Paul Krugman: HIllary is being "Gored"

[Sun Devil 92]

From the article talking about the 2000 election:

Yet throughout the campaign most media coverage gave the impression that Mr. Bush was a bluff, straightforward guy, while portraying Al Gore — whose policy proposals added up, and whose critiques of the Bush plan were completely accurate — as slippery and dishonest. Mr. Gore’s mendacity was supposedly demonstrated by trivial anecdotes, none significant, some of them simply false. No, he never claimed to have invented the internet. But the image stuck.

********************

Bush was portrayed for what he was.... a moron. His issues with drinking and not going to Vietnam were all over the TV.

Gore helped make his image.

Paul Krugman: In addition to being a liar and a slimewad....is also a revisionist.

 

[The Irish Ram]

There is no liberal bias but they bend over backwards to present RW BS with a straight face, and follow these scandals with no fact checking, just partisan talking heads. Fox's liberals are eunuchs..

.

So when Hitlery said there were only 2 devices and turns out there were 13 that were smashed with hammers, it is a fact checking error? Running around behind her with syringe at the ready. What facts have they offered about the state of her health that can be checked for lies? If it's necessary to uncover her lies before they are able to be fact checked, do we really want to give her a pen, phone and the nation's check book?
We've moved on from co-incidence, memory loss, and pretend charity foundations, to lying, concealing, and cover-ups. She really isn't fit mentally, physically or morally to lead this nation. She is a UN globalist and her goal is to spread Islam worldwide under the UN quota directive, and to capitalize on it as much as possible.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yup, that's the dumbass dupe view of Nobel Prize winners...and no, Sec's of State are not computer experts. And yes, it almost undoubtedly was the video that triggered that terror attack.

Are Secs. State smart enough to destroy evidence on more than a dozen devices, then claim there were only 2 devices?

Hillary is not the bastion of honesty and transparency.

And the press is letting her have it.

I love this election cycle.

Penn and Teller are not this entertaining.

The press is FOS, just looking for controversy for their 24/7 bs. Journalism is almost dead, and Fox is a bs propaganda joke...

That is the irony of this whole thing.

The left keeps saying there is no media bias.

And now..........

There is no liberal bias but they bend over backwards to present RW BS with a straight face, and follow these scandals with no fact checking, just partisan talking heads. Fox's liberals are eunuchs...

ROTFLMAO

How the tables have turned.

Krugman isn't going after Fox, moron.

He is more worried about the AP, those far right John Birchers.

 

[francoHFW]

There is no liberal bias but they bend over backwards to present RW BS with a straight face, and follow these scandals with no fact checking, just partisan talking heads. Fox's liberals are eunuchs..

.

So when Hitlery said there were only 2 devices and turns out there were 13 that were smashed with hammers, it is a fact checking error? Running around behind her with syringe at the ready. What facts have they offered about the state of her health that can be checked for lies? If it's necessary to uncover her lies before they are able to be fact checked, do we really want to give her a pen, phone and the nation's check book?
We've moved on from co-incidence, memory loss, and pretend charity foundations, to lying, concealing, and cover-ups. She really isn't fit mentally, physically or morally to lead this nation. She is a UN globalist and her goal is to spread Islam worldwide under the UN quota directive, and to capitalize on it as much as possible.

She had one at a time, and the foundation is a great charity. No evidence of wrongdoing or anything to cover up, just a giant pile of RW crap and anything for controversy and ratings from the old Librul media....

 

[francoHFW]

Are Secs. State smart enough to destroy evidence on more than a dozen devices, then claim there were only 2 devices?

Hillary is not the bastion of honesty and transparency.

And the press is letting her have it.

I love this election cycle.

Penn and Teller are not this entertaining.

The press is FOS, just looking for controversy for their 24/7 bs. Journalism is almost dead, and Fox is a bs propaganda joke...

That is the irony of this whole thing.

The left keeps saying there is no media bias.
And now..........

There is no liberal bias but they bend over backwards to present RW BS with a straight face, and follow these scandals with no fact checking, just partisan talking heads. Fox's liberals are eunuchs...

ROTFLMAO

How the tables have turned.

Krugman isn't going after Fox, moron.

He is more worried about the AP, those far right John Birchers.

Of course he is, among many others.

 

[francoHFW]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Ruh Roh....Paul Krugman is getting that "sinking feeling" again that HIllary is being "Gored".

