Finally! The Final NYT/CBS Poll

[SAYIT]

Nearly everything about the NY Slimes is hypocritical....it's leftist and hypocrite is a leftist's middle name

Fine. Do you have any specific problems with the NYT/CBS poll?

You will quickly learn that this Sassy bitch is wakodoodle.

No, she's not. She's just strongly opinionated and like so many here she has a very one-sided POV that allows for little divergence or discussion on this subject.

 

[cnelsen]

According to the final NYTimes/CBS poll Hillary has slipped significantly but still leads. It is the underlying insights about the state of our political climate (and politicians) that are most revealing,

Less than half of us are enthused compared to 62% in 2012.

About 25% have reservations about their choice and a similar percentage says theirs is a vote against the other candidate.

Over 80% of us are disgusted by the campaign and the candidates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll.html?ref=todayspaper
An overwhelming majority of voters are disgusted by the state of American politics, and many harbor doubts that either major-party nominee can unite the country after a historically ugly presidential campaign, according to the final pre-election New York Times/CBS News Poll.

In a grim preview of the discontent that may cloud at least the outset of the next president’s term, Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump are seen by a majority of voters as unlikely to bring the country back together after this bitter election season.

With more than eight in 10 voters saying the campaign has left them repulsed rather than excited, the rising toxicity threatens the ultimate victor. Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic candidate, and Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee, are seen as dishonest and viewed unfavorably by a majority of voters.

According to the final NYTimes/CBS poll Hillary has slipped significantly but still leads. It is the underlying insights about the state of our political climate (and politicians) that are most revealing,

Less than half of us are enthused compared to 62% in 2012.

About 25% have reservations about their choice and a similar percentage says theirs is a vote against the other candidate.

Over 80% of us are disgusted by the campaign and the candidates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll.html?ref=todayspaper
An overwhelming majority of voters are disgusted by the state of American politics, and many harbor doubts that either major-party nominee can unite the country after a historically ugly presidential campaign, according to the final pre-election New York Times/CBS News Poll.

In a grim preview of the discontent that may cloud at least the outset of the next president’s term, Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump are seen by a majority of voters as unlikely to bring the country back together after this bitter election season.

With more than eight in 10 voters saying the campaign has left them repulsed rather than excited, the rising toxicity threatens the ultimate victor. Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic candidate, and Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee, are seen as dishonest and viewed unfavorably by a majority of voters.

Hypocrisy, thy name is New York Times.

NYTimes isn't running for president of the US.
So what do you find to be hypocritical about that NYT/CBS poll?

Bemoaning the "rising toxicity" while being one of the main reasons why the political climate is so toxic.

Here is a great take down of the Times' coverage of this election:

NEW YORK—I can prove to a mathematical certainty that The New York Times will endorse Donald Trump for president.

My forensic investigation started two weeks ago when I wrote a column about media hysteria called “Donald, You Ignorant Slut,” and the column got passed around to various teetotaling members of the working press (the alcoholic ones were busy), all of whom sent me emails that started out, “YES BUT…”

I’m not talking about commentators and pundits and editorial writers. I’m talking about the daily-grind reporters who won’t quite admit that they do various sneaky takedowns of Donald Trump in their coverage.

But apparently I was wrong. I repent.

I should have waited four more days so that I could read the column by Jim Rutenberg in The New York Times explaining that there’s no media bias because all the rules of journalism have changed.

Damn, Jim, if you’d told me in advance, I could have saved Taki some money.

I learned from this article that the way it works now is, if you’re a working reporter and you think Donald Trump is a demagogue, “you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career.” You have to “move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.”

Then he asks the question “Do normal standards apply?”

And the answer is NO THEY DO NOT. Hell, no. Screw that. If a reporter thinks Donald Trump is dangerous, what do you expect him to do? Contort himself into a mere cyborg forced to report on ideas he doesn’t agree with?

“Balance,” you see, is “an idealistic form of journalism.”

The new standard is “normal versus abnormal.”

In case you’re not following, Hillary is “normal” and…well…

And the reason for that is that Donald Trump’s political positions are (a) stupid, and (b) new. (I’m using “stupid” to represent all the words used by the press to describe Trump so that I don’t have to constantly say “psychopathic obnoxious thin-skinned vulgarian.” The 40 most common Trump adjectives are listed in the aforementioned article “Donald, You Ignorant Slut” if you’d like to memorize them and play parlor games.)

