US election 2020

[Isochronous]

New York Times and the CCP - not much difference? Not much hype there then.

It is true that the NYT does not support inter alia a Republican senator’s suggestion that sending in the troops is a good idea, and probably not legal. Other staff did not support the view either. Perhaps those towing other media baron's views and the fanboys could learn something about integrity.
The reactionary coterie plays their broken record to agree with exaggeration, distortion, hype and ensuing obfuscation, and not to forget calling people vermin.

You are Incorrect.

The chaos on the streets caused by the Antifa/BLM thugs is the ultimate example of reactionary politics. Not much self-awareness by those on the left sadly.

 

[RooFlyer]

There is plenty of pro-Trump media out there too.

Sure, but they don't, I think, tout themselves as 'the paper of record' like the NYT, but they do, on occasion or regularly, allow voices contrary to their editorial stand to be published (including Fox, The Australian, Sky etc, for the benefit of others here). It is, after all, good for business. It seems the NYT will no longer publish anything that the staff do not collectively like.

New York Times and the CCP - not much difference? Not much hype there then.

Well, it was actually the CCP 'Offical Organs' , but sure, if the shoe fits - neither now allow opinions contrary to the collective mindset to be published . How's that for 'integrity' ?

It is true that the NYT does not support inter alia a Republican senator’s suggestion that sending in the troops is a good idea, and probably not legal.

Whether a newspaper - especially 'the paper of record' - supports or doesn't support certain suggestions, legal or otherwise, shouldn't in a free press prevent them reporting or presenting them, in context. There are lots of very inflammatory things being said and done right now in the US. Whilst there is a limit to everything of course, the opinion of a US senator, having gone though the newspaper's opinion editor, you'd think could squeeze through. No, not in the New York Times.

Ignoring the obvious hyperbole around the CCP, I’m not sure exactly what your issue is here. Isn’t a private company entitled to lean whichever way they want politically? There are plenty of publications that do not allow liberal opinions. Nothing wrong with that, it’s their choice.

Of course, and my choice to lament and even lampoon it. A once-reputable, mainstream newspaper has now put its editorial and publishing policies into the hands of the opinions of its staff. The new opinion editor has e-mailed the staff soliciting them to come forwards with any 'problems' with any pieces they see, in advance or when published. "Oh, we are offended and hurt that our paper proposes to publish Trump's re-election victory. We must scrub all mention of that .... " Yep, that's more hyperbole on my part, but now, not an impossible scenario on the part of the NYT. Blanket, ideological censorship by any section of the press is my issue.

 

[NoName]

In other words, a commercial decision. If that means you don’t want to read their product that is your choice but does not mean there is anything wrong with it.

Opinion pieces are not really “the press” either. They are exactly that: opinion, and everyone has one. Simply spin to suit a particular narrative. Do you also lament Fox News’s commercial choice to stack their lineups with conservatives while wheeling in the occasional liberal punching bag? Or Brietbart’s far right schtick? There is nothing notable about this. Perfectly acceptable and certainly nothing worth “lamenting”.

 

[get me outta here]

You are sooo sweet. Pauline must be very pleased with you.

You are incorrect.

The chaos on the streets caused by the Antifa/BLM thugs is the ultimate example of reactionary politics. Not much self-awareness by those on the left sadly.

 

[RooFlyer]

In other words, a commercial decision. If that means you don’t want to read their product that is your choice but does not mean there is anything wrong with it.

Opinion pieces are not really “the press” either. They are exactly that: opinion, and everyone has one. Simply spin to suit a particular narrative. Do you also lament Fox News’s commercial choice to stack their lineups with conservatives while wheeling in the occasional liberal punching bag? Or Brietbart’s far right schtick? There is nothing notable about this. Perfectly acceptable and certainly nothing worth “lamenting”.

I'm kinda shocked at that. I'm paying the NYT some respect by 'lamenting' that they appear to have gone to a monochomatic, we-publish-only-one-political-view-only formula, dictated (almost literally) by the staff. Now, I don't watch Fox news (or anything else on Fox) # but if they do only have the 'other side' as 'punching bags', then to me, even that seems a whole lot better than absolutely NO voice from the 'other side'. Wouldn't you agree? I assume the punching bags know what they are in for and agree to go on the set. But its telling that the NYT is now spoken of in comparison to the loathed Fox News and the other lot. Sad, too.

