Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Saturday, February 8, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 462)

Donald Trump speaks at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio at the Quicken Loans Arena.

Donald Trump speaks at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio at the Quicken Loans Arena.

However Donald Trump came upon the foreign policy views he espoused, they were as crucial to his election as his views on trade and the border.

Yet those views are hemlock to the GOP foreign policy elite and the liberal Democratic interventionists of the Acela Corridor.

Trump promised an “America First” foreign policy rooted in the national interest, not in nostalgia. The neocons insist that every Cold War and post-Cold War commitment be maintained, in perpetuity.

On Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” Trump said: “You know, we’ve been fighting this war for 15 years. … We’ve spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion — we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete.”

Yet the War Party has not had enough of war, not nearly.

They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.

They want to establish a no-fly zone and shoot down Syrian and Russian planes that violate it, acts of war Congress never authorized.

They want to trash the Iran nuclear deal, though all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies told us, with high confidence, in 2007 and 2011, Iran did not even have a nuclear weapons program.

Other hardliners want to face down Beijing over its claims to the reefs and rocks of the South China Sea, though our Manila ally is talking of tightening ties to China and kicking us out of Subic Bay.

In none of these places is there a U.S. vital interest so imperiled as to justify the kind of war the War Party would risk.

Trump has the opportunity to be the president who, like Harry Truman, redirected U.S. foreign policy for a generation.

After World War II, we awoke to find our wartime ally, Stalin, had emerged as a greater enemy than Germany or Japan. Stalin’s empire stretched from the Elbe to the Pacific.

In 1949, suddenly, he had the atom bomb, and China, the most populous nation on earth, had fallen to the armies of Mao Zedong.

As our situation was new, Truman acted anew. He adopted a George Kennan policy of containment of the world Communist empire, the Truman Doctrine, and sent an army to prevent South Korea from being overrun.

At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy “to end tyranny in our world.”

A policy born of hubris.

Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin’s country.

How did we expect Russian patriots to react?

The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States.

What should Trump say?

“As our Cold War presidents from Truman to Reagan avoided World War III, I intend to avert Cold War II. We do not regard Russia or the Russian people as enemies of the United States, and we will work with President Putin to ease the tensions that have arisen between us.

“For our part, NATO expansion is over, and U.S. forces will not be deployed in any former republic of the Soviet Union.

“While Article 5 of NATO imposes an obligation to regard an attack upon any one of 28 nations as an attack on us all, in our Constitution, Congress, not some treaty dating back to before most Americans were even born, decides whether we go to war.

“The compulsive interventionism of recent decades is history. How nations govern themselves is their own business. While, as JFK said, we prefer democracies and republics to autocrats and dictators, we will base our attitude toward other nations upon their attitude toward us.

“No other nation’s internal affairs are a vital interest of ours.

“Europeans have to be awakened to reality. We are not going to be forever committed to fighting their wars. They are going to have to defend themselves, and that transition begins now.

“In Syria and Iraq, our enemies are al-Qaida and ISIS. We have no intention of bringing down the Assad regime, as that would open the door to Islamic terrorists. We have learned from Iraq and Libya.”

Then Trump should move expeditiously to lay out and fix the broad outlines of his foreign policy, which entails rebuilding our military while beginning the cancellation of war guarantees that have no connection to U.S. vital interests. We cannot continue to bankrupt ourselves to fight other countries’ wars or pay other countries’ bills.

The ideal time for such a declaration, a Trump Doctrine, is when the president-elect presents his secretaries of state and defense.

However Donald Trump came upon the America

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz speaks to the Republican National Convention before being booed off the stage at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz speaks to the Republican National Convention before being booed off the stage at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio.

As the post-election shock of some, and the euphoria of others, both begin to wear off, the country and the new administration will have some very serious problems to face, at home and abroad. How those problems are faced — or evaded — will tell us a lot about the next four years, and about the longer-run future as well.

As the multiple disasters of ObamaCare become ever more painfully visible with the passage of time, the big question is whether to repeal it or to start tinkering with it, in hopes of being able to “save” it.

