The New York Times - They're even more evil now

to bring this back to the NYT, WTAF did they give space to Rich **** Lowry?

Why is this nonsense on the NYT editorial page? Are they aspiring to be the NR?

Imagine What Another Indictment Could Do for Donald Trump


paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

I feel sorry for the staffers who had to watch all of the thousands of episodes of Tucker's show, including the fascist/sexist/racist/xenophobic parts that Paul Surovell pretends don't exist.

I've never (until now) posted on this thread, so I was surprised (even from you) that my name would be mentioned.

If you have something to say about me show some integrity and provide some evidence that supports what you're saying. In this case you can't because you're just engaging in a gratuitous, libelous attack.

Was my comment from before or after Fox News ("even Fox News!") got tired of ignoring the fascist/sexist/racist/xenophobic parts?

I rest my case.

My comment was about Fox News "ignoring the fascist/sexist/racist/xenophobic parts" of Tucker Carlson's rhetoric.

If by "I rest my case" you disagree with my description of elements of Tucker Carlson's rhetoric, and say that they don't exist, then I don't see that you have much of a complaint with my post from whenever-it-was.


nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

I feel sorry for the staffers who had to watch all of the thousands of episodes of Tucker's show, including the fascist/sexist/racist/xenophobic parts that Paul Surovell pretends don't exist.

I've never (until now) posted on this thread, so I was surprised (even from you) that my name would be mentioned.

If you have something to say about me show some integrity and provide some evidence that supports what you're saying. In this case you can't because you're just engaging in a gratuitous, libelous attack.

Was my comment from before or after Fox News ("even Fox News!") got tired of ignoring the fascist/sexist/racist/xenophobic parts?

I rest my case.

My comment was about Fox News "ignoring the fascist/sexist/racist/xenophobic parts" of Tucker Carlson's rhetoric.

If by "I rest my case" you disagree with my description of elements of Tucker Carlson's rhetoric, and say that they don't exist, then I don't see that you have much of a complaint with my post from whenever-it-was.

Summon up a modicum of integrity, apologize and retract your lie.


WTF is going on at the NYT?

Another day another idiotic right wing argument against prosecuting TFG 

The Prosecution of Trump May Have Terrible Consequences

and before anyone says we all need to learn about this POV, they can cover it as news. They don't need to give it credibility by giving it space on the opinion page. 


This is a good take IMO. I believe the writer did "avoid committing the journalistic sin of false balance" as he aimed to do. But I'm sure folks on here will say he failed and it's pure bollocks. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/briefing/the-hunter-biden-case.html


Smedley said:

This is a good take IMO. I believe the writer did "avoid committing the journalistic sin of false balance" as he aimed to do. But I'm sure folks on here will say he failed and it's pure bollocks. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/briefing/the-hunter-biden-case.html

are there a lot of Democrats denying that Hunter Biden has been trading on his name to make a lot of money? IIRC, Joe Biden was told by members of the Obama Administration when he was VP that Hunter's business dealings looked really bad.

I'm sure we can find dozens of examples of people saying the Hunter Biden story is nothing. But I'm pretty sure the consensus among thoughtful Democrats and liberals is that it was unseemly at the very least, even if the POTUS didn't personally get involved in the deals.

so yes, the story is told fairly, but it's something of a straw man to imply that people on the left think Hunter Biden's business dealings are a-ok.


I'm certainly convinced the Hunter Biden should not hold public office and should not have any formal or informal role in his father's administration. What's that you say --- he doesn't? Well then why are we still talking about him?


The NYT article cuts to the chase as follows: "The current president’s son made substantial sums of money from the perception of his proximity to top government officials, and the president has claimed otherwise."

if that's a big nothingburger to you then fine, but to me it's worth talking about.


Smedley said:

The NYT article cuts to the chase as follows: "The current president’s son made substantial sums of money from the perception of his proximity to top government officials, and the president has claimed otherwise."

if that's a big nothingburger to you then fine, but to me it's worth talking about.

Ah. So he’s another Roger Clinton. Got it.


Smedley said:

The NYT article cuts to the chase as follows: "The current president’s son made substantial sums of money from the perception of his proximity to top government officials, and the president has claimed otherwise."

if that's a big nothingburger to you then fine, but to me it's worth talking about.

Talk about to what end? I think we all agree Hunter Biden acted unethically in trading on his father's name, but beyond that what exactly is it you want to say? There's no evidence suggesting Hunter's father was involved despite all efforts by the GOP to find some, so this isn't about the president.

