief emeritus of The Times.
#8. To: hondo68 (#3)
Retired, over the hill neocon NWO globalist bushbot...
#9. To: nolu chan, Mohamed Bin Abdul Wahab, Wahabi Trumpkin family, *Arab Spring Jihad* (#8)
Neocons emanated from NYC socialists.
Great photo of Stephen Bannon sitting next to the grandson of Mohamed Bin Abdul Wahab. (The founder of whhabism)
https://twitter.com/Lamia_of_Arabia
#10. To: hondo68 (#9)
Intellectual influences
Leon Trotsky, born Lev Davidovich Bronstein; 7 November [O.S. 26 October] 1879 – 21 August 1940) was a Marxist revolutionary and theorist, and a Soviet politician who engineered the transfer of all political power to the Soviets. Trotsky initially supported the Menshevik Internationalists faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. He joined the Bolsheviks just before the 1917 October Revolution, and immediately became a leader within the Communist Party.
#12. To: nolu chan (#10)
Kushner and Bannon sat next to somebody's grandson. That is powerful evidence that there was an occasion where they sat in very near proximity to somebody's grandson. Roosevelt and Churchill sat next to Joseph Stalin.
#13. To: sneakypete (#12)
Ok,I wuz wid ya,right up to the point you typed the name "Roosevelt",and shot yourself in the foot.
#15. To: nolu chan (#13)
The photo of Bannon and Kushner next to the grandson of Mohamed Bin Abdul Wahab is less meaningful than someone in a picture sitting next to someone three degrees removed from Kevin Bacon.
#16. To: sneakypete (#15)
Mohamed Bin Abdul Wahab
#17. To: nolu chan (#16)
The picture showing Mohamed Bin Abdul Wahab, somebody's grandson, sitting next to two upstanding, conservative Americans of Christian or Jewish faith, proves 2-1 that Wahab is an upstanding, Republican-leaning conservative of Christian or Jewish faith.
Replies to Comment # 17.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]