In the Article What If The Republican Win Everything Again? posted by The New York Times, author David Leonhardt, the audience is given a hypothetical of the Republicans having a majority in Washington as a whole, and what that might look like for citizens.

The authors intended audience is Democrats because of his clear bias and emotional language towards the Republican party. This is clear because of his rash remarks like, "New laws that make it harder to vote. More tax cuts for the rich. More damage to the environment. A Republican Party molded even more in the image of President Trump." Leonhardt goes on to paint a picture of a world with less health insurance, less voting diversity due to restrictions, and a every increasing threat of climate change with no thoughts given by the Republicans. This is clearly skewed towards a Democratic audience.

The author is credible not only because he is employed by The New York Times but also because he won a Pulitzer prize for commentary on his columns in 2011. He also worked as an unbiased data analyzer. 

Leonhardt claims that if the Republicans with Washington, which isn't 100% likely but still possible, that that will allow Trump to become more confident and self-assured while also allowing the Republicans to move forward with plans such as cutting tax for the rich, disabling or even completely cutting health care (like Medicaid and Medicare), making voting standards more difficult, effectively making the voting population less diverse, and ignoring the climate change disaster. Leonhardt ends his article with a perfect summary, "In [A Republican] America, congenital liars and sexual harassers don’t get punished. They can become president. In that America, people with dark skin aren’t guaranteed the same rights as people with white skin, and a violently warming planet is less important than corporate profits."

On October 2nd, 2018 The New York Times posted an article entitled Donald Trump and the Self-Made Sham.

The author of this editorial was only described by "The Editorial Board" for The New York Times and remained nameless. This is credible because not only is this author from the New York Times, a well-known, well-established news conglomerate, but it is also written by many people on the board and is edited thoroughly by many people. I believe the authors intended source was people against Trump (probably a majority Left-leaning Democrats) that wanted more information to fuel their dislike/ hatred or people that wanted clarification on these ideas Trump has been spewing about his life since his election.

This articles claim is that Donald Trump not only lied about how he "built" his multi-million dollar life, but the he continues to lie about it now. The article says, "As an in-depth investigation by The Times has revealed, Mr. Trump is only self-made if you don’t count the massive financial rewards he received from his father’s business... (By age 3, [Trump] was pulling in an annual income of ... $200,000 a year.)" The article goes on to say that not only was the claimed $1 million loan in accurate, that overall he received upwards of " $413 million." The article describes how this influenced his life and helped shape the egotistical, proud, vain, business-man that he is today. The article even dug up form Trump's memoir, "People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion.”

After reading this article and substantial evidence that the Times drudged up I do believe that Trump lied about how he was brought up and what means he had to build his empire. I am not surprised either by Trump's 'truthful hyperbole', he has never been completely forthcoming, morally upstanding, or respectful of others. I appreciate the Times' work in bringing out the truth and agree with the author that "[Trump's] myth looks less like innocent exaggeration than malicious deception, with a dollop of corruption tossed in for good measure."