The Globe and Mail editorial headline in all seriousness today: “Donald Trump isn’t a secret Russian agent. He’s just a (very) bad president.”
Well that’s (very) odd. They’ve virtually been instructing us as to the Trump is a Russian secret agent stuff for two years. Now this? So he’s not a spy, but don’t you never mind, in utterly unrelated news, he’s still crap, so there’s that…
The mainstream news media, being aces, always comes up smelling like roses.
“The President hardly comes up smelling of roses, but the truth is that, at the end of the day, the Trump administration largely co-operated with the Mueller inquiry. There does not appear to be a criminal case here.”
No, the Mueller report specifies exactly and in precise language that there is no criminal case here. It’s not merely that there doesn’t “appear,” in your highly self-esteemed estimation, to be no criminal case. Mueller did all the esteeming for you. Like almost all liberal news media (and liberals, for that matter), the Globe and Mail editors appear to believe they are our betters, and they alone can comprehend words, or facts. They would have us understand they learned these things by themselves by conducting their own inquiries and investigations, then discussing them and forming a qualified, unbiased judgment, which can then be dumbed-down and explained to us dumb-asses, which we are to consume unquestioningly.
They think they’re fooling us I guess, because the media say all this in their editorials after joining nearly all other western news media for the past two years in almost literally calling Donald Trump a Russian spy. The glibness is astonishing. But they don’t fret that leading us down the garden path for the past two years is over yet. No they haven’t given up the ghost yet. They’re still trying to bring him down with gratuitous, smug — and rather un-self-aware — remarks like “he’s just a (very) bad president,” which is what we call moving the goalposts. And tawdry attacks like this would be de rigueur in any liberal or hard left pundit’s personal blog, but this is the supposedly serious Globe and Mail:
“His inner circle looks like a scene from a better-dressed version of The Sopranos.”
Sort of an ad hominem and a lashing out — just like children do — only this is actually just (very) bad. (And what makes them “better dressed?” That they’re “rich Republicans™?”)
But hey, now do Justin Trudeau. You want to talk rich? No? OK, how about obstruction of justice? Good. Lets. Start with the still active, and entirely credible allegations of Trudeau and his Liberal Party team’s (and civil servants’) obstruction of justice. If there’s still time (because there’s a lot to cover there — a lot more than you have covered), segue into his myriad lies. Slide into his moronic gender equality obsessions. Edge into his nonsensical excessive “carbon” obsessions. Move on to his incessant preening. Then do his non-stop virtue-signaling while actually doing utterly nothing whatsoever. Move right into his possibly illegal and certainly freedom of thought and freedom of conscience-abusing crusade against those who are pro-life, and his being so totalitarian or authoritarian on that issue and others. Mention his asinine sock fetsih and analyse what that means (just like you psychoanalyse Trump), his obsession with selfies, his self-absorption, his constant “um” and “uh” 80 times per breathily-spoken paragraph, and don’t forget to mention his incessant, stupidly banal word-salad comments generally speaking, repeatedly made to a morbidly kiss-ass press.
Maybe take a look at your own reporting, and get real about Trudeau’s inner circle and circle of friends, and at the obvious Liberal-created Ottawa deep state. If you want to find the Sopranos, that’s where you’ll find them. Lots of dumb and (very) bad people there, although, as I’m sure you’d report, they wear real neat socks, making them “better dressed” than even Trump’s inner circle.
By the way: ever say anything smug and tawdry like that about the Cuban communists running that failed state? Or Venezuela? How about China? How about the Islamic Republic of Iran? How about discussing the Islamist terrorists running the Gaza Strip? Are they (very) bad? No? Why not? Because it’s not very diplomatic? Not very “serious journalism”-y?
Yeah no, these days, for the ever-so progressive western media, it’s always, and only, Trump, who is bad, or evil, or stupid, or all three, and they don’t care how they come off in order to tell you. And it’s not merely because we’re superior Canadians and he’s but a lowly American (they all are of a lower class than us, apparently), although that counts for a lot in Canada. It’s because he’s Republican. Bush was also stupid, if you recall. Both of them. Reagan too. You think Trump is the only racist? No, remember your media reading. Mitt Romney was a racist who Joe Biden said was going to put black people back into chains, and the media went along with it without denouncing Biden, but rather Romney. John McCain was “obviously too old,” according to much of the liberal media, but never mind that Biden and your pet Bernie Sanders are way older. Saying something negative about Kamala Harris is “sexist,” but bash the crap out of Sarah Palin and ruin her life and that of her family, and it’s a Pulitzer for you.
Obama was actually a terrible, (very) bad president, who lied, had terrible policies, gave Iran a wooden pallet with $1.8 BILLION in cash, covered for the Benghazi disaster, issued executive orders knowing they were unconstitutional, and rather than boosting it up, constantly apologized for America and steered America toward a place of global shame and weakness. “Russian meddling” happened under his watch. He was president. And we don’t even know the half of it, nor, speaking of Russians, that of his dealings with the Clintons. Hopefully, with the help of the Globe and Mail and other liberal media, we’ll find out someday. But I almost never read a negative word about Obama or Clinton in mainstream and what is, as always, a clearly biased anti-Trump, liberal media.