The NYT changed a headline that read “Trump Urges Unity vs Racism” because of outrage from leftists. They then changed it to “Assailing Hate not Guns.
A TRUE newspaper doesn't let others determine their headlines. They have integrity to not do such a thing.
“But more importantly, how the New York Times responded illustrated a growing failure in the public's expectations of the news.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin … e-it-twice
Many simply listen to the news so they will know what lies are being told about issues and events. The simple fact that the NYT headlined the truth would have made most people's eyes narrow, causing them to wonder what's up with that? They don't see the change as a growing failure, they see it as no surprise that NYT turned on the truth.
"The NYT changed a headline that read 'Trump Urges Unity vs Racism' . . . to 'Assailing Hate not Guns.'"
Thank goodness. That first headline is ridiculous and misleading. The second is much better.
I read that. I'm surprised and disappointed. I guess integrity doesn't hold much importance anymore.
Not since Trump was elected. He's the role model for lack of integrity so why are you surprised or disappointed? Be careful what you wish for..
If you think people are naturally lemmings that makes sense.
Oh wait. Many on the left are acting like lemmings. No wonder you'd say that.
No I don't, but I do think those on the right ignore the hatred and lies coming from the Oval Office.
I don't ignore anything. It's a matter of perception.
If you are driven by hatred of Trump it is much easier to read all kinds of things into anything he does. If you find all politicians to be liars it's easier to see his are just not as polished as some.
If you see all people as inherently equal, you accept that criticisms are not racist; unless that criticism includes racist language (racist language not being newly defined bizarre takes on standard non racist words and terms popularized by conspiracy theorists on social media). You can understand a lot, if you look at people as just that and don't add a color qualifier as if that color is some type of handicap prohibiting them from being treated as is everyone else.
Who's driven by hatred of Trump? I'm weary of this being used by the right to explain why the left and others don't like Trump. I can say your hatred of Obama or Hillary has you blind to the truth, but it will only be as true as your claim.
Try, "you hate America," "or you're not a patriot," along with the other claim of hating Trump, and you'll sound just like Limbaugh or Hannity. Blaming another's hate as an excuse won't cut it, LTL. Try something else..
I will try this. You are being driven by your dislike for people that you don't even know and have no control over. Puppeteers got you by the string. . As far as I have seen if you couldn't bitch about Donald Trump you would have nothing to say. I think you're in love with the man. You are a parrot
I don't hate Obama. I don't even think my disgust of Hillary mirrors hated, but I grant you whatever she says, whatever she does, I look at in a negative light.
I don't think any of us hate America. But, your hatred of Trump is well documented throughout the threads. I'm surprised you'd think denying it would cut it.
It's comical that you think being critical of Trump for zero standards of decency, calling him out for the deaths his hateful rhetoric clearly caused, or wanting a leader in the Oval Office who didn't break the laws of the country to get there constitutes hate.
It's not hate to wonder why he committed multiple counts of obstruction of justice to protect a country, in Russia, who attacked us. Many patriots would see that action as treasonous. Not sure why Trump supporters such as yourself condone siding with the enemy, and backing politicians that block protections against further attacks.
Only in your cult-like reality is this hate and not a concern for America to want a more humane person in the Oval Office.
Valeant, good to hear from you again.
I do admire a person who is consistent with their beliefs and convictions.
I may not agree, but I always know where you stand on an issue.
I have no problem with criticism of any politician. And, I agree with a lot of criticism of Trump. But, honesty and decency is not something reserved when dealing with those we like. Courtesy should not be solely determined by our opinion of the person we are discussing.
The left has lobbed too many insults at those they disagree with, because of their hatred of Trump. They have created an environment of fear. So much so that a newspaper can't pick its own headlines. Everyone fears government control of the media but we are now in a world where online mobs control it.
