Friday, September 30, 2016

The Best of All Possible Worlds

Believe me, there is absolutely nothing that would be more wonderful than to have Donald Trump carry out his threat to shovel out the dirt on Hillary and Bill at the next debate.  Please, Donald, spend every moment you have on this!  Monica, Gennifer Flowers, crooked Hillary and all the rest of it- please be as laser focused on that as you were on your insane attack on Alicia Machado in the middle of last night.

Do your thing!  See what happens! You know you won't alienate a single one of the violent racists that are your real base, so, to steal one of your favorite phrases, "what do you have to lose?"

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Alicia Machado

Something I don't think I've seen anyone comment about, regarding Trump's verbal abuse of Alicia Machado:  He insults her appearance, and she is a Miss Universe winner, after all.  What does a woman have to look like, before this asshole is willing to concede that she looks okay?

What this proves is that attacks on women by guys like Trump have absolutely nothing to do with the victims themselves, but are simply an attempt to beat them down and get them to act properly subservient.  Someone like Alicia Machado insults Trump's male identity by the mere fact of having succeeded at something, so he needs to crush her.  The same thing is going on with Hillary, and by the way, with the numerous male opponents of him too.  He just can't stand to see anyone but himself succeed, so he will do his pathetic best to beat them down.  And cultural history makes this a standard pattern among guys like Trump, where a woman is involved.

A hint, Donald:  It ain't working with Hillary.

I Mean, Who Really Won?


I've not bothered to say too much about Hillary's debate with Trump, because it is my memory that right wingers don't really get into denial of reality mode until about three days after the fact.  That's tomorrow, and we'll see what they are saying then, although, if it is any sign, I was listening to a right wing talk show while driving to work today, where they were earnestly discussing the question, "Who really won the debate?"  Because it will be classified as a Trump victory, if Trump's followers persist in their delusional thinking, despite what was displayed right in front of their faces.

The right's task seems to be a little harder this time around, because thanks to Trump's clownish behavior, so many people watched the debate, and because the highlights live forever online, but I believe that wingnuts are up to any feat of denial, no matter how monumental.  So, if you have any contact with the world of reality yourself, be prepared to hear a few things that are pretty unbelievable.

Monday, September 26, 2016

The Spin Begins

I don't have a lot of energy for this bullshit tonight, but here is how the press turns a solid Hillary win into a Trump triumph.  From a Yahoo article, already standing the truth on its head:

"During the debate, Clinton responded to one long Trump answer by saying she hoped the fact-checkers were working away at what her opponent had just said. This emphasis on fact-checking fundamentally misunderstands one of the dynamics of television: It’s what people see that matters as much as what they hear. I would wager that for millions of Americans watching on Monday night, they saw a Donald Trump who dominated the debate in an exceedingly forceful manner, and in the sheer number of minutes he spoke. His voice was heard more frequently than Clinton’s. Most of the debate was broadcast in split screen, with side-by-side close-ups of the candidates. As the debate went on, Trump increased the amount of face-pulling, grimacing, and “sad” head-shaking, thereby pulling viewers’ attention away from Clinton’s responses."

You see, Hillary had all the facts and all the seriousness, but Trump's belligerence, mugging to the audience and speaking over Hillary showed what a masterful, real man he is, not a sissy woman, so he won the debate in a knockout!  He "dominated" the debate the way a mugger "dominates" is victims, and that is a wonderful accomplishment!  It shows what a great President he would be!  And the fact that he made faces to distract people from Hillary (rather than out of sheer lack of self control) shows what a clever person he is, because no ordinary person would be able to do that- at least no ordinary person older than elementary school age.

"The most stark example of this clash of styles occurred near the end, when Trump said of Clinton, “She doesn’t have the stamina” to be president. Now, here was an opportunity for Clinton to call Trump on the subtext of what he was saying — his clear implication that there is something wrong with her health. It was a moment when Clinton needed to improvise, to seize an opportunity to address this scurrilousness. Instead, she smiled her grim smile and she went to what was clearly a rehearsed answer, about how “as soon as he travels to 112 countries… or even spends 11 hours testifying before a congressional committee, he can talk to me about experience.”

Because, you see, giving concrete examples that disproved what he was saying is a miserable response to a childish taunt, and to basically ignore his bullying with a smile was "grim."

