I agree with you for the most part with the exception of the issue of abortion.

No it doesn't make any sense. But it feels right, down in the gut where most voters make their decisions.

Thankfully, most voters actually are women (and, of course, men who care about women and families' freedom of choice), and poll after poll reveals there are far too many voters in agreement on that particular issue for them to all be Democrats or Independents... so apparently there are some MAGA rubes who aren't falling for the Trumpian lies regarding (at least) that issue.

"Folks, New York State is run by liberals, and those liberals in their liberal states want to kill babies, as you know. Vote for me to prevent that from happening in your state."

No it doesn't make any sense. But it feels right, down in the gut where most voters make their decisions.

Willful killing of a person at any time after its birth is quite obviously homicide.

You have New York State and other places that passed legislation where you're allowed to kill the baby after birth.

~ Donald Trump

*
But if you kill the baby on 5th Avenue, you won't lose any voters? There has been no such legislation passed in New York State or "other places" in America. This obviously isn't the first time this Trumpian ignorance of New York law has been on full display. Being that the Trump Organization has been declared a criminal enterprise with multiple entities found guilty of multiple felony counts including tax fraud and falsifying business records, Trump subsequently personally has been indicted on 34 similar felony counts, and a New York jurist has clarified that Trump indeed committed rape, those listening to Defendant Donald for any explanation regarding any aspect of the laws of the State of New York have my profound sympathy.

Why? Why can't he be ignored? He's a pathological liar and an obvious seditionist. His status as the leading GOP candidate says more about the GOP at this point in its decline as an American political party, than it does about the media's long-time obligation to treat a GOP front-runner as a serious person. He's virtually insane, and impossible to interview in an honest journalistic fashion, as Welker demonstrated.

Why not ignore him??? Who would complain? The GOP supporters who have proven their insanity by supporting such an obviously inappropriate, if not treasonous and dishonest, candidate? Sorry, your opinion no longer counts because you are showing yourselves to be as insane as your champion, and we the media do not schedule our programming to cater to the mentally disabled.

Why can't the mainstream media fight back against the bullshit, the dishonesty, and the criminality by exercising the power it actually has: to ignore and refuse to cover Trump and his supporters?

The media does not give prime time and front page coverage to flat-earthers, UFO-fanatics, and convicted criminals who swear they didn't do it. Why give time and national attention to the equivalently dishonest and criminal enterprise that is the current so-called "Republican Party" and its favorite, "former president and accused felon, Donald Trump"?

Yeah, I know the answer: that's just not possible in the Washington/NYC media environment. But I wish it was. It would be a blow for American democracy and freedom if they would just cut the cord and let it go.

If Trump does wind up being the nominee, even while facing 91 felony counts in court, he will be newsworthy. He is newsworthy now. If he were some fringe candidate pulling in one or two percent in the polls, the media could easily afford to ignore him. But he's topping 50 percent (and sometimes 60 percent) in recent polls of the GOP base. Nobody else has even come close to laying a glove on him. Which means he cannot just be ignored by serious political journalists.

Okay, he can't be ignored by serious political journalists.

So, name one serious political journalist who could get access to Trump to interview him - broadcast or print.

If anyone could do a masterful job of that, I would think it would be you, Chris. How would you go about it? What kinds of questions would you ask?

I've never heard any so-called journalist, serious or not, ask him the kind of questions that would seriously stump him. Unless you get the chance, I'm pretty sure it will never happen.

What's worse? Ignoring him or letting him rant and rave?

It depends on how you define ignore. I wouldn't ever give him 'free TV time', that is for sure! But, that isn't the only way to shine a light on him and what he stands for. Of course, the other ways take a lot of energy and effort and and cunning and those attributes haven't been hallmarks of political journalism for a very, very long time.

Very nice! :-)