It seems, then that this is more a discussion where people opine on how parents should treat their adult children? I'll be honest, I don't feel especially comfortable opining loudly on the parenting choices of others like that.


Wow you really want to shut down this discussion.

I don't give a F about private citizen Hunter Biden either, but being that Joe Biden is running for president and choosing to remain a public figure, Hunter is a legitimate campaign issue that - as the NYT highlights - calls into question Joe's honesty, at the very least. For someone who runs on a folksy, Everyman image, it's not a good look.


If Hunter is a legitimate campaign issue, then maybe the democrats should really start talking more about Jared and Ivanka’s financial dealings with the Saudi state…while they both worked for daddy, while daddy was president…they made close to one billion dollars in about four years. Doing what precisely? 
The republicans know very well that Biden will defeat trump a second time, and with millions of votes more than the last time. They’re in panic mode now, and honestly they have nothing else going for them. The grand ole potty is about to experience an implosion. 


Smedley said:

Wow you really want to shut down this discussion.

I don't give a F about private citizen Hunter Biden either, but being that Joe Biden is running for president and choosing to remain a public figure, Hunter is a legitimate campaign issue that - as the NYT highlights - calls into question Joe's honesty, at the very least. For someone who runs on a folksy, Everyman image, it's not a good look.

Again, there's been nothing showing Pres. Biden has been involved. So sure, it's a "campaign issue" in that in that it gives Republicans a chance to make a lot of innuendo, but it's not a campaign issue in terms of there being any actual substance there.

Hunter is certainly causing political headaches for his father ("not a good look" as you put it), but it's unclear what you think his father ought to be doing. Is your issue that you feel Joe Biden hasn't sufficiently prioritized being president over being a father -- you think he needs to ruthlessly throw his son under the bus and strongly disassociate with him? Or what, exactly, are you trying to say here?


Smedley said:

The NYT article cuts to the chase as follows: "The current president’s son made substantial sums of money from the perception of his proximity to top government officials, and the president has claimed otherwise."

if that's a big nothingburger to you then fine, but to me it's worth talking about.

And Joe Biden's crime here is ... ?


Jaytee said:

If Hunter is a legitimate campaign issue, then maybe the democrats should really start talking more about Jared and Ivanka’s financial dealings with the Saudi state…while they both worked for daddy, while daddy was president…they made close to one billion dollars in about four years. Doing what precisely? 
The republicans know very well that Biden will defeat trump a second time, and with millions of votes more than the last time. They’re in panic mode now, and honestly they have nothing else going for them. The grand ole potty is about to experience an implosion. 

Remember, however, that making Trump’s character a major campaign issue is a waste of time. HRC should have focused on economic issues. Trump’s character speaks for itself and isn’t going to change votes at this point. 


Smedley said:

Wow you really want to shut down this discussion.

I don't give a F about private citizen Hunter Biden either, but being that Joe Biden is running for president and choosing to remain a public figure, Hunter is a legitimate campaign issue that - as the NYT highlights - calls into question Joe's honesty, at the very least. For someone who runs on a folksy, Everyman image, it's not a good look.

what exactly is there to talk about? once we agree that he's a failson, the discussion is kind of over. Unless, like Republicans, you just want to attempt to hang it on Joe for political reasons.


PVW said:

Smedley said:

Wow you really want to shut down this discussion.

I don't give a F about private citizen Hunter Biden either, but being that Joe Biden is running for president and choosing to remain a public figure, Hunter is a legitimate campaign issue that - as the NYT highlights - calls into question Joe's honesty, at the very least. For someone who runs on a folksy, Everyman image, it's not a good look.

Again, there's been nothing showing Pres. Biden has been involved. So sure, it's a "campaign issue" in that in that it gives Republicans a chance to make a lot of innuendo, but it's not a campaign issue in terms of there being any actual substance there.

Hunter is certainly causing political headaches for his father ("not a good look" as you put it), but it's unclear what you think his father ought to be doing. Is your issue that you feel Joe Biden hasn't sufficiently prioritized being president over being a father -- you think he needs to ruthlessly throw his son under the bus and strongly disassociate with him? Or what, exactly, are you trying to say here?

I've said what I have to say, starting with the premise that the NYT take on the issue is a good one. Again if you regard the issue as a nothingburger and anyone who thinks otherwise is just a heartless Republican prying into a private family matter, you are entitled to that opinion.


