SHARP ATTACKS on TRUMP from RUPERT MURDOCH's NEWS OUTLETS

Author: oromagi
oromagi
Trump
worm
turned

Posts

Total: 14
Topic's author
#1
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Sharp attacks on Trump from Rupert Murdoch’s news outlets
By DAVID BAUDER@APNEWS

NEW YORK (AP) — Former President Donald Trump has taken some hits in the aftermath of the midterm elections, but the unkindest cuts may have come from a source that was once among his biggest backers — the media empire of magnate Rupert Murdoch.

The New York Post’s front cover on Thursday put Trump’s face over the drawing of a boy from a well-known nursery rhyme. The headline: “Trumpty Dumpty.”
“Don (who couldn’t build a wall) had a great fall — can all of the GOP’s men put the party back together again?” the newspaper wrote.

The Wall Street Journal’s opinion section ran a sharp editorial headlined, “Trump is the Republican Party’s Biggest Loser.” While Fox News’ biggest stars were relatively quiet, the former president heard enough discouraging words to attack the network on social media.

Trump was blamed for supporting losing or underperforming candidates like Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, Don Bolduc in New Hampshire and Blake Masters in Arizona that cost Republicans a chance to make big gains in the House and Senate, as many had predicted.

The Journal’s editorial mentioned each of those names and more, saying that Trump had “a perfect record of electoral defeat” since his victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

“Democrats succeeded again in making Trump a central campaign issue, and Mr. Trump helped them do it,” the Journal said.

The newspaper on Thursday also ran a guest column touting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as an alternative to Trump for the 2024 presidential election, and an excerpt from former Vice President Mike Pence’s new book headlined, “My last days with Donald Trump.”

On the Post’s website, veteran columnist John Podhoretz dubbed the former president “Toxic Trump.”

Podhoretz wrote that Trump was “the political equivalent of a can of Raid” and “perhaps the most profound vote repellent in modern American history.”

The Post ran an editorial urging DeSantis run for president. A day earlier, the newspaper’s cover featured a triumphant picture of DeSantis with the headline, “DeFuture.”

A spokesman for Murdoch’s News Corp. said he had no comment on the editorial choices. It’s not like the outlets have never criticized Trump, but the tone and timing were noteworthy.

Non-Murdoch affiliated conservative figures and outlets took some shots at Trump. The Washington Examiner wrote that Republicans needed to choose between electoral success or Trump, while American Thinker said Trump is devolving into a permanent liability, according to The Righting newsletter.

Some Fox News stars tread lightly into critical territory. Jesse Watters talked Wednesday of a 2024 presidential election rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden.

“Does Trump win?” Watters said. “I hope so. I love the guy. A week ago, I would have said slam dunk. But after how last night shook out, I don’t know now. Democrats will walk over hot coals to vote against Trump, but will Republicans do that to vote against Joe Biden?”

Another Fox host, Laura Ingraham, didn’t mention Trump’s name but said the populist movement is about ideas, not one person.

“If the voters conclude that you’re putting your own ego or your own grudges ahead of what’s good for the country, they’re going to look elsewhere,” she said.
Trump has all but promised that he would announce a 2024 candidacy as soon as next week. But his former White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, said on Fox that no potential candidates should announce before the Dec. 6 runoff election for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia. Dov Hikind, a “Fox & Friends” guest, said Trump should announce his support for DeSantis.

“Donald Trump, move on,” he said.

That appeared unlikely, given that Trump recently referred to the Florida governor as “Ron DeSanctimonious.” He also posted Wednesday on Truth Social that he got more votes in Florida in 2020 than DeSantis did this week — even though they were running for different offices and not against each other.

A Trump representative did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

The former president posted that Fox News was “really gone,” and he disputed stories that he had backed losers. He was particularly critical of The New York Times for a story that said he was angry at his wife, Melania, and Fox News’ Sean Hannity for pushing him to back Oz’s Senate candidacy in Pennsylvania.

“I was not at all ANGRY,” he wrote. “Fake news!”
____
Associated Press researcher Rhonda Shafner in New York contributed to this report.



