reputable newspaper, sadly the Chicago Tribune.
The Chicago Tribune article titled, Trump succeeds at preserving his ignorance, is one more step down in class from a once great reputable news source. The writer displays himself to be a political elitist using ad hominem logic to accuse the elected President of the USA, of being ignorant. Does that statement imply everyone who supports President Trump were ignoramuses for voting for Trump?
Shades of elitist Hillary Clinton accusing Trump supporters as being “a basket of deplorables” in my opinion.
In previous posts I complained about another rag news commentator of being a troublemaker and even a sinner by writing another ad hominem article about the Trump marriage and religion, which in my opinion, a marriage is no business of anyone except the marriage partners and perhaps their family.
What happened to journalism ideals of providing readers with the information they need to be free and self-governing? How does implying the President of the USA is ignorant in a rag news column provide any news of value to provide readers with information to be free and self-governing?
No wonder the latest poll of voters that 77 percent believe news in the USA is fake news
In a debate being judged on merits of logic, anyone who used an ad hominem would lose points because a judge would discern the debater had nothing worth while to state in the debate when he or she resorts to a personal attack on their opponent.
King Solomon
The words of the reckless pierce like swords, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. (Proverb 12:18)
In My Opinion
When a major newspaper allows columnists to make personal attacks on the President of the USA. They are neither wise or healing for our Nation.
All I hear from Trump haters is personal opinions and no remedies what they would do to solve problems Trump confronts from our nation issues and all over the world.
And in shades of above Chicago Tribune Truman Dewey headline, the writer does not even check his own statements that Trump is wrong about trade balances with Canada according to this Bloomberg article. HERE
Mark Twain was right about the Chicago Tribune today when he said this that now applies to certain Chicago Tribune columnists.
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.”
You Decide.
Journalism or rag elitist news reporting?
Previous Post Links
https://rudymartinka.com/2018/02/22/king-solomon-gossip-rag-news-media/
https://rudymartinka.com/2018/04/07/king-solomon-trump-haters-who/
https://rudymartinka.com/2018/03/17/king-solomon-rag-news-about-trumps-marriage/
https://rudymartinka.com/2018/03/13/king-solomon-fake-news-troublemaker-sinners/
https://www.creators.com/read/steve-chapman/04/18/trump-succeeds-at-preserving-his-ignorance
It’s OPINION, Rudy. I don’t see anyone passing this off as “news”. Now, you may not like this opinion (similar to mine) but there’s no fake news here. If this person cites fake stats that’s on him and his opinion.. it’s not news. It’s the same as when Trump lies constantly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He stated Canada did not have favorable trade balance when. In fact, fact, fact. …..Canada has a total favorable trade balance of 1.3 trillion dollars since the Clinton NAFTA began.
That was not stated as opinion. If it was his opinion, he is a fool in my opinion.
Regards and goodwill blogging
LikeLike
If it is same as Trump lies, you agree that the writer lied.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, apparently everyone on both sides of the border are using whatever math to establish whether the Canada trade stats are true or not. The greater issue from Chapman’s article is that Trump had no idea if his comments were true or not and admitted such regarding his chat with Trudeau. Besides that, the focus of the article was not that Canada thing at all.. it was Trump’s overall persona and demonstration of ignorance.
Now you tell me, Rudy.. you think by this time in his illustrious presidency thus far that Trump has told far more lies than both Hillary and Bill ever did, or were ever alleged to have done? Trump opens his mouth and no one ever believes him until it’s fact checked.
LikeLiked by 1 person
doug
Lets assume you are right that the illustrious Clintons, and Trump are liars. Which of the liars would you chose to serve under to lead you into a battle that would risk your life against the enemies of the USA?
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
I voted for Clinton.. because I realized the kind of person Trump was personally and his non-preparedness to be president. I would do the same today. I am sure this is yet another area in which we differ. I never perceived her as having been all wrapped up in some Clinton-esque liberal intrigue. I believed in the results of all the investigations that found her guilty of nothing other than misjudgment (or sheer stupidity.. depending on your slant) but nothing overtly illegal. The same with Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation accusations.
I’m sure you will likely suspect how I will answer your “into battle” question… if I were currently serving in the military I would take my orders from the sitting commander-in-chief because I respect the office, even if not one bit the person. But keep in mind, the American military has always allowed soldiers to question orders if there were some logical moral objection… also, I always retain my personal moral obligation to myself to object to any order, even if the consequences mean incarceration. That process goes for anyone giving me an order. But that by no means suggests I am confrontational or without respect for those of authority.
What about you?
LikeLike
@doug
The reason I asked the question is because in ancient times, when men went into battle, they would choose among themselves who they would follow into battle. In other words, a natural leader would be their choice of who they would follow and perhaps die for, or with.
Are you saying that by voting for the Clintons, you would be willing to die in battle with them leading you?
I do not expect you to answer your choice. I only brought it up because most people do not realize that is the choice they make when they go into a voting booth to elect a President.
I wonder who they would choose among all political candidates if the ballot asked voters my question?
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
An interesting exercise actually. But the average voter is not voting for choosing a leader to follow into battle and to die for. They are voting for a leader.. well.. to keep them out of battle; to assure a future of peace and prosperity and national safety. Leaders are judged on their specific traits of leadership skills; few leaders can aptly lead in battle and also be a negotiating politician. Two different skill sets.
If the country needed to negotiate with France to purchase Louisiana and the upper Mississippi MidWest, or if the country needed to negotiate Alaska away from the Russians.. I might go with Trump for a term or two. If the country is going to fight a world war I might prefer a Joe Biden. The trick if of course, Presidents, or the public, seldom know what future events will end up on the President’s desk. Seldom is there a President for all seasons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Doug,
When you vote for a President, he or she is given the authority of Commander in Chief in the USA.
Joe Biden???????????…… I don’t know how to comprehend your choice, let alone give a comprehensible reply?????????????
Whatever floats your boat Doug……….is beyond me.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
Oddly… before Trump I rather liked Biden for his own random outspokenness over the years, but that was also the reason I’d never vote for him as president. Now I firmly believe he’s likely the only one to beat Trump in 2020. BUT… his age is a great consideration to me.. he could easily become incapacitated in office (or die) so you’d be voting for his running mate rather than him.
I’d vote for a good republican (old school) if there were such a thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps Trump’s son in law?
LikeLike
Well, I think Mueller got his sights on him. But again… more Trumpian inexperience. I’ve said before, I’d settle for Pence should Trump be forced to leave office.. but I don’t think Pence could win on his own.
LikeLike