NYT Attack on Trump Gets Outed as a Misrepresentation and Spin

[Doc Savage Fan]

Just to be clear and so we can avoid the inevitable 'who, me?' from you later on, what are you asking us to 'go figure', specifically? What are you claiming?

I'm asking nothing from you...so don't sweat it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well, if they do that, kindly link it here please.

I looked an hour or so ago and didn't see anything.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yes, I'm fully aware of the subject of the trial was where he perjured himself, but that's irrelevant.

No, sorry, it's really not. If you're wondering why Bill Clinton seems to get a pass, you can start with that absolute joke of an impeachment. A process that was blatantly political and destroyed the credibility of the GOP when it comes to Clinton. The American people simply do not want to hear it anymore, and you can thank yourselves.

 

[fskimospy]

I looked an hour or so ago and didn't see anything.

You looked for the NYT public editor and didn't see anything? Not only is it an incredibly easy google search but it's part of their opinion tab on the right side of their main page.

http://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/the-public-editor

 

[Hugo Drax]

I do find it interesting is there is little reporting on the Clinton Foundation. Where is the investigative reporters? If you look around there is plenty of stuff to report on the foundation. No questions raised.

Stuff like this is scraping the surface. Where are the BIG CNN, NYTIMES bombshell front page news on this stuff?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Nice try for repeating the lie. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeachvote121198.htm

There is no mention in the above link of Clinton getting a Monica mouthwash, stuffing her cooch with a cigar, or applying a cream rinse to her blue dress.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the subject of the trial was where he perjured himself, but that's irrelevant. He lied under oath; something that lands people in jail and/or gets them fined. He was also sanctioned and had his law license suspended for 5 years for said perjury.
http://www.landmarklegal.org/DesktopFrame.aspx?frame=LONGTEXT&itemid=347

Nice try...but if he hasn't figured this out by now, I'm afraid he never will.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm asking nothing from you...so don't sweat it.

I know, I'm asking something from you though. You seem to have some ideas about this and so I'm curious to know what they are! Don't be coy!

 

[HomerJS]

Who said he was a hero of morality?

Apparently now Republicans have set the standard its ok for men to criticize women's physique in a work environment.

I can see it now in the next debate.

Hillary: Donald Trump's foreign policy is bad for our country
Donald: Hillary is fat

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You looked for the NYT public editor and didn't see anything? Not only is it an incredibly easy google search but it's part of their opinion tab on the right side of their main page.

http://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/the-public-editor

I looked here instead.

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/corrections/index.html

It was an incredibly easy google search! You're such a dick. Nick the Dick.

 

[LegendKiller]

Apparently now Republicans have set the standard its ok for men to criticize women's physique in a work environment.

I can see it now in the next debate.

Hillary: Donald Trump's foreign policy is bad for our country
Donald: Hillary is fat

And yet he gave her an important job, so obviously he valued her most important aspect.

Trump: what has your, and your cabals, foreign policy done for this country in the last 30 years?

Hillary: you said mean things about women and how dare you talk bad about me as a women, even if I sucked at my jobs.

 

[buckshot24]

The Religious Right is saying that about this twice divorced casino boss who has frequently boasted about his many adulterous escapades.

Citation please.

 

[fskimospy]

I looked here instead.

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/corrections/index.html

It was an incredibly easy google search! You're such a dick. Nick the Dick.

Glad to see we both agree that it was an easy thing to do! Haha.

Are you going to be the next person to try and give me a catchy nickname? I'm excited and a little flattered to see you employ your creative skills on my behalf.

 

[FerrelGeek]

No, sorry, it's really not. If you're wondering why Bill Clinton seems to get a pass, you can start with that absolute joke of an impeachment. A process that was blatantly political and destroyed the credibility of the GOP when it comes to Clinton. The American people simply do not want to hear it anymore, and you can thank yourselves.

Then why'd he get his license suspended? He lied under oath. If someone from the stupid party (I've referred to the GOP as that multiple times for good reasons) lied under oath like that, the dems would be calling for his/her head.

Either way, I linked to the actual articles, and linked a lib approved source. The dem narrative of Clinton being impeached for doing Monica is false.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I do find it interesting is there is little reporting on the Clinton Foundation. Where is the investigative reporters? If you look around there is plenty of stuff to report on the foundation. No questions raised.

Stuff like this is scraping the surface. Where are the BIG CNN, NYTIMES bombshell front page news on this stuff?

Pshaw...that's not news. Who cares if her foundation benefited from a few scratched backs while Hillary ran the State Department or that Bill's sugar trampoline got a little piece of the action. Meanwhile the Washington Post assigns 20 reporters to dig up dirt on Trump....I'm salivating already!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...trump-every-phase-of-his-life/article/2591021

 

[Blackjack200]

Either way, I linked to the actual articles

Good for you. I'm old enough to have followed politics back in the mid 90s and I remember exactly what was going on and why the American people supported Clinton and not the GOP on this. It was highly analogous to the whole Benghazi/E-mail scandal in that people understood that if you investigate something for long enough, eventually you'll get something. Whitewater investigations had dragged on for years by the time Ken Starr was asking about blow jobs.

