NYT Wrong On Brexit

Opinion/Editorial

  If the New York Times editorial board was to ever pull their leftist heads out of their asses it certainly wasn't going to be with their lead oped this morning entitled "The Security Consequences of Brexit."

 It begins "Apart from creating economic turmoil, Britain’s calamitous vote to leave the European Union could have no less profound foreign policy consequences, weakening the interlocking web of Western institutions and alliances that have helped guarantee international peace and stability for 70 years.

 Wrong answer NYT NATO is the organization dumb asses.

This is also a testing moment for President Obama, who has been understandably preoccupied with building alliances in Asia, but must once again make Europe and the trans-Atlantic alliance a priority and find ways to rebuild consensus and chart a united path forward. Otherwise, the major beneficiaries will be Russia and China, both challenging the established Western-led order.

Since World War II, the United States, aided principally by Britain, has worked to reduce the potential for international conflict, with particular success in Europe; encourage democratic governance; promote free markets; and lift billions of people out of poverty. This was achieved by working with its allies to establish multiple reinforcing institutions, including NATO, the military alliance that now has 28 members; the E.U., the economic alliance that will have 27 members when Britain leaves; the World Bank; and the International Monetary Fund. In short, together America and Europe wrote the rules and norms by which much of the world now lives."

  Congrats to Great Britain for leaving the EU.

 More bs "The policies pursued by the West have sometimes been flawed and sometimes failed, but the system that linked America and Europe in a common defense and common political cause ended the Cold War, reunited Germany, built a new Europe and sought in one way or another to address every other major threat. A crucial brick in that system is now in danger of being removed.

This stunning development comes at a time when these institutions were already under stress and when many people on both sides of the Atlantic had grown complacent about the relationship and its reinforcing commitments. Europe is economically battered, overwhelmed by refugees fleeing chaos in the Middle East and fearful of attacks within its borders by the Islamic State and other terrorists.

Compounding the problem is Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. Ruthlessly playing a weak hand, he has worked hard to undermine NATO and challenge the post-Cold War order by invading Ukraine, funding right-wing groups in France and elsewhere and recklessly brandishing his military power from the Baltics to Syria. European countries have struggled to remain united on issues ranging from NATO’s budget to how best to respond to Mr. Putin."

  Now the NYT blames the right internationally LMAO.

  It ends "Meanwhile, China, a rising power that sometimes makes common cause with Russia, has been challenging the United States by expanding its control over the South China Sea and establishing its own Asian regional development bank as a means of wielding economic influence.

Britain’s departure must be negotiated with the E.U. and could take as long as two years. Even with this break, Britain would remain in NATO, but less as a leading European power than as a more inward-looking nation consumed with national politics. That would mean a Britain less able or willing to address the economic and security challenges of Europe as a whole and less inclined to support American-led responses to crises across the globe. The referendum could also inspire nationalist forces elsewhere in Europe to step up their own assault on European integration.

The vote is a setback for President Obama, who urged Britain to remain in the E.U. when he visited London in April. On Friday, he insisted that Britain and the E.U. would both remain America’s indispensable partners. Other administration officials promised to work closely with Britain to ease the E.U. transition.

It’s hard to imagine that Europe could once again deteriorate into rival nation-states and that Europe and America could drift apart. Even so, Mr. Obama must work with Germany and France, the other two European powers, to understand the forces behind the Brexit vote, address the grievances that produced such a result and reaffirm and strengthen the alliance and its common agenda. Next month’s NATO summit meeting is an opportunity to begin that process."

  If Britain leaving the European Union is a set back for Obama its a victory for everyone around the world

Ditz Wrong On Trump

Oped Columnist

  This morning I'm posting about the not so popular Maureen "the Ditz" Dowd and her piece of crap entitled "Trump in the Dumps" going after GOP Presidential nominee Donald Trump.

  It begins "Washington — HE won’t pivot. So I have to.

Having seen Donald Trump as a braggadocious but benign celebrity in New York for decades, I did not regard him as the apotheosis of evil. He seemed more like a toon, a cocky huckster swanning around Gotham with a statuesque woman on his arm and skyscrapers stamped with his brand. I certainly never would have predicted that the Trump name would be uttered in the same breath as Hitler, Mussolini and scary menace, even on such pop culture staples as “The Bachelorette.”

