NEW YORK TIMES FIRES THE FIRST SHOT!

Whoever said joy was the campaign's "strategy"? This is the mother of all straw men, and the Times knows it. What a joke.

[quote] Joy is not a strategy

The New York Times is not a newspaper.

Fear as a strategy worked out just fine for Trump in 2016, why can't joy?

NYT, give us Wordle and puzzles, you're not good for much else.

Don't get it. Do they really think they'll make up all those lost subscriptions with deplorables?

Just a reminder that one can keep one’s games subscription and cancel the main NYT subscription!!

Of course not. Kahn is a crook. Crooks always create a diversion.

Note that the OP declined to provide a link to the article which is very thoughtful. What distinguishes liberals from MAGA conservatives is the ability to be self reflective and make constructive criticism. Since Kamala secured the nomination Fox News has been singularly obsessed with vilifying her nonstop throughout the day. They do not criticize Trump (until this Thursday, when they started pushing back - see “Republican media” thread).

I pointed out to my zombie Fox watching parents that this was a bad strategy and if Fox wanted Trump to win the presidency they would start criticizing him and pointing out what he was doing wrong, otherwise he may never correct himself. No one watches Fox News all day is going to vote for Kamala Harris so there’s no need to vilify her; it’s like telling someone who already doesn’t like Brussel sprouts that Brussel sprouts are nasty.

And the reason you should WANT this criticism from the New York Times is because Kamala Harris earned the nomination without going through a primary. The primary is where all these criticisms and flaws are pointed out far ahead of time so the candidate can address them to prepare for the more bruising general. That was why Obama prevailed in 2008; not just because he had fought hard against McCain but because fighting Hillary had made him a stronger candidate.

By Patrick Healy

Deputy Opinion Editor, reporting from Chicago

If the Republican convention’s message for America last month had to fit on a bumper sticker, it would read, “Trump is God.” Delegates deified him relentlessly as the risen Trump after the assassination attempt. They told me over and over that he was spared to save the country with his re-election. Only on the final night did Donald Trump come crashing down to earth with his nomination speech. Divine it was not.

What a mistake. The most divisive man in America was suddenly getting a measure of good will from skeptical voters after he was nearly killed. People were tuning in to see if he’d talk like a changed man. And then he threw it away with the same old rant. All Trump had going for him was President Biden’s weakness.

Flash-forward to this week. If the Democratic convention’s message for America had to fit on a bumper sticker, it would read, “Harris is joy.” The word has gone from being a nice descriptor of Democratic energy to being a rhetorical two-by-four thumped on voters’ heads. Don’t get me wrong — there are many worse things than joy — but I cringed a little in the convention hall Tuesday night when Bill Clinton said Kamala Harris would be “the president of joy.” “Joy” is the new “fetch” from “Mean Girls”: Democrats are bent on making the word happen.

But joy is not a political strategy. And God is not a political strategy. The good news for Democrats is that Harris seems to understand this. Americans want her to lower their household costs and make it easier to find housing. Being our joyful Momala is not going to win the election.

Harris gave a good speech Thursday. Her love for America was overflowing — a child of immigrants’ love, as the Democratic strategist Howard Wolfson put it to me. Republicans like to tag Democrats as down on America and its history, but it was interesting that when Harris radiated pride, it was not pride as a Black woman or pride as a glass-ceiling breaker; it was pride as an American. She was open and relatable and repeatedly put voters first. Meanwhile, Trump keeps playing God, calling in to Fox News as if entitled to airtime and making pronouncements about Harris from on high before being cut off.

This is a winnable race for Harris, but she hasn’t won it yet. Far from it. She hasn’t been tested — really tested — since Biden stepped aside. She hasn’t given a single interview or news conference to face hard questions. But it’s really the debates that will be her test. Her advisers think she might get away with doing just one against Trump. I think they underestimate her challenge in earning voters’ trust. She needs to start proving herself outside her comfort zone.

Ultimately, she needs more voters in the swing states to trust her to handle the economy better than her opponent. Barack Obama earned that trust through nearly two hard years of campaigning; he didn’t coast on “hope and change.” Harris can’t coast on “joy.” If she shows she can stand up under pressure, she can beat Trump and consign him for eternity to just playing God on Fox News.

That quoted text is a perfectly reasonable *opinion* piece.

Exactly. If you read the piece, it's totally resaonable. The point is she has not been tested with serious questions and it has to happen. The right is saying this and we shouldn't pretend like she doesn't have something to prove either.

Reasonable to ask, yes, but as usual, where are the constant NYT opinion pieces and editorials demanding the same of the Republicans? Context, people.

[quote]The point is she has not been tested with serious questions and it has to happen.

She had only 2-3 weeks to put together a national election campaign. The interviews will come. She answered the question of "when?", when she informed a reporter that her team was working on arrangements, etc. Are a few days after Labor Day a problem?

Again someone like r12 proves there is a reason we call these people “Blue MAGA”. They do not accept responsibility for ANYTHING. It is always someone else’s fault.

Since OP apparently is unfamiliar with how newspapers work, this is an opinion piece. In this case the opinion of one of the opinion editors. They also publish opinions by conservatives some if whom work for the newspaper and some of whom do not. The readers know they are reading one writer’s opinion because there is a label. By publishing an opinion critical of Harris they are not attacking her as an institution. They are reflecting a diversity of views. Readers are free to agree or disagree.

In other words—grow up.

Can we be honest? A Trump administration will generate more news which translates into more ad revenue. The news stopped being objective a long time ago. The tv stations need to generate 24/7 content. They want Trump because they can criticize him and generate sales.

The Times has excoriated Trump in its editorials. Rachel Maddow’s ratings go way up with Trump in power. That doesn’t mean she wants him to win.

They need to start trolling the media, same rapid response they’ve been giving to Trump with same snark. Not ‘enemy of the people’ nonsense, but more of that ‘whatcha got’ attitude she gave them on the runway in Michigan. And make it really fucking clear when the answer is ‘nothing’.

r16 Yeah, they've seen how boring the Biden presidency has been and are pining for those days of Trump saying outrageous bullshit 24/7 (and generating headlines) while in office.

If it's a fight Harris needs she's got one. Guaranteed Healy will criticize her strategy when the time comes and accuse her of alienating swing voters. He goes nuts when the Democrats don't stick to the center right. I hope his fear-mongering is counterbalanced with an opinion piece showing that these 'unpopular' progressive policies are actually supported by a majority of Americans:

New York Times deputy opinion editor Patrick Healy (8/20/24) described Sen. Bernie Sanders’ speech to the Democratic National Convention as an attempt to “make policy proposals that put [Kamala] Harris in a big-government vise, binding (or pushing) her in a direction that a lot of moderates do not want to go.”

Healey followed the standard New York Times line York Times line (FAIR.org, 7/26/24) that progressive candidates need to move to the right to win—and scorned Sanders for ignoring that advice: “Harris needs some of those swing-state moderates if she’s going to win the presidency, but the electoral math didn’t seem to be on Sanders’s mind.”

Strangely, though, the specific policies that Healey mentioned Sanders as promoting don’t seem to be particularly unpopular, with moderates or anyone else. Rather, opinion polls find them to be supported by broad majorities.

What we’re learning is that progressive policy proposals are deeply unpopular—with the New York Times‘ deputy opinion editor.

The other problem with the “Joy” campaign is - and this is a troublesome one because this campaign more than any other is extremely attuned to Hollywood

You are not supposed to outright state a theme like joy (Intro to Screenwriting). You are supposed to DEMONSTRATE it. Saying what it is reduces its power.

“From the Window to the Walz” = GOOD

“Kamala will be the President of Joy” = BAD

I'm tired of these regressive center op-eds.

Then don’t read them.

Every now and then I read one of the Times conservative columnists to see if they have anything interesting to say. I almost always regret venturing in. But I don’t object to the Times’ publishing a variety of viewpoints. People who conflate “The New York Times” with conservative opinion writers are just looking to be outraged and are demonstrating that they don’t actually read newspapers.

[quote]A Trump administration will generate more news which translates into more ad revenue.

Leslie Moonves on Donald Trump: “It May Not Be Good for America, but It’s Damn Good for CBS”

Dear NYT:

Do not harsh our mellow

Sincerely,'

Everyone on Earth

The opinion piece isn't especially critical. "Ultimately, she needs more voters in the swing states to trust her to handle the economy better than her opponent. " This would be great.

[quote] But I don’t object to the Times’ publishing a variety of viewpoints.

It’s not the variety; it’s that the entire variety is the stupidest of its type. The dumbest leftists, most idiotic centrists, and conservative fools. Counter intuitive concern trolling is also not a content strategy, NYT.

