It's the New York Times of course.
In the fervid days of Bush Derangement Syndrome, at least the New York Times wasn't running explicit assassination fantasies. That was left to lesser papers. But now the era of hope, change and raving hatred has truly arrived.
The Russian waited until they were a few steps past before he drew the gun. He sighted on the center of the president’s back, and squeezed the trigger.
The Makarov misfired.
The Secret Service agent at the president’s shoulder heard the click, spun into a crouch. He registered the scene instantly, drawing his own weapon with razor-edge reflexes.
The Russian tasted failure. He closed his eyes and waited to pay the cost.
It did not come.
He opened his eyes. The Secret Service agent stood before him, presenting his Glock, butt first.
“Here,” the agent said politely. “Use mine. …”
In the Obama era, people making fun of him faced DOJ scrutiny. Not only will there be no consequences for this umpteenth example of lefty homicidal assassination fantasies, but the New York Times is now pivoting to blaming Trump's rhetoric for causing violence.
Here's Charles Blow, the Cory Booker of the New York Times.
There isn’t any option to think about the explosive gadgets despatched to outstanding Democrats and the CNN workplaces and never recall that Donald Trump himself has created a poisonous surroundings by overtly concentrating on many of those very folks and entities in his overheated, overwrought rhetoric.
This isn’t to say that there’s an specific hyperlink between the president’s rhetoric and the bombs. There isn’t any option to know that at this level. We don’t even know but who’s liable for the bombs.
However we will say with out equivocation that Trump’s stoking of worry and riling of anger is deeply problematic and certainly harmful.
Yes that is word salad gibberish. But the meaning is clear enough.
Blow may have randomly dived into a thesaurus, but the idea is that Trump's rhetoric causes violence. And what of the rhetoric of the New York Times?
If violent rhetoric causes violence, is the New York Times' assassination fantasy causing violence? Or is it only rhetoric from the right that possesses this magic property while lefty violent rhetoric only produces sunshine and bunnies?