Cart 0

Wall Street Journal turning blatantly anti-Trump

Posted by John Reed on

What happened to the Wall Street Journal? In today’s issue, I saw article after article pushing a liberal Democrat view of Trump.
Janet Hook, Kristina Peterson, and Reid J. Epstein said Trump was stoking a war with Dems and creating unease with Republicans dimming chances for cross party compromise and limiting what he can get done.
Losing politicians are big on compromise and reaching across the aisle and all that. It is their substitute for victory. Trying to con the winners into letting the losers have their way. Be nice to your bitter opponents and you’ll get more accomplished. There could be some logic to that—IF WE HAD NOT LIVED THROUGH THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. We hear that same about the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and IS. Give me a break.
A story by Louise Radnofsky said Trump “was trying to block advertising reminding people of an ACA sign-up deadline.” Since Trump plans to sign a repeal of Obamacare, why would he spend taxpayers money advertising it? Why the censorship wording when Trump is head of the branch of government that is running the ads?
Laura Meckler and Siobhahn Huges write an article titled GOP Tries to Contain Travel-Ban Fallout. Fallout is a product of nuclear explosions. In fact, 109 persons attempting to enter the US were detained and questioned. Some were sent back to where they came from; most were allowed to enter the US.
Felicia Schwartz wrote an article titled Diplomats en Masse Dissent Over Order. In fact, about 1,000 US State Department employees used a sort of official suggestion box to express some disagreement with the recent executive order.
Space is at a premium in headlines. So why is the Journal using the eight characters of “en Masse” instead of the five characters of “1,000,” which would be more precise? Apparently, the Wall Street Journal wants to exaggerate the State Department opposition to the order. There are 25,000 State Department employees.

Share this post

← Older Post Newer Post →

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published.