[quote] "Ultimately, she needs more voters in the swing states to trust her to handle the economy better than her opponent. "

This doesn't make any sense to me. Trump (and Republicans) ran up the national debt more than all the previous Presidents and Administrations combined. Enough jobs were not being created, etc

WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT?

On the homepage today: "Daffy Donald, Turning Pea Green With Envy" on his envy of Harris; lead story: "Trump’s Carefully Scripted Week Kept Veering Off Script / Despite calls by his advisers to focus on the issues, former President Donald J. Trump has made it clear that he intends to keep running his campaign his way." (and we all know what that means); "Why Harris’s Barrier-Breaking Bid Feels Nothing Like Hillary Clinton’s / The first-female-president energy of 2016 has been replaced by a more serious tone, with Democrats warning gravely of the new frontiers in the post-Roe era:

Some of you have this naive fixation with the NYT. I hate them, I am not defending them, but if you want HuffPo or Daily Kos, fucking read it. The NYT, the Post any of the reasonable, normal papers are not echo chambers.

And they wrote a shitty, biased article about my company that landed on the front page ten years ago and I still haven't forgotten, so I am not defending these cunts.

If you want to understand why we almost certainly would have lost the election with Biden

Look how someone like r28 thinks

[quote]She had only 2-3 weeks to put together a national election campaign.

She ran for President back in 2020. She already knows how to put together a campaign.

At the very least, she needs policy on her website. It's now over a month since Biden resigned, (not counting the two weeks prior when democratic officials were persuading him to). There's no reason at this point why there shouldn't be a basic outline of her goals on that webpage. Instead of numerous "Donation" links.

People want to hear what she plans on doing. Since when is that a bad thing? A lot of democrats are struggling financially. One-upping Trump with a sarcastic retort in the media isn't going to stop their houses from foreclosing or them from losing their jobs.

[quote]She ran for President back in 2020. She already knows how to put together a campaign.

Many things have changed since 2020, R31. It' 2024, btw. Technology, social media, etc have drastically changed.

[quote]There's no reason at this point why there shouldn't be a basic outline of her goals on that webpage. Instead of numerous "Donation" links.

I'm old enough to remember that when opponents wanted to know about this, had questions and complaints about that, etc... they were always referred to a candidate's website where EVERYTHING was there and fully answered. Somehow, these naysayers could never find the site.

NOW, that there is no site they want one...

What they're talking about is every Republican thinks gas prices were lower, food prices were lower, etc etc under Trump. Even if you dispute that we'd have to retake the narrative!

"People want to hear what she plans on doing."

Again, with the double standard and both sides bullshit, R31. Trump spends an hour and a half rambling on about Hannibal Lecter and no one bats an eye. Kamala spent over an hour on Thursday night detailing what she was planning to do. Or were you busy licking Trump's rancid, shit encrusted asshole to notice?

On the other hand, NYT Wirecutter told me today which the best toe gripping yoga mat is. And that article was far more useful than this clickbait.

I've been wasting enough time on TikTok to see some republican arguments for Trump coming in some fairly standard containers. Some of them very much think he's chosen by God and was saved from death. Others might know he's a dick but are defaulting to a "the economy was better" argument.

There will be plenty of criticism if Kamala Harris becomes president. She's a woman in power, and they're always criticized no matter what they do. Hell, they've already criticized her in a way that they never did with any other vp. Another Trump presidency won't generate the same drama as the first. People weren't used to a leader like Trump before. Everything he did was a spectacle. After ten years, the public is used to his buffoonery and it doesn't resonate anymore. Plus, there was the fear, nervousness or excitement of him being re-elected, and that will be gone if he becomes president again. People will lose interest in him quickly.

The New York Times new headquarters.

R34, we certainly know where Dump stands, he doesn’t have to talk about it (although he’d be more successful if he did). It’s Project 2025. And he can deny it all he wants, but nobody believes him.

Does anyone not know where the Dems stand? I think we all know. It’s more important that Kamala talks about it (which she did in her acceptance speech) than print it on a website. Maybe they could put up a one-page policy statement, but there is no need for in-depth shit like they did in 2016.

R34, what I wrote may have seemed like a counter to your post, I just realized I wasn’t clear, apologies. I totally agree with what you wrote.

Fuck him that’s why I canceled my subscription. They also help start the Iraq war.

[R6] how do you keep games without subscribing to the rest? I miss spelling bee but had to dump NYT.

I downsized to the Games-only subscription during Trump's presidency. Now I've cancelled even that. I am washing my hands of this rag, totally. I just don't resonate with the NYT at all anymore.

I am tired of them using the word 'joy' they should start thanking Kamala for bringing something more appropriate back, like the beat or the groove.

Joy was fun for like a week. Adopting it as branding is deeply cynical. It’s like Live Laugh Love.

Many of us have been grappling with low (or high) level depression since Trump's ascendancy. We have been needing to hear words like "joy" and "hope," to reabsorb those concepts back into our brains and our cells, for a long time. It's been the exact perfect medicinal antidote to all the evangelical insanity and Trump's apocalyptic "the sky is falling" rhetoric.

There is spiritual alchemy in words.

So FUCK YOU, NYT for your stupid, petty pedantic parsing and faux-unbiased analytics.

Joy when people are concerned about economic and social issues won't cut it. She needs to get serious fast.

False dichotomy, R47.

R47 is one of our resident "Fear, uncertainty, doubt" trolls.

R47, you totally missed the point. We are sick and tired of Dump claiming America sucks and only he can fix it. That’s what joy is about. We know we have problems, but we are not going to wallow and listen to Dump tell (more than) half of us we’re communists, criminals and deviants.

[quote] So FUCK YOU, NYT for your stupid, petty pedantic parsing and faux-unbiased analytics.

It’s just one person’s column.

[quote]Maybe they could put up a one-page policy statement

Which is exactly what I said in my post at R31. And yet R39 you're agreeing with a poster who's trying to erroneously slander me as a Trumper for suggesting the SAME thing?

Some of you are so fucking strange.

[quote]Does anyone not know where the Dems stand?

"The Dems" are not a blanket party. What cave were in you in the last four years when Manchin was blocking Biden's ideas? We have had democrats like Henry Cuellar, Joe Manchin and Elizabeth Warren, all of whom vary on issues from abortion to healthcare.

If the Dems stood universally on key issues, we would have gotten so much more accomplished with our Democratic majority that we did have under Biden's administration at one point!

Amazing isn't it?

Kamala has great ideas, it's time to hear how to get them done. Getting upset over that is just, WEIRD.

[Quote]And the reason you should WANT this criticism from the New York Times is because Kamala Harris earned the nomination without going through a primary.

Primaries should be done away with. They do nothing but encourage extremism.

[quote] Primaries should be done away with. They do nothing but encourage extremism.

You think Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton and Biden are extremists?

Complaining about a lack of primaries is an empty point. A party that challenges an incumbent in the primary goes on to lose the general. As long as Joe was running, no one (certainly not Harris) was going to challenge him. Once he demonstrated that he was not up to the challenge, he was forced out. Extraordinary circumstances.

It's not necessarily about who wins the nomination. It's about who candidates have to pander to. It has destroyed our political culture.

Trump is an extremist and so is anyone who would run in his place. And while none of those Dems are extremist, the party has lurched further left every election cycle.

[quote]Does anyone not know where the Dems stand?

For those who do not know, here ya go...

Has Ezra Klein entered the thread?

Depression from Trump? You gals are nuts. I'm guessing you weren't Stable Mable to begin with.

Any real Strategist knows if you dont examine your weak points along side your strong ones ,you are setting yourself up for defeat. Debating an issue shows flaws which then can be corrected, a seemingly unknown quality amoungst alot of posters. And That is a Major error .

Ok fine let’s be miserable and divided like The NY Times wants.

Is Trump OK? Unhinged reaction to rise of Harris worries supporters

R59 = Empty vacuous soulless dipshit who doesn't understand how soaking in division and negativity ("the sky is falling"/"election was stolen"/ Project 2025/Roe V Wade repeal/"just drink bleach, it'll go away by April/"Trump was sent/protected by God!!!"/name-calling/immaturity/global embarrassment/"Putin and Kim Jong Un are my special friends!"/January 6th Insurrection/insert any other relentless MAGA bullshit) for the past nine years might make a sensitive, caring, intelligent person's heart and head hurt.