The GOP disgraced themselves. There's a reason they couldn't secure the necessary votes to remove Clinton.

 

[Vic]

Years and years of crying wolf do tend to have the effect that no one listens to you anymore.

 

[fskimospy]

Pshaw...that's not news. Who cares if her foundation benefited from a few scratched backs while Hillary ran the State Department or that Bill's sugar trampoline got a little piece of the action. Meanwhile the Washington Post assigns 20 reporters to dig up dirt on Trump....I'm salivating already!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...trump-every-phase-of-his-life/article/2591021

Oh my god, a newspaper has assigned a lot of reporters to look into someone who will be a major party nominee for president! SCANDAL.

How many reporters do you think have been assigned to research Hillary over the years? What do you think the implications are of this number of reporters and what do you think the Post's motivations are here?

Be as specific as you can be so that we can avoid 'who, me?'s in the future.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Then why'd he get his license suspended? He lied under oath. If someone from the stupid party (I've referred to the GOP as that multiple times for good reasons) lied under oath like that, the dems would be calling for his/her head.

Either way, I linked to the actual articles, and linked a lib approved source. The dem narrative of Clinton being impeached for doing Monica is false.

Do you think that was a valid use of governmental powers? Or maybe, just maybe an overreach from an overzealous hastert, who turns out to be a SICK FUCKING PEDOPHILE.

This tree-hugger understands they reasons for the impeachment proceedings, on it's surface it was to show that even the president cannot lie under oath, about anything. Which, on the surface, is a very, very good rule to follow.
However, the amount of money and effort put into it was utterly ridiculous, and let's be honest, it was a lie about an extra-marital affair, not covert arms sales or propping up some despot financially. It was about a blowjob and lying about getting that blowjob.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oh my god, a newspaper has assigned a lot of reporters to look into someone who will be a major party nominee for president! SCANDAL.

How many reporters do you think have been assigned to research Hillary over the years? What do you think the implications are of this number of reporters and what do you think the Post's motivations are here?

Be as specific as you can be so that we can avoid 'who, me?'s in the future.

My point seems to have eluded you...surprise, surprise!

 

[fskimospy]

My point seems to have eluded you...surprise, surprise!

It clearly has, so help a friend out here!

 

[buckshot24]

Years and years of crying wolf do tend to have the effect that no one listens to you anymore.

Looking for that citation?

 

[feralkid]

My wife (who hates trump) says the article was a mess. Even when I pointed out their dual sided reporting she still thought it was a ridiculously messy hit piece.

She probably only said that so you'd STFU.

 

[LegendKiller]

She probably only said that so you'd STFU.

Normally that'd be true, but in this case I think she found it to be more annoying than usual from a reporting standpoint.

Similar to the publicist thing. How much news is in an average day? Yet nbc nightly had it as their top story. In a day where china's military parade came out, Venezuela is collapsing, domestic and global stories are plentiful. Nope, a potentially fake interview 25 years ago was the leading story. Never mind clinton cash, fbi investigations...etc.

 

[shady28]

It clearly has, so help a friend out here!

His point didn't elude much of anyone else, and I notice no one has given an explanation, all you did was straw man and attempt to re-direct. Moreover, his point was more on topic.

Why do we not hear about underhanded deals from the Clinton Foundation - abuse of power by a presidential nominee - rather than what Trumps ex-girlfriends may (or may not) have said to a left wing rag like NYT?

 

[fskimospy]

His point didn't elude much of anyone else, and I notice no one has given an explanation, all you did was straw man and attempt to re-direct. Moreover, his point was more on topic.

Only on ATPN is asking someone to clearly articulate what they mean a 'straw man'. Do you even know what a straw man is?

If his point didn't elude you then feel free to express exactly what you think it was. I'm all ears!

Why do we not hear about underhanded deals from the Clinton Foundation - abuse of power by a presidential nominee - rather than what Trumps ex-girlfriends may (or may not) have said to a left wing rag like NYT?

The NYT is the most prestigious newspaper in the country and one of the most highly regarded publications in the world. You may consider it a 'left wing rag', but that says more about your need for ideologically conforming news content than it does about the NYT.

The NYT has run large numbers of pieces on Clinton since the election started, many of which were quite negative in tone. The idea that they are somehow suppressing negative stories about her would be laughably ridiculous to anyone who actually... you know... reads the paper. Hell, not that long ago they were being accused of anti-Clinton bias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/p...s-hillary-clinton-coverage-public-editor.html

Let me guess though, that doesn't count.