# I've had this discussion before here ... I'm surprised at the people here who do watch Fox!! I've heard of Briebart from these pages, which led me to Google the name, but I wouldn't remember where to find him/her ... on line, the telly or newspapers! Amazing how how many here do know.

And clearly it wasn't a 'commercial' decision by the NYT - it was ONLY in response to staff complaints. If they knew their readers wouldn't stomach opinion from a Republican, and then might not buy the paper, or advertisers would flee, it wouldn't have gotten through in the first place. It cannot be good for the readers of the NYT to be shielded from views they may not agree with, even if those views are anathema to its staff. We all need our opinions to be prodded from time to time and yes, even confronted sometimes with the shocking opinion of a Republican Senator.

And, by the way, the NYT managed to publish an opinion piece by the deputy leader of the Taliban, without the NYT staff gagging. Its a funny world, isn't it?

 

[drron]

Yep my post was offensive enough for you to respond to it huh? But you conveniently ignored the bigoted unintelligent comment about the 'vermin soiling the streets' - amazing!

I did not respond to your post because it was offensive but because you seem to be saying that Trump and the Republicans are the descendants of the KKK and I was just pointing out that it is a common belief but wrong.
The last Senator that had been a Klan member was Democrat Senator Byrd of West Virginia.He led the local chapter of the KKK as the Exalted Cyclops.He died in office just 10 years ago.He had turned his back on the Klan many years before but still voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In fact LBJ gets the credit for the 1964 and 1968 Civil rights act but a greater percentage of Republicans voted for both bills.Not enough by themselves because Barry Goldwater had led them to near destruction.

1964 vote.
The final vote in the House of Representatives was 290–130 with 138–34 (80%) in the House Republican Conference and 152–96 (61%) in the House Democratic Caucus with 11 members voting present or abstaining,[5] while in the Senate the final vote was 73–27 with 27–6 (82%) in the Senate Republican Conference and 46–21 (69%) in the Senate Democratic Caucus.[6]

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1968 vote.
The final vote in the House of Representatives was 327–93 (161–25 in the House Republican Conference and 166–67 in the House Democratic Caucus) with 12 members voting present or abstaining,[6] while in the Senate the final vote was 71–20 (29–3 in the Senate Republican Conference and 42–17 in the Senate Democratic Caucus) with 5 members voting present or abstaining.[7]

Civil Rights Act of 1968 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NoName]

I'm kinda shocked at that. I'm paying the NYT some respect by 'lamenting' that they appear to have gone to a monochomatic, we-publish-only-one-political-view-only formula, dictated (almost literally) by the staff. Now, I don't watch Fox news (or anything else on Fox) # but if they do only have the 'other side' as 'punching bags', then to me, even that seems a whole lot better than absolutely NO voice from the 'other side'. Wouldn't you agree? I assume the punching bags know what they are in for and agree to go on the set. But its telling that the NYT is now spoken of in comparison to the loathed Fox News and the other lot. Sad, too.

# I've had this discussion before here ... I'm surprised at the people here who do watch Fox!! I've heard of Briebart from these pages, which led me to Google the name, but I wouldn't remember where to find him/her ... on line, the telly or newspapers! Amazing how how many here do know.

And clearly it wasn't a 'commercial' decision by the NYT - it was ONLY in response to staff complaints. If they knew their readers wouldn't stomach opinion from a Republican, and then might not buy the paper, or advertisers would flee, it wouldn't have gotten through in the first place. It cannot be good for the readers of the NYT to be shielded from views they may not agree with, even if those views are anathema to its staff. We all need our opinions to be prodded from time to time and yes, even confronted sometimes with the shocking opinion of a Republican Senator.

And, by the way, the NYT managed to publish an opinion piece by the deputy leader of the Taliban, without the NYT staff gagging. Its a funny world, isn't it?

By commercial decision I was referring to the general idea of only airing a particular viewpoint. However, of course the sacking was commercial too. Every decision in business is in some way.

Absolutely we need our opinions debated and prodded but in this day and age with the amount of information at our fingertips we don’t need this to come from one source. 50 years ago it was much more difficult to obtain many different publications so the need to have a diverse set of opinions in the one place was more important. I don’t see it important at all for the NYT or Fox or any other media outlet to offer a balanced viewpoint when I can get the opposing view instantly at any number of other locations at the click of a button.