R59, You probably anesthetize yourself with either mindless chemsex, food, booze or process addictions. You are too degenerate to elevate yourself up to the level of even giving a shit about anything other than where your next fleeting pleasure might come. Are you a day-trader? Do you lift? What kind of car do you drive? How big is your cock? You're a regular gay John Wayne, aren't ya?

I don't have a dog in this fight but from an entertainment perspective, R63 lost the stability accusation war on a tit for tat basis.

Jesus, some of you need to go out for a walk.

Because mouth breathing MAGAts are such paragons of reason and stability, right R64?

Now, the second shot is fired.

"On Thursday night, it was up to Kamala Harris to make the closing argument for why Democrats deserved another four years in the White House. In her headlining speech of the Democratic National Convention, which had been as festive, and at times as frivolous, as a giant block party, Ms. Harris spoke of standing up to global tyranny, and of lessons she learned from her single mother. She blasted the former President Donald J. Trump as an “unserious man” and spoke of the “awesome responsibility” that comes with the privilege of being an American.

It all left Democrats on the convention floor feeling euphoric and focused, confident that her speech would spur the Democratic base to turn out in November.

But outside the arena, and outside the bubble of ride-or-die Democratic voters, some voters, particularly Republicans, said they did not even bother to watch the speech. And among some still on the fence — those who could make a difference in a tight contest — Ms. Harris’s words did not make immediate converts. They said they needed more specifics.

Bob and Sharon Reed watched Ms. Harris’s speech on their farm in the hills of central Pennsylvania. Both of them voted for Mr. Trump in past elections and both of them liked some of his policies, if not his personality. They came away from Ms. Harris’s speech feeling a little conflicted.

The problem? They liked it.

“I really wasn’t happy with the Biden administration,” said Ms. Reed, who like her husband is 77 and a retired schoolteacher. “But listening to her tonight, maybe it’s not as hard to vote for her. And, you know, I’m a little scared of what Trump will do when he gets back in power.”

Ms. Reed appreciated how Ms. Harris drew several specific contrasts between what she would do as president versus what Mr. Trump would do.

Mr. Reed, who had been leaning toward Mr. Trump, found Ms. Harris’s optimism and can-do attitude appealing. “This sounded presidential,” he said.

It had all left them as undecided as ever, and hoping the debates might help them make up their minds."

Because they're not, R65, so why do you choose to act like them?

The two fist dance should be called Trumping, but how can we make him feel diminished over it?

The New York Times does not exist to tell Democrats only what they want to hear.

You are confusing conservative attacks on the NYT as a “liberal” newspaper (which was intended to discredit its reporting that they did not like) with reality.

If you want a partisan filter, try The Nation or the New Republic.

NYT is not a liberal or a conservative newspaper, merely a highly irresponsible one.

Bullshit.

It always saddens me to see intelligent people prove themselves otherwise. It's frustrating too. Nothing to say here, really.

[quote]some voters, particularly Republicans, said they did not even bother to watch the speech.

LIES!

These Republicans know the tempo of every media Democrats heartbeat and when they fart! They profess the same type of nonsense about the ladies of "The View" but just let anyone speak something that they don't like and like locust they are on Twitter and talking about it on every single conservative trash (which all of them are) outlet.

[quote] some voters, particularly Republicans, said they did not even bother to watch the speech.

Yeah, right. They live on social media, constantly pushing stupid memes. You know that if there was someone gender ambiguous with blue hair in the audience, within minutes that would be on right wing social media.

R5 They do actually. Even though all deplorables think of the NYT as a left wing rag and 80% of deplorables do not read. I hate when they release articles like this.

It's not even what way the newspaper leans, a respectable paper should be above that. All they need to do is report objective facts and not be driven by "vibes" and polls, which, as we have seen, could be biased and unreliable. And they need to do serious fact checking, which they are not doing right now. The problem for them is that one party has become radicalized and cult-like and the truth and the facts tend to favour the other one. However, they'd like to pretend that that's not the case.

R76 this is an op-ed.

Lol MURRRRRIIIEEELLLLL shut this one down

Let’s be the Delusions of the Democratic Party

I’m the thinking that we can “Yassss Kween!” an unpopular, unhinged Xanax addict, who is a corporate neocon cosplaying as a black sistah, into the White House by clacking circuit fans and posting quirky TikToks in support. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

—Willie Brown jerking off in a Coconut Tree

I'm not saying that it's necessarily about that particular op-ed, R77, just general frustration.

Fuck the god damned NYT, Block their nasty asses

"Bob and Sharon Reed watched Ms. Harris’s speech on their farm in the hills of central Pennsylvania. Both of them voted for Mr. Trump in past elections and both of them liked some of his policies, if not his personality. They came away from Ms. Harris’s speech feeling a little conflicted.

The problem? They liked it.

“I really wasn’t happy with the Biden administration,” said Ms. Reed, who like her husband is 77 and a retired schoolteacher. "

Bob and Sharon Reed are the perfect example of idiots who vote against their own best interests.

Trump and the Republicans despise teacher unions in general, the NEA in particular. Trump and Republicans like Ron DeSantis would like nothing better than to disband all teacher unions and arrest all of their leaders and put them in "protective custody," all the while dismantling teacher and other public employee pension plans. And let's not forget there is a whole chapter of "Project 2025" devoted to dismantling the Department of Education.

So Bob and Sharon, when your pensions have been taken away from you as well as your Medicare, you must want to reconsider that vote for Trump.

With idiots like these two for teachers, it is any wonder kids today are under achieving in school.

And leave it to the NYT to search high and low for two such morons to prove their lame point, just like going out to some diner in Bumfucke, Ohio to get the "true pulse of the nation" by interviewing a bunch of methed out local yahoos.

I'm sure some posters would love this to be true instead of a joke:

Stating that “our viewers have spoken,” MSNBC announced on Friday that it was scrapping all its evening programming and would henceforth only show reruns of the 2024 Democratic National Convention.

Nurse, you can double check everybody got their meds? (Not you, R83)

NY Times: "We wanted to get a critical take on Harris/Wanz economic policies. That's why we interviewed these three meth lab runners in central Kentucky."

I think if the mainstream media is banking on increased viewership and readership from another round of Trump, they are sadly mistaken. People hoping to maintain their sanity will tune out the news in droves. Nobody who isn't MAGA is capable of being steeped in his bullshit for another four years. I think many will just keep their heads down and immerse themselves in their personal lives in an attempt at self preservation. That is my plan anyway if the WORST should come to pass.

^^Walz

The Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News are now non-profits owned by a private foundation. They are not beholden to any stockholders or hedge fund managers who want the papers to do nothing but give Trump and Republicans verbal blow jobs a la Faux News. They have no fucks to give and have not been hesitant to hold Trump accountable for all of his lies and misdeeds.

The fucking NYT ought to be looking into this and put that god damned rag out of its misery.

R83 and R84: the latest edition of the NYT is about to hit the streets. Time to go to work and hawk and sell those newspapers on street corners STAT. What are they paying now in commission, about a nickel a copy?

People need to line their bird cages and cat litters with it.

They are non-profit because they failed as a business.

NYT is one of very few profitable news outlets in America, mostly due to the fact that they adapted successfully to the digital age, whereas papers like WaPo didn't. So, as long as they are making money, fuck social responsibility.

One of the biggest contributors to the degradation of democratic values in America has been the demise of regional/local news. If more people knew what was happening in their communities under Trump instead of fighting online culture wars, the less likely they would be to vote for him.

Teafcake has a new puppet.

Fuck the Times

"They are non-profit because they failed as a business."

You mean like Donald Trump and his AC three casinos, which were non-profits and failed as businesses? The failed businesses where the Borgata Casino beat Trump at his own game and then watched him slither out of town like the cockroach that he is?

[quote]I'm sure some posters would love this to be true instead of a joke: Stating that “our viewers have spoken,” MSNBC announced on Friday that it was scrapping all its evening programming and would henceforth only show reruns of the 2024 Democratic National Convention.

Agreed.

That NYTimes opinon piece is perfectly reasonable.

The attendance at Trump's rallies recently suggests that R86 has a point.

Sorry NYT. Having a DNC platform that pushes for optimism rather than pessimism is a good thing. It is not a strategy, it's is a tone.

This is why I as a subscriber for over 30 years unsubscribed a few years ago, so may of their op-eds and articles are seeped in bad faith and use gaslighting tactics.

[quote]The point is she has not been tested with serious questions and it has to happen.

It seems like every single time she's been asked a question, she's been asked to respond to some nonsense that Trump has said. If someone wants her to sit down for a legitimate interview, I'm sure she'll do it. If the press wants to be taken seriously, it must act like a functioning, legitimate press, not TMZ. That means holding both candidates to the same standards. They didn't do it when it was Trump v. Clinton or Trump v. Biden, and sadly, they are following the same pattern with Trump v. Harris.