I can't think of anything better than Paul losing sleep. The stupid moron.

But here is his concern:

True, there aren’t many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it’s hard to escape the impression that he’s being graded on a curve. If he manages to read from a TelePrompter without going off script, he’s being presidential. If he seems to suggest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants right away, he’s moving into the mainstream. And many of his multiple scandals, like what appear to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general to back off investigating Trump University, get remarkably little attention.

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation...

Now, here is the kicker......

From Krugman......

So I would urge journalists to ask whether they are reporting facts or simply engaging in innuendo, and urge the public to read with a critical eye......

*******************************

ROTFLMAO

He wants journalists to step up and be journalists.

Even after he drags his sorry ass on to cable TV time after time spouting B.S. and party lines like he was being paid by the word.

It's great that the left is worried that Clinton is getting the shaft from the media. I can't think of anything more ironic.

From link:

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.

Step back for a moment, and think about what that foundation is about. When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating — better than the American Red Cross.

Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alternatively, Mrs. Clinton using her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation “raises questions.”

But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, “no.”

 

[The Irish Ram]

So you see no correlation between Russian "donations" to the Clinton Foundation and the sale of our uranium mines? You may be too far gone off the leftist cliff to make a rational connection. Others are not so blind..

 

[Sun Devil 92]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Ruh Roh....Paul Krugman is getting that "sinking feeling" again that HIllary is being "Gored".

I can't think of anything better than Paul losing sleep. The stupid moron.

But here is his concern:

True, there aren’t many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it’s hard to escape the impression that he’s being graded on a curve. If he manages to read from a TelePrompter without going off script, he’s being presidential. If he seems to suggest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants right away, he’s moving into the mainstream. And many of his multiple scandals, like what appear to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general to back off investigating Trump University, get remarkably little attention.

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation...

Now, here is the kicker......

From Krugman......

So I would urge journalists to ask whether they are reporting facts or simply engaging in innuendo, and urge the public to read with a critical eye......

*******************************

ROTFLMAO

He wants journalists to step up and be journalists.

Even after he drags his sorry ass on to cable TV time after time spouting B.S. and party lines like he was being paid by the word.

It's great that the left is worried that Clinton is getting the shaft from the media. I can't think of anything more ironic.

From link:

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.

Step back for a moment, and think about what that foundation is about. When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating — better than the American Red Cross.

Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alternatively, Mrs. Clinton using her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation “raises questions.”

But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, “no.”

Yes, old Paul can't come to her aid fast enough.

The trouble Paul has is that Hillary is highly unlikable and not seen as trustworthy.

So, his words fall on may deaf ears.

And thus she is getting "gored".

Charity Watch, and independant watchdog.....?? Really. How do we know ?

Who do you trust ?

 

[francoHFW]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Ruh Roh....Paul Krugman is getting that "sinking feeling" again that HIllary is being "Gored".

I can't think of anything better than Paul losing sleep. The stupid moron.

But here is his concern:

True, there aren’t many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it’s hard to escape the impression that he’s being graded on a curve. If he manages to read from a TelePrompter without going off script, he’s being presidential. If he seems to suggest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants right away, he’s moving into the mainstream. And many of his multiple scandals, like what appear to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general to back off investigating Trump University, get remarkably little attention.

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation...

Now, here is the kicker......

From Krugman......

So I would urge journalists to ask whether they are reporting facts or simply engaging in innuendo, and urge the public to read with a critical eye......

*******************************

ROTFLMAO

He wants journalists to step up and be journalists.

Even after he drags his sorry ass on to cable TV time after time spouting B.S. and party lines like he was being paid by the word.

It's great that the left is worried that Clinton is getting the shaft from the media. I can't think of anything more ironic.

From link:

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.

Step back for a moment, and think about what that foundation is about. When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating — better than the American Red Cross.

Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alternatively, Mrs. Clinton using her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation “raises questions.”

But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, “no.”

Yes, old Paul can't come to her aid fast enough.

The trouble Paul has is that Hillary is highly unlikable and not seen as trustworthy.

So, his words fall on may deaf ears.

And thus she is getting "gored".

Charity Watch, and independant watchdog.....?? Really. How do we know ?

Who do you trust ?

Ignorance is great, isn't it? lol.

