NY Times op-ed pushes for CANCELING THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

NY Times Opinion

The New York Times, an arm of the far-left wing of the Democrat Party, appears to want the presidential debates canceled. Their op-ed writer says, “Scrap them altogether. And not for health reasons.” If this is what the NY Times is putting out, you can be fairly certain Joe Biden can’t and won’t debate. If the Times were honest, they’d put the authors down as the Editorial Board which is mostly run by the 1619 Project author, Nikole Hannah-Jones.

In the op-ed by journalist Elizabeth Drew, she writes:

The debates have never made sense as a test for presidential leadership. In fact, one could argue that they reward precisely the opposite of what we want in a president. When we were serious about the presidency, we wanted intelligence, thoughtfulness, knowledge, empathy and, to be sure, likability. It should also go without saying, dignity.

Yet the debates play an outsize role in campaigns and weigh more heavily on the verdict than their true value deserves.

This follows commentary by a number of cable fake news stations doing the bidding of the Democrat Party or visa versa. We aren’t sure who is in charge but they work in tandem. Over the weekend, Joe Lockhart was on CNN saying Biden should definitely not debate because of OrangeManBad.

The Democrat Party has probably come to the conclusion that Joe Biden, in his deteriorating mental state, must stay bunkered in his basement or hanging in the yard with all those birds we hear chirping on his video announcements.

They are actually going to run a seriously impaired candidate by hiding him.

The author of the NY Times piece went on in the article to demonize the value of debates. Then she assured the readers that she isn’t saying this because she fears Joe Biden would lose the debate. She writes:

This, by the way, isn’t written out of any concern that Donald Trump will prevail over Joe Biden in the debates; Mr. Biden has done just fine in a long string of such contests. The point is that “winning” a debate, however assessed, should be irrelevant, as are the debates themselves.

From there, she went on to say it is better to choose a candidate by following the long campaign.

Is that the long campaign where Biden hid in his basement?

Her conclusion is that Trump demonstrates, “vulgarity…ignorance and insensitivity and extreme narcissism.”

We assume she has a degree in mental health or she would not have diagnosed him. Then she made unsubstantiated claims — acrimonious invective based on hate. Drew writes:

Moreover, we didn’t need the debates to tell us that Trump had chosen to be the P.T. Barnum of American politics. For him, it was (and still is) all about the show, about distracting the public from reality. It was obvious that Mr. Trump had no real affinity for the working-class people whose votes he was chasing. Nothing in his life suggested that his heart was with struggling workers and farmers. It wasn’t impossible to know that he wasn’t the skilled businessman he professed to be. His bankruptcies and shady business practices and discrimination against Black tenants were no secret.

So, basically, they are running a candidate with dementia of some sort, hiding him since he will only be a puppet, and these same anonymous handlers will really be the unelected president and vice president of the United States. They’re running on Trump hatred, and their platform is clearly hard left. The platform is ‘hate Trump’ and ‘ignore our communist agenda.’

PowerInbox