[quote]It seems like every single time she's been asked a question, she's been asked to respond to some nonsense that Trump has said.

From who? Name them.

Guys and gals….i have had cancelling my subscription on my “to-do” for months now, just too busy. But this thread lit a fire under my ass!!!!! I made sure to send a message that said, “FUCK YOU” and much more. I copied emails, I plan to send them nasty messages too. I made it clear that Chicago fucking hates them because they suck ass.

If you still have a subscription, I have a helpful suggestion….maybe include a link to this thread? I didn’t think to do that, but this thread with a big fat FUCK YOU will be better than sex. Or at least equal.

Blow your wad—be ignorant—enjoy!

Banksy

Joy was the response to Dump constantly criticizing Kamala for laughing, or more infuriating to him, being happy. She’s been a candidate for five weeks, meeting the public AND doing her job as our Vice President. She’ll do a sit down whenever she is ready. I can’t wait for the debate(s)!

Trump is a sociopath who has point-blank said he will create a dictatorship if re-elected. We all already know the only policy we need to know - democracy is safe if Harris is elected. Just about any one of us would make a better president than him. These news outlets treating this election like a typical horse race are as sociopathic as Trump. We should be dragging these assholes out in the street.

R100, do you really imagine the NYT would come here, ready this, and be persuaded? You might want your cunty swabbed for syphilis. Or your brain.

Of all the whoppers on this thread, that one wins.

It 100 has much competition!

Behind the scenes: How the convention was re-set for Harris

It's a bad sign when you have lifelong readers unsubscribing. Or, perhaps that was the intention? To actually have it implode from within, a self-sabotage if you will.

It’s bad for the “readers” —who don’t read

Olbermann is going to be apoplectic in his podcast and suggest burning the building down -- preferably with a few people in it.

I'm gonna try making the chicken katsu recipe from NYT tomorrow for dinner. I'll let you know how that turns out. It's not like I'd read their politics section. It's a lifestyle magazine these days.

That katsu is cat shit! I’m canceling my NYTRECIPE subscription. Now!

national political correspondent for @Axios @CNN

contributor. writing a book on Biden.

alex.thompson@axios. com

[quote] This is why we're not demanding Kamala sit down with the press. You guys have lost your damn minds.

The most aggressive housing plan since WWII. But yeah, she has no strategy or policy. 🙄

The fact that someone who passes himself off as a serious journalist retweets something from Free Beacon is telling enough. And those are the people who will approach the Harris campaign in good faith??

You guys do know the difference between an OPINION piece and an EDITORIAL, right?

I certainly know that your employer is no longer the only game in town or a political kingmaker.

Does a binary system require strategy? I am against Trump, philosophically, ethically & politically. Harris is therefore, my only choice. That I agree with her is secondary. The NYT is right. Joy isn’t a strategy. Neither was hope. They are one word branding announcements.

Legacy media is ridiculous now

SHITS FIRED!

Didn't you guys at NYT keep talking about "vibes"? Like "vibecession"? But now that even those vibes are not favoring your dictator of choice, you change your tune? Pray tell, what is Trump running on? Besides doom, I mean.

^ 🙊🙉🙈

^ for R119

R123 = Needle and the Damage Done

••Her advisers think she might get away with doing just one against Trump. I think they underestimate her challenge in earning voters’ trust. She needs to start proving herself outside her comfort zone.

Ultimately, she needs more voters in the swing states to trust her to handle the economy better than her opponent. Barack Obama earned that trust through nearly two hard years of campaigning; he didn’t coast on “hope and change.” Harris can’t coast on “joy.” If she shows she can stand up under pressure, she can beat Trump and consign him for eternity to just playing God on Fox News.”••

John Harwood @JohnJHarwood

Trump, the oldest presidential nominee in history, rants nonsensically and nurtures bizarre obsessions.

Democrats want the press to subject him to the same fitness feeding frenzy that knocked Biden out

but it's not happening because a) journalists know GOP voters don't care and b) Trump's aberrant behavior is so pervasive as to blur focus on any one aspect

It's cute that you think that the election in 2024 is just like ones in 2008 or 2012. What rock have you been living under for the past 8 years?

R118 They don’t even know the difference between plans and policy.

No, we are all stupid, R130. We'll wait for Bret Stephens to explain it to us.

[quote]Ultimately, she needs more voters in the swing states to trust her to handle the economy better than her opponent. Barack Obama earned that trust through nearly two hard years of campaigning; he didn’t coast on “hope and change.” Harris can’t coast on “joy.” If she shows she can stand up under pressure, she can beat Trump and consign him for eternity to just playing God on Fox News.”••

What are these hoops that you are trying to force her to jump through? The woman was a successful attorney, a successful Attorney General, a successful Senator, and currently a successful Vice President and presidential candidate! When is enough, enough? Especially when one considers her opponent.

And, now you like the Black guy? And, you want to compare her against him? What is this really about?

IMHO, VP Harris needs more forceful and aggressive surrogates like Secretary Buttigieg out on the airwaves on her behalf.

[quote] NYT, give us Wordle

The NYT did not come up with Wordle. They bought it off of a guy (and I thought he should've sold it to them for much, MUCH more $$$$).

Here's the interview with the nepo baby in charge of NYT. What becomes clear is that they're in the business of creating controversy with their content. Fact based articles do not generate as many clicks.

I think it's time for the Washington Post to steal away Wordle, Crossword, Connections, etc. Maybe it's time for someone to whack the Grey Lady.

No R132

You all didn’t want Buttigieg to be VP because he’s gay, but now he’s good enough to do the heavy lifting?

What’s in it for him? Is he gonna get a prime spot in her administration?

Gay men can do more than clean up straight peoples messes.

If no second Trump administration, what would Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan do all day for the Times?

That's why they are doing so well financially. They strategically bought the right things: Wordle, the Wirecutter, the Athletic, etc.

The NYT made a killer deal with Wordle. Bought it in the low 7 figures! The creator is a bonehead to have sold it to them for so little!

[quote]The most aggressive housing plan since WWII.

It's mostly bullshit.

This is exactly why we need to hear her asked some tough questions.

Has any "journalist" asked Trump about his position and solutions about...

-The crushing medical debt crippling many citizens?

-What's his plan to address the lack of housing?

-What's his position on Student Loan Debt?

-He wants tax cuts but how is he paying for it? And "We're going to have amazing growth" is NOT an acceptable answer without more specificities.

Those of you who want (demand) that VP Harris give more details about her proposals, what are the Trump's details about the above issues and why are you not wanting (demanding) that he provide more specific details?

R140 does his trolling subtly. In terms of constantly posting about how Kamala "needs to be asked questions." For a troll, you're not that bad. You deserve a potato fit for human consumption.

R141 Did it ever occur to you that two things can be true at once?

They both need to be asked tough questions about their plans.

R142 = idiot.

Mmph! I just found this

[quote]As with Hillary Clinton in 2016, the veiled misogyny of the NYT and other establishment news outlets is rearing its sexist head. The woman candidate is always cast as having to prove herself to some amorphous “them” — despite an admirably extensive list of achievements— whereas such tests of merit are never raised in regard to Trump whose one talent is being born into wealth and then “failing up.” Despite his proven track record of criminality, incompetence, incoherence, mendacity, and that little insurrection thing, Trump is portrayed as the candidate for whom the voters seem to have no questions and for whom a lack of policy, which is again acknowledged by Healy, does not seem to be a significant concern to “the voters”.

R141, I wouldn’t even play their game. Show me the fucking rule book that says she must offer herself up to the very media who on to slit her throat on the sacrificial altar. Fuck them!

She needs to not cave to that pressure. YES, Americans deserve to know her vision. So listen to her speeches, go to her site, study what the Biden admin did, and then you’ll see the debate too. She agreed to two, but I am hoping she only does one.

The media *cannot* be trusted to do their job right now, so she is being wise in showing restraint. I promise you, it’s a bait and switch anyway, they will pressure her into it, she will pound out an agreement on an interview, and the journalist who does it will violate the agreement and massacre her for the sake of profit.

The media (mostly) don’t want Trump, but they have groceries to buy and rent to pay too. And then there is a chunk of the media who are actually just cut-outs for the billionaire class. Fuck NO on interviews for as long as possible, she isn’t their bitch who must jump. They can pout all they want, nope!

