The Gray Lady endorses 2 women for president

"All Left News That Fits We Print"

The Gray Lady, aka The New York Times, announced on Sunday that it was endorsing two women: a chronic liar and an angry staff abuser for the presidential nominations.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) both identify as women and both, coincidentally, have X-Y chromosomes, making them both biological women and not just women who are men that identify as women.

The Times' decision was immediately mocked on social media.

“In a break with convention, the editorial board has chosen to endorse two separate Democratic candidates for president,” the flaming leftists at the former newspaper wrote in red crayon.  “American voters must choose between three sharply divergent visions of the future.”

The Times went on to demonized all of President Donald Trump's accomplishments as racist and done out of “the veneration of a mythological past.” [By "President Donald Trump" the Times was referring to the Ku Klux Klan, which was a Democratic organization.]

The canary cage liner known as The Times correctly noted that all of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates would be "the most" socialist "president in decades on issues like health care, the economy and government's allocation of resources." And when the government takes over our resources, they will take over all the means of production and the U.S.A. will be known as "Big Venezuela."

The Times wrote, and I will [often sarcastically] comment in brackets to provide the reader with clarity of fact:

There are legitimate questions about whether our democratic system is fundamentally broken. Our elections are getting less free and fair [because Hillary Clinton should have won in 2016 and the damn electoral college got in the way], Congress and the courts are increasingly partisan [because conservatives follow the U.S. Constitution as it was written and the left follows its need to virtue-signal], foreign nations are flooding society with misinformation [something they have done for centuries and now perfected by the Democrats], a deluge of money flows through our politics [while the Democrats pretend to be against money when it doesn't involve getting into their pockets]. And the economic mobility that made the American dream possible is vanishing [as evidenced by the astronomical growth of the global economy, the highest availability of jobs, the lowest unemployment among all groups of Americans, lower taxes keeping more money in the pockets of earners, and the growth of jobs coming back to America.]

Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it. [And by electing a socialist who will destabilize our economy and punish success, this will be achieved by the magic of hope for change.]

That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. [Because nothing says effective like a spinner of tall tales like Elizabeth "Blowing Smoke" Warren and Amy Klobuchar, a thrower of inanimate objects and a screamer at her underlings.]

The Times joined the rest of the media in trying to put an end to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ campaign, highlighting problems with his age, health, and style of politics. The Times wrote:

Mr. Sanders would be [a] 79 [-year-old Communist] when he assumed office, and after an October heart attack, his health is a serious concern, [unlike Hillary Clinton's health when her staff saved her from taking a header into an SUV when losing her equilibrium]. Then, there’s how Mr. Sanders approaches politics. He boasts that compromise is anathema to him. Only his [rather stupid and impractical] prescriptions can be the right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive. He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda [but to be fair, Obama promised the oceans would recede and the air would be peachy keen if you voted for him. How'd that work out?] Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising [by "over-promising" they mean promises a lot and actually delivers], divisive figure in Washington for another.

Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller. … [which is why her Indian name is "Throwing Bull"].

Even the left had a laugh at the lunacy.

Carol Roth tweeted:

This is so patronizing and cringey… they can’t even pick one. “Oh, let’s be progressive and pick a woman! Well, we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. Let’s pick both, they won’t mind…” https://t.co/l6xxtPUCmD
— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) January 20, 2020

Even the executive director of the Sunrise Movement, which is slightly to the left of Stalin mockingly tweeted:

oh ya totally this makes sense https://t.co/HYGIk8TbRY
— Varshini Prakash (@VarshPrakash) January 20, 2020

Here's another:

Literally seconds from cancelling my subscription. https://t.co/rgrEnruAFr— Chris Martin Palmer (@ChrisPalmerNBA) January 20, 2020

And the mocking went on.

Suffice it to say, the New York Times is so far left, so bias against Trump and so far "in the bag" for Warren [they needed to include Klobuchar because they didn't want to come off as Warren's fan club] that they have reached a point of being a laughing stock.

Even the canaries are asking to change the paper.


Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings.

Tweet