Trump jumped into the race with an eruption of bigotry, ranting about Mexican rapists and a Muslim ban. But privately, he assured people that these were merely opening bids in the negotiation; that he was really the same pragmatic New Yorker he had always been; that he would be a flexible, wheeling-and-dealing president, not a crazy nihilist like Ted Cruz or a mean racist like George Wallace. He yearned to be compared to Ronald Reagan, a former TV star who overcame a reputation for bellicosity and racial dog whistles to become the most beloved Republican president of modern times.

Trump was applying his business cunning, Twitter snarkiness and bendy relationship with the truth to his new role as a Republican pol. The opposition was unappetizing: Cruz, a creepy, calculating ideologue; Marco Rubio, a hungry lightweight jettisoning his old positions and mentor; Chris Christie, a vindictive bully; Jeb Bush, a past-his-sell-by-date scion.

  Now all of a sudden Trump is a bigot to you ditz.
 It goes on "When Trump pulled back the curtain on how Washington Republicans had been stringing their voters along for years with bold promises, like repealing Obamacare, that they knew had no chance, it was a rare opportunity to see them called out. And when Trump was blunt about how cheaply you could buy and sell politicians in both parties, it made this town squirm.

His obnoxious use of ethnicity only exposed the fact that Republicans had been using bigotry against minorities and gays to whip up voters for decades. The G.O.P. would love to drop Trump now because it prefers a candidate in the party’s more subtle racist traditions. (Or even a candidate savvy enough to heap disdain on the 47 percent of government freeloaders at a ritzy fund-raiser without having a bartender tape it and leak it.)

The neocons calling Trump a fascist would certainly prefer a more militaristic candidate. Trump realized the Iraq war was misbegotten long before much of the media cognoscenti in New York, and he was willing to hold W. accountable for being asleep at the switch before 9/11 and using a bait-and-switch on Iraq. Even though he ranted about the press, he was also far more available to the media than the cloaked Hillary Clinton, who has yet to give a news conference this year. But he undermines his accessibility when he incites nastiness against reporters at his rallies and revokes The Washington Post’s credentials for a headline he doesn’t like.

Before his campaign became infused with racial grievance, victimhood and violence, Trump told me, “I have fun with life and I understand life and I want to make life better for people.” If he had those better angels, he didn’t listen to them. Seduced by the roar of the angry crowd, Trump kept dishing out racially offensive comments about “my African-American,” a black man he spotted at a California rally; the “Mexican” judge on the Trump University case; and the “Afghan” who committed the atrocities in Orlando. Mitt Romney is right that Trump’s rhetoric causes “trickle-down racism” and misogyny. The Washington Post had a front-page story on Friday about the vulgarities freely directed at Hillary Clinton by men and women at Trump rallies.

Trump told me he could act like the toniest member of high society when he wanted, and he would as soon as he dispatched his G.O.P. rivals. He said his narcissism would not hinder him as he morphed into a leader. But he can’t stop lashing out and doesn’t get why that turns people against him. Everything is filtered through his ego. He reacted to Orlando not as a tragedy so much as a chance to brag about “the congrats” he got for “being right on radical Islamic terrorism.”

   Nastiness because reporters try to use their liberal bullshit biases and Trump will have none of it.

  She goes on "The presumptive but now tenuous nominee seemed bereft at a Dallas rally on Thursday night when he could no longer brag about his polls, which are shattering records for negativity. Finally, on Friday, Trump couldn’t stop himself from tweeting out a poll, even though it was one that showed him behind Hillary.

Trump has made his campaign all about his ability to win. So if he stops winning, what’s his raison d’être?

Trump’s pledges to release his tax returns and to surround himself with an A-team fell through. A month after his hostile takeover of the Republican party, he’s got a skeletal operation a few floors below his office suite in Trump Tower.

Trump shocked himself by shooting to the top of the Republican heap. It was like watching a bank robber sneak into a bank, only to find all the doors unlocked. But like Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin, Trump refused to study up on policy. So he has been unable to marry his often canny political instincts with some actual knowledge.

He has made some fair points. A lot of our allies do take advantage of us. Our trade deals have left swaths of America devastated. And it was a positive move to propose a meeting with the N.R.A. on gun control for people on the terrorist watch list. But his fair points are getting outnumbered by egregious statements and nutty insinuations, like suggesting that President Obama is tolerant of ISIS attacks, an echo of the kooky birther campaign that he led, suggesting that Obama wasn’t qualified to be president.

Now Trump’s own behavior is casting serious doubt on whether he’s qualified to be president."