“A Trump endorsement is the only way for the ecosystem of the Times to remain fair and balanced.”
At any rate, Jim’s point is that history has reached a turning point. The very nature of the expository written word has been forever altered. We have a candidate for office whose DNA demands that we grind him into dust. As he goes on…

No living journalist [but many dead ones, I assume] has ever seen a major party nominee put financial conditions on the United States defense of NATO allies, openly fight with the family of a fallen American soldier, or entice Russia to meddle in a United States presidential election by hacking his opponent (a joke, Mr. Trump said later, that the media failed to get). And while coded appeals to racism or nationalism aren’t new—two words: Southern strategy—overt calls to temporarily bar Muslims from entry to the United States or questioning a federal judge’s impartiality based on his Mexican heritage are new.

It’s NEEEEWWWWWWW stuff, Mommy, I can’t write about it.

To further prove that these are positions so stupid that they give reporters a license to run a plumber’s snake up Donald’s rectum, Jim gets up from his desk in the business department, where he writes the media column, and walks over to Carolyn’s desk in the politics department. Carolyn Ryan, the newspaper’s senior editor for politics, then tells him that, yes,

If you have a nominee who expresses warmth toward one of our most mischievous and menacing adversaries, a nominee who shatters all the norms about how our leaders treat families whose sons have died for our country, a nominee proposing to rethink the alliances that have guided our foreign policy for 60 years, that demands coverage—copious coverage and aggressive coverage…. It doesn’t mean that we won’t vigorously pursue reporting lines on Hillary Clinton—we are and we will.

So Carolyn is apparently a bit of a flag-waver—I’m impressed—and a conservative on foreign policy, and she says that patriotism demands that we stick it to Trump daily.

Jim then closes the deal by journeying to the opposite end of the coun…well, the opposite end of the I-95 corr…well, the opposite end of the Amtrak Acela high-speed train route to D.C. and seeking out the managing editor of The Washington Post, the most consistent “Donald Trump Is a Dickwad” organ even by the standards of sophisticated Trumpian screedology.

“When controversy is being stoked,” explains Cameron Barr, presumably from his corner table at the National Press Club, “it’s our obligation to report that. If one candidate is doing that more aggressively and consistently than the other, that is an imbalance for sure…. It’s not one that we create, it’s one that the candidate is creating.”

In other words, it’s Donald Trump’s fault for being Donald Trump. He’s stoking things, presumably with his Twitter account.

And let me digress for a moment about the Donald’s Twitter account. For some reason, it bothers the hell out of the press—although I would think it would be warmly welcomed as the easiest way to start your day. Just read his tweets from the night before! Column done by 9 a.m.! Anyway, the Twitter account is a modern version of what a more descriptive press used to call “a front-porch campaign”—you don’t go to the people, they come to you—and it was always regarded as a kind of all-American thing to do, as opposed to the crass politicians who did whistle-stop tours. McKinley did a front-porch campaign that beat the nation-trotting William Jennings Bryan in 1896, speaking to 700,000 people in front of his house in Canton, Ohio, but Trump has McKinley beat by a factor of 15—10.9 million Twitter followers.

Okay, so where were we? Oh, yeah. After checking out this New Journalism thesis at the Yale Club, the Harvard Club, and—to make sure we talked to everyone—the Penn Club, Jim quotes Brian Stelter on CNN as calling Trump “dangerous” for saying the election might be rigged—evidently more dangerous than the millions of Al Gore fans who thought the 2000 election was stolen—and then concludes with the new standard:

It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

Okay, lemme parse this for you. The definition of fairness is measured by “history’s judgment.”

We’re gonna wait for it.

I’m sorry, buddy, I have to take you down because…history is watching my ass. (And one thing nobody wants is Doris Kearns Goodwin staring at their ass.)

Lemme just say, I truly appreciate Jim Rutenberg’s honesty in writing this column, laying it all out there, instead of doing what the Times normally does:

“We’re tough on both sides. We leave opinion to the editorial page.”

“We’re too busy reporting the news to care what side of an issue someone is on.”

“The perception that we’re liberal is caused by people confusing our editorial stances with our news division. We have a strict separation of church and state.”

Some Times executives have even been so disingenuous as to say, “Liberal bias? People say that about us? I’m surprised to hear that!” (If you doubt me, watch this 2011 video with Executive Editor Jill Abramson, who tells CNBC’s Carl Quintanilla that her staff is “equal-opportunity tough” and “unaffected by personal political leanings.” It’s one thing to say that the naturally liberal leanings of your staff need to be held in check, but you have to be an officer in the space-cadet air force to say they don’t exist! It’s not the way you write the story, Jill, it’s what you choose to write about in the first place.)