"Well, it was clear by the end that Trump had gotten under Clinton’s skin, and Lester Holt’s skin, as well."

And why should it not get under people's skin that the Presidential nominee of the Republican party is treating the Presidency like a joke?

I posted an article a few days ago about what happened with the Gore Bush first debate in 2000, where the Republicans and the press totally turned upside down the public perception of who won, and here it comes again.

Bad Aim

This interesting news about the guy in Houston that shot nine people this morning, courtesy of Daily Kos:

"Law enforcement sources said that the shooter was wearing what appeared to be an antique German uniform with Swastikas on it...Investigators also combed through the shooter's apartment, where they found what appeared to be Nazi paraphernalia inside, according to a law enforcement source."

Thankfully, he managed to kill none of them.  Nazis just can't shoot straight, I guess.  Doesn't bode well for them in the coming race war, does it?  

I'll be interested to see how much of a role this guy's sartorial choices play in the coverage of his behavior, or if, because he is on the white guys' side, he will just be written off as a disturbed person, with no political interests.  I do notice that the neo-Nazi site VDare has the following to say:


"for reasons unknown, he wore a Nazi uniform during his rampage"

I guess it is just beyond their mental capacity to imagine why someone might wear a Nazi uniform while committing a terrorist act.

No Comment

I'm not really interested in talking about the debate tonight, because what happens there means nothing.  The only thing that counts is how hard the press works to make people think Trump won the debate, which he is incapable of doing, at least if the debate is about who would make a better President.  We all know perfectly well that the following character could beat Trump on those grounds:
The only question is whether their greed and lust for power will overcome whatever minimal human decency they have left, and based on the past, it won't be much of a contest.  So everything worth watching about the debate will not happen until it is over.  See you then.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

What Is Likely From the Debate

I thought it would be instructive to look at how Al Gore was treated by the mainstream press in the 2000 campaign, and particularly in the first debate.  You can find a lot of information about this inglorious episode in our history online, but I am going to quote at some length from a 2007 article at Vanity Fair which collects in one place a lot of what you need to know.

The 2000 election is very important because, as we are facing today, the country had to make a choice between a highly competent and informed Democrat, and a ludicrous, ignorant jerk on the Republican side.  It is important to understand how the press rigged that election so that the country had to face the worst eight years of leadership in its history.

A sample from this rather long article:

"In 2000, we would get stories where if Gore walked in and said the room was gray we'd be beaten up because in fact the room was an off-white. They would get stories about how George Bush's wing tips looked as he strode across the stage." Melinda Henneberger, then a political writer at the Times, says that such attitudes went all the way up to the top of the newspaper. "Some of it was a self-loathing liberal thing," she says, "disdaining the candidate who would have fit right into the newsroom, and giving all sorts of extra time on tests to the conservative from Texas. Al Gore was a laughline at the paper, while where Bush was concerned we seemed to suffer from the soft bigotry of low expectations."

In the Republican fictional world largely invented by the New York Times,

"As he was running for president, Al Gore said he'd invented the Internet; announced that he had personally discovered Love Canal, the most infamous toxic-waste site in the country; and bragged that he and Tipper had been the sole inspiration for the golden couple in Erich Segal's best-selling novel Love Story."

Not one bit of which was true, but it all served to present Gore to the American people as an egomaniacal liar who had nothing but contempt for the intelligence of the voters.  And again, I must remind you that this was not coming from some Rovian propaganda factory, or from Breitbart, but from our "Newspaper of Record."

"Could such an obviously intelligent man have been so megalomaniacal and self-deluded to have actually said such things? Well, that's what the news media told us, anyway. And on top of his supposed pomposity and elitism, he was a calculating dork: unable to get dressed in the morning without the advice of a prominent feminist...

One obstacle course the press set up was which candidate would lure voters to have a beer with them at the local bar. "Journalists made it seem like that was a legitimate way of choosing a president," says Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter. "They also wrongly presumed, based on nothing, that somehow Bush was more likable..."The last six years have been a powerful bit of evidence that we have to judge candidates for president on their preparation for the office with the same relish that we assess their personalities."

Fat chance.

