NY Times vs Donald Trump

Theory: Whenever the MSM is indignant and on a high horse about Donald Trump, it was probably one of his more reasonable moments.

Article: Trump’s History of Defending Men Accused of Hurting Women

If you look at Trump's tweet, and insert any other topic besides [women accusing men of sexual misconduct], like you just measure the content of those words, I don't think anybody runs around disagreeing or has any issue with it.

Yet, the general feeling and implication from the NY Times (and probably from the left in general) is that this is sexism on Trump's part. That he's "defending men".

But since you'd agree with the statement if it were other topics besides this, and have an issue with it in this case, maybe you're the sexist ones? 🤔🤔🤔

Due process is always important.

Ultimately, to protect potential future victims.

There really are no shortcuts in this universe of ours, and this is a perfect illustration of that.

The less committed you are to due process, the more unclear it is that all future similar claims are true.

And then a side-effect is you create immunity for anyone who really did it. Without due process, the worst case scenario for an offender is to be placed in a more murky category of "may have done it but it's so hard to tell these days" rather than the firm category of people who are sex offenders and should be treated as such.

By muddying the water in this way it becomes a more favorable landscape for people who want to offend.

So due process is just a good thing.

It doesn't help men or women or any demographic at the expense of others.

It's just good that we would have a standard of seeking truth and clarity about what occurred. And it's really just insane to suggest otherwise. (Even if you don't like Donald Trump, it's insane to believe there's anything wrong with his statement about due process.)

---

Are Trump's statements politically motivated? Sure, probably. (Or at least, motivated by a sense of loyalty to someone who has worked with him.) But that doesn't mean you have a valid reason to criticize it.

It can happen to be reasonable and true even if it's motivated politically.

There could be a political motivation behind a statement about why it's good to help old people cross the street. But all you can do is measure the content of the statement. You don't have a valid objection with it just because you don't like the messenger.

The Times goes on to say that Trump's criticisms seem to fall along partisan lines. 😲

There's a lot to dissect here.

Partisan lines could easily be a part of it. But that's hardly the defining feature.

If someone spits on my shoes and I spit back, it doesn't seem like the first thing you should mention is that he had any feature or characteristic besides that he spit on my shoes.

Even in The Times' own edit here you see that Franken is accusing Trump of having a history of sexual assault. And so Trump isn't necessarily motivated by anything other than returning the same treatment or standard.

For better or worse (whether he should have responded or ignored it or whatever), you can't leap to it being about political lines. In my book, if you antagonize someone, you don't get to say it was some other thing besides your behavior that caused them to react.

Plus there's literally a photograph that shows Franken to be guilty of what he's accused of, which seems to kind of take it out of the "allegation" phase. But that's not even important.

Different standards.

Trump isn't trying to strip Clinton of Due Process. If these accusers aren't being heard, then calling it to attention is an act of Due Process.

In other words:

"In this case we rush to judgment and assume the person is guilty"

and

"In this case we don't investigate and ignore the allegations and continue to give the person positive news coverage"

are BOTH examples of Due Process not occurring.

So a consistent commitment to due process would potentially cause you to be labeled as hypocritical by the NY Times.

I wonder if there's a chance they could be falling along partisan lines here. 🤣🤣🤣

Of course Trump is politically motivated when he calls out Bill Clinton, but again, that doesn't mean he's wrong or that there's a valid criticism of it.

And regardless..

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Flashing back to the title of the article: Trump's History of Defending Men Accused of Hurting Women

You don't get to accuse him of siding with men over women, and then cite all these other examples of when he sided with women over men and forget you ever said the first thing and now try to accuse him of a different bias.

It's kind of like you don't get to accuse me of rooting for the Cavs over the Warriors, and then also accuse me of basing it on some other variable like who was winning at the time.

I mean, you could. But it's self-defeating. One allegation directly cuts in to the other. If the second one is true it comes at the expense of how true the first one could have been.

So if I was a reader of the NY Times, I'd be annoyed that they drew me in with one thing and then proceeded to say things that weakened that claim.

It seems like a dizzying web of wasting my time with non-material. Basically drawn up to try to manipulate people into feeling a certain way without any specific arguments or justifications for it.