L.A. Times Editorial Board has ineffective Trump tantrum
One of the ways Donald Trump won and continues to find support is "epater les bohemes": doing things that shock and outrage the elites and their helpers and provoke them into throwing tantrums. That increases his popularity among the tens of millions who don't like the elites and their helpers. Trump is like the Three Stooges; his loudest opponents are like the pompous oafs. His supporters drink deep at the well of the elites' tears.
A recent example is the four part series of Los Angeles Times editorials, starting with "Our Dishonest President" (link). Balling up their fists, they opine:
...The Times called [Trump] unprepared and unsuited for the job he was seeking, and said his election would be a “catastrophe.”
Still, nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck...
...In a matter of weeks, President Trump has taken dozens of real-life steps that, if they are not reversed, will rip families apart, foul rivers and pollute the air, intensify the calamitous effects of climate change and profoundly weaken the system of American public education for all.
His attempt to de-insure millions of people who had finally received healthcare coverage and, along the way, enact a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich has been put on hold for the moment. But he is proceeding with his efforts to defang the government’s regulatory agencies and bloat the Pentagon’s budget even as he supposedly retreats from the global stage.
Nothing in that quote or in the rest of the editorial is going to convince a Trump fan of anything. It's going to help him with those who don't like the Los Angeles Times and the rest of the media due to their long history of deception and bias.
Regarding "ripping families apart", you can't do any sort of immigration enforcement or law enforcement in general without risking that. Convicted burglars with kids are "ripped apart" from their family. Would the L.A. Times give a Get Out Of Jail Free card to criminals who have kids? Likewise, would the L.A. Times make it a rule that anyone can came here illegally couldn't be deported if they had a child here? If so, then we'd have de facto open borders. The fact that the L.A. Times and all the rest never acknowledge the huge downsides of what they promote is a major part of the reason why Trump supporters dislike them so much and why their tantrums just help Trump.
Climate change may or may not exist, but most Trump supporters probably think the latter because of who they see promoting it. The science might be settled to some, but the debate hasn't been.
The L.A. Times continues their tirade, including this:
Many Republicans, for instance, support tighter border security and a tougher response to illegal immigration, but Trump’s cockamamie border wall, his impracticable campaign promise to deport all 11 million people living in the country illegally and his blithe disregard for the effect of such proposals on the U.S. relationship with Mexico turn a very bad policy into an appalling one.
Trump Wall is an idiotic idea; what's needed is a "smart wall" in which enabling illegal immigration was politically toxic. Everyone knows the L.A. Times supports neither: they want the borders to be as porous as possible. The two loudest set of voices Trump supporters hear on this topic are Trump with his crazy Wall, and the elites and their helpers with loose borders. What do you expect Trump supporters to favor?
The part about mass deportations continues their deception: Trump has repeatedly implied he'd legalize not just DREAMers but millions of other illegal aliens. The L.A. Times can't even acknowledge that Trump is closer to their position than he is to mine and others who truly oppose mass legalization.
Trump supporters see the Mexican government as a source of problems for the U.S. and appreciate Trump talking tough. Those like the L.A. Times would practically give the Mexican government a veto on our immigration policy. Between those two choices, which would Trump supporters prefer?
The L.A. Times constantly lives in the shadow of the New York Times and the Washington Post and is constantly trying to prove they're like them and aren't just provincials. From that standpoint, such editorial series make some sense.
However, such editorial series will have zero negative impact on Trump and will just help him with his base. The L.A. Times is just preaching to the choir, and doing it in a way that makes those outside the church not want to visit.
If those like the L.A. Times want to undercut Trump to his supporters, then they have to finally understand what Trump supporters want, and then show them that Trump won't deliver. Go look at the posts and comments at pro-Trump sites and devise arguments that will resonate with those people. Because, obviously, doing things the way the elites and their helpers have always done things isn't working.