Smedley said:

PVW said:

Is your issue that you feel Joe Biden hasn't sufficiently prioritized being president over being a father -- you think he needs to ruthlessly throw his son under the bus and strongly disassociate with him? Or what, exactly, are you trying to say here?

I've said what I have to say, starting with the premise that the NYT take on the issue is a good one. Again if you regard the issue as a nothingburger and anyone who thinks otherwise is just a heartless Republican prying into a private family matter, you are entitled to that opinion.

Wow PVW really wants to shut down this discussion.


Yes, I read the NYT piece. The key paragraph for non-Republicans seems to be this:

 These details are not pretty. The current president’s son made substantial sums of money from the perception of his proximity to top government officials, and the president has claimed otherwise. That story is notably different from past Republican lies about Obama’s birthplace or Kerry’s war record.

I thought ml1's response was sufficient? What's missing, in your view?

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

This is a good take IMO. I believe the writer did "avoid committing the journalistic sin of false balance" as he aimed to do. But I'm sure folks on here will say he failed and it's pure bollocks. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/briefing/the-hunter-biden-case.html

are there a lot of Democrats denying that Hunter Biden has been trading on his name to make a lot of money? IIRC, Joe Biden was told by members of the Obama Administration when he was VP that Hunter's business dealings looked really bad.

I'm sure we can find dozens of examples of people saying the Hunter Biden story is nothing. But I'm pretty sure the consensus among thoughtful Democrats and liberals is that it was unseemly at the very least, even if the POTUS didn't personally get involved in the deals.

so yes, the story is told fairly, but it's something of a straw man to imply that people on the left think Hunter Biden's business dealings are a-ok.



DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

PVW said:

Is your issue that you feel Joe Biden hasn't sufficiently prioritized being president over being a father -- you think he needs to ruthlessly throw his son under the bus and strongly disassociate with him? Or what, exactly, are you trying to say here?

I've said what I have to say, starting with the premise that the NYT take on the issue is a good one. Again if you regard the issue as a nothingburger and anyone who thinks otherwise is just a heartless Republican prying into a private family matter, you are entitled to that opinion.

Wow PVW really wants to shut down this discussion.

My "Not a heartless Republican prying into a private family matter" T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt.


PVW said:

Yes, I read the NYT piece. The key paragraph for non-Republicans seems to be this:

 These details are not pretty. The current president’s son made substantial sums of money from the perception of his proximity to top government officials, and the president has claimed otherwise. That story is notably different from past Republican lies about Obama’s birthplace or Kerry’s war record.

I thought ml1's response was sufficient? What's missing, in your view?

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

This is a good take IMO. I believe the writer did "avoid committing the journalistic sin of false balance" as he aimed to do. But I'm sure folks on here will say he failed and it's pure bollocks. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/briefing/the-hunter-biden-case.html

are there a lot of Democrats denying that Hunter Biden has been trading on his name to make a lot of money? IIRC, Joe Biden was told by members of the Obama Administration when he was VP that Hunter's business dealings looked really bad.

I'm sure we can find dozens of examples of people saying the Hunter Biden story is nothing. But I'm pretty sure the consensus among thoughtful Democrats and liberals is that it was unseemly at the very least, even if the POTUS didn't personally get involved in the deals.

so yes, the story is told fairly, but it's something of a straw man to imply that people on the left think Hunter Biden's business dealings are a-ok.


my question exactly. I thought my point was pretty clear. Although I did reference a consensus among "thoughtful" liberals who think the story isn't nothing, and aren't saying the actions were OK. but maybe smedley doesn't think I include myself in that category. or maybe he doesn't include me in it.

again, the story isn't nothing. Although at this point we don't know how much of a something it is either. 

Does anyone know specifically what crime or crimes Hunter Biden is now being investigated for? I have to admit, it's not clear to me what crime he's thought to have committed, aside from the tax and gun law violations that he's already been charged with.


tjohn said:

Remember, however, that making Trump’s character a major campaign issue is a waste of time. HRC should have focused on economic issues. Trump’s character speaks for itself and isn’t going to change votes at this point. 

I really meant when the republicans start bringing up Biden’s son, democrats should respond with Jared and Ivanka ‘s financial dealings with the Saudi government. It’s not good staying quiet and hoping people will figure it out. We have to go on the offensive and stop thinking people will get the message.


DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

PVW said:

Is your issue that you feel Joe Biden hasn't sufficiently prioritized being president over being a father -- you think he needs to ruthlessly throw his son under the bus and strongly disassociate with him? Or what, exactly, are you trying to say here?

