The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread

JULY 8, 2018
Sunday Schadenfreude: New York Times warns its readers
By Thomas Lifson
In an article that could alternatively be titled, “Boy, are we ever screwed,” Carl Hulse informs New York Times readers that red state Senate Democrats face a “terrible vote” over confirmation of the coming Supreme Court nominee of President Trump, which it calls “an agonizing choice.” In other words, President Trump has the Democratic Party right where he wants it, though the Times would never, ever, credit him for outmaneuvering liberals.

Example:

A decision by one or all of them to try to bolster their standing with Republican-leaning voters in their states by backing the president’s nominee would undermine Democratic leaders as they try to sustain party unity. And if their votes put the president’s choice on the court, it could hasten the move to the left by the party’s aggressive activist core, while intensifying the clamor for new, more confrontational leadership.

206243_5_.jpg
Note the clear implication that “the party’s aggressive activist core” demanding “new, more confrontational leadership” would be a problem. Certainly, it could be a problem for Chuck Schumer, though the Times won’t come out and say so. And, it would be a problem with voters, too. But again, the Times doesn’t out and admit that there is anything wrong with the crazy left. It’s just all left to implication:

But if they hold together on a “no” vote, those senators could not only surrender their own seats, but by expanding the Republican majority, they could also narrow the path of Democrats to a Senate majority for years to come by ceding those states to Republicans.

If, like me, you are a connoisseur of leftist hand-wringing and inability to fathom how they find themselves accountable to voters, yet stuck with a crazy base that will punish them for reflecting the values of their constituents, then this little article will bring a smile to your face.
 
It appears you are squirming away from admitting you support Mr. Selyem's actions and sentiments. Am I reading that wrong?
It appears you're wrong once again Magoo...you make way to many assumptions E...
The man erased shit from his email, I only pointed out that Hillary did the same thing. She got away with it, perhaps he will too.
That's all, I don't know the guy, don't know what he said. Don't really care.Where's daffy at? Shouldn't he be citing the 1st Amendment?
 
It appears you're wrong once again Magoo...you make way to many assumptions E...
The man erased shit from his email, I only pointed out that Hillary did the same thing. She got away with it, perhaps he will too.
That's all, I don't know the guy, don't know what he said. Don't really care.Where's daffy at? Shouldn't he be citing the 1st Amendment?

The First Amendment protects one from prior censorship (most of the time). There is no guarantee of protection from consequences.
 
Why then do you attempt to say their actions have absolved others of future sins?
I don't say that. I didn't say that. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy on the left.
The left wing progressives say it and allow like minded progressives to practice it.
"He only lied about sex". " She only erased 30,000 "personal" emails, that by the way, were ender subpoena".
8900o children separated from their parents at the border. Hardly a peep.
1900 children separated from their parents at the border. Outrage & disgust.
Harry Reid changing Senate rules to allow a simple majority to confirm federal judges. Hardly a peep.
Now, using Reid's rule change, the Republican's are going to confirm SCOTUS appointees the same way. Outrage and disgust.
What goes around comes around. Unfortunately, you apparently don't get it.
Go for a bike ride duck, might do you well.
 
Back
Top