This dilemma is not accidental. ObamaCare was clearly so structured that it would be hard to get rid of politically. In that sense, it was a political masterpiece, even though a social disaster.

One big test of the new Republican administration that takes office in January will be whether it falls into the trap of trying to rescue this monstrosity created by the Democrats, and succumbs to the siren song of bipartisanship that is sure to be heard from the media.

Whatever the new administration hopes to accomplish, on this issue and many others, it needs to accomplish early on, if it expects to get things done and establish its credibility. For that it needs unity within a party that has fragmented too often in the past.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has been preparing various policy positions, so that there will be a program already in place that Republicans can unite behind and hit the ground running when they take control in January.

But there is one other thing that they will need, and which they have seldom had in the past. That is some well thought out, and clearly articulated, explanation to the American public as to what they are doing and why.

What was called “the Reagan revolution” of the 1980s took place without President Reagan’s ever having had Republican control of both Houses of Congress, and despite a hostile media. What Reagan had instead was a rare ability to persuasively articulate to the public what he was doing and why.

When President Reagan got the voters on his side, even Congressional Democrats knew that it was politically risky to try to block what he had convinced the public needed to be done.

Without effective articulation to the public, control of both Houses of Congress can lead to futility and the collapse of political support by frustrated voters who feel betrayed. That has been the recent history of Republicans.

Articulation is not just a gift of nature. It takes hard work, work that Ronald Reagan had done for years before he ever got to Washington. More fundamentally, effective articulation requires a recognition of the great importance of articulation, so that it gets all the time and effort it requires.

Another very high priority for the new administration should be trying to fill the great void on the Supreme Court left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. It is not just a quantitative void but, above all, a qualitative void.

This is one of those situations where caution may be the most dangerous course. Too many Republican Supreme Court nominees in the past have been chosen to avoid a confirmation fight in the Senate — and the country has paid a huge price in bad Supreme Court decisions for decades thereafter.

If you wanted to pick someone whose nomination to the Supreme Court would send a clear and unmistakable signal that the Constitutional values so well represented by the late Justice Scalia were paramount, you could not do that more convincingly than by nominating Senator Ted Cruz.

Whatever one thinks of Senator Cruz’s political career and tactics — both of which have been criticized in this column more than once — no one can question his commitment to Constitutional principles that are in jeopardy today.

His uncompromising refusal to go along to get along, which has made him controversial in politics, is desperately needed in the Supreme Court, where too many “conservative” justices, over the years, have wilted like delicate flowers in the Washington heat.

Senator Cruz’s unpopularity among more moderate Republican Senators can even be an asset in gaining Senate confirmation, since they would be unlikely to be sorry to see him leave the Senate.

If Donald Trump wanted to pick someone

[brid video=”76685″ player=”2077″ title=”‘Poor White People’ Democrat Symone Sanders on Trump Supporter Attacked by Mob”]

The Democratic Party has suffered not only a major defeat at the top of the ticket with Hillary Clinton, but also down ballot in Senate and House races. President-Elect Donald J. Trump will take the oath of office with his party in control of both houses of Congress, thanks to the voters.

Many of the same professional leftwing “protestors” Hillary Clinton used to incite violence at Trump rallies throughout the primary and general election have now taken to the streets to riot and destroy property with chants of “F#ck Donald Trump!” and “Not My President!”

There have been several horrible instances of violence against white people and Trump supporters, but when former U.S. Navy SEAL Carl Higbie brought up the story of one man being drug from his car and beaten by a mob, he was met with a racist response.

“Oh my goodness, poor white people,” Democrat Symone Sanders said in response. “Please, oh my, stop. Stop it Carl.”

She then went on to try and backtrack a bit by claiming she believes protesting is a right. Nobody is arguing it isn’t. But burning, looting and assaulting property, including another human being, is not.

When Carl Higbie told a story about

George Soros, the Nazi sympathizer, collaborator and billionaire socialist. (Photo: AP)

George Soros, the Nazi sympathizer, collaborator and billionaire socialist. (Photo: AP)

George Soros, the Nazi sympathizer and billionaire socialist, met with Democrats in Washington D.C. on Sunday for the first of three-day conference. Soros and members of the so-called “Democracy Alliance” met at the Mandarin Oriental hotel to discuss strategy to oppose President-Elect Donald J. Trump after he defeated Hillary Clinton.