And Gore just kept going on about issues. Alluding to five speeches he made in two months on education, crime, the economy, faith-based organizations, and cancer research, (NYT reporter Katherine) Seelye wrote, "Mr. Gore becomes almost indignant when asked if his avalanche of positions might overwhelm voters." The Washington Post's David Broder later found Gore too focused in his convention speech on what he'd do as president. "But, my, how he went on about what he wants to do as president," wrote Broder. "I almost nodded off." 

Discussing issues.  How boring!  How contemptuous of American voters, who, the writers of the national press presume, want to hear none of that, but are really interested in turning the country over to the guy they would like to have a beer with!  Sound like any recent candidate you know?

Eight years ago, in the bastions of the "liberal media" that were supposed to love Gore—The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, CNN—he was variously described as "repellent," "delusional," a vote-rigger, a man who "lies like a rug," "Pinocchio." Eric Pooley, who covered him for Time magazine, says, "He brought out the creative-writing student in so many reporters.… Everybody kind of let loose on the guy."

The high priest of Washington pundits at the time, David Broder, was just put to sleep by the facts.  And the rest of them found competence and seriousness to be repellant and delusional, while ignorance and belligerence were just oh so refreshing.

 This should sound very familiar to you, because it is being replayed in excruciatingly familiar detail with Hillary and Trump.  And now on to the first debate:

"The trivial continued to dominate during the postmortem following Gore and Bush's first debate, on October 3, 2000. The television media were sure Gore won—at first. But then Republican operatives promptly spliced together a reel of Gore sighing, which was then sent to right-wing radio outlets. Eighteen hours later, the pundits could talk of little else. "They could hear you audibly sighing or sounding exasperated as Governor Bush was answering questions," Katie Couric scolded him the next day on the Today show. "Do you think that's presidential behavior?" For the Times's Frank Bruni, the sighs weren't as galling as Gore's familiarity with the names of foreign leaders. "It was not enough for Vice President Al Gore to venture a crisp pronunciation of Milosevic, as in Slobodan," he wrote. "Mr. Gore had to go a step further, volunteering the name of Mr. Milosevic's challenger Vojislav Kostunica."

And that is how it was done folks- given the chance to elect a serious, honest leader who would have never started a three trillion dollar war of aggression, and not have destroyed the economy, or stood by laughing as a major American city was drowned, the American people were conned into electing a corrupt, ignorant buffoon.  And it took more than just the Republican party to accomplish that, it took the press too, working as hard as they could to see that the rich guys who wrote their paychecks got whom they wanted in the White House.


As I said, this should all sound so familiar to you, because it is exactly what is being done again this year.  The members of the mainstream press have not learned one damned thing about the danger of selling their souls to the devil, and are at it again.  I am confident that, no matter what happens in this first debate, unless Trump rapes a donkey on stage, the press will rally round him as they did in 2000, and endlessly proclaim him to be the winner.  And that could be the real end of the election, as their malignant deception really was in 2000.  Of course, Bush was a knight in shining armor compared to Trump, but what the party of the rich wants, the party of the rich must have; and don't think any of the reporters at the New York Times or the Washington Post or the cable news networks is going to stand up to them, and lose their multimillion dollar salaries, and their houses in the Hamptons and their private jet rides and their luxury vacations, just because accepting those things means doom for all the rest of us.  No, the people who are allowed to preach to us in the media are picked too carefully for any of them to think of doing that.  Oh, they may write just enough weak articles questioning the propriety of consigning the country to third world status, so in the future they can deny their role in our downfall, but that will amount to nothing compared to the damage they are willingly able to do.  And once again, they are going to try their hardest to accomplish their mission.

I just want to end here by stating what even many left wing commentators seem unable to grasp:  The members of the mainstream press are not the dupes of the Republicans, they are their collaborators.  They have worked hand in glove with the Republican party to turn this country over to corrupt, evil monsters like Reagan, Bush and Cheney, and now Trump, and until their weapon is forcibly taken out of their hands through the kind of press regulation that worked well enough from FDR through Jimmy Carter, this will continue, and the whole country will only be one election away from devastation.


Update:  And right on cue, a long article in (where else?) the New York Times this morning, devoted to blaming Al Gore for all the lies the press told about the first Gore-Bush debate:

"Note to Hillary Clinton: You can be whip-smart in a presidential debate, yet still blow it spectacularly. Just ask Al Gore."

