Trump got $413,000,000.00 from daddy

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Trump's BASE bought into what they saw on "The Apprentice" (NBC reality show) HOOK, LINE and SINKER.
They didn't realize that the board room at "Trump Tower" wasn't even a real office in the real Trump Tower, it was a specially constructed set built in a studio.
The REAL office in the real Trump Tower was in terrible shape. It looked bad and it even SMELLED bad, and it was outdated and in disrepair.

Trump's base bought into a carefully crafted illusion, and it is an illusion which continues to this day.
Click to expand...

In the old days, I didn't mind Trump's grifting so much. After all, he preyed on people of low character. He wasn't, say, ripping people off by appealing to their humanitarianism. He was getting stupid greedy people to give him money for clearly shady purposes -- like those who lost money on his scam university in hopes that he would teach them the tricks for rooking others with real estate swindles. Or people who lost their life savings buying stock in his failing casinos, in hopes they could get rich at the expense of gambling addicts. A parasite that preys on other parasites just doesn't bother me that much. But that changed in 2016, when his marks put him in a position to screw the rest of us, too. Then their venality and stupidity became the problem of those of us who didn't share their character flaws.
 
Last edited:
Sailor said:
Not even close. Partisan hackery at its finest maybe, that is about it. Other than the food section.
Click to expand...

What would you consider a better outlet, and what evidence do you see to support that?

I'm not trying to argue the NYT is free of partisan hackery. They're not. They editorialized in favor of the infamous Whitewater investigation, for example, without a shred of evidence that the Clintons had done anything wrong. They also played a big part in pushing Bush's catastrophic invasion of Iraq, wrongly asserting that Iraq hadn't disarmed its WMD program, and advocating for military force. They also hyped the hell out of the non-scandal of Hillary Clinton using a private email server for work. They can be pretty hacky. But can you name a better outlet?
 
Sailor said:
Not even close. Partisan hackery at its finest maybe, that is about it. Other than the food section.
Click to expand...

Cracks one up when a conservative attacks the NYT, other than articles they might have seen on the Internet, the chances are well over ninety percent of them never bought or even read the NYT, or even the WP.

What they know about either paper comes from what their demogogues told them, and if there ever existed an antithesis of the NYT it would be talk radio and Fox demogogues, to begin with, you have to read one
 
archives said:
Cracks one up when a conservative attacks the NYT, other than articles they might have seen on the Internet, the chances are well over ninety percent of them never bought or even read the NYT, or even the WP.

What they know about either paper comes from what their demogogues told them, and if there ever existed an antithesis of the NYT it would be talk radio and Fox demogogues, to begin with, you have to read one
Click to expand...

Not real sure where you get off telling me what I read and what I know. To keep this as polite as possible, unlike you I am not chained to left wing sources only allowing clouding of my judgement. I have probably read the NYT more over the years than you.
 
Oneuli said:
What would you consider a better outlet, and what evidence do you see to support that?

But can you name a better outlet?
Click to expand...

In that world, sure, it's easy, Sean, Rush, Glenn, Fox and Friends, Lou, Tucker, Bill, Laura, and the hundreds of right wing demogogues who fill their media
 
Oneuli said:
So, the quality of a newspaper is ultimately subjective, but if there's any objective measure it would have to be which newspapers are most widely recognized by people in the field of journalism for the excellence of their work. In that way, the NYT stands in a category of its own. You can also see the NYT's quality by the way journalists and opinion writers tend to graduate up to it from lesser papers when they excel. It's an aspirational career destination because of the sense within the field of journalism of its preeminent position. Other metrics, such as how often a paper is cited by other papers, also support the notion of the NYT's singular greatness. You can also see it in metrics of reading level and educational demographics of readership... the NYT is where the highly educated go to get their news, at least when it comes to general coverage (there are specialty financial papers like Bloomberg with even more elite demographics).
Click to expand...

Metrics SQUAWK!! Field of journalism SQUAWK!!!

Metrics SQUAWK!! Field of journalism SQUAWK!!!

Metrics SQUAWK!! Field of journalism SQUAWK!!!

Metrics SQUAWK!! Field of journalism SQUAWK!!!
 
Oneuli said:
First, the NYT isn't terribly liberal. It has both conservative and liberal opinion writers, and its overall direction tends toward conservatism on economic and military/foreign-policy issues, even as it tends towards liberalism on social issues. As for trustworthiness, it's as close to trustworthy as I've found among all the outlets I've read. They may screw up occasionally, but generally they do prominent corrections when that happens.
Click to expand...

NYT isn't terribly liberal SQUAWK!

NYT isn't terribly liberal SQUAWK!

NYT isn't terribly liberal SQUAWK!

NYT isn't terribly liberal SQUAWK!
 
Truth Detector said:
Does it matter?
Click to expand...

Depends, if you think it just further proves what a complete fraud Trump is, yes, but if you are drunk on the Kool Aid, no, nothing the guy does matters, not even shooting someone on 5th Avenue

One person it surely matters to is Trump, given his ego, any revelation exposing him as a fraud has to hurt
 
Thing1 said:
Trump lied about how much he got - by a lot. A lot.

Show me where the Kennedys tried to pretend like Trump did. Find a quote. You posted your little "laughing hysterically" response. Back it up.
Click to expand...

You are aware that this story is mostly bullshit right?
 
Sailor said:
Not real sure where you get off telling me what I read and what I know. To keep this as polite as possible, unlike you I am not chained to left wing sources only allowing clouding of my judgement. I have probably read the NYT more over the years than you.
Click to expand...

Yeah right, I'm not looking to buy a bridge
 
Thing1 said:
Do you have a problem w/ lying?

You're trying to move the goalposts now, because you embarrassed yourself w/ that "laughing hysterically" response. It's actually great to see.
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't. You had no problem with Obamas lies. You have no problem with the Times lies. You had no problem with Clintons lies. You seem to gobble Fords lies.

Now you're suddenly concerned about lies? STFU, seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top