Jonathan Chait

But then you can also flip that.

And Jonathan Chait and others have written about how the media, out of necessity, just has to cover Trump differently and in a way that serves Trump.

If we were to legitimately spell out with a language appropriate to the offense each and every time something happens, if we were to hit Trump and his people with that, It might actually sound more inflated language, more inflammatory, more incendiary.

100%.

And unfortunately for Trump, journalists can keep reporting on all of those things, whether standing in the Oval Office or safely outside the Secret Service perimeter.

In The Atlantic, Jonathan Chait argued Trump's attacks on the media are self-defeating.

Donald Trump is presiding over a failing presidency and lashing out at the news media, most recently by banning CNN, Politico, and MSNOW from the White House.

There might seem to be a connection between these two things, but the causal link is not that Trump is punishing the press because he is failing.

time.

That's why Jonathan Chait is to me, as offensive a writer as anyone because he is obsessed in one obsessed and two willfully blind to what he's doing

yeah

right like i know that you disagree with the republicans but the outlet that you are speaking to The audience that you are speaking to and the expected effects of your column, you should know very well is a way of teaching people who may be waffling on Trump that they should be more afraid of the left.

Well, that and – But I do 100% agree with you about – and again, like I'm self-defeating by continuing to talk about it.

Yeah.

But I 100% agree with you about the Jonathan Chait thing.

I'm with you there.

Yeah.

Anyway, Jonathan Chait, David Sirota, the longtime Sanders aide and 2020 campaign speechwriter spoke plainly.

If the Democratic leadership could find a way to win the Senate and have Abdul lose, I'm sure they would take that bargain.

Jonathan Chait is so hopped up on supremacist values.

in his own echo chamber that he doesn't realize what this sounds like and he takes ownership over this quote by saying why would the democratic leadership take an outcome where they win the senate but lose one particular race why would the democratic party drop a race what you think 52 isn't better than 51 it's basic math are you stupid like can you imagine openly taking ownership over this openly taking ownership over like uh throwing aside one race why would you not want to win as much as possible jonathan are you dumb and wajahat ali obviously calls him out says there you go folks right in the open told you handicap l7 lu elsa adam louis michigan to maga mike rogers if it means weakening the majority that opposes corporate money aipac and israel's genocide

I'm sorry, this is Israel first.

first politics.

That's precisely what it is.

She said that they had direct energy weapons, and she mentioned the Rothschilds.

And then Jonathan Chait said she said space- Jews have space lasers, right?

[laughs]

And so then people try to use that to discredit her because apparently she's the only person in the Republican Party besides Thomas Massie who's willing to tell the truth about shit, right?

It's very clear to me that they would rather throw the Abdul El-Sayed race.

Jonathan Chait recently came out and openly admitted this as well, um, uh, off of, uh, something that David Sirota was, uh, saying in Politico, where David Sirota admitted, like, if Democrats had an opportunity to throw the Michigan Senate race, but then win the majority elsewhere, they would take it 100% of the time.

And Jonathan Chait said, "Yes, absolutely.

Why wouldn't we do that?" And that blows my mind.

So, what, 52 Democrats is somehow worse than 51 Democrats, especially at a time when you have someone like John Fetterman that is an ultimate spoiler? I mean, i- it's, it's, it's ridiculous to openly admit that, and I think it's, it's, it's obvious to me that these guys are unbelievably out of touch, right? They're out of touch and out of step with the needs of the masses.