 And your Hillary Clinton is qualified to be President how she belongs in prison wearing a federal jumpsuit

NYT Everything Is Race Race Race.......

Editorial

 

 Its one thing to be passionate and to care about an issue in the political arena but to be overwhelmed but to be transfixiated with it means you've gone too far.
 This is the case with the New York Times editorial board this morning "The G.O.P.’s Latino Crucible" is a good example of transfixiation.
 It begins "Republican leaders laid out a blueprint for the revival of their party after the defeat of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race. “If Hispanics think we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies,” the so-called autopsy report warned, noting that Mr. Romney had received 27 percent of the Latino vote, down from George W. Bush’s 44 percent in 2004. Quoting Dick Armey, the former House Republican leader from Texas, the report cautioned, “You can’t call someone ugly and expect them to go to the prom with you.”

Yet now, Republicans are doing just that. Donald Trump has emerged as the party’s standard-bearer while scapegoating Latinos and other minorities to stoke the fears and resentment of working-class white voters. Mr. Trump insists he will win Latino votes, yet he began his campaign by promising to build a wall along the border with Mexico to block out the people Mexico is “sending” to the United States, claiming: “They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” He recently created another wave of consternation by accusing an American-born federal judge of being biased because of his Mexican ancestry."

  More of the race bullshit in elections.

  It goes on "The Trump candidacy has put other Republican candidates in a bind. They can tie their lot to his immigrant-bashing campaign and hope that voter-suppression tactics will blunt the growing segments of the electorate galvanized by the prospect of defeating him. Or they can disavow him, recognizing that further alienating nonwhite voters will do severe damage to the party in the long run.

Besides being self-defeating, vilifying groups of people is morally abhorrent. Republicans are signaling to millions of citizens and aspiring Americans: You’re not welcome here; this is not your home.This hostility has invigorated a decades-long effort by Latinos and other groups to increase political participation. More than 27 million Latinos will be eligible to vote in November, a 60 percent increase from a decade ago. Civic groups and Spanish-language media are making a huge push to register voters and get permanent residents to become citizens in swing states, hoping to unlock the power of a voting bloc that has historically had low turnout.

“If I were a Republican Party leader at the state level, I’d be looking at how this could affect me now, but also at the long game,” said Mindy Romero, the director of the California Civic Engagement Project at the University of California, Davis."

  Its not immigration bashing its not wanting ILLEGAL immigrants here period NYT.

  Goes on "California’s political evolution offers a lesson for Republicans. In 1994, Pete Wilson, then the governor, championed a ballot initiative to bar unauthorized immigrants from public services as he ran for re-election in a tight race. He won, and the initiative, known as Proposition 187, passed. But the highly divisive campaign over the measure, which was thrown out by the courts, set off a surge of political participation by Latinos that has kept the Democratic Party dominant in the state ever since.

Republican leaders in other states watched California with alarm. While some have tried to make the party more inclusive, the prevailing tactic has been to underhandedly discourage minority voters. Texas and Arizona are among the states where Republican-led legislatures have passed voter identification laws and otherwise tightened voting rules under the specious guise of preventing fraud.

Whites now make up 70 percent of the electorate, down from 85 percent in 1980. Demographers project that by 2060, whites will make up 46 percent of the voting pool, while the Latino bloc will have grown from the current 13 percent to 27 percent. Given those trends, it’s astounding that the Republican Party has taken a harder line on immigration.

“It’s a self-defeating strategy in the long term,” said Representative Joaquín Castro, a Democrat from Texas. “But the focus for a lot of politicians here is the short term. A lot of them don’t think they’ll be in politics in 20 years.”

That seems to be the calculation of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican. Mr. McCain, who faces a strong Democratic opponent in November, has grudgingly opted to back Mr. Trump. Most Republicans in competitive races appear inclined to do the same. A rare exception is Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, who announced last week that he could not in good conscience support Mr. Trump “regardless of the political impact on my candidacy or the Republican Party.”Maybe things will change after the November election, said Representative Ruben Gallego, a Democrat from Arizona. “The way to push back on all this is to have an absolute victory at the ballot box and force the Republican Party to have a conversation about what it needs to do in order to survive,” he said. Of course, that is the same conversation they had, and then ignored, in 2012.

