The Fucking NY Times is at it again...

They seem to really want to destroy Biden and welcome a Trump election in the fall. It's a fucking shame.

I swear that they are so fucking blinkered because Biden won’t sit down and AG Sulzberger’s fee-fees are hurt. Perhaps that is why they have this fucking shitty lineup of fuckwad Opinion writers being shit with feet.

First up … Ezra Klein

Uh, look, it’s our favorite twat-waffle being … well a waste of skin.

This week, the Biden team appeared to shake up the race by challenging Trump to two debates. One will take place early, on June 27. The other will be in September. Biden’s video was full of bluster. “Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020,” he said. “Since then, he hasn’t shown up for a debate. Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I’ll even do it twice.”

Biden, it seemed, was calling Trump’s bluff. He wanted the fight. But Biden wants fewer debates, not more. On the same day, he pulled out of the three debates scheduled by the Commission on Presidential Debates for September and October. He rebuffed the Trump campaign’s call for four debates. “I’ll even do it twice” is misdirection. He’ll only do it twice.

This is bad precedent and questionable politics. Debates do more to focus and inform the public than anything else during the campaign. Biden is cutting the number of debates by a third and he’s making it easier for future candidates to abandon debates altogether.

Yeah, this is some fucked up shit right there. I won’t bore you with the deets, but if you want to read the cringe yourself, have at it here, I won’t bother with more pull-quotes, because fuck that guy…

Next up, it is the return of the tone-deaf culture warrior, David French, writing from his bunker in Tennessee:

Gee, I guess he really gets his panties in a wad about the seamy trial, let’s see what got his jimmies in a bunch…

I can’t remember when I’ve been more disturbed by a criminal trial than I have been by the Manhattan trial of Donald Trump. The prosecutors are painting a vivid picture of Trump as a vile and dishonest person, and the daily pilgrimages of Republican politicians to the Manhattan courthouse, in spite of horrific testimony against Trump, demonstrates that the party has a broken soul.

At the same time, the underlying legal theory supporting the prosecution’s case remains dubious. The facts may be clear, but the law is anything but — and that could very well mean that the jury convicts Trump before the election, an appeals court reverses the conviction after the election, and millions of Americans, many of them non-MAGA, face yet another crisis of confidence in American institutions.

Oh, it’s because it is a novel application of two clear cut laws. So, he thinks we should just sweep this under the carpet and let the voters decide?

David French, you should just shut the fuck up.

If you want to read the article, find it here. Fortunately, the comments were having none of his bullshit. There are still plenty of good people who read the Times…

Which brings me to the other Affirmative Action hire (diversity hire?) at the Times, the homunculi that is Ross Douthat. I swear the man is a walking shit-take.

Akin to the bad take by French, Ross argues that the spectacle that is the Election interference via business records fraud case is akshually helping Trump.

He leads off with this “gem”:

Throughout the Republican primary campaign (such as it was), it was perfectly clear that the multiple indictments of Donald Trump helped him consolidate support. This was a source of moral exasperation to liberals, but their bafflement coexisted with the hope that what played well with the MAGA faithful would have the opposite effect in the general election. Trump’s cries of persecution might rally conservatives in a primary, but the trials themselves would help Joe Biden cruise to re-election.

Uh, that has been your narrative (by your, I mean the NY Times) since the first indictment was handed down. Still doesn’t make it right. Sure, it demonstrably rallied the remnants of the non-MAGA republicans into alliance with (or outright surrender to) MAGA. Sorta like when an abuser tells his wife that he’s beating the shit out of that she should feel bad for making him slap her around.

The trial that we’re actually getting, the prosecution of Trump for falsified business records related to hush money payments related to his assignation with the porn star Stormy Daniels, could theoretically still have that effect; a guilty verdict could shake loose a couple of points from Trump’s modest but consistent polling lead.

But watching the trial play out so far, it seems just as likely that as in the primaries, so now in the general election: Any political effect from being charged and tried is probably working marginally in Trump’s favor.

Ah, I bet you can see where he’s going with this. It’s gonna be a Clinton comparison, isn’t it?

You betcha:

As it happens, America spent a pretty important period of time litigating the question of whether it’s a serious offense for a lecherous politician (one whose campaign apparatus notoriously labored to prevent “bimbo eruptions”) to conceal an inappropriate sexual liaison. Indeed, we even litigated the question of whether committing brazen perjury while trying to conceal a sexual liaison is a serious offense. And the country answered this question by embracing the consensus position of American liberalism at the time and offering Bill Clinton tolerance, forgiveness, absolution.

Admittedly some politically engaged Americans are too young to directly recall the Clinton presidency. But the Lewinsky affair still casts a meaningful cultural shadow, and many of the Trump trial’s headlines cast the prosecutors in a Kenneth Starr-like part. Nothing really new is being revealed about Trump’s conduct here; the country already knows that he’s a philanderer and scoundrel. Instead the revelations are about the seeming hypocrisy of his political enemies, and how easily the former Democratic indifference to lying-about-sex gave way to prurience when it offered a path to getting Trump.

Turns out that he is bent because the trial isn’t really about him banging an adult film star, but it is about the cover up.

Now suppose you follow the trial more closely and really dig in to the legal arguments. In that case you understand that Trump is not being tried for trying to conceal the affair, because no matter how much emphasis the prosecution lays on his personal shadiness, hush money payments are not in fact illegal. Instead, he’s being tried for a cover-up of the cover-up, a deception allegedly carried out inside his own accounting system.

Fuck, I think I need a shower after reading this twaddle.

This, my friends, is what elite “thinkers” are paid megabucks to dribble out on the page, and pontificate, all to provide “balance”.

I will leave you with this comment from a fellow Californian:

And that is my limit for this fuckery. Off to the showers to hose off the thinly veiled right-wing talking points published in what once was a fine newspaper...

---