Not seen as trustworthy by GOP dupes. 25 years of phony scandals...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Ruh Roh....Paul Krugman is getting that "sinking feeling" again that HIllary is being "Gored".

I can't think of anything better than Paul losing sleep. The stupid moron.

But here is his concern:

True, there aren’t many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it’s hard to escape the impression that he’s being graded on a curve. If he manages to read from a TelePrompter without going off script, he’s being presidential. If he seems to suggest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants right away, he’s moving into the mainstream. And many of his multiple scandals, like what appear to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general to back off investigating Trump University, get remarkably little attention.

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation...

Now, here is the kicker......

From Krugman......

So I would urge journalists to ask whether they are reporting facts or simply engaging in innuendo, and urge the public to read with a critical eye......

*******************************

ROTFLMAO

He wants journalists to step up and be journalists.

Even after he drags his sorry ass on to cable TV time after time spouting B.S. and party lines like he was being paid by the word.

It's great that the left is worried that Clinton is getting the shaft from the media. I can't think of anything more ironic.

From link:

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.

Step back for a moment, and think about what that foundation is about. When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating — better than the American Red Cross.

Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alternatively, Mrs. Clinton using her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation “raises questions.”

But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, “no.”

Yes, old Paul can't come to her aid fast enough.

The trouble Paul has is that Hillary is highly unlikable and not seen as trustworthy.

So, his words fall on may deaf ears.

And thus she is getting "gored".

Charity Watch, and independant watchdog.....?? Really. How do we know ?

Who do you trust ?

Ignorance is great, isn't it? lol.

Not seen as trustworthy by GOP dupes. 25 years of phony scandals...

You know all about ignorance.

Over half the country does not like her. The country is less than half GOP.

She's getting "gored" allright.

This is so fun to watch.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So you see no correlation between Russian "donations" to the Clinton Foundation and the sale of our uranium mines? You may be too far gone off the leftist cliff to make a rational connection. Others are not so blind..

Not that I care:

Even if You Believe the Left’s Excuses, Hillary Clinton Still Violated Criminal Law

 

[francoHFW]

So you see no correlation between Russian "donations" to the Clinton Foundation and the sale of our uranium mines? You may be too far gone off the leftist cliff to make a rational connection. Others are not so blind..

Our entire justice system didn't, but thanks for the endless malevolent gossip for 25 years. Quite the phony scandal industry for the dupes...I'll go with the law, thanks, not the disastrous New BS GOP.

 

[francoHFW]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Ruh Roh....Paul Krugman is getting that "sinking feeling" again that HIllary is being "Gored".

I can't think of anything better than Paul losing sleep. The stupid moron.

But here is his concern:

True, there aren’t many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it’s hard to escape the impression that he’s being graded on a curve. If he manages to read from a TelePrompter without going off script, he’s being presidential. If he seems to suggest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants right away, he’s moving into the mainstream. And many of his multiple scandals, like what appear to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general to back off investigating Trump University, get remarkably little attention.

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation...

Now, here is the kicker......

From Krugman......

So I would urge journalists to ask whether they are reporting facts or simply engaging in innuendo, and urge the public to read with a critical eye......

*******************************

ROTFLMAO

He wants journalists to step up and be journalists.

Even after he drags his sorry ass on to cable TV time after time spouting B.S. and party lines like he was being paid by the word.

It's great that the left is worried that Clinton is getting the shaft from the media. I can't think of anything more ironic.

From link:

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.

Step back for a moment, and think about what that foundation is about. When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating — better than the American Red Cross.

Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alternatively, Mrs. Clinton using her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation “raises questions.”

But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, “no.”

Yes, old Paul can't come to her aid fast enough.

The trouble Paul has is that Hillary is highly unlikable and not seen as trustworthy.

So, his words fall on may deaf ears.

And thus she is getting "gored".

Charity Watch, and independant watchdog.....?? Really. How do we know ?

Who do you trust ?

Ignorance is great, isn't it? lol.

Not seen as trustworthy by GOP dupes. 25 years of phony scandals...

You know all about ignorance.

Over half the country does not like her. The country is less than half GOP.

She's getting "gored" allright.

This is so fun to watch.

You don't have to be GOP to be duped by a 25 year tidal wave of innuendo...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Ruh Roh....Paul Krugman is getting that "sinking feeling" again that HIllary is being "Gored".

