Good luck with that one, lying is such an inbuilt political activity, where do you start? Want to take Trump to court over an excess 400,000 or so excess Covid deaths, often because the victims refused to get vaccinations, also part of the long-lived anti-vax movement.
Good luck with that one, lying is such an inbuilt political activity, where do you start? Want to take Trump to court over an excess 400,000 or so excess Covid deaths, often because the victims refused to get vaccinations, also part of the long-lived anti-vax movement.
In my lifetime, I have never seen so many and such nasty lies believed by so many. Why would all those legislators who condemned tffg for January 6 turn around and support him? And NOW the NYT endorses Kamala after featuring Donnie for years! Let’s see if it starts telling the truth about polls of a thousand people. 🤮🤯🙀💩🤡🎃
The insipid orange turd was just as unfit to hold any office in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and now in 2024. Nothing has changed, at least for the positive, that makes him more fit. My question for the NYT is, what took you so long?
The New York Times has never endorsed trump for President. They weasel around during the campaign, but when it comes to an official endorsement, they have never endorsed trump.
The New York Times Editorial Board is a stand-alone entity that has no influence on the news, analysis or opinion departments of the paper. Most egregiously, it has zero influence on the department that writes the headlines.
I'm far from convinced the NYT Editorial Board is as aloof and objective as you say. Similarly, the publisher has opinions which have very definitely found their way into the NYTs pages. Overall, despite their endorsement of Harris, the NYT's lukewarm support for her compared to their continuous amplification of every word Trimp or a loyal 'R' legislator has to say is impossible not to notice. "Their actions speak louder than their words."
While I agree that the NYT bends over backward to sanewash Trump, I don't think I said the Editorial Board is aloof or objective. As for Schulzberger, he is the publisher. He occasionally prints an opinion and it's clearly labeled as his opinion. Publishers have used that prerogative for centuries.
National polls can obtain statistically valid results with 1,000 respondents if the sample is very carefully selected. The tricky part is how the respondents are “weighted” to balance them across the geography and demographics.
Long lived, but I lived longer, and remember lining up for smallpox, polio, and other vaccines and feeling much safer for it. Society seemed to be on the same side of that one, and I never got smallpox or polio. We have to ask ourselves why our per capita COVID death rate was so bad, in supposedly the richest, most medially advanced society in the world.
I also recall when being caught lying was at least sometimes considered very shameful, lacking in "decency".
Good luck with that one, lying is such an inbuilt political activity, where do you start? Want to take Trump to court over an excess 400,000 or so excess Covid deaths, often because the victims refused to get vaccinations, also part of the long-lived anti-vax movement.
In my lifetime, I have never seen so many and such nasty lies believed by so many. Why would all those legislators who condemned tffg for January 6 turn around and support him? And NOW the NYT endorses Kamala after featuring Donnie for years! Let’s see if it starts telling the truth about polls of a thousand people. 🤮🤯🙀💩🤡🎃
The insipid orange turd was just as unfit to hold any office in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and now in 2024. Nothing has changed, at least for the positive, that makes him more fit. My question for the NYT is, what took you so long?
The New York Times has never endorsed trump for President. They weasel around during the campaign, but when it comes to an official endorsement, they have never endorsed trump.
The New York Times Editorial Board is a stand-alone entity that has no influence on the news, analysis or opinion departments of the paper. Most egregiously, it has zero influence on the department that writes the headlines.
I'm far from convinced the NYT Editorial Board is as aloof and objective as you say. Similarly, the publisher has opinions which have very definitely found their way into the NYTs pages. Overall, despite their endorsement of Harris, the NYT's lukewarm support for her compared to their continuous amplification of every word Trimp or a loyal 'R' legislator has to say is impossible not to notice. "Their actions speak louder than their words."
I know! That's why I hate the NYTimes. But can't bring myself to discontinue. It's an addiction. Like a blankie.
While I agree that the NYT bends over backward to sanewash Trump, I don't think I said the Editorial Board is aloof or objective. As for Schulzberger, he is the publisher. He occasionally prints an opinion and it's clearly labeled as his opinion. Publishers have used that prerogative for centuries.
OMG! They have to have some limits. Has any newspaper of note endorsed that man??
Gigi,
National polls can obtain statistically valid results with 1,000 respondents if the sample is very carefully selected. The tricky part is how the respondents are “weighted” to balance them across the geography and demographics.
Long lived, but I lived longer, and remember lining up for smallpox, polio, and other vaccines and feeling much safer for it. Society seemed to be on the same side of that one, and I never got smallpox or polio. We have to ask ourselves why our per capita COVID death rate was so bad, in supposedly the richest, most medially advanced society in the world.
I also recall when being caught lying was at least sometimes considered very shameful, lacking in "decency".
I can never wrap my head around the continued lying by the Republicans when all officials involved deny these lies!
It took a long long time before any journalist used the word lie in regard to lying Donald Trump.
There is a huge difference between fudging verifiable facts and fabricating facts that have no basis in reality.