In attendance were also several big donors who have funded Democracy Alliance to the tune of $500 million to fight for leftwing activist groups, candidates and issues since Soros co-founded the group in 2005.

The group boasts some 100 “finance titans,” or those who have donated at least $200,000 a year to whitelisted groups.

As the leftwing news site POLITICO reported, the meeting with Soros and others–including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn.–aims to discuss how Democrats can stop Mr. Trump’s plan for his first 100 days in office. The plan, which the DA called “a terrifying assault on President Obama’s achievements, and our progressive vision for an equitable and just nation,” vows to “drain the swamp” of corruption in Washington, D.C.

President-Elect Trump first laid out his plan in Gettysburg back in June, calling it part of a “contract with the America voter.” The 10-point legislative agenda that “begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington.”

George Soros, the Nazi sympathizer and billionaire

Supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump watch election results during an election night rally, Nov. 8, 2016, in New York. (Photo: AP/Associated Press)

Supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump watch election results during an election night rally, Nov. 8, 2016, in New York. (Photo: AP/Associated Press)

Wow. I don’t know what else to say.

Almost all the experts–with the exception of this publication and The People’s Pundit himself, Rich Baris–said Donald Trump couldn’t win the GOP nomination. Then, again with one exception, the expert consensus was that Trump had virtually no chance of winning the White House.

Now, for better or worse, he’s going to be America’s next President.

What about my 2016 prediction? Well, other than my guess that Michigan might go for Trump (outcome still not confirmed), I don’t look very prescient. At the very least, I missed Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, and North Carolina.

For what it’s worth, I did better with Congress. Depending on the outcome of the Senate contest in New Hampshire, my prediction for a 51-49 GOP majority may be spot on (though I generally wasn’t right about the seats that would change hands). But who cares about my prediction.

It’s downright remarkable that Republicans held on to the Senate, something that seemed improbable considering that the GOP was defending more than twice as many seats as Democrats. Moreover, the leading Tea Party-type Senators from the 2010 election – Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, and Pat Toomey – were all reelected.

And we may not know the final number for a few days, but my guess that there would be 239 House Republicans also will be very close. Again, the accuracy of my prediction is trivial compared to the fact that the GOP will have lost fewer than 10 seats when they were defending their largest majority in almost 90 years. A stunning outcome.

So what does the election mean? The political answer is that Barack Obama has been a disaster for Democrats. I joked back in 2010 that Libertarians should name him as “Man of the Year” for restoring interest in the ideas of limited Government. Republicans should turn that joke into reality since Obama turned a dominant Democrat Party (majority of senators, representatives, governors, and state legislators) into a hollow shell.

The policy answer is a bit more difficult. I’ve fretted many times that Trump doesn’t believe in economic liberty. Some folks say that doesn’t matter since House and Senate Republicans can drive the agenda. But, as indicated by this slide that I shared in several recent European speeches, I don’t think that’s realistic.

A Republican Congress almost certainly isn’t going to push policies unless they get some sort of positive signal from the White House (remember how the Bush years led to lots of statism, notwithstanding a supposedly conservative House and Senate).

The real mystery is predicting the signal Trump will send. Here’s what I hope for – and what I’m afraid of – in the next four years.

My fantasy outcome – Given his disappointing rhetoric, it’s highly unlikely that Trump will embrace comprehensive entitlement reform. It’s especially doubtful that he will touch the programs (Social Security and Medicare) that provide benefits to seniors. But it’s plausible to think he might be open to reforming the “means-tested” programs. Even if he simply decided to support the block-granting of Medicaid, that would be a big achievement. And repealing Obamacare would be great as well. He did propose a rather attractive tax plan as part of his campaign, though I didn’t get too excited since a large tax cut seemed unrealistic in the absence of a concomitant plan to limit the growth of spending. But if Trump can get one or two of the big provisions approved, most notably a lower corporate rate and death tax repeal, that would be a very positive step in the right direction. And if he actually gets serious about the “Penny Plan,” that would give him a lot more leeway for big tax cuts. Needless to say, I also hope  his protectionist campaign rhetoric doesn’t translate into actual proposals for higher taxes on trade.