I've said what I have to say, starting with the premise that the NYT take on the issue is a good one. Again if you regard the issue as a nothingburger and anyone who thinks otherwise is just a heartless Republican prying into a private family matter, you are entitled to that opinion.

Smedley said:

PVW said:

Is your issue that you feel Joe Biden hasn't sufficiently prioritized being president over being a father -- you think he needs to ruthlessly throw his son under the bus and strongly disassociate with him? Or what, exactly, are you trying to say here?

I've said what I have to say, starting with the premise that the NYT take on the issue is a good one. Again if you regard the issue as a nothingburger and anyone who thinks otherwise is just a heartless Republican prying into a private family matter, you are entitled to that opinion.

Click to Read More

Smedley said:

PVW said:

Is your issue that you feel Joe Biden hasn't sufficiently prioritized being president over being a father -- you think he needs to ruthlessly throw his son under the bus and strongly disassociate with him? Or what, exactly, are you trying to say here?

I've said what I have to say, starting with the premise that the NYT take on the issue is a good one. Again if you regard the issue as a nothingburger and anyone who thinks otherwise is just a heartless Republican prying into a private family matter, you are entitled to that opinion.

Wow PVW really wants to shut down this discussion.

 That's what I thought, from

"why are we still talking about (Hunter)?"

"this isn't about the president."

"I don't feel especially comfortable opining loudly on the parenting choices of others"

I'm glad you agree.



Smedley said:

The NYT article cuts to the chase as follows: "The current president’s son made substantial sums of money from the perception of his proximity to top government officials, and the president has claimed otherwise."

if that's a big nothingburger to you then fine, but to me it's worth talking about.

Is the bold part true?  Has the president claimed his son didn't trade on his name, or has he only said he himself was not involved?


mjc said:

Is the bold part true?  Has the president claimed his son didn't trade on his name, or has he only said he himself was not involved?

To my knowledge the one untrue thing Joe said was that Hunter didn't make any money in China. 
I'm not even sure why he felt the need to say that. And does anyone know if the president even knew how much money his son made in China?


Smedley said:

I'm glad you agree.

This can be our little secret. The club here never has to know.


PVW said:

Yes, I read the NYT piece. The key paragraph for non-Republicans seems to be this:

 These details are not pretty. The current president’s son made substantial sums of money from the perception of his proximity to top government officials, and the president has claimed otherwise. That story is notably different from past Republican lies about Obama’s birthplace or Kerry’s war record.

I thought ml1's response was sufficient? What's missing, in your view?

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

This is a good take IMO. I believe the writer did "avoid committing the journalistic sin of false balance" as he aimed to do. But I'm sure folks on here will say he failed and it's pure bollocks. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/briefing/the-hunter-biden-case.html

are there a lot of Democrats denying that Hunter Biden has been trading on his name to make a lot of money? IIRC, Joe Biden was told by members of the Obama Administration when he was VP that Hunter's business dealings looked really bad.

I'm sure we can find dozens of examples of people saying the Hunter Biden story is nothing. But I'm pretty sure the consensus among thoughtful Democrats and liberals is that it was unseemly at the very least, even if the POTUS didn't personally get involved in the deals.

so yes, the story is told fairly, but it's something of a straw man to imply that people on the left think Hunter Biden's business dealings are a-ok.


is it established fact that "the POTUS didn't personally get involved in the deals."? To my knowledge it's not. That's what's being looked at. 

There's been at least one false statement and lots of stonewalling from the administration. 


Smedley said:

is it established fact that "the POTUS didn't personally get involved in the deals."? To my knowledge it's not. That's what's being looked at. 

There's been at least one false statement and lots of stonewalling from the administration. 

you can't ever establish that he didn't get involved.

sheesh

but, after all this time, there is no evidence that he did.


With regard to the "false" statement, a Washington Post fact check did allow that perhaps Joe Biden was being truthful in how he interpreted the question. 

What is clear is that Hunter Biden did receive “a dollar from China.” However, note that Welker asked “about the work your son has done in China and for a Ukrainian energy company when you were vice president.” Biden might have been narrowly interpreting that question as confined to just that period of time — and the payments to Hunter Biden came after his father left office.

Which is an important aspect of the  accusations being made. Some of the deals were being made after Biden left office. And even the House Republicans acknowledge that. 



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Real Estate Listings

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertise here!