When is it acceptable to honor Chiness Leadership versus American Leadership? When you are an Editor at the NY Times.

Here is the problem with this NY Times article and the excerpt below:  The Times is wildly passionate about its opposition to Trump,  to the point of being subversive.  If you do not think for yourself,  if you not in weigh the Times report against what has actually happened during Trump's visit into Asia,  your view of reality will not line up with reality.  And the reality is this:  All reports from China is that Trump is extremely popular with the Chinese people,  and,  secondly,  he is coming home with 250 billion dollars in 20 trade deals.  A third point would have to do with the Times decision to show honor to Chinese leadership versus that of our President.  Like I said,  the Times is subversive in its reporting,  a socialist rag that has its own political agenda,  cares nothing about Constitutional process,  fosters open rebellion in our streets,  and is as Marxist oriented as any publication in Russia   . . . . .   I would "more effective" in that regard.  

DANANG, Vietnam — President Trump on Friday vowed to protect American interests against foreign exploitation, preaching a starkly unilateralist approach to a group of leaders who once pinned their economic hopes on a regional trade pact led by the United States.

“We are not going to let the United States be taken advantage of anymore,” Mr. Trump told business leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Danang, Vietnam. “I am always going to put America first, the same way that I expect all of you in this room to put your countries first.”

But taking the stage at the same meeting immediately after Mr. Trump, President Xi Jinping of China delivered a sharply contrasting message, championing more robust engagement with the world. Mr. Xi used his own speech to make a spirited defense of globalization, saying relations among countries should be “more open, more inclusive, more balanced, more equitable and more beneficial to all.”

Mr. Trump’s remarks were strikingly hostile for an audience that included leaders who had supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a sweeping 12-nation accord that was to be led by the United States, from which Mr. Trump withdrew immediately after taking office.

And it indicated the degree to which, under Mr. Trump, the United States — once a dominant voice guiding discussions about trade at gatherings such as APEC — has ceded that role. Even as he was railing against multilateral approaches, the remaining 11 countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership were negotiating intensively to seal the agreement — without the United States. Under the terms being discussed, the United States could re-enter the pact in the future   . . . . .   (you can read the full article in the Times,  here. )