So why is everyone acting like they’ve never seen a demagogue before? Not only are they a constant feature of all democracies—hence the name—but we’ve had them in America at least since Andrew Jackson, with the aforementioned William Jennings Bryan being an especially fine specimen. When I was a boy, we had a segregationist Arkansas governor named Orval Faubus who won six consecutive terms despite being despised by the political and cultural elites of Pulaski County, such as they were. Orval was a much more skillful orator than Trump, but he voiced many of the same themes—fear of The Other, taxes, law and order, jobs, the meddling federal government—and even though he was famous as the man who tried to privatize the schools of Little Rock in 1957 (early charter schools!), causing a confrontation with President Eisenhower and the National Guard, he continued to receive 70 to 80 percent of the black vote. That’s how good he was. Throughout his reign, my colleagues at the Arkansas Democrat and Arkansas Gazette maintained strict separation between the editorial pages and the news columns, sometimes reporting in detail the very speeches in which he railed at the same reporter who was writing the story. Orval liked to point his finger at the reporter in the crowd and say, “There’s the boy who’s been sent here to write lies about me and the people like us!”—but then he had the good sense to buy the reporter a beer after the crowd had dispersed. Trump needs to go back to demagogue school, because he doesn’t know how to play both sides—an essential attribute of any rabble-rouser.

Anyway, the way we did it in the South—with Huey Long, with Lester Maddux, with George Wallace—was simply to make sure everybody heard exactly what they said. We didn’t need 40 epithets to shame them with. We had politicians who used much worse language, making much worse claims, and we just laid it out there, no crisis of conscience, no fear that we were empowering the enemies of civilization. Of course, Pappy O’Daniel, the two-term Texas governor and country singer who campaigned against Brown v. Board of Education, always had his band with him—the Light Crust Doughboys—and so he could pretty much game the system with backup singers and fiddle solos. There is no answer, in the annals of journalism, for a man who can play “The Orange Blossom Special” at double speed.

By the way, the end of my Orval Faubus story is that some sick-and-tired-of-him civic leaders recruited Winthrop Rockefeller to run against him. Winthrop was the black-sheep Rockefeller, more fond of whiskey and his Santa Gertrudis cattle ranch than he was of serving in office, but he took a bullet for the team and defeated Orval’s Democratic machine, paving the way for progressive Democrats like Dale Bumpers and Hillary’s husband. When Winthrop would occasionally pass out in the car and be late for a stump speech, we didn’t report it, despite the “Page Six” appeal of those implications.

But then again, we were hicks from Arkansas. We didn’t know we were part of a half-century tradition on its last legs. We thought keeping your personal opinions out of it was a virtue. We thought the rules were as old as Socrates.

So here’s how I know that the Times is endorsing the Donald.

The Times takes pride in many things, and one of those things is their op-ed page.

They invented the op-ed page in 1970. John B. Oakes, the editorial board member who claims credit for it, called it “one of the great newspaper innovations of the century.”

(They didn’t really invent the op-ed page. There had been op-ed pages before 1970 in The New York World, the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and no doubt many other papers that are not readily archived. But for the purposes of this article we’re gonna humor them. They dreamed it up. They made it work. They perfected the model. Op-ed. Their idea.)

Now, the word “op” always had two meanings. It meant “opposite” in terms of being on the page directly across from the editorial page. But we also know, from the writings and notes of the various Timesmen, that it also meant “opposite” in the sense of opposing the official editorial views of the newspaper.

Oakes, the biggest tub-thumper for starting the op-ed page, wanted to “dispel the Ivory Tower image” of the Times. He was a believer his whole life in diversity of opinion in newspaper pages. “The minute we begin to insist that everyone think the same way we think,” he said, “our democratic way of life is in danger.” So the op-ed was intended to be a canvas on which “the whole broad range of opinion, the conflict of ideas” would play out.

The first editor of the op-ed page was Harrison Salisbury—the man who inspired byline envy because his name sounded like it belonged next to Churchill’s memoirs—and Harrison believed the Times had an obligation to “provide a platform for responsible conservative opinion” and “competing perspectives.” To further that end, he called up William F. Buckley, editor of the National Review, to get a list of suggested contributors (I guess they didn’t know any conservatives down on 43rd Street), as well as Robert Welch of the John Birch Society and Gus Hall, chairman of the Communist Party USA. In other words, they went whole hog with this thing. When Punch Sulzberger, the publisher, announced the new op-ed column in 1970, he noted that “points of view in disagreement with the editorial position of the Times will be particularly welcomed.”

