In the summer of 2015, not to be outdone by the rest of America’s media, serious and otherwise, the esteemed New York Times was busying itself rolling out the red carpet for a Presidential wannabe appropriately named “Trump.”
They gave that fucker attention galore, and the New York Times’ liberal readers ate that shit up. In a dignified manner, of course.
Now we have an ego-drunk reality TV star who’s pushed all the other clowns out of the Republican clown car and is drivin’ that thing a billion miles an hour, leaving a path of meanness every-fucking-where he’s been.
It was all a big joke. Until it wasn’t.
The New York Times is now trying to undo their earlier, stupid-er reporting decisions regarding Mr. Trump.
So a few weeks ago, the Times dug around and threw together a long exposé about Donald Trump’s big bad misogyny problem. (Misogyny, by the way, is what we used to call male chauvinism. Same crap, new word.)
Well, no shit, Sherlock—Donald Trump is an asshole to women, but instead of bringing this up a year ago, the Times and their peers were parading Trump around like a carnival attraction.
And look where that got us.
Then the Times put out another explosive, shocking, etc. exposé saying that America’s favorite jackass doesn’t pay his bills, and wins at his little financial game by way of borrowing money, using it all up making himself richer, then leaving everyone else for dead when he moves on, which, fucking duh, is what he’s been doing all along.
This is not new information, New York Times.
And the other day, the high-minded Times had an ah-ha moment and announced that there are more old, white people to vote for Trump than they previously thought.
The problem we have here is that even supposedly legitimate news outlets would rather throw a drink in our face for shock value than actually vet a candidate, including the one they’re hot for right now, but more on that in a sec.
I suppose we could blame all this on John McCain for forcing Sarah Palin on us without vetting her first back in ’08 in his last-ditch attempt to beat that young whippersnapper Barack Obama. Now we’re stuck with Palin and her whole trashy family.
We’re stuck with a news media that treats the news like a reality show.
But like I said, and like we all know, America eats this shit up.
And since putting this sunburned caveman on TV and in newspapers and magazines aplenty proved to be a sure thing for ratings and thus their income, the media, including highly-regarded publications like The New York Times, crammed him down our throats like a forced blow job.
Yes, that’s disgusting. And that’s exactly what they did.
And now the venerated New York Times finally decides it’s time to vet the man, that maybe they can divert this runaway train.
Well, New York Times, it’s too fucking late to vet the man.
See, the Times picked their horse back in January, and now they seem to have realized they bet on a lame horse that might not handily wipe the floor with the Republicans’ only-man-standing in November after all.
But they’re all-in with her. They don’t have a Plan B.
They’ve blown their wad on a bad candidate who they’re damned and determined to prop up.
When the Times endorsed Hillary Clinton, the op-ed that read like an obligatory high school assignment, with its amateur, touchy-feely tone and serious lack of substance.
That’s when it became very clear to me how brainwashed Americans are. Even really smart Americans.
And the Times just keeps on with their keen reporting skills, putting together one piece after another underestimating Bernie Sanders, overestimating Hillary Clinton, and trying to explain the “rise of Donald Trump,” words which ought to scare the shit out of anyone.
I had honestly been going around thinking I could count on the New York Times for intelligence, critical thinking, and serious journalism.
Well, fuck me.
Seems Fox News isn’t the only bullshit news source out there.
Thinking for yourself is difficult when what we gobble up is the shit they feed us.
They feed us Trump and his chest-pounding he-man act—we eat it up.
They endlessly try to convince us of Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments, which no one can specifically name, but never mind that—we eat it up.
They tell us Bernie Sanders has no chance, Trump is a fluke, and Hillary has “experience”—we go ahead and believe them.
Lemme just say, while Trump may be loathsome, he’s in the lead fair and square over on the Republican side, frightening though that is.
The Republicans were already scary, though, and all Trump’s doing is bringing their skeletons out to play.
But something’s not so fair and square over on the Democrats’ side when, in the midst of a very tight race, the winner of the 2016 Democratic presidential primary is declared before six states have voted, one of them being the huge state of California.
