How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk (NYT)

[RogueBeaver]

Long feature on her FP/natsec views.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hey NY Times, if you were concerned about this maybe you shouldn't have endorsed her and ran this article before the NY primary. You endorsed Ned Lamont in the primary. Would it really have been hard to not endorse Hillary?

[IceSpear]

Hey NY Times, if you were concerned about this maybe you shouldn't have endorsed her and ran this article before the NY primary. You endorsed Ned Lamont in the primary. Would it really have been hard to not endorse Hillary?

They endorsed her to "look serious and professional." It was solely to keep up appearances. Every step of the the way they've done their best to slime her with faux scandals (they originated Emailghazi after all) and hit pieces like this. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

[SillyAmerican]

Hey NY Times, if you were concerned about this maybe you shouldn't have endorsed her and ran this article before the NY primary. You endorsed Ned Lamont in the primary. Would it really have been hard to not endorse Hillary?

They endorsed her to "look serious and professional." It was solely to keep up appearances. Every step of the the way they've done their best to slime her with faux scandals (they originated Emailghazi after all) and hit pieces like this. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Has any of the reporting been factually incorrect? Or are you simply saying that the NY Times has recently turned into an arm of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? (Sorry, please ignore the chuckling...).

[RaphaelDLG]

Hey NY Times, if you were concerned about this maybe you shouldn't have endorsed her and ran this article before the NY primary. You endorsed Ned Lamont in the primary. Would it really have been hard to not endorse Hillary?

They endorsed her to "look serious and professional." It was solely to keep up appearances. Every step of the the way they've done their best to slime her with faux scandals (they originated Emailghazi after all) and hit pieces like this. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Has any of the reporting been factually incorrect? Or are you simply saying that the NY Times has recently turned into an arm of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? (Sorry, please ignore the chuckling...).

As a liberal who carries a lot of disdain for #Shillary the NYT's reporting last summer on her fake scandal was absolutely factually inaccurate and in fact they later apologized for it.

[IceSpear]

Hey NY Times, if you were concerned about this maybe you shouldn't have endorsed her and ran this article before the NY primary. You endorsed Ned Lamont in the primary. Would it really have been hard to not endorse Hillary?

They endorsed her to "look serious and professional." It was solely to keep up appearances. Every step of the the way they've done their best to slime her with faux scandals (they originated Emailghazi after all) and hit pieces like this. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Has any of the reporting been factually incorrect? Or are you simply saying that the NY Times has recently turned into an arm of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? (Sorry, please ignore the chuckling...).

Recently? They've despised the Clintons since 1992. They were one of the biggest pushers of the Whitewater crap. Last year they partnered up with some right wing operative and helped publicize his book about Hillary's supposed corruption. A former editor for their paper admitted they scrutinize her more than anybody else, partially due to sexism. As already mentioned, they manufactured the email nontroversy. They employ Maureen Dowd for god's sake. What more evidence do you need?

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Hey NY Times, if you were concerned about this maybe you shouldn't have endorsed her and ran this article before the NY primary. You endorsed Ned Lamont in the primary. Would it really have been hard to not endorse Hillary?

They endorsed her to "look serious and professional." It was solely to keep up appearances. Every step of the the way they've done their best to slime her with faux scandals (they originated Emailghazi after all) and hit pieces like this. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Oh come on, even if there is a media cabal against Hillary it's certainly not spearheaded by the friggin' New York Times.

[SillyAmerican]

Hey NY Times, if you were concerned about this maybe you shouldn't have endorsed her and ran this article before the NY primary. You endorsed Ned Lamont in the primary. Would it really have been hard to not endorse Hillary?

They endorsed her to "look serious and professional." It was solely to keep up appearances. Every step of the the way they've done their best to slime her with faux scandals (they originated Emailghazi after all) and hit pieces like this. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Has any of the reporting been factually incorrect? Or are you simply saying that the NY Times has recently turned into an arm of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? (Sorry, please ignore the chuckling...).