#2
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Somebody summarize this for me. Is this just another artical about how Washington insiders and the political elite hate a populist and organize against him. Or is this something new? 
#3
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,315
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
It’s how “conservatives” would rather vote for a moron with policies that are anti-thetical to everything they believe in because they hate Trump
#4
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Did you know desantis wrote a law limiting freedom of speech. Criticism of Jews could result in legal action in florida
Topic's author
#5
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Somebody summarize this for me. 
lol.  Its 500 words and you need a summary?
Topic's author
#6
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s how “conservatives” would rather vote for a moron with policies that are anti-thetical to everything they believe in because they hate Trump

Conservatism is "a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional social institutions and practices. The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the status quo of the culture and civilization in which it appears. In Western culture, conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as organized religion, parliamentary government, and property rights. Conservatives tend to favor institutions and practices that guarantee stability and evolve gradually."

Conservatives left the Republican Party because Trump is the moron with policies  that are anti-thetical to everything they believe in.
#7
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,075
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@oromagi
Conservatives left the Republican Party because Trump is the moron with policies  that are anti-thetical to everything they believe in.
How is is that Oromagi regularly speaks magic to these Trumpteers and consistently scores a 9 or 10, whereas,

these Trumpteer's,  seem to have a finger in their every orfice of the body on a regular basis, whenever they attempt communication?

Its almost as tho they are mini-me cartoon clones of Trumpet.

Go Oramagi and thanks ever so much  moral and intellectual integrity you consistent post for us. Thank You! 





#8
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,315
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@oromagi
Conservatives left the Republican Party because Trump is the moron with policies  that are anti-thetical to everything they believe in.
Trump is a million times more conservative than Joe Biden lmfao
Topic's author
#9
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Trump is a million times more conservative than Joe Biden lmfao

  • Strongly disagree on even just the most superficial, objective basis.  Anybody who thinks Trump hold some conservative value somewhere is profoundly mistaken.  Trump has no ideology.  Trump has no values.  Every Republican in America could take a solemn oath tomorrow to never vote for Trump again and he will still run again because that is his chance at surviving all the lawsuits and criminal investigations.  

#10
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,202
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@ebuc
Those are not his words or thoughts, its an article copy and pasted that massages his confirmation bias. Yours to apparently.
#11
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
I mean, does anyone remember Our Principles PAC and the reason for the founding of The Lincoln Project and The Bulwark? They were all started by the establishment wing of the Republican Party and all were rabidly anti-Trump. In fact, Our Principles PAC and The Bulwark were literally started by establishment Republican strategists, media celebrities, and/or Congressmen to foment hatred and bad public opinion on President Trump.

See:




The Republican Party base, on the other hand,  is tired of the establishment. They voted for Trump precisely because he spoke to their values. The GOP establishment didn't like him then, and they don't like him now. Nothing's changed.

Topic's author
#12
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Public-Choice
The Republican Party base, on the other hand,  is tired of the establishment. 
Agreed.  My point is that Conservatives, by definitioin, by profession, protect the establishment and never get tired of it.  When a political party is tired of the establishment it is no long Conservative by definition.
#13
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@oromagi
I disagree. Conservative means something totally different depending on the location.

For instance, in America there are actually two different types of Conservatives, and they are constantly at war with each other ideologically.

There's the George Washingtons of the country's founding who were less concerned about freedom, rights, and limited government and more concerned with making Christianity the public and private religion and practice of every citizen and creating a strong federalized government that legislates morality, (See Washington's Circular to the State Governments) and then there were the Thomas Jeffersons and James Madisons who were concerned with defending individual liberty and natural rights. (See Madison's remonstrance of a state religion and Jefferson's writings on Virginia).

Today, these groups would roughly coincide with the Paleoconservatives and the Libertarians. Both are at war with each other for control of conservatism and call the other one a traitor to the founding of the nation. 

But in Britain, the a true conservative party would be advocating for the throne and a monarchy. Edmund Burke, although considered an English Conservative because he basically wrote the english common law commentaries that are still cited to this day, but he actually was against the idea of a lot of what Paleoconservatives support here in America who use him to claim legitimacy to their movement.