My feared outcome – In his acceptance speech, Trump focused on two policies. More infrastructure spending and helping veterans. This is not a good sign. Regarding infrastructure, my nightmare scenario is that he pushes a giant stimulus-type scheme that would increase the federal government’s role in transportation. On the issue of veterans. I’m not aware of any specific plans, but my fear is that he will simply throw more money at the failed VA system. Let’s also not forget he has endorsed a higher capital gains tax on “carried interest.” And if he does decide to push protectionist legislation, that could wreak a lot of havoc. In the long run, I’m also worried that Trump will commit a “sin of omission” by leaving entitlements untouched. And if we wait another four – or eight – years to address the problem, the slow-motion train wreck may turn into an about-to-happen train wreck. Last but not least, what if Trump gets to the White House and feels that all his big plans for tax cuts and new spending aren’t feasible because the numbers don’t add up? Will he then decide that he needs a big revenue plug like a value-added tax? Sounds crazy, right, but don’t forget that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were seduced into adding VATs to their plans, so why wouldn’t Trump be susceptible to the same mistake? A horrifying, but not implausible, scenario.

Now perhaps you understand why, in yesterday’s column, I focused on the potential silver lining of a Hillary victory. It’s because I don’t like to dwell on the potential downside of a Trump victory.

Let’s close with a quick review of the major ballot initiatives I highlighted last month.

  • The Good – The biggest slam-dunk of the night was the overwhelming 80-20 rejection of single-payer health care in Colorado. Voters in the state also rejected a tax hike on tobacco. A pro-gun control initiative in Maine is narrowly failing. In other news, a sales tax increase was defeated in Oklahoma, as was the gross receipts tax in Oregon and the carbon tax in Washington. Also, lots of state legalized pot (although voting to tax it as well).
  • The bad – Voters appear to have approved class-warfare tax hikes in Maine and California. Maine voters also hiked the minimum wage, as did voters in Colorado, and California voters approved higher cigarette taxes. Soda taxes were approved in a handful of locations.
  • The ugly – The defeat of charter school expansion in Massachusetts is a crippling blow to the hopes of poor families for a better education.

As you can see, a mixed bag. Some good results, but also some bad choices.

But this is why I like federalism. States can innovate and experiment, constrained by the fact that really crazy policies will eventually lead to California-style decline. And I’d rather have a couple of states in a death spiral rather than the entire nation.

Donald J. Trump is going to be

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump delivers his speech on Election Eve in Manchester, New Hampshire, November 7, 2016.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump delivers his speech on Election Eve in Manchester, New Hampshire, November 7, 2016.

President-Elect Donald Trump said during 60 Minutes on Sunday he was “not going to take the salary” worth $400,000 annually while serving as president.

“No, I’m not going to take the salary,” Mr. Trump told a rather hostile Lesley Stahl in an interview broadcast on Sunday. “I’m not taking it.”

He also pledged not to take long vacations during his tenure in the White House, something President Barack Obama has been widely criticized for doing, even in times of crisis.

“There’s just so much to be done,” he added. “So I don’t think we’ll be very big on vacations, no.”

Mr. Obama was infamously criticized for looking annoyed for having to give a press conference interrupting his vacation at Martha’s Vineyard after James Foley was beheaded by the Islamic State. He was seen high-fiving and laughing on the golf course shortly after. He has also taken a number of family vacations in Hawaii, sometimes separate from his wife.

President-Elect Donald Trump said during 60 Minutes

FBI Director James Comey, left, testifies in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, while Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, right, talks to reporters on the campaign trail in Florida. (Photos: AP)

FBI Director James Comey, left, testifies in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, while Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, right, talks to reporters on the campaign trail in Florida. (Photos: AP)

Following her defeat to President-Elect Donald J. Trump, Hillary Clinton and her campaign assigned blame to everyone except the former secretary of state. On Saturday, during a call with top donors and supporters, Mrs. Clinton herself blamed FBI Director James Comey and a letter obtained by People’s Pundit Daily blames multiple sources for the failure, including sexism.