I'm not going to bother getting into any more of the self-congratulating, tendentious mangling of reality in this article, but let me just state that this sentence should really read:

"Note to Hillary Clinton:  You can maul your opponent, as Gore did to Bush in the first 2000 debate,but that can't stop the entire mainstream press from reporting over and over again that you lost, until the vast majority of American voters believe it."







Friday, September 23, 2016

Somebody Endorsed Donald Trump Today

I'm not even going to bother mentioning his name.  He just committed one of the most craven acts in the history of American politics, and revealed himself for all time (to the two or three dozen people who hadn't figured this out yet) to be as morally bankrupt a human being as anyone in existence.

Well, enough about that, right?

Wingnut Wrapup

Let's just start out with this remarkable revelation about our history from a county Trump chairman from Ohio:

“I don’t think there was any racism until Obama got elected. We never had problems like this ... Now, with the people with the guns, and shooting up neighborhoods, and not being responsible citizens, that’s a big change, and I think that’s the philosophy that Obama has perpetuated on America.”

Before Obama, it was all about inviting black people to our picnics.


And let's not leave this prediction of the future out:

Omirosa Manigault, Trump's "Director of African American Outreach":  “Every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump. It’s everyone who’s ever doubted Donald, who ever disagreed, who ever challenged him. It is the ultimate revenge to become the most powerful man in the universe.”  

The most powerful man IN THE UNIVERSE, do you hear me?!!?!?!!


Just the way every critic, everyone who challenged Obama had to bow down to him after he was elected.  Hey, both sides get treated the same, right?

And now, how about a through-the-looking-glass view of the media:

Kurt Schlichter, Town Hall:  "Let’s savor their pain. Imagine yourself coming out of some university where you were reliably liberal and sucked-up to your pinko professors. You nodded eagerly whenever anyone said “global warming,” and you shook your head in horror whenever someone said “Men can’t have babies.” You got a job at some prominent newspaper or mainstream network, dutifully parroting the party line with perfect precision, awaiting the day when you would finally reach a level of power where you could not merely lie about and distort the news, but to actually control the news.

Then, just when you thought you were going to become a Lord of the Fourth Estate, you idiots completely overplayed your hand right when technology gave people an alternative to your old school media monopoly. You pushed us past the point of toleration just as the web created other places for us to go. And now, look at you. You’re nothing. Just a bunch of pompous, boring, nobodies without reputations, without respect, without futures."

You are nothing!  And your facts are nothing!  And believe me, there's lots more gloating about how wonderful ignorance is.

And, not scared enough today?

Victor Davis Hanson, Town Hall:  "This summer, President Obama was often golfing. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were promising to let the world be. The end of summer seemed sleepy, the world relatively calm.

The summer of 1914 in Europe also seemed quiet...In the summer of 1939, most observers thought Adolf Hitler was finally through with his serial bullying.

Wars often seem to come out of nowhere"

If you are ignorant about world history, that is.  If you know something about history, you know that wars come out of somewhere, like the general toleration of the rise of a xenophobic, racist hate cult in Germany, led by a lying, violent bully, in the twenties and thirties.  Get my point?

Derek Hunter, Town Hall:  "Journalism Is Dead"

When I clicked on this link, here is what I got:

"Error 520   Web server is returning an unknown error"

Maybe Derek is right.  And while we are on the subject of "dead,"

Larry Elder, Town Hall:  "Memo to GOP 'Never Trumpers': Reagan Isn't Rising From the Dead"

Don't harsh their mellow, guy.  They think he'll be back any day now, probably with Jesus driving his car.

Matt Vespa, Town Hall:  "Tulsa: Officer Shot An Unarmed Black Man When He Reportedly Reached Inside His Car, There’s A Reason For That"

Yeah, but not the one you are about to blab on about for eight hundred words.  The real reson only takes one word,and it starts with "r."  Get it?

Denise McAlister, PJ Media:  "Charlotte Had Racial Harmony. Then BLM and Nation of Islam Thugs Came"

BLM thugs- see, it had nothing to do with an innocent black man being gunned down by a white police officer without a shred of an excuse.  No, it's all about black thugs.  Of course.

