No. I wouldn't call them a shill, that's your word, not mine, but they definitely have a conservative bias; that is not really debatable. What's debatable is whether they are
moderately conservative or very conservative. Also, it is nearly impossible to be completely unbiased in all situations, so I don't think they are unreliable because they are conservative; I think they're sometimes unreliable because they often purposely create over-the-top sensationalism, particularly in their headlines (which often don't exactly match the content in my considerable reading experience). They are very aware, like everyone else, that
most people do not read entire articles. They read the headline, stick around for 15 seconds, share it on social media if the headline or tiny amount they read agrees with their views, and then move on. Heck, I'd be fooling myself if I thought people read my screeds and diatribes in their entirety even on a message board.
The Post, the Times, and every other paper ever in existence are not immune to this type of sensationalism, of course, but it isn't their main business model.
I know metacognition is
not a strong point for many, so I will walk you through some, just in case you happen to be one of those for which it is a weakness: Rhetorically, you are doing exactly what the writers in the Daily Mail (and others) do, which is to take something and add loaded language to it, or through omission you are creating an impression that just isn't supportable. And just because I can look at something objectively doesn't mean that I am not at this very second doing the same thing as I type these words. But if you are aware of it, it's easier to be objective. Or it's easier to manipulate people. Or both.
Take, for example, this statement of yours, "Why now with a President that has shown some degraded mental abilities? I think it's obvious, but spin it how you want." I am taking the literal words of the letter that was sent while you are putting your (or rather Hannity's or Levin's or whoever you listen to where you first heard this idea) suppositions into it. That is literally the definition of spin, so who is spinning words again? The answer at this point is, of course, we both are, but your spin is much more obvious and maladroit (rhetorical choice metacognition alert: I didn't want to say
amateurish because it might be seen as offensive, but
maladroit doesn't
quite have the same negative connotation, though it essentially means the same thing. I could have chosen
inexpert, but throwing out a term like
maladroit matches the general tone of this post more so because it's still a slight dig and not quite as neutral as
inexpert.). This is clearly a digression. I apologize, sorta. Back to the topic.
And now for some rhetorical questions: What evidence do you have of Biden's degraded mental abilities that isn't from a guest on Hannity's show? What authority do you have to diagnose these? How much were you questioning George W. Bush's mental faculties when he had these gaffes and solecisms:
This is only a few of them from the highly partisan Guide to Grammar.
You said, "You cannot have a committee or a process to Launch Nukes. If we elect a Crazy War Monger or someone who is mentally incompetent then that is the consequence we must endure." Why not and why must we "endure" electing someone who is mentally incompetent or a crazy war monger? We, in fact, positively do not have to "endure" since the 25th amendment is in place specifically for that purpose. Imagine your daughter marrying a guy that abuses her: do you expect her to "endure" that relationship as a "consequence" for choosing that person in the first place?
I think, and I may be wrong, the goal is to maybe not have nuclear war. A committee makes a nuclear war less possible. The idea of limiting the president's ability to unilaterally order a nuclear strike is not a new idea.