On the call over the weekend, Mrs. Clinton claimed Director Comey’s last letter to Congress, which astonishingly claimed the FBI reviewed more than 600,000 documents in 8 days and cleared her of wrongdoing, hurt her more than the first that alerted lawmakers to the discovery of new evidence. Multiple sources tell PPD that at no time did she concede the decision to setup a server in her home and mishandle classified information contributed to Americans’ decisions at the ballot box.

Mrs. Clinton was completely convinced that she only lost the campaign in the final week, a claim The People’s Pundit disputes vigorously.

“In our national poll, which turned out to be the most accurate, Mrs. Clinton trailed Mr. Trump more than he trailed her since July,” says PPD’s polling head Rich Baris, the People’s Pundit. “We did see significant movement to Mr. Trump in the closing days, but there were more structural and fundamental deficits baked in the electorate cake way before the second Comey letter was reported.”

But reading an internal campaign post-mortem letter by Navin Nayak, head of opinion research at the Clinton campaign, which was emailed to staffers on Thursday, reveals there’s little doubt Mrs. Clinton’s internal circle is in a bubble.

“We believe that we lost this election in the last week. Comey’s letter in the last 11 days of the election both helped depress our turnout and also drove away some of our critical support among college-educated white voters—particularly in the suburbs,” she stated in the letter. “We also think Comey’s 2nd letter, which was intended to absolve Sec. Clinton, actually helped to bolster Trump’s turnout.”

The PPD U.S. Presidential Election Daily Tracking Poll did find Mr. Trump with a deficit among suburban white women, particularly those with a college-degree. It just wasn’t nearly as severe as Big Media pollsters suggested. Mr. Trump’s challenge, which Baris repeated during radio interviews over-and-over, was always whether he could hold on to GOP and GOP-leaning suburban voters while adding a new working class coalition.

In the end, he did and that’s what ultimately decided both the outcome of the election and Mrs. Clinton’s fate.

“Democrats certainly didn’t help themselves by nominating a flawed, untrustworthy candidate under two criminal FBI probes. But sexism had nothing to do with it,” Baris added. “For the most part, voters make rational policy choices at the ballot box and Mr. Trump’s populist platform appealed to voters–both minority and white –who are typically counted among her party’s base. That’s how he broke the Blue Wall, along with strong enthusiasm and support from independents.”

But according to Mrs. Clinton and Nayak, it was the “unprecedented task of electing the first woman to the highest office in the land (code for sexism)” and Mr. Comey’s letter that “likely helped to depress turnout among Hillary’s supporters” and “energized Trump supporters.”

They even blamed “Global forces” for “driving deep-seated anger at institutions,” rather than the economic impact of globalization.

“There is no question that a week from Election Day, Sec. Clinton was poised for a historic win,” Nayak wrote.

Hogwash, says Baris, citing the PPD Poll that consistently showed enthusiasm for Mr. Trump was always higher than it was for Mrs. Clinton. It is natural for enthusiasm in the electorate to increase as Election Day nears, but she always ran a deficit in this area.

“They are still citing now-debunked exit poll numbers and false early vote claims to cover up what they don’t want to admit,” he added. “Donald Trump gave voters a reason to vote for him. Hillary Clinton did not. End of story.”

[pdfviewer width=”740px” height=”849px” beta=”true/false”]https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Clinton-Campaign-Post-Mortem-Letter.pdf[/pdfviewer]

Following her defeat to President-Elect Donald J.

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus greets Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump during a campaign rally, Friday, Aug. 12, 2016, in Erie, Pa. (Photo: AP/Evan Vucci)

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus greets Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump during a campaign rally, Friday, Aug. 12, 2016, in Erie, Pa. (Photo: AP/Evan Vucci)

UPDATED: Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus will be chief of staff to President-Elect Donald J. Trump, sources told People’s Pundit Daily. Further, those with knowledge of the decision-making process say former campaign CEO Steve Bannon is expected, though not confirmed, to be named Senior Counselor to the President.

