Now I know I'm slightly obsessed by The Guardian, but in this piece, the author

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

It was WES, actually, and in the sense of 'a mean-spirited wretch', it was entirely apt.

Begging your pardon b. My feeble grasp of language had led me to believe a poltroon was a coward.

( I am employing socratic irony here incidentally )

[Peter]

How does it not add up as it really what she says. (I admit it is clumsily written nonsense on the whole)

Because she doesnt say he will do anything to get ratings. She says he would happily preside over the hanging of gays to get ratings.

Removing this part is precisely the same as removing the ratings part. If she wants to say he will do anything to get ratings, say that. She doesnt. She says he would happily (happily!) preside over it for ratings. Whatever way you cut it she 'suspects' he would happily hang gays. Why does the motivation for hanging gays matter more than the, you know, hanging of gays?

[Peter]

Right. So you don't think that saying that the President of the United States "would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people" (for whatever bullshīt reason) is a massive slight? Only I'd say it's a bit more than a slight. I'd say it's a gross and tasteless calumny with no substance whatsoever and if you're defending it, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

Its also part of an attempt to convince gay people to oppose him/hate him/vote for the opposition. She 'suspects' he hates gay people enough to be happy about hanging them.

Happy. Not 'reluctant but ratings must the the prioority'. Happy.

[Luis Anaconda]

Because she doesnt say he will do anything to get ratings. She says he would happily preside over the hanging of gays to get ratings.

Removing this part is precisely the same as removing the ratings part. If she wants to say he will do anything to get ratings, say that. She doesnt. She says he would happily (happily!) preside over it for ratings. Whatever way you cut it she 'suspects' he would happily hang gays. Why does the motivation for hanging gays matter more than the, you know, hanging of gays?

No you are completely wrong - the rating part is introduced here, the hanging gays was mentioned up above

[Burney]

Its also part of an attempt to convince gay people to oppose him/hate him/vote for the opposition. She 'suspects' he hates gay people enough to be happy about hanging them.

Happy. Not 'reluctant but ratings must the the prioority'. Happy.

Of course. It's part of the usual old toss, the subtext of which is 'Trump hates gays. I don't have any actual evidence that he hates gays, but we all know he does, right? Because...Trump, yeah? Ooooh, I hate that Trump! Grrrr!'
God knows, there are plenty of actual things for which one can criticise Trump without having to resort to this sort of shÃ*t. At best it's pathetic, childish mudslinging and has no place anywhere near a reputable newspaper. If I'd tried to write something like that about anyone as a junior reporter I'd have been - quite rightly - out on my fùcking ear.

[Peter]

No you are completely wrong - the rating part is introduced here, the hanging gays was mentioned up above

What?

"One suspects....that he himself would happily preside over the televised hanging of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings"

Direct quote, one sentence, the two points entirely co-dependent. Would happily do it for good ratings.

I dont really get your point.

[Sir C]

Of course. It's part of the usual old toss, the subtext of which is 'Trump hates gays. I don't have any actual evidence that he hates gays, but we all know he does, right? Because...Trump, yeah? Ooooh, I hate that Trump! Grrrr!'
God knows, there are plenty of actual things for which one can criticise Trump without having to resort to this sort of shÃ*t. At best it's pathetic, childish mudslinging and has no place anywhere near a reputable newspaper. If I'd tried to write something like that about anyone as a junior reporter I'd have been - quite rightly - out on my fùcking ear.

It's a barely-literate propaganda rag.

No wonder it's going bankrupt.

[Peter]

Of course. It's part of the usual old toss, the subtext of which is 'Trump hates gays. I don't have any actual evidence that he hates gays, but we all know he does, right? Because...Trump, yeah? Ooooh, I hate that Trump! Grrrr!'
God knows, there are plenty of actual things for which one can criticise Trump without having to resort to this sort of shÃ*t. At best it's pathetic, childish mudslinging and has no place anywhere near a reputable newspaper. If I'd tried to write something like that about anyone as a junior reporter I'd have been - quite rightly - out on my fùcking ear.

I would suggest it has no place in a reputable newspaper because it is bloody idiotic.

[Luis Anaconda]

Right. So you don't think that saying that the President of the United States "would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people" (for whatever bullshīt reason) is a massive slight? Only I'd say it's a bit more than a slight. I'd say it's a gross and tasteless calumny with no substance whatsoever and if you're defending it, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

No, I don't think it is a massive slight on a man who chose a massive homophobe as his VP and whom she believes, with some justification, openly jokes about the subject. I don't think it a massive slight on a man who openly says in an election campaign he could walk into Times Square and shoot someone without it affecting his ratings. He has set the bar very low and I don't think it does much credit to anyone to sink to his level and I think it is a poorly written piece. ffs awimb now constitutes half the readership of that story I would think

[Luis Anaconda]

What?

"One suspects....that he himself would happily preside over the televised hanging of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings"

Direct quote, one sentence, the two points entirely co-dependent. Would happily do it for good ratings.

I dont really get your point.

ffs then I can't really explain even though it is quite simple. I have a bottle of 6.8 per cent IPA on my desk and I am buggered (oops sorry Mike and Don) if I am going to ruin my mood with this ****