The Trump Presidency

Why do you expect NYT for instance to cower to Trump ?

They report what he says and does.

Or would you rather thdy take dictation ?
 
If Trump is a fascist what does that say about Hillary Clinton. She lost to Hitler and thats apparently everyones fault but Hillary Clintons.
 
Why do you expect NYT for instance to cower to Trump ?

They report what he says and does.
Or would you rather thdy take dictation ?

This has nothing to do with the NYT 'cowering' to Trump.

I'm talking about a simple acknowledgement that the paper pushes a particular ideology beyond the confines of its op-ed page.
 
The trump administration has not once tried to restrict free speech or any freedom for American citizens.

It's kind of a giggle to see how consumers of right wing media are now full-throated champions of "free speech," while simultaneously kinda misunderstanding what free speech is.

You're saying that the campus shenanigans by some black-bloc-ers and anarchists are more representative of the (derp) left than, for example, the literal millions of people who have marched nationwide without conflict or violence in the last couple of weeks.

Fascim. Grow up.
 
It's kind of a giggle to see how consumers of right wing media are now full-throated champions of "free speech," while simultaneously kinda misunderstanding what free speech is.

You're saying that the campus shenanigans by some black-bloc-ers and anarchists are more representative of the (derp) left than, for example, the literal millions of people who have marched nationwide without conflict or violence in the last couple of weeks.

Fascim. Grow up.

It's much more than that. These violent protests are a manifestation of the rhetoric and ideology the left has rolled out for the last 30 years. You can deny it all you want but they used their bully pulpit to make their ideological constituency rationalize why it's OK to call anyone a racist and all other ridiculous phobe's just because someone would have these audacity to ever think any other way of thinking was right other than theirs.

So while you focus on the riots of the last few weeks ill point to the strategy which has been purposely pushed for decades
 
Looks like soros did back the Berkeley riots.

A group Soros has donated to helped organize an event to protest Milo --a person they obviously oppose-- speaking there. Let's back up on the Soros starting riots bull****.
 
A group Soros has donated to helped organize an event to protest Milo --a person they obviously oppose-- speaking there. Let's back up on the Soros starting riots bull****.

Funding is just the same. I'm sure he just gives moneyaway and has no further involvement. That makes sense.
 
ANd of course this comes on the heals of the DNC getting caught red handed paying people to cause disturbances at Trump ralley. I'm sure the wealthy globalists have decided to stop getting involved with their agenda.
 
Funding is just the same. I'm sure he just gives moneyaway and has no further involvement. That makes sense.

I don't see the inconsistency in a rich person donating to a group with the same core beliefs as that rich person. Likewise, I don't see how there's anything noteworthy about a group that dislikes Trump and Milo protesting a speech being made by Milo. There's no logical jump to Soros started a riot here.
 
That's a good point. Kinda tangential to what I'm talking about, though, which is people spinning some combination of poor discipline, poor character, and poor leadership into the idea that the man at the helm is a chessboxing black-belt who's employing some brilliant negotiation strategy.

I would add poor information and poor advisors.
 
A group Soros has donated to helped organize an event to protest Milo --a person they obviously oppose-- speaking there. Let's back up on the Soros starting riots bull****.

I think it was even one degree of separation removed from that.

Thethe. Come on, man.
 
Back
Top