Fallacious NYT: No Difference Between Trump and Weiner

They’ve completely jumped the shark.

8.31.2016

New York Times columnist Frank Bruni wasted 800 words desperately trying to describe Donald Trump and Anthony Weiner as “irredeemable twins.” His logic stretched so thin it snapped like the waistband of Weiner’s Jockeys.

When one thinks of the infidelities perpetrated by the husband of Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, it’s hard not to make a connection to Bill Clinton, especially since the two families are inextricably linked. That connection deepens knowing the former two-timing president officiated Weiner’s wedding, as TruthRevolt reported on Tuesday.

But as an employee of the nation’s top pro-Hillary paper, Bruni doesn’t connect those dots. No, to him, Weiner and Trump are one and the same:

Trump is to his persevering supporters what Weiner was to his long-suffering wife: a scoundrel undeserving of so many second chances; a head case incapable of the redemption that’s supposedly just a few extra measures of discipline away; someone selling himself as a servant of the public although he’s really a slave to his own raging ego and unquenchable needs.

When Trump looks in the mirror, there’s a whole lot of Weiner staring back at him.

“The details are tawdrier in Weiner’s case, and the stakes far smaller. But both men are creatures of potent want and pure compulsion who lucked into forgiving audiences,” Bruni added.

And like Abedin who announced she'd had enough, Bruni wonders how long Trump’s “legions” will stand by their man. He continued drawing lines:

[Trump] is someone who once joked to Howard Stern — on the air — that his own Vietnam was the danger he courted as a libidinous man in an era of sexually transmitted diseases. This is someone who publicly drooled over his daughter Ivanka, saying that he might date her if he hadn’t sired her.

Weiner sent strangers pictures of his bulge. Trump assured the viewers of a nationally televised debate that he was amply endowed.

These impulses — these boasts — aren’t unrelated.

Bruni ends, “Have we constructed a politics with such bright, invasive lights that those who find it more attractive than repulsive include an unhealthy number of insecure exhibitionists out for affirmation above all else?”

NYT’s readers weren’t kind to Bruni’s leap of logic:

“Bruni should mull over the fact that but for one mistaken keystroke on Weiner's phone when he accidently made a "sexting" tweet public, New York Democrats probably would have elected Weiner Mayor. Would the Times and Bruni have backed him? No doubt, even though Weiner's unfitness for office, his obvious narcissism, incivility and phony tough guy act, were abundantly clear without embarassing pictures.”

“This is simply silly. A ridiculous waste of time and ink. Gossip hiding behind privilege.”

“According to NYT Trump is responsible for all our ills. Now he is responsible for rabid Democratic stalwart, Anthony Weiner! Give us a break! Time to denigrate Trump's wife while declaring every other politician's family off limits. Have you no shame?”

“While I'm no fan of Trump, this piece is such a tortured stretch to try to paint Trump with the Weiner brush as to be irredeemable. The writer needs to stick to sensitive pieces about the LGBT community.”

“Mr. Bruni: What a nasty column, as you try to tie Weiner (Democrat) to your hated Republican (Trump). If you want to trash (actually, expose, pun intended) a Democrat who continually cheated, preyed upon women, and had a Lady Macbeth who covered for him, why does your article not even mention Bill Clinton?”

At least someone was paying attention, proving some NYT readers are smarter than its contributors.

The Freedom Center is a 501c3 non-profit organization. Therefore we do not endorse political candidates either in primary or general elections. However, as defenders of America’s social contract, we insist that the rules laid down by both parties at the outset of campaigns be respected, and that the results be decided by free elections. We will oppose any attempt to rig the system and deny voters of either party their constitutional right to elect candidates of their choice.