Actually, I don’t see anything hateful in his article. He’s simply disagreeing with Trump on the issue of trade and laying out his reasons why.
....................................................
Trump fancies himself an ace negotiator, a skill that he has had some chance to hone in an embarrassing series of corporate bankruptcies, and he proposes to employ those skills to ensure trade that is “fair” by whatever ethical standards occur to this particular serial adulterer/crony capitalist/pathological liar/reality-television grotesque.
.............................................................
If you don’t call the above deliberate slander and a grotesque description of a man who has succeeded in becoming wealthy through his own abilities, not on the government hanky panky,then I don’t know anything about journalism. You complain that the author should not be attacked, but only his reasoning. IMHO, turn about is fair trade. He attacked Trump personally so should be whacked back personally.
RE: If you don’t call the above deliberate slander and a grotesque description of a man who has succeeded in becoming wealthy through his own abilities, not on the government hanky panky,then I don’t know anything about journalism
No I don’t because being an ace negotiator in a business does not necessarily translate to being an ace negotiator when you’re dealing with another country.
Now, the author might be wrong on this count and Trump might be as good a negotiator when it comes to dealing with Mexico and China, but I dispute the use of the adjective HATEFUL to describe what he said.
Call him a SKEPTIC, but the statement he made is not HATE at all.