A Deplorable subscribes to The New York Times

I get the digital subscription for the crossword puzzle and The Athletic for sports news. I scan the article headings, and on occasion try to read them, but after a few sentences I give up. I find it impossible to listen to these people. We are told to listen to their side so we can make an informed opinion. The writers in the Times are young and uninformed spoiled brats, who know absolutely nothing! But it doesn't stop there. At my club's monthly discussion meeting, there are people there who read the Times One old gentleman, a retired physician who speaks like an old sage, said that the Times is the one place where you get the truth. After all, they have fact checkers! I kid you not! That's when I chimed in that he should be the one checking other news sources. He said that I probably watch Fox News. I replied in the affirmative and politely suggested that he do the same. He might learn something. I whispered to my friend sitting next to me why do we come to these discussions. He replied so we can see how many disturbed people there are. Let me tell you, there are a lot of nut jobs out there, and you waste your breath trying to talk reason with them. Of course, they are saying the same about us.

The NYC Times, (all the news that fits a bird cage liner) and all the other DemoShloveks see PDJT 2.0 systematically putting the lie to their world view, and more importantly, destroying their Potemkin village. He's also cutting off their illegitimate sources of campaign finance. In short, there is no animal so desperate as when it is cornered, and PDJT 2.0 has the DemoShloveks cornered.

#1 You can't reason or discuss anything with people with a leftist mindset. In their minds they are never wrong and are far smarter and superior to those that disagree with them.

Some years back I decided to stop rewarding the Sulzberger family and the Times’ other owners with my naive expectation that the paper carried even a smidgen of truth - because it doesn’t. Whether it ever did is a question for before I was born and I am 72. What I used to wonder was why any media or business might pander to only half a potential customer base. The only answer I could arrive at was that these people only need that half to remain influential and powerful. But now I think it is more. I truly suspect that the owners of the Times and other such purveyors of malevolent lies are in thrall to the Father of Lies, Satan himself, whether knowingly or not.

Perhaps, #1, you should point out to the old gentleman, that, yes, the NYT's does "fact check," and frequently, here's how they do it: Someone working for a smaller publication interviews an "unnamed source" and then prints an article about it. The NYT's then cites that source--that is, the smaller publication that quotes the unnamed (and unverified) source--and then says, "See, we fact-checked it!" What a PATHETIC way to try to make yourself look credible!

If forced to talk with a lefty, my first point is last century saw communism kill 100,000,000 people (see the Black Book of Communism). Of course the dissemblers will dispute that but it's a good starting point.

I recently overcame my boycott of The New Yorker and allowed myself a subscription. Waiting for first issue. I quit after decades as a subscriber because of their treatment of Donald Trump. We'll see, but not too sanguine.

Waste of money and time.

I view this as part of the intellectual and moral confusion created by the civil rights movement in the '60s. William F. Buckley said something I thought quite wise about moral equivalence during the cold war. A man who pushes an elderly woman in front of a bus, and a man pushes that same woman out of the path of the bus are not just "two men who like pushing around old ladies."One has malevolent intent and the other has moral intent. The Civil Rights movement in the 60s had a clear moral intent behind it. So civil disobedience, lunch counter sit-ins, refusing to abide by Jim Crow laws, and challenging manifestly unjust circumstances through disruptive demonstrations could be justified. However, the lionization of the civil rights movement has led to its means being embraced for malevolent ends. It's absurd to enshrine the cause of ensuring men can use and abuse women's washrooms as a civil rights issue. It's not. It's a reality versus insanity issue. Yet that's what so many of these misguided moral opportunists use to justify their actions. Leftists desperately want to appear good, and yet they do nothing but evil in how they act.