The focus needs to remain on Trump. Whoever the media stays focused on will lose. And I do agree with the previous poster who said that she needs a lot more attack dogs like Pete. I say keep Shapiro, Newsom, Beshear, Cooper, Brown, Moore, maybe Hakeem etc., on the attack for her. I know this sounds sexist, but it needs to be mostly men at the moment as attack dogs, and we need more black males speaking up too. It’s just a primate thing, but it must be more men. The media don’t give Dems fair coverage, so we have to blanket the attacks through men so that’s all they see on the other side.

They are failing to understand that our side is prepared for another civil war too, that our side is armed too, and we are in control of the military and government — we need men to act as her surrogate /attack dogs, just my two cents. And they need to keep the mockery levels high af.

[quote]Didn't you guys at NYT keep talking about "vibes"? Like "vibecession"?

I remember a couple of months ago, there was a poll done and people were saying they'll vote for Trump because they felt like a recession would happen by the end of the year. No data to back it up, they created some future fantasy in order to justify voting for him. Voting on a vibe that's has nothing to do with our reality.

[quote]and then you’ll see the debate too

And this is beginning to piss me off too. DEBATE! DEBATE! DEBATE!!!

Since when has so much storage been placed in the debates? I thought no one watches them. Once again (IMHO) this is nothing more than the "entertainment" and horse race attitudes taking precedence over substantive discussion of the issues.

[quote]So listen to her speeches, go to her site.

Go to her website and tell us what you see.

[quote] This doesn't make any sense to me. Trump (and Republicans) ran up the national debt more than all the previous Presidents and Administrations combined. Enough jobs were not being created, etc WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT?

R28 made me stop and think. What I think is... we have a multicultural country that has a lot of mistrust, hatred, even disgust, towards minority groups. I think it is THE core belief and the driver of the typical Republican (not counting the rich who just want low taxes and no regulations and don't care about ANYthing else.)

So... the average not-wealthy Republican just hates that Democrats are the party of entitlements, which in their mind, go to the people they hate (or fear or distrust, whatever) in WAY too high a proportion. They would rather their own children go without health insurance, food stamps if they need them, or any other entitlement, because their focus is on the "lazy, criminal, no-account 'other'" (adjectives vary but they're many and all negative.) It's tribal.

And what else is tribal is religion - and the "real believers" who think abortion is murder because of the Ten Commandments... it's just one more toxic vial to pour in the cauldron of what makes these people tick.

It will NEVER matter what the facts are. They have their alternative facts - Democrats will give too much to the undeserving other, and any dollar they give away comes from taxes that they, the "good" tribe, have to pay.

I hope I'm wrong - or things are changing - but I see these people every day and I hear their angry screeds.

R150, without going into my life story, you are indeed correct. Ultimately, this is about racism and misogyny, but coming in right behind those is religion. Dems won’t say that because it isn’t helpful. But it IS the truth. Not all Christians are freaks, but all the freaks are Evangelical Fundamentalists and/or Conservative Catholics. Religion is a huge problem. I don’t know the solutions, but the Rethugs are desperate because churches are dying as this is all happening. Too bad so sad.

Just shut up and vote. Jesus Christ…

I think the issue is the double standard. Trump can get away with saying whatever he wants (remember he promised during the 2016 campaign that he would replace Obamacare with "something better" but would never give any details) whereas Kamala is expected to give detailed policy and explain it, then be scolded by various interest groups who don't approve. Trump has flip-flopped many times on issues like abortion with little consequence but Kamala is being told she needs to "explain herself" by media commentators for changing her position on fracking.

If Trump ran a positive, "joy" focused campaign the media would be tripping over themselves to say how much he had grown since the shooting, how he has a positive vision for the US. Yet Kamala gets portrayed as being cringe and not having a strategy.

Should I remind you of the glowing write ups the RNC convention got, how unified the party seemed to be, etc, etc? I don't recall much dissection of the policies presented there. Or in the days that followed.

Am I supposed to take this seriously?

[quote] remember he promised during the 2016 campaign that he would replace Obamacare with "something better" but would never give any details

Not just in 2016, but ever since, too!

So many Trump Derangement Syndrome victims here. It’ll be so great when Trump leaves the scene and people can start thinking again. Although some loss of critical and independent thought may be gone for good.

Go troll somewhere else, R157.

R157, fuck off, you know as well as I that the turd isn’t going anywhere, he’s a grifter, he’ll never stop grifting

Rich 🤑 people shouldn’t be allowed to run newspapers

Read between the lines 😱 : TAX BREAKS TAX BREAKS TAX BREAKS TAX BREAKS TAX BREAKS TAX BREAKS TAX BREAKS WHOEVER WILL DELIVER THE RICHEST PROPLE MORE TAX BREAKS

PEOPLE*

KH should come out to this Mary classic during her next rally. Just to spite the NYT.

R153 Thank you. You literally took the words from me.

What politics does to DL is tragic.

Of the four of you who'd know, are there any sites to rationally discuss the Democratic campaign?

Oh, somebody, anybody, PLEASE give r166 what he is asking for so these motherfuckers can get lost already.

Something tells me The Daily Wire would be to R166's liking.

Thanks, R167.

I just put 18 posters on this thread on block, because the lack any intellectual substance at all. The rant, they whine, they dwell in the unbalanced and the batshit crazy, but they are the one most awful thing: boring.

Sorry, irritating too.

And yes, there are typos above. You're not worth proofreading over.

I'm out. There's nothing here.

[quote]It will NEVER matter what the facts are. They have their alternative facts

Do you mean lies?

One thing that can be done to begin to help fix this problem is to stop using their terminology. There are no such things as alternative facts. There are facts and then there are lies. Every time anyone using the term "alternative facts" gently, kindly, but forcefully correct them (in real time) that the correct word they mean to use is "LIE"!

Or you can correct them harshly and cruelly, it's all one to me.

[quote]So many Trump Derangement Syndrome victims here.

So, help me here...

What exactly is that? Is it your belief that women should sit quietly while their healthcare rights are being dismantled by groups of men? Should these same women just accept proposed legislation (of which many have a good chance of passing) that will track their menstrual cycles, miscarriages, etc? Will women be allowed to travel state to state freely without some type of monitorization and a permission slip?

You know what it is, R174? A right wing way to dismiss anything negative said about Trump (basically "Oh, look, another Trump thread") but an old and busted one. Before that troll trotted it out, I hadn't heard it in a couple of years.

[quote]I just put 18 posters on this thread on block,..

OH! Good participation! (CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!!! Feelings of joy!)

R136 crazy. Buttigieg wasn't good enough because he is gay, but he should go and talk instead of dumb presidential candidate who us of right sexual orientation.

R132 In case it wasn’t clear R127 was a quote from the article. I was too lazy to [quote] last night

I said it on another thread that it seems like you all have very low opinion of Kamala. You think that she is incapable to sit with an interviewer and talk about her plans and projects for half an hour. If this was Obama or Hillary I bet all of you would want them to talk to the press. You want to hide Kamala in the basement until the election is over and pray all goes well.

Who cares what you think, r179?

But can you say I was wrong R180

R180, why don't you try thinking and then maybe we can have a discussion.

Unless being a 9 year old works for you.

Is this Trump Derangement Syndrome?

I have to give it to R179. He/she is more subtle than your usual weekend troll. At least R179 is trying to workshop and finesse their talking points. Almost there, but not quite flawless yet.

[quote]I said it on another thread that it seems like you all have very low opinion of Kamala. You think that she is incapable to sit with an interviewer and talk about her plans and projects for half an hour.

But what is the rush? Why must she respond to "your" time and schedule?

R6, I never knew that! Thanks for the tip. 🙏

The only risk is the she's hiding label sticks. It is a convention that the major nominees do substantive sit downs.

I think the world of social media has conditioned an impatience in society so political junkies are going to think it's been forever since she's done an interview.

There's a balance between the impatience and the need to respect convention. The risk of not respecting it is that somehow it backfires. She's got the youth. She probably needs to strengthen her appeal to the people who watch 60 Minutes, or what have you. It's not like she can't handle it.

[quote]I said it on another thread that it seems like you all have very low opinion of Kamala. You think that she is incapable to sit with an interviewer and talk about her plans and projects for half an hour. If this was Obama or Hillary I bet all of you would want them to talk to the press. You want to hide Kamala in the basement until the election is over and pray all goes well.

Agreed.

[quote]But what is the rush? Why must she respond to "your" time and schedule?

W hat's the rush?

Early voting starts in a few weeks. The public should hear an interview or two.

