Scary. Newsbusters walked down a dark memory lane with this collection of the vitriol aimed at Trump and the prospect of Trump victory eight years ago:

1. “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?…It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.”
— Jim Rutenberg in an August 8, 2016 New York Times front-page story, “The Challenge Trump Poses to Objectivity.”

2. “It doesn’t matter who you are — a journalist, a politician or a voter — we’ll all be judged by how we responded to Donald Trump. Like it or not, this election is a plebiscite on the most divisive, polarizing and disrupting figure in American politics in decades. And neutrality is not an option.”
— Univision and Fusion news anchor Jorge Ramos in an August 23, 2016 article posted at Time.com.

3. “In an ordinary presidential campaign, press neutrality is essential. But in Trump we have somebody who has threatened democracy by talking about banning an entire religion from entering the country; forcing Muslims in America to register with authorities; rewriting press laws and prosecuting his critics and political opponents; blacklisting news organizations he doesn’t like; ordering the military to do illegal things such as torture and targeting innocents; and much more. In this case, attempting neutrality legitimized the illegitimate.”
— Washington Post’s Dana Milbank in an October 25, 2016 column.

4. Slate editor Jacob Weisberg: “You know, the structure of covering politics is you compare an apple and an orange, and they have different attributes, but they’re both fruits and you can take your pick. In this case we have something more like an apple and some rancid meat. Excuse the expression.” Host Brian Stelter: “I’m sorry, is Donald Trump the rancid meat?” Weisberg: “He’s the rancid meat, and in all sorts of ways. I mean, it’s conspiracy thinking, and racism.”
— Exchange on CNN’s Reliable Sources, September 4, 2016.

CBS Sunday Morning contributor Nancy Giles: “I am now seeing Hillary Clinton, in her own way, kind of lay out her case against his temperament. I love the fact that she is using his own language against him. I think that’s probably the most effective way. Because he’s, I think, clinically insane….I mean, I really do!” Host Lawrence O’Donnell: “You’re not alone. There’s a lot of clinicians who have been speculating about that.”
— MSNBC’s The Last Word, June 8, 2016.

“To paraphrase Henry Adams, the movement from George H. W. Bush to Donald Trump disproves Darwin.”
— Former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham on CBS’s Face the Nation, October 16, 2016.

Nice. And these people and their ilk have become much worse and more ruthless and unhinged in the intervening years. Remember, this was before two contrived impeachments, President Biden declaring Trump and his supporters as “existential threats,” the attempts to jail Trump through multiple politically motivated prosecutions, and the Axis theme that if Trump wins this year, it will be the last election in America…and, of course, two failed assassination attempts.

Never mind the fact that Trump’s SCOTUS appointments are blamed for stopping women from relying on an imaginary right to kill the unborn at will.

Yes, Samuel?

I agree whole-heartedly.

[Oh: I left out a quote from Keith Olbermann, because he’s absurd, and nobody should care what he says, thinks, or writes.]