Most of your accusations toward Trump in that post are not backed by any fact anyone has ever been able to find. What law did he break to win? Are you referring to collusion that was never found? I can't support wishes and dreams. Give me a fact to back. You don't realize that undermining the office of the President with lies and innuendo will just escalate when a new president takes office.
The lines drawn between the branches of government serve a purpose. Separation of power needs to be maintained. Using politics to cripple any of those branches is dangerous. We've seen a major breakdown between that office and Congress during our adulthood and it has resulted in deadlock and stagnation.
We both take a fact and come to a conclusion. I use Occam's razor. You appear to be one of the sheeple led by the conspiracy theorists on the internet.
Once again, a left voice mirrors that it claims is the shortcoming of another. You appear, to me, to be brainwashed by a cult. And, I get it. People feel safer if they join a group. They feel empowered by consensus. I can't agree with what I see as wrong. I won't be silent just because the mob can't take opposing opinion with any grace.
He definitely broke the laws regarding the use of charitable funds when he used his foundation on his campaign. He was forced to shut down his foundation and banned him and his three children from taking leadership roles at New York charities. These are indisputable facts of a violation of the law.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN1OH1TH
Second, he was named by Michael Cohen in a felony campaign finance conviction for the payoff to Karen McDougal. There is audio of him directing Cohen to make that payoff as well as multiple witness statements. He was actually named as Individual-1 in the conviction.
https://www.justsecurity.org/64975/afte … planation/
So. Trump misused a charity. That's pretty typical of politicians.
Trump had an affair with a prostitute. Considering the way the guy looks, I'm surprised anyone is surprised he had to pay for sex.
Trump paid hush money to keep her quiet. Not the first politician to do so.
From what I have read, the question is did he know he was committing the crime? And, I think that is an important one. It's like all the hype about AOC and the probable crimes in the shell game with the donations. Was she aware what she was doing was illegal?
People who are not politicians can make mistakes when entering the political arena. It appears the DOJ understands that and factors that in.
Trump misused his charity on his presidential campaign. That's hardly typical. It's illegal is what it is. Relating it to others who do pay to play after they are elected is a bit different.
And technically, he had sex with a porn star. He did not pay her for the sex. Although, I am impressed how easily you could dismiss it had he broken laws for solicitation.
As for illegally paying hush money to a porn star with a month to go in a presidential campaign, please let us know when that has previously happened.
And if we're allowing the stupidity defense for crimes now, saying that criminals were too dumb to know the law, therefore, they could not be prosecuted for breaking them, that's going to be a very slippery slope. Sure you want to go down that road?
If you think porn stars don't expect money to sleep with guys, your naivete is interesting.
And, no. I think politicians, along with any person paid by the public dole, should have the book thrown at them for violations. But, that is not the way our system currently works and I believe Trump should be treated like any other politician.
In 2006, she was winning awards for her work as both an actress and a director in her industry. She was likely doing very well financially during that time, and neither party has ever discussed money as a motivation for that affair. It's not naivete as you claim, so much as historical context.
We can agree with both of your second points. They should, but do not, likely beginning with Clinton lying to Congress, Bush using a private server and ghosting 10 million e-mails pertaining to the Iraq war, to Clinton's server, to Trump's campaign felonies and obstruction of justice felonies. But if lying about fellatio can get you impeached, shouldn't obstructing the investigation into a foreign country attacking our elections also?
It's a question of belief.
You believe he colluded, so it is not a leap to believe any obstruction attempt was to stop anyone finding the truth and that would be horrible.
I believe he didn't collude. I do believe the Obama administration, in an attempt to ensure he didn't get elected, started an investigation in the hopes of finding something, or at least attempt to muddy the waters to thwart his electability. I do believe he felt targeted unfairly. In that context, his actions make sense.
I remember when Hillary started screaming about Russians. It was before any of this. She attempted to set the stage, got no traction, then went a step further, illegally, immorally, and as underhanded as she had proven herself to be. I believe Obama, or many within his administration, knew it was not only wrong, but a lie, and ran with it anyway.