“Steve and Reince are highly qualified leaders who worked well together on our campaign and led us to a historic victory. Now I will have them both with me in the White House as we work to make America great again,” Mr. Trump said in the release since the initial report. “Bannon and Priebus will continue the effective leadership team they formed during the campaign, working as equal partners to transform the federal government, making it much more efficient, effective and productive.”

The decision to appoint Chairman Priebus makes sense, as Mr. Trump has long-rewarded loyalty. Despite the ups-and-downs during the campaign season bombarded by one bombshell after another, the Wisconsinite defended his party nominee and did much to hold the party together. Further, Chairman Priebus ultimately earned Mr. Trump’s trust when he refused to abandon his campaign during the tough weeks, when other members were asking him to redirect resources to down-ballot candidates.

The campaign statement referred to Priebus and Bannon as “equal partners.” Mr. Bannon previously served as the executive chairman of Breitbart News.

The businessman from New York was the first Republican to carry the Badger State since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

According to sources, fellow-Wisconsinite and House Speaker Paul Ryan, along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kty., both urged Mr. Trump on Thursday to pick Chairman Priebus. Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, also said privately he is supportive of the decision.

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus

New York Times (NYT) building in New York City. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

New York Times (NYT) building in New York City. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

The New York Times is fielding “letters of complaint at a rapid rate” following their abhorrent and bias coverage of the 2016 presidential election. Liz Spayd, their public editor, railed against her own paper for their election coverage.

“Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate,” she wrote. “Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: ‘Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.'”

Spayd also pounced on Upshot, one of PPD’s election projection and polling competitors. Rich Baris, the People’s Pundit himself, frequently accused Upshot of willful ignorance and scale-tipping. Upshot projected there was an 84% chance Hillary Clinton would defeat President-Elect Donald J. Trump.

“Siena has a scar on their reputation for what Nate Cohen at Upshot did with their data,” Mr. Baris, PPD’s editor and analyst says. “He frequently played with the data given to him to get the result he wanted. In North Carolina, Upshot took a raw lead for Mr. Trump and turned it into a lead for Mrs. Clinton. He decided who was going to vote and for whom, rather than listen to the respondents.”

The reader outrage prompted Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper’s embattled publisher, to write a letter appealing to their readers not to cancel their subscriptions.

[pdfviewer width=”740px” height=”849px” beta=”true/false”]https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/New-York-Times-Letter.pdf[/pdfviewer]

In a letter to readers on Friday, Sulzberger said the paper would “reflect” on its coverage of this year’s election and rededicate itself to reporting on “America and the world” honestly. Sulzberger also reportedly sent a note to staffers on Friday reminding the newsroom to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor.” However, he still insisted that the paper covered both candidates fairly.

“We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers,” the letter states. “But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias.”

But Spayd didn’t see it that way, either. Agreeing with the readers sending them letters, she underscored how one said the paper should focus on the electorate instead of “pushing the limited agenda of your editors.”

“Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us.”

The New York Times is fielding "letters

[brid video=”75950″ player=”2077″ title=”Pollster eats bug after Trump win”]

Princeton pollster Sam Wang, a corrupt Big Media favorite, ate a bug on CNN after he said he would if Donald J. Trump won more than 240 electoral votes. But he didn’t do it before exposing his own bias, claiming like a true elite what President-Elect Trump would do policy-wise is more important than how he got it so wrong.

Mr. Wang also brought on a can of gourmet crickets, when he probably should’ve been forced to pick up a cockroach off the ground of Princeton University for how badly he missed the election.

Meanwhile, Your’s Truly at People’s Pundit Daily, was the most accurate pollster both nationally and statewide in 2016. That’s probably because we don’t factor in what the candidate’s Supreme Court preferences will be when we crunch the results of our polling responses.

We think Mr. Wang, and frankly the rest of the polling industry, have forgotten what it is their job responsibilities entail.

Princeton pollster Sam Wang, a corrupt Big

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial