I remember when The Guardian used to be a great paper. But then the CIA/MI6 intervened, forcing them to destroy their servers after the Snowden leak, and it's been an establishment rag ever since. I recommend reading the OffGuardian if you want to still find some of that classic "Guardian" critique. https://off-guardian.org
Regarding the recent pipe-bombing incident, shouldn't we be skeptical about what the media is telling us in unison? Isn't skepticism a sign of intelligence? Or should we return to a pre-Enlightenment era where we passively accept everything our "masters" tell us? It's clear which direction The Guardian / CNN / MSNBC / BBC / The New York Times / etc hopes we go...
Common sense tells us there is no reason to send faulty pipe bombs to prominent (yet out of power) Democrats just before an election UNLESS you want to increase public support for the Democrats. But maybe the suspect lacks all common sense and is just your typical nut, driven even more crazy by the incessant media hysteria of the past two years. In addition to this incident, we've have two physical attacks on the Republican Rand Paul, a nut shot into the Republican side of the joint Democrat - Republican baseball match (nearly killing one of the members), ricen has been sent to Trump... and that's just what I can remember offhand! Yes, there are a lot of crazies out there. Perhaps Trump is right when he blames the media for deliberately fanning partisan flames?
As for the other article, about Trump speaking to a group of conservative African Americans, what is the point? Its underlying message? Isn't the article implying that the African Americans in the audience are stupid? If every white person who supports Trump is a racist (as the Guardian suggests), then what about the growing numbers of African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans who also support Trump? Are they all too stupid to realize racism when it's in their face? Do they need the divine authority of The Guardian to explain it to them in a patronizing way? No, they, like everyone else, can reach their own conclusions, and decide what is best for them and their communities based on their own lived experiences. To imply that a group should not support Trump b/c of their race / gender / or any other form of identity is to practice the same politics of oppression that the "left" allegedly decries. Rather than trying to make them look stupid for thinking the "wrong" way, The Guardian should be praising them for trying to get involved in their communities.
And yeah, Trump did say something factually incorrect in the second article - he mistook John Quicny Adams for John Adams as the first resident in the White House. No doubt The Guardian took great glee in pointing out that error. And no doubt The Guardian is oblivious to how petty and out-of-touch their anal-retentive fact-checking makes them seem.