 The NYT will never end its bullshit quest to include race or political correctness into every nook and cranny in our culture

 

NYT Still Doesn't Realize $$$ In Politics Is Free Speech

Opinion/Editorial

  God forbid if anyone would go against the first amendment clause "freedom of the press" the New York Times would go absolutely nuts as well as the rest of the left wing unhinged media. I mean it's bad enough we put up with all the liberal biases.
  But it's ok when the holier than thou NYT editorial board comes out and has a bitchfest about as they put it Big $$$ in politics especially in a election year.
  They are running their mouths this morning "Big Money Rearranges Its Election" they feel that big money runis politics as long as it doesn't effect their liberal agenda.
  The rant begins "Like practiced horseplayers at a racetrack, wealthy campaign donors are adjusting their bets as the primary season ends and the political field narrows. This is particularly true of Republican megadonors who cannot abide Donald Trump and are thus doubling down on keeping G.O.P. control of the Senate as a firewall against a possible Democratic president, while investing heavily in keeping statehouses in Republican hands.

One constant is the vast amount of money sluicing through the political system in what is certain to be the most expensive election in the nation’s history. Experts estimate that campaign spending, which has risen inexorably in recent years, will easily surpass the $6.28 billion record set in the 2012 federal elections and could conceivably reach $9 billion, much of it for political advertising.

Both parties are busy exploiting the power of barely regulated super PACs to accept unlimited six- and seven-figure donations for candidates. At the same time, campaigns are concealing the names of other rich donors in “dark-money” operations palmed off as tax exempt “social welfare” agencies supposedly dedicated to doing good, not to bare-knuckle politics.

Prominent among the Republican super-spenders shying away from Donald Trump are the billionaire conservatives Charles and David Koch, whose political machine has invested $42 million-plus to keep control of the Senate. Other Republican contributors have also indicated a preference for spending on lesser races down the line rather than on the presidential campaign.

Some superstar check writers like Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate, have no problem with Mr. Trump’s erratic policy proposals, bluster, and past vows to self-fund. Mr. Adelson is talking of a $100 million effort to boost Mr. Trump’s performance in the finale against Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump, having flip-flopped on a primary promise to shun wealthy donors, now seems only too happy to accept a pledge by Mr. Adelson and others to raise as much as $1 billion for his campaign.

 Oh so both parties are doing it oh I see but we know all you blowhards there at the NYT turn a blind eye to certain political ideals.

  It goes on "For now, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, leads the fund-raising pack with a money machine that has sucked in more than $80 million in super PAC support. Democrats are not shying away from the big-check power of super PACs, creating a new $50 million operation started by major labor unions and the billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer. At the same time, Mrs. Clinton is campaigning on proposals to rein in the runaway money race. She says it undermines American politics.

What voters think of all this as the price of a particularly raucous display of democracy remains to be seen. But the power of money in politics has grown so much since the 2010 Citizens United decision that its presence is felt ever deeper down the ballot. Ominously, there has been a flood of special-interest money into state judicial races that raises questions about whether judges’ decisions might be affected, according to a Brennan Center for Justice study. The toughest race in Kansas this year is being waged by furious conservative Republicans aiming to oust four members of the state Supreme Court because of their decisions striking down the G.O.P. Legislature’s shortchanging of the state constitution’s school-aid requirements.Shrewd big-money campaigns financed by the Koch brothers and others have upended the Democrats’ one-time dominance of state legislatures. There are now Republican majorities in 70 percent of two-party statehouses. That success, in turn, has created a farm system for the G.O.P.’s current control of Congress. There, the twin powers of big money and statehouse gerrymandering have made incumbents of both parties unbeatable 90 percent of the time, compounding the gridlock voters complain about. For all the job security, big donors are expected to drive this year’s congressional election spending well beyond the $3.8 billion record set two years ago. Much of this money will surely be wasted, further enriching the new breed of fat-cat campaign operatives, and further alienating voters with toxic advertising. But some of it may tip key races.As the money torrent rises, it’s no coincidence that for the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires (268 of 534 House members), according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Republican control of the agenda has snuffed out Democratic proposals to control or at least disclose the true extent of the wealth now driving elections. Theoretically, this election should be a forum for dealing with this open invitation to political corruption. Unfortunately, big money’s main effect on the campaign so far has been a frenzied pace to raise and spend more of it.

  Shrewd $$ but its not shrewd for liberals to give to their bullshit causes all this according to the NYT holier than thou editorial board.