Would disagree that Fox having liberal punching bags on offers anything in the way of opposing opinions. They are there under that guise but what they end up doing is nothing more than reinforcing the company position. The liberal viewpoint is put forward in the flimsiest of ways with the poor arguments there specifically for the hosts to hammer. Which is fine, no issue for them to run the station that way, CNN etc does the same from the left side. I dont often agree with the Fox hosts but actually enjoy the shows on the occasions I have the opportunity to watch. It is entertainment for sure

 

[get me outta here]

This is got way off track taken there by previous insults referring to people as being vermin. It is not about the KKK but seeing as it has become so it would be correct to actually talk about purpose of the KKK in the first place.
Abe Lincoln and was more like a Democrat and as many have said, if Lincoln came back and saw today’s Republicans he would turn in his grave.

 

[get me outta here]

Actually, quite appropriate when you actually know something about the electorate.

It might have been appropriate (but I'm not sure that was the reason black was chosen), but it was still a really bad look. Especially with the sunglasses.

 

[I love to travel]

So what are people's thoughts about who is going to win in November (hint lets bring this back to election discussion.)

 

[Isochronous]

This is got way off track taken there by previous insults referring to people as being vermin. It is not about the KKK but seeing as it has become so it would be correct to actually talk about purpose of the KKK in the first place.
Abe Lincoln and was more like a Democrat and as many have said, if Lincoln came back and saw today’s Republicans he would turn in his grave.

Lincoln was like a Democrat? LOL! Now that is the ultimate in clutching at straws. Lincoln was a Republican who fought and won a war to abolish slavery against the entrenched opposition of Democrats...yep that makes him just like a Democrat - classic left-wing cognitive dissonance from you right there!

 

[get me outta here]

I would expect subtleties to evade someone who calls people vermin. Your insults, opinions and crack pot ideas should be limited to talking to Pauline.

Try this : Home | CSUSB

Lincoln was like a Democrat? LOL! Now that is the ultimate in clutching at straws. Lincoln was a Republican who fought and won a war to abolish slavery against the entrenched opposition of Democrats...yep that makes him just like a Democrat - classic left-wing cognitive dissonance from you right there!

 

[dajop]

Lincoln was like a Democrat? LOL! Now that is the ultimate in clutching at straws. Lincoln was a Republican who fought and won a war to abolish slavery against the entrenched opposition of Democrats...yep that makes him just like a Democrat - classic left-wing cognitive dissonance from you right there!

Well I don’t think anyone was equating Lincoln to a Democrat of the 1800s, but you’d have to ask who would be more likely today to instigate a war to abolish slavery, Sleepy Joe or Orange Face?

 

[drron]

Personally I think if Lincoln came back today he would join neither party.

 

[dajop]

who would be more likely today to instigate a war to abolish slavery, Sleepy Joe or Orange Face?

On reflection, it would depend on what their donors would want them to do. ....

 

[Denali]

I was born after WW2 but for frig sake, even know what the symbol (and many others) were used for.

 

[get me outta here]

So, not entirely unexpectedly the rally yesterday was not a success. What do I wonder now is at what point we will hear Trump start to talk about his next endeavours after losing this ‘race’. He can’t be seen to be a failure, so he will have to find something that allows him to save his enormous face and start blaming everybody else as he usually does.

I can’t believe he said and did this, “So I said to my people, ‘slow the testing down,’” he said. Because they were finding too many infected people.

I certainly hope he has no further opportunities to stick one of his like-minded people on the Supreme Court after they recently came up with some fair judgements much to his chagrin.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

So, not entirely unexpectedly the rally yesterday was not a success. What do I wonder now is at what point we will hear Trump start to talk about his next endeavours after losing this ‘race’. He can’t be seen to be a failure, so he will have to find something that allows him to save his enormous face and start blaming everybody else as he usually does.

I can’t believe he said and did this, “So I said to my people, ‘slow the testing down,’” he said. Because they were finding too many infected people.

I certainly hope he has no further opportunities to stick one of his like-minded people on the Supreme Court after they recently came up with some fair judgements much to his chagrin.

Why are you in disbelief about anything Trump says? Has he not been consistent?

I would guess Trump and the right-leaning part of the media thinks the rally is a great success.

 

[get me outta here]

It was a figure of speech.

Why are you in disbelief about anything Trump says? Has he not been consistent?

I would guess Trump and the right-leaning part of the media thinks the rally is a great success.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Just some relevant rhetorical ramblings ....

To answer an implied question, I think Trump may consider to choose to start a war with China.....Just to win an election. But maybe self-preservation of his personal wealth may stop him. He will feel he is winning when he gets to see all his money if he loses this election.