And so it was launched and so it functioned—outside voices in the Times for the first time. Salisbury said that, with the death of the New York Herald Tribune in 1966, the Times had an obligation to publish more conservative views, since all these executives—Salisbury, Sulzberger, Oakes—were very comfortable with being openly liberal, unlike Jill Abramson and the other later editors who would constantly be defensive about it.

The op-ed page made its debut less than a year after Vice President Spiro Agnew made his famous Des Moines speech criticizing the liberal East Coast media. He called them “a tiny and closed fraternity of privileged men, elected by no one and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by government”—meaning, the major TV networks and their FCC licenses. And he made the following point: “We do know that, to a man, these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C., or New York City…. Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism. We can deduce that these men thus read the same newspapers, and draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints.”



This speech, which was widely reprinted and talked about, had an 80 percent approval rating with the American public and even eclipsed the better-remembered one two weeks earlier in which President Nixon coined the term “silent majority.” There was a gauntlet thrown—and the rulers of the op-ed noticed. One of their goals was to prove Agnew wrong by giving free rein to voices that would never otherwise be heard if the newspaper’s pages were limited to staff members.

So here’s the math on this year’s op-ed treatment of Trump.

Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination on May 26.

I have read every article on every op-ed page since May 26. There were lots of articles before that—the Times writers and editors have been fairly obsessed with Trump for all of 2016—but I limited the study to the past 86 days. (I’m a masochist when it comes to research, but halfway through this project I had to read 37 New York Post crime stories just to feel alive again. So 86 days is enough.)

Observation numero uno: I couldn’t find a single unalloyed pro–Donald Trump essay, column, think piece, whatever. There were some that looked at first glance like they might be pro-Trump, but they all ended up being not really. “How Trump Can Save the GOP” turns out to be a piece by former Timesman Sam Tanenhaus telling Republicans that their ideology is “fossilized” and see that’s what you get! Typical is the piece last week by Mark Sanford entitled “I Support You, Donald Trump. Now Release Your Tax Returns.” (He then says in the essay that if Trump does not release the tax returns, he probably won’t support him.) “I am a conservative Republican,” writes Sanford, “who, though I have no stomach for his personal style and his penchant for regularly demeaning others…”

These types of articles remind me of the classic liberal defense of pornography. “I don’t like it myself, but I defend your right to load up your computer with it.” Why don’t we ever get somebody who says, “I love porn! We need more of it! Join the ACLU to make sure we have more and better porn!”?

I much prefer the columnists who just come right out with it. “By now,” fumes Paul Krugman, “it’s obvious to everyone with open eyes that Donald Trump is an ignorant, wildly dishonest, erratic, immature, bullying egomaniac.”

And that’s a column about tax rates.

This is in keeping, by the way, with Krugman’s stated opposition to any kind of journalistic objectivity, even in the news pages. He calls it “false equivalence.” In fact, the phrase “false equivalence” has been snatched out of the internet ether by media types everywhere and hugged tightly to their bosoms like a moral life vest, as a way to carry on without outright saying, “We don’t have to be fair to Trump.”

“Too much of the media can’t break with bothsideism,” says the Kroogster, “the almost pathological determination to portray politicians and their programs as being equally good or equally bad, no matter how ludicrous that pretense becomes.” He is seconded by op-ed columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who takes pains to explain the difference between Trump’s lying and Hillary’s lying. One is mere “fibs,” the other is “whoppers.”

One problem in trying to find all the Trump material is that Trump target-shooting bleeds over into almost everything written about in the Times. Articles on Brexit are full of Trump references. You can’t discuss Vladimir Putin without mentioning Trump. Suicidal terrorists in Orlando, Dallas, and Baton Rouge prompt musings about Trumpism. If the government of North Carolina starts to argue about who’s allowed to go into which restroom, it just might be Donald Trump’s fault.

But you really don’t have to do much more than read some of the headlines of these op-ed pieces.

“Donald Trump Is Making America Meaner”

“I Ran the CIA, Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton” (former CIA director Michael Morrell is so popular with the op-ed staff that he was featured not once but twice)

“Trump, the Bad, Bad Businessman”

“Why Trump Is Not Like Other Draft Dodgers”

“How the ‘Stupid Party’ Created Donald Trump”

“What Trump Doesn’t Know About Allies”

“The Best Way to Avoid Future Trumps?”