NYT Has An Old Foe Opining

Guest/Oped

      This mornings commentary hits home David M. Shribman is the former political editor of the Salem Evening News a local paper back in my home state of Massachusetts who hails from a town called Swampscott, Massachusetts. Just as scary Mr.Shribman is currently the executive editor of the left wing crap paper here in Pittsburgh, Pa the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
    Well the New York Times tapped him to write his filth in an OPED this morning entitled "How to Save Clintonism" to be completely honest I don't even think Democrats want Clintonism saved whatever that is lol.
    Shribman starts "Pittsburgh — SINCE their premiere on the national stage a quarter-century ago, Hillary and Bill Clinton have been the closest of partners in politics. Through some rocky times they have turned to each other on vital projects, as in 1993, when Mr. Clinton asked his wife to lead an ultimately failed effort to establish universal health care. And then last week, Mrs. Clinton, her campaign straining to build momentum, said that her husband would be “in charge of revitalizing the economy” in a second Clinton White House.

With that announcement, Mrs. Clinton underscored that the couple had partnered in another joint venture: trying to refurbish Clintonism, the political creed that defined his two terms as president.

Celebrated by its supporters as a synonym for peace, prosperity and a common-sense centrism, Clintonism was — and is still — derided by its detractors on the left as corporatism and on the right as a shorthand for scandal and impeachable offenses. As Mrs. Clinton tries to unite her fractious party and turn her focus to Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, she is also looking to what can be salvaged and what must be discarded from her husband’s legacy.

  God help us the Clinton political creed and common sense centrism what is Shribman smoking LMAO.

  It goes on "What, then, might Clintonism 2.0 look like?

In its original form, Clintonism was an effort to pull the Democratic Party — which had lost five of the six presidential elections between 1968 and 1988 — back into political relevance. Forged out of Mr. Clinton’s years as governor of Arkansas, it involved more than just tweaking Democratic orthodoxy. Mr. Clinton wanted to help big corporations thrive, favored trade policies that unions loathed and spoke of reining in welfare and fighting crime.

The approach brought him victory over President George H.W. Bush in 1992, and then helped him navigate a hostile, Republican-controlled Congress after 1994. His health care agenda was blocked, but he managed to “triangulate” between Republicans and Democrats well enough to enact other major parts of his agenda, from a trade deal with Mexico and Canada to welfare reform to a crime bill.

Even Republicans, who pilloried and then impeached the president for his sexual escapades, admired Clintonism for its political suppleness. The 42nd president left the White House with high approval ratings after serving during years of economic growth. Many liberals felt bruised, even betrayed — there were some high-profile repudiations of the president, especially when he signed a welfare overhaul in 1996 that set time limits on benefits. But no one doubted that he had given new life to the party when he left office in 2001.

But Clintonism 1.0, designed to carve out a middle ground, may prove obsolete in 2016, when the center might not hold. Senator Bernie Sanders is trying to push Mrs. Clinton left on the issues of income disparity, student loan debt and health care costs. And even as Mr. Trump assails the liberal goal of immigration reform, he has also voiced the frustration of white working-class voters who, like liberal Sanders partisans, are angry about stagnating wages and trade.

  Bernie doesn't have to try and push Hillary to the left they both are already there.

  It ends "So even as Mrs. Clinton anoints the former president as her partner on economic issues, she is moving unmistakably away from some of his major policies.

Mr. Clinton was an ardent supporter of international trade agreements and regarded the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as Nafta, as one of the signature achievements of his two terms. In signing the pact at a 1993 ceremony he called it “a force for social progress as well as economic growth.”

But both Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump assert that free trade has destroyed American jobs. As a result of their criticism, Mrs. Clinton, who once described the Trans-Pacific Partisanship negotiated by Mr. Obama as the “gold standard” of international trade pacts, has withdrawn her support for it.

Mrs. Clinton is also on the defensive about her ties to Wall Street and about the high-paid speeches she delivered to Goldman Sachs. Two decades ago, those ties were symbols of the party’s openness to business interests. But now Mr. Sanders is attacking them as tarnished emblems of the party’s drift from its New Deal heritage and its roots in the working and middle classes of American life. And Mr. Trump has jumped on her Goldman speeches as evidence of hypocrisy and secretiveness.

Clintonism 1.0 also has created concerns about Mrs. Clinton’s ability to energize core Democratic voters. Faced with criticism from the Black Lives Matter movement, she has called for ending “the era of mass incarceration” of black and Latino youths that was created in part by the 1994 crime bill that her husband signed and that she supported as first lady. Even so, Mrs. Clinton seems to have won the black vote handily throughout the primaries, according to exit poll data.

Young voters in particular seem unmoved by the moderate promise of Clintonism — Mrs. Clinton won only 17 percent of voters 18 to 29 in last month’s primary in the swing state of Pennsylvania. And while she was in the vanguard of the last phase of feminism, she seems less relevant to the new generation of young women who are critical to a new Clinton electoral coalition.

Advertisement

The results of the Kentucky primary last week — where Mrs. Clinton barely squeaked out a victory over Mr. Sanders after having prevailed there by 35 percentage points over Barack Obama in 2008 — underscore just how much she is struggling to consolidate the party’s base. The persistent disenchantment with her campaign among Sanders voters raises questions about whether Mrs. Clinton might look to expand her vote by reaching out to moderate Republicans and independents who are uncomfortable with Mr. Trump.

It does not help that Mrs. Clinton lacks her husband’s panache, one of their many stylistic differences.

“He relishes campaigning, and she does it because she has to,” said Edward G. Rendell, the former governor of Pennsylvania and a longtime ally. But he insists that the two have the same outlook and ideology. “They are similar in their values,” Mr. Rendell said in a recent interview, “and they are similar in what they care about.”

Those shared values are in many ways at the core of Clintonism 1.0 and 2.0. Both Clintons are animated not just by a center-left approach to campaigning and governing, but also a devout faith in expertise, particularly of the academic sort, and in the power of policy. And both are dedicated globalists: As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton holds the record for number of countries visited in office, 112, while her husband made twice as many international trips as Ronald Reagan and three times as many as Richard Nixon.

It is in that global outlook that Clintonism might benefit Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. At a time when Mr. Trump is vowing to restrict immigration and trade, and also reduce support for NATO and other international organizations that have been bulwarks of American foreign policy, Mrs. Clinton may find support among moderate Republicans and business interests for her vision of a more open, internationalist America.

Will that be enough to overcome weariness with the very idea of another Clinton White House?

If there was “Adams fatigue” for John Quincy Adams in 1824 because his father had been president, it didn’t prevent his election. Neither did “Bush fatigue” stop George W. Bush from winning a hair-thin victory in 2000 — though it might have helped vanquish his brother Jeb in the primaries this year.

But for Mrs. Clinton the challenge is probably greater because, unlike the children of presidents, she was there by her husband’s side, his partner, during two turbulent terms. So while she can share in much of the credit for the achievements of Clintonism, she must also bear the weight of its mistakes.

“The brand has been badgered,” said L. Sandy Maisel, a Colby College political scientist. “The people who have been saying terrible things about the Clintons have been saying them for 24 years now.So even as Mrs. Clinton anoints the former president as her partner on economic issues, she is moving unmistakably away from some of his major policies.
  I don't know about everyone else but Ive had enough of both of these used car salesman meaning the Clintons

NYT Reporters Don't Get It On Trump And Women

  This morning instead of giving my take on the Bullshit of the New York Times editorial page I saw a cool story to Opine about since all the buzz is going around on how Donald Trump treats women.
  On the very front page of this mornings crap fest that is the NYT reporters MICHAEL BARBARO and MEGAN TWOHEY have a headline entitled "Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump
Behaved With Women in Private" or their take on Mr.Trump.
 It begins "Donald J. Trump had barely met Rowanne Brewer Lane when he asked her to change out of her clothes.Donald was having a pool party at Mar-a-Lago. There were about 50 models and 30 men. There were girls in the pools, splashing around. For some reason Donald seemed a little smitten with me. He just started talking to me and nobody else.He suddenly took me by the hand, and he started to show me around the mansion. He asked me if I had a swimsuit with me. I said no. I hadn’t intended to swim. He took me into a room and opened drawers and asked me to put on a swimsuit.

Ms. Brewer Lane, at the time a 26-year-old model, did as Mr. Trump asked. “I went into the bathroom and tried one on,” she recalled. It was a bikini. “I came out, and he said, ‘Wow.’ ”

Mr. Trump, then 44 and in the midst of his first divorce, decided to show her off to the crowd at Mar-a-Lago, his estate in Palm Beach, Fla.

“He brought me out to the pool and said, ‘That is a stunning Trump girl, isn’t it?’ ” Ms. Brewer Lane said.

Donald Trump and women: The words evoke a familiar cascade of casual insults, hurled from the safe distance of a Twitter account, a radio show or a campaign podium. This is the public treatment of some women by Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president: degrading, impersonal, performed. “That must be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees,” he told a female contestant on “The Celebrity Apprentice.” Rosie O’Donnell, he said, had a “fat, ugly face.” A lawyer who needed to pump milk for a newborn? “Disgusting,” he said.

But the 1990 episode at Mar-a-Lago that Ms. Brewer Lane described was different: a debasing face-to-face encounter between Mr. Trump and a young woman he hardly knew. This is the private treatment of some women by Mr. Trump, the up-close and more intimate encounters.

The New York Times interviewed dozens of women who had worked with or for Mr. Trump over the past four decades, in the worlds of real estate, modeling and pageants; women who had dated him or interacted with him socially; and women and men who had closely observed his conduct since his adolescence. In all, more than 50 interviews were conducted over the course of six weeks.

Their accounts — many relayed here in their own words — reveal unwelcome romantic advances, unending commentary on the female form, a shrewd reliance on ambitious women, and unsettling workplace conduct, according to the interviews, as well as court records and written recollections. The interactions occurred in his offices at Trump Tower, at his homes, at construction sites and backstage at beauty pageants. They appeared to be fleeting, unimportant moments to him, but they left lasting impressions on the women who experienced them.What emerges from the interviews is a complex, at times contradictory portrait of a wealthy, well-known and provocative man and the women around him, one that defies simple categorization. Some women found him gracious and encouraging. He promoted several to the loftiest heights of his company, a daring move for a major real estate developer at the time.

He simultaneously nurtured women’s careers and mocked their physical appearance. “You like your candy,” he told an overweight female executive who oversaw the construction of his headquarters in Midtown Manhattan. He could be lewd one moment and gentlemanly the next.

In an interview, Mr. Trump described himself as a champion of women, someone who took pride in hiring them and was in awe of their work ethic. “It would just seem,” he said, “that there was something that they want to really prove.”

Pressed on the women’s claims, Mr. Trump disputed many of the details, such as asking Ms. Brewer Lane to put on a swimsuit. “A lot of things get made up over the years,” he said. “I have always treated women with great respect. And women will tell you that.”

But in many cases there was an unmistakable dynamic at play: Mr. Trump had the power, and the women did not. He had celebrity. He had wealth. He had connections. Even after he had behaved crudely toward them, some of the women sought his assistance with their careers or remained by his side.

For Ms. Brewer Lane, her introduction to Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago was the start of a whirlwind romance — a heady blur of helicopter rides and high-end hotel rooms and flashing cameras.

“It was intimidating,” she said. “He was Donald Trump, obviously.”

The Alpha Trump

Mr. Trump grew up with an influential role model for how to deal with women: Fred C. Trump, his powerful and unyielding father.

 

The elder Mr. Trump exerted control no matter how big or small the decision, as Ivana Zelnickova learned over dinner one night in the late 1970s. Her boyfriend, Donald Trump, had invited her to join his siblings and parents at Tavern on the Green, the ornate restaurant in Central Park.

When the waiter came to take orders, Ivana made the mistake of asking for what she wanted. Fred Trump set her straight, she recalled in a previously unpublished interview with Michael D’Antonio, the author of “The Truth About Trump.” Fred would order steak. Then Donald would order steak. … Everybody order steak. I told the waiter, “I would like to have fish.” O.K., so I could have the fish. And Fred would say to the waiter: “No, Ivana is not going to have a fish. She is going to have a steak.” I said, “No, I’m going to have my fish.” And Donald would come home and say, “Ivana, why would you have a fish instead of a steak?” I say, “Because I’m not going to be told by somebody to have something which I don’t want.”

Mr. Trump defended his father’s conduct. “He would’ve said that out of love,” he said. If his father had overruled her fish order, Mr. Trump said, “he would have said that only on the basis that he thought, ‘That would be better for her.’ ”

The elder Mr. Trump did not hide his more traditional views on gender. When his son hired a woman, Barbara A. Res, as his head of construction in the 1980s, Fred Trump was mystified and annoyed.

Fred did not like the idea that Donald had hired me. “A woman?” Donald told me that. But I could tell by the way Fred treated me. He used to say that all the time: “You don’t know what you are talking about.” When I would complain to Donald about Fred, he would say, “Fred didn’t want me to hire you or didn’t think it was a woman’s job.”

Mr. Trump said it was a different era. “My father,” he said, “probably never would have seen a woman in that position.”

Mr. Trump still holds up his parents as models, praising his stay-at-home mother for understanding and accommodating a husband who worked almost nonstop.