There are numerous interviews, articles, statements, etc of VP Harris. Let's not be disingenuous. The stomping of feet and tantrums by the media is nothing more than a strategy. While I don't recall what they did to Obama and how he handled it, I do recall that they applied the same pressure to Hillary Clinton, and she was well aware of what their true objectives were. Once she FINALLY agreed to do interviews (because the pressure became too overwhelming) the press went into overdrive to tear every word she said apart. UGH! I can't stand Andrea Mitchell to this day because how she handled Hillary Clinton!

Okay... early voting starts in a few weeks. So what? If a person is undecided and/or uncomfortable voting because they feel that they don't know enough about the candidate, then don't vote early. Vote later. Who is holding a gun to their head forcing them to vote early?

[quote] She's got the youth.

She also has the 65+ vote. Curiously it's the 30-64 group that's more for T-Rump (sorry I can't find the poll where I saw that).

How come you dummies don’t know the difference between an op-ed piece and a news article? This is OPINION. Look it up.

They refuse to. They live in some irrational fantasy land where the NYT is the proxy for all their fears and frustrations about the election.

[quote]The stomping of feet and tantrums by the media is nothing more than a strategy.

Stomping of feet is not a strategy.

[quote] This is OPINION

Does NYT publsih articles anymore? All I see is OPINIONS, as you keep reminding us. You know that saying: opinions are like assholes...

I'm getting a little tired of these posters claiming that we're giving too much significance to an opinion piece. The NYT doesn't have to publish just any opinion. What we're criticizing is the NYT's habit of printing factitious opinions slanted against Democrats without applying the same standards to Republicans (yes, yes, I know they print stuff critical of Republicans, but the criteria aren't the same)—and this is of a piece with their histrionic headlines (e.g. "Biden Leaves His Successor a Nation Consumed By War") and the statements of their editors (e.g. that democracy is just a partisan position and for the NYT to privilege it would be propaganda).

I didn't realize we had a NYT shill troll but I guess anything's possible. Cleared his cookies and then came back for more prissy scolding.

probably

All style no substance.

"How come you dummies don’t know the difference between an op-ed piece and a news article?"

How come you're such a douchebag asshole?

Please respond, your mother wants to know.

A week or two ago, a similar thread critical of NYT got deleted. I wonder what the deal was with that.

You aren't fooling anybody, r192.

Cumallah is not going to save us, unless you’re an illegal alien

If R200 doesn't prove we need Medicare for all, I don't know what will.

she's a childless cat lady

Your desperation for attention is just sad, r203.

Maybe he grew up unloved, in a Romanian orphanage, R206.

Reality check: this site is currently flooded with trolls because this election is the most important election in American history. Good vs evil. So trolls be trollin’. Don’t feed them, and don’t let them take over.

R195 = failed middle school

It always gets bad on weekends. And it's only going to get worse before November.

Isn’t the NYT just using the same template as (with some slight, optical illusions) FOX? Isn’t FOX the highest rated & most profitable “news” network in the United States?

Joe Kahn is correct. It’s not his job to save democracy. It is his job, however, to take orders from the BOD, with the goal of maintaining readership & profits, even if that means giving democracy the finger. . Same story with CNN.

Please consider donating to The Guardian & PBS. TIA!

Obama had a heckuva lot if "Yes, We Can!" and "Fired Up! Ready to Go!"

Be that as it may, hello? "Make America Great Again" again?? I guess as long as Trump and Project 2025's 900 pages state something, the NYT won't question the SUBSTANCE and REPERCUSSIONS of the "something."

New game. Let's play "INTERVIEWER":

INTERVIEWER: "So which of these positions on abortion do you stand by: 1.) You are proud of killing Roe vs Wade; or 2.) You would veto a national ban on abortion, a bill that would reach your desk only if Republicans won both Houses of Congress, in which case you would be vetoing a Republican ban?

INTERVIEWER: "Is General John Kelly lying when he says you called our military 'suckers and losers,' yes or no? Follow-up: Would you like to take this opportunity to tell America's Armed Forces that you respect them and their willingness to risk their lives for America?"

INTERVIEWER : "What is your specific plan to reduce inflation? Not a definition, not examples; your plan?"

INTERVIEWER: "Why don't you care if Putin and Russia take over Ukraine? Which country seems to you to be closer to the United States in ideals?"

INTERVIEWER : "Yes or no: It was appropriate and good that the United States entered World War II?"

INTERVIEWER: "Please explain to the voters watching, exactly how tariffs on imports are taxed, why they are taxed, and which nation's citizens, the seller's or the importer's, then pay more for the goods?"

Anyone who drones on about trolls, tries to insist that other people not engage, dismisses any critique or questions, and actively tries to enforce an echo chamber to sniff each other’s farts is immediately written off as low IQ and insecure by me.

Marry me, R213. It'll be a conventional, two person wedding given how outnumbered we are.

LoL, r213, your posting history is filled with trolling. You aren't fooling anybody.

[quote]Reality check: this site is currently flooded with trolls because this election is the most important election in American history. Good vs evil. So trolls be trollin’. Don’t feed them, and don’t let them take over.

I agree.

Lots of Kamala trolls.

It's difficult to have a reasonable exchange of opinion with them out in force.

R213 and R214 should hook up so they can bump pussies.

Very reasonable, R217. You contribute a lot to DL!

[quote]What we're criticizing is the NYT's habit of printing factitious opinions slanted against Democrats without applying the same standards to Republicans

Bullshit.

The NYTimes constantly features articles critical of Trump. As they should.

And guess what? The NYTimes will be ENDORSING Harris.

What more do you want?

[quote]I agree.

[quote]Lots of Kamala trolls.

If you aren't for Kamala, r216, you're for Trump.

Typical low IQ idiot at R220.

One can be critical of Harris, skeptical about Harris, and still vote for her. Not all of us bow down to politicians.

Could you *be* any more retarded, r221?

R222 The retarded on is you dear.

R216 reasonable like calling everyone who isn’t clacking a Kamala circuit fan a “troll” and “MAGAt”. Please, you progressives have no capability of exchange ideas.

Your posting history is nothing but Kamala bashing, r223. That's called trolling, not constructive criticism. You aren't fooling anybody, LoL.

[quote]r224 = Please, you progressives have no capability of exchange ideas.

Sorry, comrade.

R225 is a troll and a pedoo.

Lol the schizophrenia is high here. EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES IS A RUSSIAN!!!

The fetid, putrid stench of Defucktardo/Gerg/Teabag permeates this thread.@R218, R223, R228, among others.

[quote]Lol the schizophrenia is high here

Such projection, r228.

[quote]Your posting history is nothing but Kamala bashing, [R223]. That's called trolling, not constructive criticism. You aren't fooling anybody, LoL.

Dear Hall Monitor, get to work and find any post where I ever praised Trump or JD Vance.

Apparently the shills have dropped "you don't recognize an opinion piece!" and picked up "you call people outside your bubble trolls!" as their would-be argument. We can tell the difference between difference of opinion and trolling because we know how to check the evidence and read it in context.

Well, when my bubble happens to coincide with dislike and fear of authoritarianism, yes, people outside that bubble are most likely right wing trolls.

[quote]And guess what? The NYTimes will be ENDORSING Harris.

Mmph... Akin to a spouse/partner that repeatedly beats the shit out of you and will still always claim, "yes, we're still together and happy"

I'll feel great joy when trump and his ilk lose their influence on government. Joy is not the strategy, but it is already a side affect of working hard to boot out scum trump and his allies.

[quote]Anyone who drones on about trolls, tries to insist that other people not engage, dismisses any critique or questions, and actively tries to enforce an echo chamber to sniff each other’s farts is immediately written off as low IQ and insecure by me.

But what is it that you are criticizing? Building a hatred towards her because she didn't do a sit-down interview within 24 hours of being nominated?

[quote] Anyone who drones on about trolls, tries to insist that other people not engage, dismisses any critique or questions, and actively tries to enforce an echo chamber to sniff each other’s farts is immediately written off as low IQ and insecure by me.

Someone seems to feel so superior. Please, bitch, I have a Ph.D. in science - I bet I'd outrank you on every intelligence test of your choice. As with anyone of your sort (Republican), every accusation is an admission. Now go back to eating crayons and let adults talk among themselves.

[quote]Anyone who drones on about trolls, tries to insist that other people not engage, dismisses any critique or questions, and actively tries to enforce an echo chamber to sniff each other’s farts is immediately written off as low IQ and insecure by me.

Agreed.

R237 makes me remember the scene from the Wizard of Oz when the scarecrow complained about not having a brain, so the wizard gave him a diploma, stating: those who have no brain can replace it with a degree.

“All The News Dreamt Up By Sycophants”

[quote]Please, bitch, I have a Ph.D. in science

You sure sound like it. Detached, logical, fact based. Can I get a Miss Thang, Einstein?