But I digress. The point is Conservative is a rather useless term that changes meaning with the times. True conservatism in Europe would be people who advocate for a monarchy and a centralized rule of power and a Christian social framework. True liberals in Europe are the Classical Liberals who oppose all of that. But in 21st century Europe they have flipped sides. Now the "conservatives" want a small, elected government and don't want the government to legislate morality and the liberals want the massive government and a single leader.
Topic's author
#14
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@oromagi
I disagree. Conservative means something totally different depending on the location.
  • Words do sometimes change thier meaning geographically but I think what you mean here is that many different ideologies label themselves conservative.  I find such labels are usually more promotional than ideologically consistent.  Caesar and Napolean called themselves Republicans.  Stalin called himself a Socialist.  Political labels don't change the core meaning of those words- the Pope could call himself an Atheist tomorrow but that shouldn't mean that the meaning of the word changes.  Likewise, a revolutionary can call himself a Conservative but we ought not allow fashion to foul our fundamental understanding of the principle as defined.
  • Conservative means "one who adheres to traditional methods or views."  Conservative means "disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions."   A Jan 6th Seditionist can call himself "Conservative" all he wants but there is no proper application or understanding of that word that might legitimatly apply to such a rebel.

There's the George Washingtons of the country's founding who were less concerned about freedom, rights, and limited government and more concerned with making Christianity the public and private religion and practice of every citizen and creating a strong federalized government that legislates morality, (See Washington's Circular to the State Governments)
  • Sorry but to call any man who goes to war against his king, who overthrows his government a "conservative" is to say "fuck all dictionaries, the meanings of words are entirely subject to my personal self-justification."
  • To say that George Washington wanted "Christianity the public and private religion and practice of every citizen"  or wanted to "legislate morality" is simply an Orwellian rewrite without any care or regard for historical fact.
    • Here is Washington's "circular" which does not support your claim in the least detail
      • https://archive.csac.history.wisc.edu/16_George_Washington.pdf
        • " The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent, the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had a meliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society. At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be intirely their own."
      • to the United Baptist Churches of Virginia
        • "If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed in the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical Society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it..."
      • to the Presbyterian Ministers of Massachusetts and New Hampshire
        • "To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country."
      • to the Hebrew Congregations of Philadelphia, New York, Charleston, and Richmond
        • "The liberality of sentiment toward each other which marks every political and religious denomination of men in this Country, stands unparalleled in the history of Nations."
and then there were the Thomas Jeffersons and James Madisons who were concerned with defending individual liberty and natural rights. (See Madison's remonstrance of a state religion and Jefferson's writings on Virginia).
  • Again, to call any rebel or revolutionary leader a "conservative" is to demonstrate profound ignorance of the meaning of the word and principle.
  • Jefferson, in particular, is remembered as the author of the least conservative poltical treatise ever published to that point in history, The Declaration of Independence- the first to claim that rights were derived, not from God, not from Kings, but from the people with the temerity to demand rights and the strength to defend them.
Today, these groups would roughly coincide with the Paleoconservatives and the Libertarians.

  • LIBERTARIANISM is "a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core value.  Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists, especially social anarchists, but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.  In the mid-20th century, American right-libertarian proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.  The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States,  where it advocates civil liberties, individualism, natural law,  negative rights, free-market capitalism, the non-aggression principle."
    • I think any of the 3 founding fathers you mentioned would have been on board for civil liberties, free-market capitalism and non-agression but all three believed in the necessity of a strong Federal government and all three were horrified by anarchists.
  • PALEOCONSERVATISM is "a political philosophy and variety of conservatism in the United States stressing American nationalism, Christian ethics, regionalism, and traditionalist conservatism"
    • These are precisely the principles as discovered in English governance that the Founding Fathers fought to defeat in the Revolutionary War and explicity sought not to renew when forging a more egalitatrian perspective of public franchise- not "Virginians for Virginia" or "Christians for Christianity" but "All Men"  created equal, alike in rights to happiness and prosperity, "We the People" unqualified.
    • I can't tell which Founding Father you are calling Paleoconservative but I think any would be insulted by the suggestion of some preferential bigotry, whatever the contradictions to be discovered from the porches of their massive slave-powered plantations.
Both are at war with each other for control of conservatism and call the other one a traitor to the founding of the nation. 
  • While either notion enjoys a long tradition in America, to the extent that neither notion is particularly committed to perfecting our Union, to upholding the blessings of Democracy or the instutions  or framework of  our American Republic, neither notion is properly considered American "Conservatism."
  • When I say American Conservatism, I mean the real libertarianism of Goldwater, the loyal Federalism of Reagan, the patriotic service of McCain.  George WIll was the last American Conservative by my estimation although there is no reason that philosophy might not return.
    • To quote Goldwater: "the Republican Party has been taken over by a bunch of kooks.  Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."