Just how much sense does it make that the Associated Press declared Hillary Clinton the nominee on Monday, June 6th, before six states have even voted on June 7th? How the hell do you think that makes those voters feel about their vote?
The AP told us the delegates had been tallied and Hillary got ’em all, and that was that, nothing to see here, move along, kids, go on home now.
How fucking gullible are we, y’all?
Why do we even bother to vote if this little country club was deciding everything all along?
Hell, if we’d known this sooner, we could have avoided all those primaries and caucuses and skipped right to the end of the book.
By the Democratic party’s own rules, the delegates and super-delegates don’t actually vote until the convention on July 25th, yet Hillary’s already going around the track running her victory lap.
Meanwhile, the state of California is still counting ballots. Like three million ballots.
And meanwhile, trustvote.org has a lawsuit brewing over election rigging.
I’m talking about election rigging that’s happening right now, right here in the United States of America. I’m not talking about some faraway land filled with uncivilized brown people (sarcasm font, folks).
This isn’t just sour grapes over Hillary’s supposed nomination. This is happening.
So what does the New York Times do?
And they complain. This time it’s a whine-fest about how Bernie Sanders won’t drop out of the race.
Because like I said, they’re thinking they might have bet on the wrong horse if Bernie’s still in the race.
But the Times doesn’t get to give Bernie Sanders campaign advice.
The New York Times had plenty of time and opportunities to amply report on the Sanders campaign, but instead Bernie Sanders has barely made it onto their pages.
New York Times, you’re full of shit, and your begging is unbecoming.
Jeez, I feel like we’re being force-fed castor oil in a 1950s fallout shelter.
Look, come the convention on July 25th, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate, then so be it. Yeah, it’d be great to have a female President; it really would.
It’s just that I prefer a large dose of integrity with my politicians, male, female, or other.
Make no mistake, and don’t just ignore it—she’s riddled with scandals and dirty laundry and repeatedly inconsistent positions and actions.
Obviously, Donald Trump represents an embarrassing revelation of our nation’s wretched underside, but Hillary Clinton is no prize, and there’s no sense in pretending she is.
I don’t care how many over-40 liberals try to tell me she’s good enough—she’s not even close to good enough.
She’s owned by Wall Street. She’s pro-GMOs, pro-fracking, pro-big oil, pro-big pharma, and she loves herself some wars and weapons, as evidenced by her time as Secretary of State.
Hers is not the behavior of a liberal.
Hillary Clinton is deeply entrenched in this capitalism-run-amok system, but by golly, she’s been declared the Democratic party’s candidate, and we’re supposed to believe it’s all on the up and up.
Hillary for the win, whether we want her or not!
How is it that two of the most loathed people in the country are the best we can come up with for candidates in November?
My advise to liberals who don’t want to move to the right, is don’t go all Hillary-blind, because she’s no liberal.
If you’re okay with more of the same old shit, then yeah, Hillary might work for you.
If you’re okay with our government’s arrogance and our population’s ignorance as the country lurches backwards into third-world conditions such as extreme wealth imbalance and political corruption, then Hillary might be the candidate for you.
If you’re not okay with all this status-quo-ing and the New York Times’ erudite bullshit, then you might not want to jump on that Hillary bandwagon just yet.
Keep your eyes, your ears, and your options open. Because that lesser of two evils crap has expired.
Now, to the New York Times, that serious news outlet that wet all over itself with excitement over Donald Trump, endorsed an incredibly poor candidate in Hillary Clinton, and now wants us to believe what they’re saying about both Donald John Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton, I say:
It’s too fucking late, New York Times. You are no longer a reliable source of news on this topic. Take the rest of the season off—go home and get some sleep.
I’ll reconsider your work after the election.
Hey, cool cat, get the FREE Feel-Good-in-a-Crazy-World Starter Guide
You deserve the fabulous Shiny Butter email updates PLUS I'm sending you the free "Feel-Good-in-a-Crazy-World Starter Guide." YUP!