I get the argument that the media is in it for the clicks and ratings that Trump's antics provide. But is that still the case? His rallies don't draw the crowds they used to, and his speeches have become very predictable. Vance is a crashing bore.

^But there are always the tweets!

Does Carol Roth post on DL?

Walt Mossberg, the legendary former tech columnist for the WSJ, has taken notice.

I think this guy is onto something, R245. His posting aligns much with my own feelings. It's about principles, "right vs wrong", etc. But... NYC is a very expensive city. Ya gots to pay the rent and bills...

True, thee last 4 years of Dem's rule raised rents and bills to high heaven.

Also, projection is an interesting phenomena R245. Freud might be obsolete on some matters, but the theory on projection shows he truly is a genies.

And, good morning to you, R247...

Nope. You can't put the high rents on "Dem rule". This is the result of the Bloomberg policies that relaxed and/or deleted many regulations concerning landlords and ownership. I'll note that I was and am a Bloomberg fan/supporter.

But r221, if (and I don't look up posts) KH criticism is the main focus of your political comments, then one must perforce wonder why. There is more than enough to criticize with her opponent, and nobody expects perfection from Kamala .

I like Micheline Maynard's comment on the NYT's decline in R245's link:

[quote]Having worked there 10 years, this is my theory. The copy desk was a secret weapon. The desk did not just catch errors. The desk knew context, history and had the highest ethical standards. When 100 copy editors were let go, it robbed the paper of an invaluable resource. I am convinced things would be different if the desk was still intact. I mourn their departure every day.

Cancel cancel cancel!

Why post articles from the NYT? Are you encouraging us to read them. I will only watch reruns of DNC until Election Day. No other media consumed. On Election Day if Trump wins I’ll OD on my meds.

Take your cliched hyperbole and kindly fuck off, DeFucktardo @R255.

I am not De Fuckface whoever that is!

"I am not De Fuckface whoever that is!"

As if!!!!!

I had to look up what other stuff that tool Patrick Healy wrote. Here are his pearls of wisdom (I almost died laughing seeing the one about the Huckabeast). Enjoy!

Other than to talk about how fat and ugly she is, nobody but nobody is talking about Sara Huckabeast Sanders becoming President anytime soon.

Why do idiots like Patrick Healy live in such an alternate universe, and why do 'sophisticated" NYT readers let them live in their alternate universe ivory towers?

These fuckers. They never stop.

"Has NYT become cheugy?"

Why is the founder of the formerly non-partisan RealClearPolitics jumping on the anti-Biden bandwagon...now...for minimal engagement?

Things just don't seem to make sense anymore.

[quote]Why do idiots like Patrick Healy live in such an alternate universe, and why do 'sophisticated" NYT readers let them live in their alternate universe ivory towers?

What I always wonder to myself-until now... is who are the women (or men) that are married/partnered to such a person that could write/say such below the belt vile things and/or blatantly lie about another person? Take Jesse Waters (FOX) for example; I heard that his mother is a die-hard liberal but now look at her awful son that she has given birth to. Is Waters' speech and stunts an act or does he really believe the stuff that he does and that comes out of his mouth? Or is it a case of "loving unconditionally"?

[quote] Why do idiots like Patrick Healy live in such an alternate universe

These are the kind of pundits who used to solemnly tell us that Jon Huntsman would be formidable in the 2012 primary, because he was a "centrist" who could give Obama a run for his money. Huntsman won 2 delegates and dropped out after New Hampshire! They have a completely factitious image of the electorate and the political scene in general.

"Joy Is Not A Strategy". Perhaps not. But we have been joyless with Trump on the front page every day for 9 years. So how about, "Anyone But Trump"?

The shills be shillin'. Tell Joe Kahn when you see him this week to go choke on a bag of dicks.

Carville calls it shucking and jiving, and he’s exactly right.

Folks, what do you do Jen the people in power are just fucking liars but they control most of the media? We need a true miracle, something unusual. It could be a big celebrity, but it would be much more powerful if it’s a regular person. I’m not sure where I’m going except to say, we need something to shift the media narrative again because these constant attacks are intense AF. Every single major right-leaning site is doing this, and there are so many, it’s not just NYT. We are getting carpet-bombed.

It’s not surprising, this was expected by the pros, I’m just trying to think of what the great political tacticians would say needs to happen when the media is attacking you from all sides. We need someone else to come from the flank with a serious counter-attack that flips the negative press back to Fucktard. The focus must stay on Dump and only Dump. If we can drive the media toward him, she wins.

Carville is old school. I get his concerns but this is not 1990s; punditry and op-eds play a significantly lesser role than they did back then.

Typos! “When”

R270, I totally agree that he’s old school. But do you not also agree that Dems are getting sandbagged from all sides?

They are getting sandbagged. But, I think that people are increasingly exhausted by constant negativity on part of the media. And I think it's starting to get reflected in the polls.

I agree that people are *fried*, we are so weary. But I also think this race is extremely close, and the media pulling this shite has the potential to tip it. So how do we fight back if they have all the power? That is THE question!

Real Clear Politics should be called Real Right Wing Politics.

They pretended to be neutral for a while but of all things, the NY Times did a story on how rightwing they actually were.

Joy isn't the strategy, it's just a most refreshing by-product.

Joe Kahn, you're an asshole.

Glad I cancelled months ago.

[quote] So how do we fight back if they have all the power?

IMHO, ya (we) gotta hit 'em where it counts and that's in the pockets. Until "we the people" have finally said that "enough is enough" is when the established media will listen. The problem in my view is all of the pressure for fresh content origination and it is that pressure and the quest to be first that places us where we are today. We, the public, have to find new news outlet sources.

Now, I'm sure there will be much disagreement, but sources such as the Meidas Touch, Brian Tyler Cohen (his book is #1 on the Best Seller Listing!), and even The Young Turks, are just some of the outlets that should be viewed more and possibly given more credibility. Yep, I understand that these are basically opinion outlets, but hopefully many of you will follow my intent for looking for new news sources for news. Or maybe it's just going back to really supporting PBS?

ProPublica is where it’s at. I always forget if New Yorker vs New York mag is better. The Atlantic, The New Republic, The Guardian, Mother Jones.

I’ve actually been clocking the AP getting really sloppy in their journalism, I’ve written a couple of their reporters over misleading statements. I do find political strategists to be very helpful. The Cook Political reports blows RealClear and 538 out of the water.

I LIKE THIS!!!

George Lakoff @GeorgeLakoff·21h

Joy is powerful because it plays on your emotions. Emotions are everything in politics.

If you feel good about somebody's political views – if joining with them and voting for them makes you feel happy – that's the most powerful thing.

New York Times to New York: Drop Dead.

R281, the strategists say that too, at least the ones I believe in and trust. The “mood” of the country is everything. People are tired of the anger.

A woman that has worked every day of her life for the benefit of working class doesn't have to sit down-AOC

R282, fuck the legacy media

[quote] Harris is running as the 1st post-media president. It's the media's own fault!

[quote] Instead of meeting a threat to democracy, careerist clickbaiters have both-sidesed, fact-checked trivia, and asked pointless questions

The Philadelphia Inquirer is rapidly becoming the new "paper of record"

[quote] The Chicago-based media critic Mark Jacob, a retired veteran editor of that city’s Tribune and Sun Times, nailed it Monday with a piece headlined “Mainstream media on a path to irrelevance.” Jacob has harsh words for how reporters have covered the race, writing that “too many political journalists are marinating in the Washington cocktail culture, writing for each other and for their sources — in service to the political industry, not the public.” But he also notes that traditional media can’t figure out how to compete for young eyeballs against sites like edgy and fast-paced TikTok. Jacob pointed out that public faith in mass media has plunged from 72% in 1976, after Watergate, to just 32% today.

[...]

[quote] But more broadly, Harris and her campaign is 100% focused on message discipline to build her brand and sell it to the American people in a few short weeks. The surest way to get thrown off that message discipline would be a stray answer at an open news conference or in an interview with the likes of NBC’s Lester Holt — so for now, Harris is simply not doing that.

[quote] And she’s getting away with it. Mainstream journalists can carp and whine about this all they want, but when less than a third of Americans trust the mass media, few folks are listening to them. What’s been really striking this year is that while traditionally deep distrust of the mainstream press has long been the province of right-wing Republicans, now it’s liberals who once cheered for the media to do better who seem to be giving up on them.

