>>>A. He's trying to improve the quality of journalism across the world.
>>>B. He's following Roy Cohn's principle - attack the attacker.
>
>>>My choices are obviously facetious.
>>>You either believe that Trump is a despicable individual or you don't.
>>>No doubt where I land.
>>>I wouldn't let him in my house if he rang my doorbell.
>>>If he asked to join me for a round of golf, I'd refuse.
>
>You may recall muted reaction, including your own, to Sanders fear-mongering about access to coronavirus (2019-nCoV) vaccine being limited to the rich.
>
>Although it clashed with your own world experience, you gave him a pass.
>
>Others felt it more likely that their colleagues on the Pence Taskforce would fund vaccine for uninsured and illegals in the interests of public health.
>
>The Pence taskforce subsequently aired their recommendation for vaccine funding for uninsured and illegals in the interests of public health.
>
>Perhaps you can point me to a Factcheck.org link where they are all over Sanders for this? (Don't waste your time- there isn't one).
>
>Instead, the link you did find showed factcheck.org poring over a one-hour Trump speech for a few ad lib seconds complaining of a low camera angle to exaggerate the size of a protest.
>
The subject was his vilification of anyone, including news people, who disagree with him.

It's serious when important institutions are called into question by someone in power.
He's attacked the press, the military, the state dept, the courts, prosecutors, even the jury that convicted Roger Stone.
The common thread here is that the attacks occur when those institutions have disagreed with him.

There are millions of people who believe what he says- I know some of them.

I'm hearing "fake news", "deep state", "dirty cops" used routinely now.

As I've said before the ultimate conclusion for these people is that only Trump can be trusted.

That's a big deal.