“My mother was always fine with it,” he said, recalling her “brilliant” management of the situation. “If something got interrupted because he was going to inspect a housing site or something, she would handle that so beautifully.”

“She was an ideal woman,” he said. 

 

 

 Note Because of issues with my computer I am going to have to cut this post short but as you can see my point is that the NYT is obviously not going to differentiate in this biased story on how Trump really treats women.
 But The NYT will never run a story of how the Clinton's yes both of them BillyBoy and Hillary utterly destroyed the lives of countless number of women of whom BillyBoy had extra marital affairs with

 

 

NYT Now Running Their Mouth On the Vacancy At The US Supreme Court

Opinion/Editorial

   Just brilliant now the morons at the editorial board of the New York Times now are trying to make a stink about the vacancy at the US Supreme Court since the death of the late great Constitutionalist Justice Antonin Scalia.
  The only reason why they are opining about this issue is because the high court heard it's last case apparently this past Wednesday and it gives them another reason to go into their usual bullshit reason to go into leftist attack mode.
  Their lead crap piece this morning "Rescue the Supreme Court From Limbo" they just want more left wing bile coming out of the 8 justice court.
  It begins "Eight justices heard oral arguments in the final case of the Supreme Court’s term on Wednesday. When will the court return to full strength?

That question is as urgent today as it was immediately after the death two and a half months ago of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the initial wave of outrage at the Senate Republicans’ hard-line refusal to consider replacing Justice Scalia has ebbed, making it that much easier for Republicans to keep the seat empty through the presidential election. If they succeed, the court will go nearly two terms, and possibly longer, without a ninth member.

The consequences of the impasse have been growing graver by the day. Already the justices have split 4 to 4 in two cases, leaving important legal issues unresolved. In one, the court failed to decide a major labor case involving the longstanding right of public-sector unions, which represent millions of American workers, to charge collective bargaining fees to nonmembers. By the term’s end in late June, it’s likely that several more cases will have ended in tie votes, including possibly the fights over abortion restrictions in Texas, access to birth control and President Obama’s executive actions on immigration."

  The only outrage is the outrage that you idiots at the NYT editorial board create and to your buddies at the alphabet soup media and as usual when the GOP does something right you have to include them.

 It goes on "It could get worse from here. So far, the justices’ docket for the term beginning in October is smaller than usual, and the eight-member court may hesitate before taking on high-profile cases on controversial topics that are more likely to result in split votes. Already, major cases involving restrictive voting laws in North Carolina and Texas, pharmacists who want the right to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions for religious reasons, and Mr. Obama’s efforts to reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants are before the court or could be soon. All could languish in legal limbo.Republicans haven’t been satisfied simply to hobble the court’s ability to function. In recent weeks, they have gone to remarkable lengths to impugn the integrity of the justices and thus the legitimacy of the court. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has attacked Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who delighted conservatives at his own confirmation hearings by comparing judges to umpires calling balls and strikes. But last month, Mr. Grassley, who should be spending his time scheduling confirmation hearings, instead lashed out at the chief justice, claiming that “a number of his votes have reflected political considerations, not legal ones” — presumably referring to Chief Justice Roberts’s two votes upholding aspects of the Affordable Care Act."

  Face it NYT your buddies aren't in control in the Senate save a few RINOs.

  It ends "Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, who is challenging Mr. Obama’s immigration actions, also complained about the court, saying that because it “has shed its clothing as being guardians of the law,” it “deserves to be swept up into the political process.”

None of this has anything to do with the qualifications of Mr. Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, whom conservatives have long praised as someone they would happily confirm. The battle is purely about ideological control of the court, which has had a conservative majority for decades.

How does the insanity end? If the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and Mr. Grassley hold to their promise not to give Judge Garland a hearing or a vote, it will probably take a president and Senate of the same party to nominate and confirm a new justice after Inauguration Day in January. But if the president and the Senate are of different parties, there is every reason to believe that the current blockade will continue indefinitely. If Donald Trump wins the White House, even Mr. Grassley admits that his Supreme Court nominee would be “a gamble.”Mr. Grassley and his fellow Republicans gambled that anger over their inaction would fade as the news cycle rolled on and the public’s attention turned to the presidential campaign. Maybe Republicans are willing to take such gambles because they believe they don’t have anything to lose. But the American people do."

  See what I put in red bold type OMG!!! hold the presses the NYT actually said something correct holy crap they can be correct once in a while.