Ah, I see now what you mean by category.
I seem to remember some other Hollywood movie where a character uncovers a conspiracy that in the end, the New York Times fails to cover, but I can’t remember what it was, and I suppose that’s not the same kind of story anyway. But yeah, I agree that the Boston Globe is ranks as a major US paper.
You left out Benghazi.
About 1/3 of them say they won’t vote GOP if he isn’t the nominee (which he won’t be). Weirdly, a load of them would even vote Democratic (in protest?) apparently.
The GOP base does, though. And having a competent ground game is starting to pay dividends for him.
As far as journalism films go, there’s a Pentagon Papers TV movie, apparently.
And the craptastic Fifth Estate?
Citizenfour?
uhhhh. . . I believe you’re thinking of Boston’s other daily paper, the Boston Herald, the tabloid rag formerly owned by Rupert Murdoch. I think the Globe may have endorsed Romney for Republican nominee but they endorsed Obama for President. The Globe didn’t even endorse Romney for Governor.
Monday, Jan. 23, 2017
Republican House Passes Articles of Impeachment for Second President Clinton
Senate Begins Trial Immediately; Vice President Warren to be Impeached Tomorrow
How’s that for a start?
Needs work.
One thing that makes good satire is something that your example lacks: plausibility.
So you’re saying you think they’ll wait a whole week? Interesting…
Oh! Wait— *smacks head* —I see what you’re getting at. Republicans will likely lose control of Congress completely in November. My bad.
I’m saying that corporate-friendly Mrs. Clinton would be good for “business.” Republicans would never admit that openly, and they would make all sorts of manly noises about other problems they supposedly have with her. But they’d also be pretty much okay with working with her on greasing the gears that keep funneling money upward in the plutocratic empire. Her actions have shown that she would be okay with maintaining the financial status quo as well.
Am I a bad person for wanting to see their front page from the Cruz presidency?
Mmm hmm. Mmm hmmm. Plausible.
But not very funny. I win. \m/
This. Trump is a systemic failure. It’s not just the GOP that allowed this, it is an American populace with a lot of problems (ignorance chief among them). Cruz is the runner up, FFS.
Hard not to see this as a response to ‘that black muslim’ president.
Isn’t Sen. Cruz less electable? He couldn’t unify his own party enough to win Florida or Ohio.
See, that just doesn’t surprise me at all. Not one little bit.
Undemocratic or not, the rules are designed to give party elites a system of checks and balances in the event of situations just like this one. Why have this system at all if not to prevent the worst major-party Presidential candidate in living memory?
I think Patton Oswalt put it pretty well: Cruz is Hannibal Lecter. Trump is Leatherface with a chainsaw. Both are self-centered, evil-to-the core psychopaths—but Cruz is the psychopath who can sometimes be reasoned with.
But Trump is the psychopath who can be distracted by shiny objects.
Trump has lots of bluster and says horrible things off the cuff, but I think he is basically more pragmatic. He may say things like women should be punished for getting abortions, for example, but the next day, or a week or month later he’ll change his stance.
Cruz, on the other hand, is a TrueBeliever™ and will pursue his beliefs to the ends of the earth (which will come a lot sooner if either of them is elected president 
)
No, in the article they definitely support Romney over Trump for the nomination, but I support Stoopy McFartpants or really any fictional, insulting name to be run as a Republican candidate. It really is the only responsible solution.
How far into the presidency? Over ten years? There won’t be a Boston Globe anymore.