[quote] “The coverage of Trump’s attacks on Harris’s racial identity is a good example of the media once again allowing his bullying and false accusations to drive the narrative,” Margaret Sullivan, who served as a media critic at both The Post and The Times, told me. “Often the problem is not the number of stories, but about tone and framing. We’ve seen it before — all too often — and yet it keeps happening.”

Thx for those quotes and article, R286/R287. They're much appreciated.

You guys see if you can follow me here... IMHO, the reason that the press treats the Democrats the way that they do is because the Democrats know and play by the rules. Whereas, the Republicans have learned that one does not need to follow the rules because what consequences will you ever have to face? For a real quick example; The press shamed Al Franken into resigning. There have been a few Republicans who have done much worse than what Al Franken did, and these folks refused to resign and/or suffer any consequences from their actions. While their Republican colleagues might not rally behind such people publicly, they will circle the wagon ("no comment", "I have not seen such reports",) to protect them. Just look at George Santos. How many Republicans came out to publicly rebuke him?

So, the press throws up its hands because they believe they are powerless. But...let's go after those that know right from wrong, good vs evil, etc because with them we, the press, can bully them.

NYT Opinion today =

This Is Who Kamala Harris Fails

^Mmph... the hits just a keep on comin'...

This is interesting. The NYT ahs changed the title of one of today's opinion pieces. It is now 'You Want Policies? Trump’s Got Policies.' Title sounds pro Trump.

However, this morning, the article was titled 'What the World Look Like if We Take Trump At His Word' A much tamer title that not not sound pro Trump.

The writer's Twitter still had the old title in his ink this AM. Link redirects you to the new title.

They are shameless!

Instead of X, NYT should have accounts on Truth Social and Rumble.

[quote] the Republicans have learned that one does not need to follow the rules because what consequences will you ever have to face?

They got the shot and the commercial is running!

Talking about joy in relation to running for a deeply serious position like POTUS is actually off-putting to me. Who are they attempting to reach with this "message?" Not that I'm against the emotion of joy, but it just seems like the presidency has now become like a laundry detergent or a dish soap, marketed as such. It's so shallow and meaningless. AND it really has NOTHING to do with what the presidency entails or anything. I mean yes they sang Happy Days Are Here Again when FDR won, but afaik FDR never ran on it.

Were they going to stay in Afghanistan forever? Nonsense.

donOLD can ramble for 90 minutes and the press finds the three coherent parts they can use to normalize him. Harris or Walz speak clearly for 10 minutes and the press fixates for a week about the use of interrogative tense instead of future perfect tense....

The "story" for him is about the rare occasions the fucked up can get it right but the "story" for her is did they catch a glitch which can prove the preconceived misogyny, racism and/or other bias.

[Quote] " Not that I'm against the emotion of joy, but it just seems like the presidency has now become like a laundry detergent or a dish soap, marketed as such. It's so shallow and meaningless.

To the frau at R295

Why does the NYT keep posting different variations of "Here's why this is bad for Kamala!!!"? Does this really get them more clicks than posting about Trump's felonies?!

[quote] Does this really get them more clicks than posting about Trump's felonies?!

Reporting on tRumps felonies would endanger their access

[Quote] Why does the NYT keep posting different variations of "Here's why this is bad for Kamala!!!"

to annoy you!

Because they are clickbait chasers these days. You click on a stupid take of theirs to rage-read and stay for the real estate, recipes, and puzzles. And recommendadtions for best mousetraps!

R301, brilliant strategy, it's working.

[Quote] brilliant strategy, it's working.

ditto R302

The Times will do everything it can, not to report the news, but to frame the news in the best way to increase circulation and revenue.

It is not a newspaper anymore. Its motto should be, All the News That Makes Us Money.

[quote]It is not a newspaper anymore. Its motto should be, All the News That Makes Us Money.

Well, it has to make money, R305. They have those damn writers who want more money and back-office operations, people who want raises. DAMN THEM! They just ruin good profit margins!!!

they view wagering the odds more important than analyzing the stakes

Which doesn't make them very different from any other news organization does it R307?

It's a good thing that my father, a lifelong dedicated New York Times reader, is dead. This would kill him.

I can no longer defend the Times. What so many “mainstream” news outlets either don’t comprehend or fail to acknowledge is that we have reached a point where the old rules of “politics as usual” are no longer relevant. This has been the case since 2016 which ushered in the current post truth, “alt facts” era. I don’t need to reiterate the endless list of atrocious harms perpetrated by DHT and his thugs but to pretend to be “balanced” when so much is at stake for Americans and most of the world is reprehensible. George Lakoff got it right when he observed that “Conservatives” are far more adept at storytelling and appealing to emotions than “Liberals”who are still trapped in the eighteenth century belief that most of our decisions are guided by reason and our emotions are irrelevant. It’s about time that Democrats take notice and, in the process, take control of our own narrative. We have a good story to tell and I want to believe that joy, compassion, freedom, and justice are every bit as compelling as the opposing narrative that is rooted in cynicism and human cruelty. And remind yourself that policies are rooted in epistemologies. If you don’t believe me, take the time to study Project 2025.

Only a moral degenerate would treat Trump as anything but a Traitor and psychopath. Every day the New York Times fails to savage him is a dmonstration of their lack of journalistic ethics.

I've got a NYT sub for $4/month but I know I need to drop it. Got wapo at $0.99/month - have they become turncoats too?

Something is deeply wrong with the leadership of the Times

[quote]What so many “mainstream” news outlets either don’t comprehend or fail to acknowledge is that we have reached a point where the old rules of “politics as usual” are no longer relevant.

What so many “mainstream” news outlets either don’t comprehend or fail to acknowledge is that we have reached a point where the “mainstream” news outlets are no longer relevant.

This indeed

Unfortunately today's New York Times sucks ass big time.

The Constitution "dangerous"? To traitors, yes. To religious authoritarians, yes. To grifting Presidents, yes.

Washington Post, but…yeah…

Marc A. Thiessen? Shouldn't he be writing speeches for Donald Rumsfeld? Oh, wait...

Washington Post turned right after Katharine Graham died. NY Times right turn happened more recently, presumably having something to do with Netanyahu.

Not going to click, but does Thiessen take into account that Al Gore only lost because the Republicans on the Supreme Court stopped the vote-counting in FL? And, if truth be told, there was some dubiousness about Nixon's loss in 1960.

[quote]Unfortunately today's New York Times sucks ass big time

Nicest thing anyone has said about the Times in YEARS!

There was no dubiousness about Nixon's loss. Nor was their dubiousness about the fact that George W. Bush lost in 2000 and 2004 and usurped the office anyway.

Even NYT reporters can see how it has turned to shit.

Of course they can. Because the owners are traitors.

The government needs to secretly buy up the shares to a big media company and then get rid of all the conservative editorial bias.

The death of local press is what leads to this. Before, when you lived outside major media centers, you were able to read about local issues, factory closures, moving them out of the state, instead of GOP bullshitting you how they were going to "tax foreign countries" or some nonsense like that. Also, you'd have reports on school system failures, corruption of local politicians and law enforcement. National newspapers won't touch that; instead they find some bozo who pontificates about culture wars, the color of the dress Kamala wore at the convention, "vibecession", etc. And, if you get a chance, read about how investment capital worked hard on destroying local newspapers and corporatizing them.

MauDow the Dodo

What I was talking about.

Shawn McCreesh is part of that NY Times set that feels that the only mark of career success is to write stories that make people talk about the writer -- not the actual topic.

In other words, like his mentor, the execrable Dowd, success is journalism means becoming a Name.

Not writing good journalism.

These people should be fired. Instead, at the Times, they're celebrated for possibly bringing in new readers and creating online discussions.

Like we're doing here.

Damn.

OH, MY!!!

Matthew Dowd @matthewjdowd·

i can promise you something: if you ignore and don't read any political news from NY Times, Axios, and Politico, you will not only be more at peace, but you will be better informed by not reading their stuff.

Roy Kahn - Managing Editor

I'll laugh my ass off if Trump gets elected and the entire Sulzberger clan then gets hauled off to some "reeducation center," despite sticking their collective heads so far up Trumps fat, white entitled ass.

Ali Minai @barbarikon·6h

Ignore the media - especially the @nytimes

R331 you have forgotten the king of propaganda Msnbc

R335 you’re so unaware.

To slither around undetected you need tall grass 🐍

So, MSNBC has been droning all day long about how unfair the reporting has been regarding Harris, etc. Will someone tell me who they are talking to? Also, why is it that this outlet feels that it has not been complicit in doing this? I'll only give Lawrence O'donnell (and maybe Ari Melber) a pass, BUT the other anchors?

At least the subject has been picked up on!