NY Times editorial bombshell

[Segnosaur]

Speaking of Jesus Christ, I wonder if Trump has compared himself to JC yet.

Probably doesn't like the guy because his first name is Hispanic.

Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk

 

[kellyb]

Walter Duranty.

From 90 years ago?

 

[Mumbles]

Probably doesn't like the guy because his first name is Hispanic.

Also, he thinks the guy's a sucker, and hasn't understood the bible because he doesn't read books.

 

[dann]

It's being reported that the White House has narrowed the list of suspects down to "a few individuals"

So no collectives! How many does that rule out?

 

[jimbob]

So no collectives! How many does that rule out?

I reckon we can rule out the actual POTUS as it was too coherent.

 

[timhau]

From 90 years ago?

That so obviously counts more than Trump's daily heap'o'lies.

 

[theprestige]

From 90 years ago?

Less than that. The NYT didn't renounce Duranty's work until the 80s. That's fifty years of doubling down on bad journalism. So you understand why appeals to the integrity of the New York Times aren't decisive for me.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Less than that. The NYT didn't renounce Duranty's work until the 80s. That's fifty years of doubling down on bad journalism. So you understand why appeals to the integrity of the New York Times aren't decisive for me.

Because the same staff is still working there?

Seriously, that is some weak sauce argument.

 

[kellyb]

Less than that. The NYT didn't renounce Duranty's work until the 80s. That's fifty years of doubling down on bad journalism. So you understand why appeals to the integrity of the New York Times aren't decisive for me.

Oh, my god, this is desperate.

You're having to reach back to reporting from 89 years ago to attempt to discredit the NYT.

You have no idea how pathetic this looks from the outside looking in.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This isn't a hold over. That should be obvious from the piece we are all talking about.



If we trust the NYT when they say they know the identity - and I think we should - then it is certain that the writer is a Republican. Either that or they published an article that they knew to contain lies. The latter possibility lacks credibility.

We shouldn't hypothesize about their trustworthiness. We should demand they present their evidence on their claims.

 

[kellyb]

You conservatives here are serving as a sort of case study in:

• mental gymnastics
• willful ignorance
• psychological denial
• intellectual dishonesty
• grasping at straws

 

[Mike!]

You conservatives here are serving as a sort of case study in:

• mental gymnastics
• willful ignorance
• psychological denial
• intellectual dishonesty
• grasping at straws

Before the events were eliminated from competition, I was a runner up in Mental Gymnastics, and got a Bronze in Straw Grasping.
It's not as easy as it sounds.

 

[LSSBB]

You conservatives here are serving as a sort of case study in:

• mental gymnastics
• willful ignorance
• psychological denial
• intellectual dishonesty
• grasping at straws

Who?

 

[kellyb]

Who?

BrooklynBaby, theprestige, BobtheCoward, and applecored.

You and Zig are fine.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

 

[Bob001]

Evidence about a possible author:

Who wrote the anonymous op-ed against President Trump in Wednesday’s New York Times? All we know for certain is what the Times disclosed: that it’s a “senior official in the Trump administration.” But the most likely author, based on the op-ed’s content and style, is the U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jon Huntsman.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/new-york-times-op-ed-anonymous-writer-trump.html

 

[CapelDodger]

Evidence about a possible author:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/new-york-times-op-ed-anonymous-writer-trump.html

It's so obviously Huntsman that it has to be a frame-up, probably by the Russians.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Because the same staff is still working there?

Seriously, that is some weak sauce argument.

I've already been down this road with him. The next reply is that no, it's not the same staff, but the question is whether they're any better. He has no answer for the fact that the evidence seems to indicate that, yes, they are. That's when the fringe reset happens.

There, I've saved you a couple of pointless hours.

 

[timhau]

Wasn't Huntsman in the running for VP candidacy with someone? Romney?

 

[jimbob]

It's so obviously Huntsman that it has to be a frame-up, probably by the Russians.

Is anyone else slightly disheartened by the claims of unusual erudition - using "amoral" instead of "immoral" (mind you, that might be because I have repeatedly used that to describe Trump)... and Putin. for example (or even "lodestar" although that isn't one I have used recently).

 

[timhau]

Less than that. The NYT didn't renounce Duranty's work until the 80s. That's fifty years of doubling down on bad journalism. So you understand why appeals to the integrity of the New York Times aren't decisive for me.

Yeah, and it was quite obviously a really pressing matter in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, and 70s.