Recently? They've despised the Clintons since 1992. They were one of the biggest pushers of the Whitewater crap. Last year they partnered up with some right wing operative and helped publicize his book about Hillary's supposed corruption. A former editor for their paper admitted they scrutinize her more than anybody else, partially due to sexism. As already mentioned, they manufactured the email controversy. They employ Maureen Dowd for god's sake. What more evidence do you need?

Okay. So are you saying that she's being unfairly scrutinized? 'Cuz from where I sit, that's not the case; I happen to agree with the following snippet from this NY Times article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[136or142]

Hey NY Times, if you were concerned about this maybe you shouldn't have endorsed her and ran this article before the NY primary. You endorsed Ned Lamont in the primary. Would it really have been hard to not endorse Hillary?

They endorsed her to "look serious and professional." It was solely to keep up appearances. Every step of the the way they've done their best to slime her with faux scandals (they originated Emailghazi after all) and hit pieces like this. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Has any of the reporting been factually incorrect? Or are you simply saying that the NY Times has recently turned into an arm of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? (Sorry, please ignore the chuckling...).

Recently? They've despised the Clintons since 1992. They were one of the biggest pushers of the Whitewater crap. Last year they partnered up with some right wing operative and helped publicize his book about Hillary's supposed corruption. A former editor for their paper admitted they scrutinize her more than anybody else, partially due to sexism. As already mentioned, they manufactured the email controversy. They employ Maureen Dowd for god's sake. What more evidence do you need?

Okay. So are you saying that she's being unfairly scrutinized? 'Cuz from where I sit, that's not the case; I happen to agree with the following snippet from this NY Times article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if they operate a large charity, of course they have to be scrutinized because they must be up to no good.  

To me, that snippet fully shows the bias of the New York Times against Hillary Clinton.

In contrast, how much has the New York Times looked into any of Donald Trump's businesses?

Not only is Donald Trump facing a civil lawsuit for Trump University, but he has operated at least one business that was or still is being investigated by the FBI for criminal activity.  I've seen only one mention of this in an online real estate publication

Also, Donald Trump himself cheerfully admits that he 'bought politicians' while operating his companies.  Has the New York Times investigated any of these activities?  If he actually bribed a politician, that would be illegal.

As far as I can tell, the New York Times has investigated The Clintons far more than they have investigated Donald Trump.  Their attitude seems to be that operating a charity is more worthy of scrutiny than operating a private business.  That is one messed up attitude.

Also, the New York Times is a leading newspaper in that most other newspapers and television stations follow the New York Times lead in deciding what national stories to investigate and report on.  So, actually it makes complete sense that the Times would be at the forefront of the right wing conspiracy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OMG IT'S A VAST CONSPIRACY FROM THE PAPER THAT ENDORSED MY CANDIDATE!!!!!!!

[136or142]

OMG IT'S A VAST CONSPIRACY FROM THE PAPER THAT ENDORSED MY CANDIDATE!!!!!!!

They endorsed her for the primary.  I can't see them endorsing Donald Trump or Ted Cruz instead of her, but had, say, Jeb Bush been the nominee, who knows.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

OMG IT'S A VAST CONSPIRACY FROM THE PAPER THAT ENDORSED MY CANDIDATE!!!!!!!

They endorsed her for the primary.  I can't see them endorsing Donald Trump or Ted Cruz instead of her, but had, say, Jeb Bush been the nominee, who knows.

No. The NYT has endorsed every Democratic candidate since 1960.

[136or142]

OMG IT'S A VAST CONSPIRACY FROM THE PAPER THAT ENDORSED MY CANDIDATE!!!!!!!

They endorsed her for the primary.  I can't see them endorsing Donald Trump or Ted Cruz instead of her, but had, say, Jeb Bush been the nominee, who knows.

No. The NYT has endorsed every Democratic candidate since 1960.

Past Performance is Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

OMG IT'S A VAST CONSPIRACY FROM THE PAPER THAT ENDORSED MY CANDIDATE!!!!!!!

They endorsed her for the primary.  I can't see them endorsing Donald Trump or Ted Cruz instead of her, but had, say, Jeb Bush been the nominee, who knows.

No. The NYT has endorsed every Democratic candidate since 1960.

Past Performance is Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results.

Except when it is.