The Clinton Trump Debates...

[nailer]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

So would you say NYT = Breitbart?

No on most variables. Also, matters of degree matter to varying degrees.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

My conversation on this started with Post #254 where I did not reference a publication. For that matter, I would lump NYT, WaPo and HuffPo in the same boat and Breibart is on the other shore and sees the river flow the other way. So who is more credible simply depends on your belief and perception and this is the point I was making.

For the record, I trust neither but do read the left leaning more so than the right leaning, but I am not averse nor allergic to right leaning reports. I actually find some quite amusing.

Since I am away from my beloved DQ 20's and 250 Ti's, will go now to look for an Italian sandwich joint here in the Windy City.

If I only had room for my 20i, stored in the back bedroom.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[JCricket]

Originally Posted by nailer

Facts are perceived and perception is subjective and every fact is a subjective perception.

should I object to your subjective perception of facts then? That the same as objecting to your facts of facts? Objectively speaking anyways.

[Pio1980]

Huffpo has served as a credible alternative to the propaganda machine serving our plutocratic kleptocracy, and a reliable watchdog on the most despicable most unqualified candidate in US history.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[donquixote99]

OK, I was going to compare the Breitbart and NYT lead stories, but they really aren't comparable. The Breitbart lead right now is "Pat Caddell: Election ‘Headed Toward Armageddon,’ as Establishment Fights to ‘Hold onto Its Power and Privilege at All Costs.’"

It's just not a news story. It's a pointer to a 'radio inverview,' one has to listen to 11:00 minutes of audio (I won't), and unless you transcribe it yourself, textual analysis is difficult. And of course, it's not hard news, it's analysis and opinion from Pat Caddell, who is a 'pollster and consultant.' (See wikipedia--the 1987 profile is very interesting.)

The lead on the NYT right now is "Hoboken Train Crash Leaves at Least One Dead and Dozens Injured." It's a hard-news story, facts, and reaction from named witnesses and officials. There is 1min 14 sec of video available, but the print story is the longer and more detailed. It is straight reporting, not opinion and analysis, which the Times traditionally keeps off it's front page. It's original by-lined reporting from the Times.

---------------
That's what I found when i looked. I report, you decide.

[Pio1980]

Which sources can survive fact checking?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[CarlV]

Now we are working the victim card:

Republican nominee Donald Trump doesn't think he is being treated fairly by the former Miss Universe whom he is accused of calling "Miss Piggy."

Alicia Machado, who was crowned Miss Universe in 1996, says Trump called her "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeping," and that his insults resulted in her developiong an eating disorder. Trump's Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, repeated the accusation during the presidential debate on Monday.

Trump responded to the allegations during an interview on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor Wednesday night, saying both that he hardly knew Machado and that he saved her from being fired because of her weight.

"She had a lot of difficulties and, you know, they wanted to fire her," Trump said. "The company itself wanted to fire her. I saved her job. I'll bet you, if you put up and added up all the time I spoke to her it was probably less than 5 minutes. I had nothing to do with this person. But they wanted to fire her. I saved her job because I said, 'that's going to be ruinous' and I've done that with a number of the young ladies, where I saved their job. And you know what happened? Look what I get out of it. I get nothing,"

Give me a break, if you wanted my vote you would not insult my intelligence.

Carl

[Pio1980]

This whining manchild is the choice of, what, 30 odd percent of US citizens and the right wing blather machine. Perfect! The logical end game to the Excrement in Fraudcasting guy.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[d-ray657]

Hey Rajoo, would you give any credence to an endorsement of Hillary Clinton by a state-wide newspaper (The Arizona Republic) that, in its 126 year history, has never endorsed a Democrat. Or is that the Kiss of Death for you. The editorial makes it clear that its endorsement is based on much more than Hillary not being Donald Trump. It gives considerable weight to the nature and extent of her experience in public life nationally and internationally, to her temperament, to her intelligence, and to her tenacity. I imagine that it has taken this move at the cost of many subscriptions.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Hey Rajoo, would you give any credence to an endorsement of Hillary Clinton by a state-wide newspaper (The Arizona Republic) that, in its 126 year history, has never endorsed a Democrat. Or is that the Kiss of Death for you. The editorial makes it clear that its endorsement is based on much more than Hillary not being Donald Trump. It gives considerable weight to the nature and extent of her experience in public life nationally and internationally, to her temperament, to her intelligence, and to her tenacity. I imagine that it has taken this move at the cost of many subscriptions.

I can be and am open minded when I want to, but at times I resist it. I did see the reference to The Arizona Republic Republic, I did not bother to read the endorsement, but I will now though.

I doubt that will change my mind since my opposition is not just to Hillary alone, but more so the way she was selected. So on this my mind is made up even at the cost of name calling by some very close friends and relatives.