“The Trump Affront to Latinos”

“The GOP Waits, and Waits, for Donald Trump to Grow Up”

“Why Trump Makes Me Scared for My Family”

“The Indelible Stain of Donald Trump”

…and my favorite…

“No, He’s Not Hitler…And Yet,” written by a professor of philosophy at the University of Paris. Yes, that’s what I said. So much for dispelling the Ivory Tower image of the Times.

In 1969 Gay Talese wrote a book about the Times called The Kingdom and the Power. If he wrote it today, he would have to call it The Fiefdom and the Snark.

Okay, here we go. There are two kinds of articles on the op-ed page. You have your columnists—11 of them. Unfortunately, none of them are members of the Communist Party USA or the John Birch Society—because that would be some interesting “op” stuff. Most of the columnists write twice a week. And then you have your guest articles, which average out to about five a day because they put out extra ones on Sunday.

So I kept a running tally of anti-Trump articles and pro-Trump articles—oh, right, sorry, there aren’t any pro-Trump articles. Pro-Hillary articles, anti-Hillary articles. And I was fairly generous with not counting the Trump diatribes that don’t really belong in the column or article. For example, there’s a regular columnist named Charles M. Blow who can’t stop writing about Trump. I really think he needs an intervention. I counted 17 Trump pieces by him since late May. Three more if you count the “why Hillary is better” columns. Paul Krugman, whose main topic is economics, landed the silver medal with 12, but he was nowhere close to Blow. David Brooks, Gail Collins, and Thomas L. Friedman all tied for the bronze with 11 masterpieces of Trump-bashing.

The final tally here would be 102 anti-Trump, 0 pro-Trump, 22 pro-Hillary, seven anti-Hillary, and six too wishy-washy to tell. (By the way, an anti-Hillary column is nothing like an anti-Trump column. “She’s not quite there on child care” would be an example of how Hillary is criticized.)

But that’s just the columnists—the columnists who were hired to supposedly bring diverse opinions to the Times.

The real heart of the op-ed ideal, as set down by its founders in 1970 (wink, wink), is the guest articles. There were 410 of them. Sixty-seven were about Trump. Nineteen were about Hillary. Seven were devoted equally to both candidates.

We eliminated the Russian judges for doping and came up with the following totals:

Anti-Trump: 70

Pro-Trump: 0

Wishy-washy: 4

Anti-Hillary: 3

Pro-Hillary: 23

Incomprehensible meditations on Karl Marx, Hannah Arendt, and Nazi apologist Carl Schmitt by English professors at the City University of New York: 1

What does it all mean?

Here’s David Shipley, former op-ed editor of the Times, explaining in 2004 how it works: “If the editorial page…has a forceful, long-held view on a certain topic, we are more inclined to publish an Op-Ed that disagrees with that view. If you open the newspaper and find the editorial page and Op-Ed in lock step agreement or consistently writing on the same subject day after day, then we aren’t doing our job.”

So the editorial page and the op-ed page can never be in agreement.

There are 83 days until the election. If all 11 Times op-ed columnists stopped writing about Trump and concentrated on, say, Kevin Durant going to the Golden State Warriors, and if half of the guest essays between now and Nov. 8 were devoted to each candidate, and if every essay about Trump were positive, you still couldn’t get to a Trump-positive number.

Therefore a Trump endorsement is the only way for the ecosystem of the Times to remain fair and balanced. If they don’t endorse Trump, they will be saying that every claim they’ve made about the op-ed page since 1970 was false. If they don’t endorse Trump, they will be saying that they don’t value the 40-plus percent of the electorate who intend to vote for him—they can’t find a single person in that group to write an op-ed column—and so every claim ever made about their liberal East Coast bias since 1969 is probably true. Failing to endorse Trump would be tantamount to saying, “Yes, Spiro, you nailed it.” And as to Jim’s “judgments of history,” if Donald Trump loses by a landslide in November, then the historians are likely to write, “In a throwback to the 19th century, the press turned partisan and nasty.”

And they didn’t have to do that. As we used to say in Arkansas, You don’t have to get drunk and rowdy to write about a rowdy drunk. They chose the low road.