I can't think of anything better than Paul losing sleep. The stupid moron.

But here is his concern:

True, there aren’t many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it’s hard to escape the impression that he’s being graded on a curve. If he manages to read from a TelePrompter without going off script, he’s being presidential. If he seems to suggest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants right away, he’s moving into the mainstream. And many of his multiple scandals, like what appear to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general to back off investigating Trump University, get remarkably little attention.

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation...

Now, here is the kicker......

From Krugman......

So I would urge journalists to ask whether they are reporting facts or simply engaging in innuendo, and urge the public to read with a critical eye......

*******************************

ROTFLMAO

He wants journalists to step up and be journalists.

Even after he drags his sorry ass on to cable TV time after time spouting B.S. and party lines like he was being paid by the word.

It's great that the left is worried that Clinton is getting the shaft from the media. I can't think of anything more ironic.

From link:

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.

Step back for a moment, and think about what that foundation is about. When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating — better than the American Red Cross.

Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alternatively, Mrs. Clinton using her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation “raises questions.”

But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, “no.”

Yes, old Paul can't come to her aid fast enough.

The trouble Paul has is that Hillary is highly unlikable and not seen as trustworthy.

So, his words fall on may deaf ears.

And thus she is getting "gored".

Charity Watch, and independant watchdog.....?? Really. How do we know ?

Who do you trust ?

Ignorance is great, isn't it? lol.

Not seen as trustworthy by GOP dupes. 25 years of phony scandals...

You know all about ignorance.

Over half the country does not like her. The country is less than half GOP.

She's getting "gored" allright.

This is so fun to watch.

You don't have to be GOP to be duped by a 25 year tidal wave of innuendo...

I so enjoy reading you cry about the GOP controlled media......

My side hurts from laughing at you.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So you see no correlation between Russian "donations" to the Clinton Foundation and the sale of our uranium mines? You may be too far gone off the leftist cliff to make a rational connection. Others are not so blind..

Our entire justice system didn't, but thanks for the endless malevolent gossip for 25 years. Quite the phony scandal industry for the dupes...I'll go with the law, thanks, not the disastrous New BS GOP.

New ???

Her trustworthiness sucks. But that's new ????

 

[francoHFW]

So you see no correlation between Russian "donations" to the Clinton Foundation and the sale of our uranium mines? You may be too far gone off the leftist cliff to make a rational connection. Others are not so blind..

Not that I care:

Even if You Believe the Left’s Excuses, Hillary Clinton Still Violated Criminal Law

Nice opinion. I'll go with our justice system.

 

[francoHFW]

So you see no correlation between Russian "donations" to the Clinton Foundation and the sale of our uranium mines? You may be too far gone off the leftist cliff to make a rational connection. Others are not so blind..

Our entire justice system didn't, but thanks for the endless malevolent gossip for 25 years. Quite the phony scandal industry for the dupes...I'll go with the law, thanks, not the disastrous New BS GOP.

New ???

Her trustworthiness sucks. But that's new ????

New since Newt and his talking points and Rush about 1987, and only gotten worse...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So you see no correlation between Russian "donations" to the Clinton Foundation and the sale of our uranium mines? You may be too far gone off the leftist cliff to make a rational connection. Others are not so blind..

Not that I care:

Even if You Believe the Left’s Excuses, Hillary Clinton Still Violated Criminal Law

Nice opinion. I'll go with our justice system.

If I were in your shoes, I would too.

He's closed within 4 points (RCP has dropped her from 272 to 229) and his numbers are growing.

You need to hold down the fort in the hopes he can't catch her before the election.

Stonewalling has worked for her in the past.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So you see no correlation between Russian "donations" to the Clinton Foundation and the sale of our uranium mines? You may be too far gone off the leftist cliff to make a rational connection. Others are not so blind..

Our entire justice system didn't, but thanks for the endless malevolent gossip for 25 years. Quite the phony scandal industry for the dupes...I'll go with the law, thanks, not the disastrous New BS GOP.

New ???

Her trustworthiness sucks. But that's new ????

New since Newt and his talking points and Rush about 1987, and only gotten worse...

But, Krugman isn't talking about them. He's quoting Reuters and the AP. Those are usually Clinton stalwarts.

Uh Oh....he might be right.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Her trustworthiness still sucks.

How does it feel to be supporting one of the clowns in the clown show ?