Andrew C. McCarthy, PJ Media:  "DEADLIEST LIE: Without 'Lone Wolf' Lie, U.S. Could Have Stopped Nearly EVERY ATTACK"

Why, the answer is obvious!  Just throw every person that we might be afraid of in prison for life, at least if they are not white.  See, problem solved!

And of course, a couple of stories about the Charlotte police murderer by a guy who knows how to lie with the best of them:

Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit:  "BREAKING: Dash Cam Video Shows Keith Scott Getting Out of Car, Coming at Officers, With GUN IN HAND"

Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit:  "Gov. McCrory Declares State of Emergency – Says Gun Was Found on Street Where Keith Scott Was Shot"

Funny, you aren't seeing these two stories anywhere else than the right wing media, where they are being repeated ad infinitum as absolute truth.

And how about a way to spend a few minutes you'll never get back?

Matt C. Abbott, Renew America:  "Exclusive excerpts from famed exorcist's final book"

No thanks, we'll pass on that one.  Lucky too, because it's time to ramp up the fear a little more:

Sher Zieve, Renew America:  "The end stage of world takeover by clear and present evil"

Clear and present evil.  That would be Obama, of course.  Who else could she be talking about?

Sher makes the following observation:

"Dictatorships and Oligarchies begin and are firmly installed when the people refuse to believe their eyes and ears and stop using their minds. "

And then follows it up with this:

" As Donald J. Trump has said more than once about voting for him..."What have you got to lose?" From my vantage point, there is nothing to lose and much to gain by allowing Mr. Trump to become President of the United States of America Donald J. Trump. If we don't elect him? Think Hunger Games...or a great deal worse."

Way to prove your point, Sher.

And in case you are pining for the important news today:

World Net Daily:  "Woman: I got a fried rat head in Popeye's chicken"

So, how was it?

Joe Kovacs, World Net Daily:  "MYSTERY: NOW HILLARY'S EYES 'GO CRAZY'

God, it will never stop.  Maybe it would be useful if they spent a little more time worrying about the fact that Trump's brain has gone crazy.

"What do YOU think? What’s your take on Hillary’s floating eyeball? Sound off in today’s WND poll"


Yeah, what's your expert medical diagnosis based on a photo which turns out to be a photoshop from a Conan O'Brien skit a couple of years ago?

Bruce Walker, American Thinker:  "The Useless Left...If the federal government was reduced to the tiny size needed to perform its constitutional purposes, all the perverse silliness that is leftism in America, taken off Washington life support, would become useful or shrivel into a hollow dead husk"

Perverse silliness.  Right.

Social Security, Medicare, the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, some bare minimum of racial justice, national parks, environmentalism, clean water, clean air, bank deposit insurance...perverse silliness that we'd be best off without.  Right.

Daniel John Sobieski, American Thinker:  "Islamist Killers Do Not Have a 'Right' to Be Here...Those who believe that sharia law trumps the Constitution should not be allowed in."

What about those who believe that the Christian Bible trumps the Constitution?  Where do they belong?

John Hayward, Breitbart:  "‘Clinton Cash’ Author Peter Schweizer Confirms: Clinton Foundation Gives Only Six Percent to Charity"

Another smear from Trump's people.  The Clinton Foundation spends practically all of its money directly; for example by buying medicine for children around the world, and then hiring people to get it to them.  Only a very small part of its operations are contracted out.  In fact, charity watchdogs state that the Clinton Foundation has among the lowest rates of administrative costs of any major charity.  And Mr. Hayward knows this perfectly well, but since we've been hearing about the Trump "Foundation," which turns out, of course, to be one more self-enriching con job by the Trump family, it's time to trot out this tired lie about Hillary again.

John Hayward, Breitbart:  "John Bolton on Obama’s Internet Handover: ‘Within Ten Years, the Internet as We Know It Will End’

That would be right wing lunatic and former Bush II UN ambassador John Bolton, pictured below:


Just my opinion, of course, but I suspect that the odds against a guy with a mustache like that knowing a damned thing about the internet are about a trillion to one.

John Sexton, Hot Air:  "Shareblue: Another Media Matters spin-off working to elect Hillary Clinton"

And as we all know, working to elect Hillary is an anti-American, Communist, Muslim plot, which constitutes clear treason.