So who, by my take on events, had the most culpability?
I believe he was willing to collude as proven by his campaign taking the meeting with Russians and Trump saying he'd listen again if offered dirt recently. Mueller could not prove quid pro quo, or conspiracy.
Regardless of the collusion issue, it is established that Russia attacked our elections. It was the investigation into the depth of that attack that Trump illegally obstructed, as many of his actions fulfilled the three points needed to charge and convict for that felony. By obstructing that investigation, he protected a hostile foreign nation that attacked us. The fact that Trump got the assistance, as well as welcomed and encouraged further interference, from that attack gave investigators cause to look at any ties between the two parties. To not, would have been tantamount to national security.
I don't believe the Russian trolls affected the election. And, as I've previously stated, our government conducts themselves in the exact same way in foreign elections.
If you think others are stupid enough to be swayed by such can I ask what guarantee you have that you weren't duped? What makes you believe you are smarter than the people you think we're swayed?
I can understand why you'd think that, but after reading this analysis, I began to see how voters were influenced:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018 … -for-trump
Let me get this straight. The article admits that all involved agree the Russian meddling didn't turn the election but, because the author thinks it did....you think it did?
Did you actually read the case she presented to back up her conclusion that the actions the Russians took likely turned the election? Or did you just skim the first few paragraphs? Because to make that last statement would assume you didn't really read that far.
I did. And what I saw was that she was not using the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of surety, but something far less. I got the strong impression it was a gut feeling, an "intuition" based on years of looking at what influences voters, coupled with a "beyond reasonable doubt" about what was posted.
Which is likely why no one else is willing to step up and agree with her.
Considering you always argue absolutes and cannot come to any conclusions based on preponderance on evidence, I am hardly surprised by your statement.
The release of hacked Clinton campaign e-mails at the same time Obama was set to announce Russian interference and the infamous Access Hollywood recording was exposed, should be enough evidence to note that the Russians kept Trump afloat in the race. Without those e-mails released at that time, the negative coverage would have buried any other candidate.
I did read it. I watched the Zeitgeist thing on 9/11 too. Conspiracy theories sound so reasonable when presented, while ignoring other data. It's always easy to get pulled in.
"And technically, he had sex with a porn star. He did not pay her for the sex. Although, I am impressed how easily you could dismiss it had he broken laws for solicitation."
If he didn't pay for sex, what possible "solicitation" was there that was illegal?
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
Trump's hand-picked attorney general summarized the Mueller Report by saying two things.1) Trump or his campaign did not legally conspire with Russia to fix the 2016 election2) Trump is NOT exonerated from the charge of Obstruction of Justice.IF Barr properly reported Mueller's...
by Kathryn L Hill 3 years ago
Do the Democrats and the liberals who hate Trump feel it is right to do so?Isn't hatred the root of racism?It seems they preach love and hateat the same time!Is it just fine to hate? Wondering
by SparklingJewel 13 years ago
every group has their fringe...http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39745.htmlI hope everyone will continue to evolve out of this issue and not perpetuate it further, but act to create better
by JAKE Earthshine 4 years ago
10,000 veterans expected but only 4,000 showed up according to reports, what does that tell you?: I’m not sure why a treacherous, cowardly, yellow draft dodger like Mr. Trump who avoided serving our country would expect our brave military veterans, courageous men and women who he disrespects and...
by Julie Grimes 12 years ago
I just received a crazy text from EbertChicago. It reads,"The true face of today's American racism. Uncensored and cruel. Read this and weep." ......and then it lists the url. So I went to the site. I guess I figured I needed something to weep about. Well I found...
by Credence2 4 years ago
As so many believe that I am out to condemn the man unfairly, here are a couple of points to the contrary.1. He decides to with draw from Syria, removing the U.S. from a fruitless and unnecessary involvement in the affairs of others.2. He and the Republicans actually support a revamp of the penal...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|