The only newspaperman who became president was Warren G. Harding, and he got into the game because, as a cub reporter for the Marion Democratic Mirror, he was forced to praise Grover Cleveland and shoot down James Blaine. His response was to start the first nonpartisan newspaper in that part of Ohio, the Marion Star, which did a lot for establishing the principle that newspapers should stop taking sides. If The New York Times is not going to endorse Donald Trump, then they’re saying that they’re reverting to pre-1884 standards of fairness.

After all, those are the rules. That’s how the op-ed works. The Times knows this because, hey, the Times invented it.

‘New York Times’ Endorses Trump

 

[cnelsen]

Nearly everything about the NY Slimes is hypocritical....it's leftist and hypocrite is a leftist's middle name

Fine. Do you have any specific problems with the NYT/CBS poll?

According to a 2007 survey by conservative-leaning Rasmussan Reports of public perceptions of major media outlets, 40% saw the paper as having a liberal slant, 20% no political slant and 11% believe it has a conservative slant.

The New York Times - Wikipedia

See this post:

 

[SAYIT]

There is no toxicity.

11% of Hillary voters say they will not accept the election results if Trump wins.
27% of Trump voters say they will not accept the results if Hillary wins.

 

[cnelsen]

There is no toxicity.

11% of Hillary voters say they will not accept the election results if Trump wins.
27% of Trump voters say they will not accept the results if Hillary wins.

This is a very illuminating article about the NYT coverage of the Trump campaign.

 

[Iceweasel]

There is no toxicity.

11% of Hillary voters say they will not accept the election results if Trump wins.
27% of Trump voters say they will not accept the results if Hillary wins.

87.2% of the population makes shit up.

 

[SAYIT]

Here is a great take down of the Times' coverage of this election:

NEW YORK—I can prove to a mathematical certainty that The New York Times will endorse Donald Trump for president.
‘New York Times’ Endorses Trump

Yeah ... and a month later (Sept 24) the NYTimes endorsed Hillary. So much for that "great take down."

 

[Fang]

Over 80% of us are disgusted by the campaign and the candidates.

My faith in We The People is hereby restored.
.

Mine isn't....

Elementary school cancels mock election after kids chant ‘Trump’

Jericho Elementary School - Bio, News, Photos - Washington Times

The school missed a golden opportunity at a life lesson in politics. People on both sides sometimes says things we don't like. How are we going to handle it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nearly everything about the NY Slimes is hypocritical....it's leftist and hypocrite is a leftist's middle name

Their ads are down 96%

 

[Billy_Bob]

Left wing bigots scared to death... Funny as hell. All of the swing states leaning trump by 1-2 points and a huge enthusiasm gap... That is why Obama and every other dim wit is in Florida the only state that is to close to call.

 

[cnelsen]

Here is a great take down of the Times' coverage of this election:

NEW YORK—I can prove to a mathematical certainty that The New York Times will endorse Donald Trump for president.
‘New York Times’ Endorses Trump

Yeah ... and a month later (Sept 24) the NYTimes endorsed Hillary. So much for that "great take down."

LOL, well, you obviously didn't read the article.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Nearly everything about the NY Slimes is hypocritical....it's leftist and hypocrite is a leftist's middle name

Fine. Do you have any specific problems with the NYT/CBS poll?

You will quickly learn that this Sassy bitch is wakodoodle.

Nearly everything about the NY Slimes is hypocritical....it's leftist and hypocrite is a leftist's middle name

Fine. Do you have any specific problems with the NYT/CBS poll?

I have problems with anything NYT/CBS puts out. In fact I steer clear of them. The Slimes will soon be bankrupt and good riddance

It's the newest response from the local bubble bound retards - a blanket denial of any source as means to keep believing whatever they would like to believe without having to think about the facts too hard.

New York Times? They lie! Steer clear!
Fox? They are anti-Trump! Don't trust them.
CNN? Clinton Network!
PBS? Are you fucking kidding?
Breitbart blog?...yea sounds totally legit.

You're a left loon, NOBODY should ever take a left loon seriously. You all lie, cheat and steal. For proof look at the Wikileak DNC email leaks

 

[AntonToo]

You're a left loon, NOBODY should ever take a left loon seriously. You all lie, cheat and steal. For proof look at the Wikileak DNC email leaks

Are you a right loon?

Everybody around here knows you as a rightwing loon... are you at all aware of that?

Given that, and your proposal that we not address arguments people make just because we put them in a certain box...should you be ignored?

 

[miketx]

Getting anything newsworthy from the NYT is like getting sushi from a CNN. They don't have any.