Katie Pavlich, Town Hall:  "BREAKING: Top Clinton Aide and Attorney Cheryl Mills Granted Immunity When FBI Wanted to Search Her Computer..."This is beyond explanation. The FBI was handing out immunity agreements like candy,” (Republican anti-Hillary liar Jason)Chaffetz said in a statement. “I've lost confidence in this investigation and I question the genuine effort in which it was carried out. Immunity deals should not be a requirement for cooperating with the FBI." 

Yeah, Chaffetz has lost confidence.  He has lost confidence in the FBI's willingness to lie on behalf of Republicans.

"During the FBI investigation, a number of questions were raised around a serious conflict of interest presented since Mills served as Clinton's attorney while also serving as a witness in the case."

So Republicans can, apparently, force any attorney to cease representing their clients by simply subpoenaing the attorneys before a bogus Congressional committee.  Notice that nowhere is there a suggestion of anything that Cheryl Mills did that was improper.

Cortney O"Brien, Town Hall:  "North Carolina Congressman Apologizes For Saying Charlotte Protesters 'Hate White People'

No apology for actually believing that, however.

Joe Cunningham, Red State:  "Here’s Why You Don’t Vote For Democrats to Punish Republicans"

Because that's not doing what you are told to do.  You vote for Republicans to punish everyone.  Except the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson, of course.

Streiff, Red State:  "A Shrill Harpy-Like Hillary Clinton Screams At Her Audience "

Sigh.  It never stops.

Denise McAlister, PJ Media:  "Charlotte Police Chief Worried Releasing Video Might Cloud Witnesses' Memory"

Ha.  Knowing what actually happened might "cloud" people's memory.  Could there ever be a better example of Republicans' relation to reality?

Roger Simon, PJ Media:  "Why Trump Will Win: It's the Likability, Stupid!"

Likeability.  Because who do we like more than a smarmy, lying bully, with an insult always on his lips?  But you've got your orders now- Trump is likeable, and you are going to believe it totally, at least until election day.  Then, you can repent at leisure, after you've already voted and the party doesn't need you again for a couple of years.

A Thought About the Republican Party

This is just something I have been thinking about.  I can't say I have much confidence in its validity, but it makes sense to me today, so I will just shoot my mouth off about it.

The Republican party, for about a hundred years (Let's say from the time of Taft or Teddy Roosevelt up until the Bushes) was really dominated by a few very rich families.  Either their choices, or their actual relatives, were the ruling members of the party, and its selections for high office.  That worked out pretty well, although a couple of low-class outsiders like Nixon and Reagan managed to weasel their way into the White House, but by the 21st century, the party had sort of run out of traditional families like that.  The last sort of mainline old style Conservative to run for President was McCain, the son of a right wing admiral; after that, the party was out of ammo, as witnessed by the endless run of charlatans who have sought their Presidential nomination since then.  So, the Republicans seem to have adopted what I call the "artillery strategy."

Between World War I and World War II there was a great deal of progress in the aiming of artillery.  By early in World War II, massive books of tables involving millions of computations had been compiled to enable artillery to be aimed with some degree of accuracy, given distance, elevation, wind speed, etc.*  However, what I am talking about was the practice before that time, which traditionally involved firing two rounds, one deliberately short of the mark and one past it, seeing where they landed and using that information to set cannons to hit the target.

That is sort of what has happened in the last two Presidential elections, although probably not intentionally.  In 2012, with Romney, the Republicans undershot, and selected the sort of semi-rich sociopath who could be counted on to do every single thing the real rich guys wanted, but there was no way they could pass him off as a man of the people.  This time around, they did the opposite.  They picked a guy who had years of experience on TV honing his appeal to the unthinking, but who was in the end totally out of control.

Next time around, I am afraid (assuming Trump loses and there is a next time around) the Republicans are going to be shooting for the target.  They know what they need now- someone who is a robot totally in their control, but who can do an adequate job of faking being a real human being.  It is going to be a real test of our progress toward artificial intelligence to find such a candidate, but I think they may well be up to it.


*As a side note: until at least the middle of World War II, these computations were done by hand, by massive numbers of government employees who were called "computers."  When machines were developed to do a lot of this tedious work automatically, they were called computers too, and we were off to the races.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

New York Times Set to Double in Size

This news just in:

"New York Times Editor Vows To Call Out Trump When He Blatantly Lies"