The dying media continue to make me laugh as they pretend to be honest observers of the 2024 election season rather than, you know, actively running the Democrat nominee’s plan ( a fact they refuse to acknowledge ).
A New York Times newspaper published last month confidently stated that the Democrat Party is “in neglect about 2024″ because, according to the report,” Some group leaders have decided that they do not need to make significant changes to their plans or their information.”
In the end, The Times came to the conclusion that Democrats need “honest representation” if they want to “win potential elections,” and that several specific areas need attention as well. One was that Joe Biden wasn’t let go sooner.
The editorial board remarked,” Their gathering does acknowledge that Mr. Biden’s age was handled improperly.” When most Americans thought otherwise, leading Democrats insisted that he had intellectual capacity for a second word. That is intriguing. The Times published an article in response to film that showed Biden clearly lost in a trance.
And here’s yet another knee-slapper of a title:” For Joe Biden, What Seems Like Age Might Instead Be Choice,” which is quoted from the paper’s” writer at big” A. O. Scott. In earnest, that piece made the point that Biden hadn’t just “enter[ed ] a new and distinctive phase of creativity” but wasn’t crippling in front of us all.
The Times even suggested that Democrats “recognize that the group moved too much left on social issues,” mentioning Kamala Harris ‘ views on “decriminalizing the frontier and government-funded gender-transition procedure for captives.”
The Times wasn’t a sympathetic observer of those terrible laws, though they were indeed Democrats ‘ plans. The Times editorial board lamented that the measures “won’t be easy to undo” and encouraged a potential Democrat successor to Trump to reverse the” cruelest and most pointless” measures initiated by the president ( namely, all of them ), after his administration had put in place highly effective measures to limit the obscene flow of migrants illegally crossing into the country.
In regards to the so-called” change” surgeries for convicts, Times journalist Michael Bender made an attempt to manage interference on that one by ejecting concerns as “anti-trans prejudices” and excluding it as an concern because it “affects relatively few people” ahead of the vote.
Five days later, Harris was deemed” the single nationalist choice for president” by the Times editorial table. I wonder where Liberals got the impression that everything they were doing was good.
The Times described Harris as” a committed public servant who has demonstrated care, ability, and an unwavering determination to the Constitution” in its endorsement, which was fearless in contrast to the cowardly Washington Post, which refused to directly help either candidate. She “offered a shared future for all people” and “has begun to define a set of intelligent programs to support American families,” according to the report.
So it’s odd that Harris was given the nod for a lack of “intellectual leadership” in the paper’s editorial just two weeks ago.
Does The New York Times read The New York Times in the first place? The paper ought to try it.
