[Mr. K]

""He [President Trump] is effectively, and not just him, but his most ardent supporters, have made us players on the field instead of on the sidelines where we belong,""

She's actually half-right on that one- but HE did not do it, they did it to themselves - including her.

[oldvirginian]

“She’s actually half-right on that one- but HE did not do it, they did it to themselves - including her.”

True!
Candidate Trump said “if they are fair with me I will be fair with them “.

They started the crap storm, not him.
Not So Foxy Kelly was one of the first, if not THE first.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"[President Trump] is effectively, and not just him, but his most ardent supporters, have made us players on the field instead of on the sidelines where we belong”

She's actually half-right on that one- but HE did not do it, they did it to themselves - including her.

He didn’t do it, and we didn’t do it. He - and we, before him actually - simply recognized that there were people wearing zebra uniforms and carrying whistles and calling fouls who could not otherwise be distinguished from Democrats.

We actually were pretty naive to have taken as long as we did to recognize it; fundamentally anyone who claims a virtue (not just diligently striving toward a virtue, but actually embodying it) is arrogant. Objectivity is a virtue to be aspired to, but journalists claim they have it. Worse, they claim objectivity while knowing that their rules of commercial conduct make even a serious striving toward objectivity impossible to them.

They know - everyone knows, or should - that “If it bleeds, it leads” is true. It is a rule for commercial success - nothing more elevated than that. And yet they have the effrontery to to claim objectivity, knowing that instead they are negative, and would rather climb a tree to report ill about American society than to stand on the ground and report good about American society.

I put it to you that the conceit that negativity is objectivity is an excellent definition of “cynicism.” Thomas Paine’s comments on society and government are instructive in respect to that:

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

Paine’s comments imply that

1. government is at best an evil, and
2. skepticism about society is the only justification for government.

It follows that skepticism about government and skepticism about society are opposites - the more skepticism about society, the less skepticism about government, and vice versa.

From that it follows that journalists - who are cynical about society, as noted above - tend ineluctably to be naive about government. What could be more obvious, once it is pointed out, that journalists promote socialist nostrums because they are cynical about society and, concomitantly, naive about government?

All the data we needed was as plain as the nose on your face - but journalism’s self-serving propaganda has been so effective that it took most people a very long time to get anywhere near recognizing it. And about half of us voted Democrat, which implies that they still haven’t seen through the con.