So much for the NY Times and their credibility

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: xuenchen

That's some stupid logic for sure.

But oh-so-true.

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
a reply to: DJW001

Lol paper misrepresents who the main part of the article is about.

Her fault.

Lol that logic

Well, it is a belief system at work here, and even the OP allows for a miscreant in some form.
So DJW001 does have a point as against what this girl says, logic is not a factor here, and by the same criteria, the NYT though, will need to make a published reposte with something tangible like a recording device, or just accept that the girl is correct, and retract her story as being misleading.
The rest will likely be due process if Trump wishes to pursue it?

In any case, a couple of videos,





First one is a news conversation, the second is a conspiracy theory, but also a news conversation? Hold on, I need to

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
a reply to: DJW001

Lol paper misrepresents who the main part of the article is about.

Her fault.

Lol that logic

It's all the rage. Tell a statement often enough or even better, have it become viral on social media and it become the truth, regardless of any real factual basis to the claim.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: eisegesis

So... one woman objects to the way the NYT portrayed her story, and that completely destroys the paper's credibility, not hers?

So, we should trust the NYT over the very woman being supposedly quoted ?

She was one among many. No-one else has complained.

Given that Trump has been a public figure for the last 30 years, Have there been any articles like this before now?

NOT a Trump fan, but this struck me as a parody of a salacious hit piece. So they dig up mistresses, past girl friends and a few employees and cherry pick what they say to try to paint him as a misogynist jerk, when they can look in the last few months at what he said on the record and prove that he is a misogynist jerk. They were trying to figure out what he is like privately and they completely ignore his connection to Jeffrey Epstein. Ponies and Balloons. This will help Trump more than hurt him. Maybe that was the plan...

a reply to: DJW001

What am I missing here? Why would it destroy her credibility?

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: DJW001

What am I missing here? Why would it destroy her credibility?

Why would it destroy the New York Times if no-one else steps forth?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: eisegesis

So... one woman objects to the way the NYT portrayed her story, and that completely destroys the paper's credibility, not hers?

So, we should trust the NYT over the very woman being supposedly quoted ?

She was one among many. No-one else has complained.

Given that Trump has been a public figure for the last 30 years, Have there been any articles like this before now?

Unnecessary! Everyone knows he is a male chauvenist pig.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: eisegesis

So... one woman objects to the way the NYT portrayed her story, and that completely destroys the paper's credibility, not hers?

So, we should trust the NYT over the very woman being supposedly quoted ?

She was one among many. No-one else has complained.

Given that Trump has been a public figure for the last 30 years, Have there been any articles like this before now?

Unnecessary! Everyone knows he is a male chauvenist pig.

Yes, Bill Clinton does have that reputation.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: DJW001

What am I missing here? Why would it destroy her credibility?

Why would it destroy the New York Times if no-one else steps forth?

Because the one girl that did, has now put the NYT in a position to either outright ignore her claim or publicly challenge it by attempting to discredit the woman.

Again, it comes down to the truth of her testimony, but already she has said that she's willing to set a precedent for future disclosure from the other women that were interviewed, hopefully without the spin.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: eisegesis

The NY Times has credibility?

You bea me to it!

The NYT is slowly turning into one of those rags that you need a second source to validate. Their liberal bias is beginning to stink.

a reply to: queenofswords

Just like Fox news or any conservative news source. Stinking.

All this goes to show , you cant trust old paper style newspaper companies that went online. They did so for a reason. They were failing. Big time. They are still failing , but it is cheaper. We have one called the AJC. We even stopped lining the outhouse seats with that rag.

This is interesting...

In 2015, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim became the top New York Times stockholder.

Entities affiliated with Slim exercised the warrants he bought in 2009 when he loaned the company $250 million during the height of the financial crisis.

Link

Trump actually said in the past,

“I know why I get bad treatment in The New York Times: because it’s owned by Mexico,” Trump said. “I don’t know if you know. A rich guy in Mexico actually has power at The New York Times. I wonder why they don’t like us, you know? I just wonder.”

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: eisegesis

Liberal hatchet job, typical, so turned off from everything known as "liberal" in this day and age. They just can't wear out the misogynistic, racist, bigot card. Well I got news for you SJW, progressives, snowflakes, nobody is going to give a # about those words the more you lie and paint people with your critical pretentious brush, people are eventually going to just not listen to you anymore, it's a self defeating cause at this point.

The thing is there isn't enough racism, sexism and homophobia in America to support the narrative.

Quoting the dangerous # Milo, these Liberal groups release bogus campus rape statistics that are worse then the Congo where rape is a tool of war, because eye contact is considered a form of sexual assault now, and call every bakery in the midwest to find one that won't cater to gay marriages. Then the MSM just runs with it like a dog with a bone.

In the end most intelligent people won't take what they have to say at face value and they end up discrediting themselves.

It's like the more the LEFT and the #NeverTrumpers try, the more they FAIL.

Which only leads me to say.....KEEP TRYING. Please. More. Daily. More and more and more and more!

Keep..............going!!!

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: eisegesis

So... one woman objects to the way the NYT portrayed her story, and that completely destroys the paper's credibility, not hers?

The Times has had it's share of problems over the years. You could start with Walter Duranty. In his day, he won Pulitzers for his work in the USSR, but by now, he's been discredited.

Describing the Communist plan to “liquidate” the five million kulaks, relatively well-off farmers opposed to the Soviet collectivization of agriculture, Duranty wrote in 1931, for example: “Must all of them and their families be physically abolished? Of course not – they must be ‘liquidated’ or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass.”

Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time. Duranty’s prize-winning articles quoted not a single one – only Stalin, who forced farmers all over the Soviet Union into collective farms and sent those who resisted to concentration camps. Collectivization was the main cause of a famine that killed millions of people in Ukraine, the Soviet breadbasket, in 1932 and 1933 – two years after Duranty won his prize.

Even then, Duranty dismissed more diligent writers’ reports that people were starving. “Conditions are bad, but there is no famine,” he wrote in a dispatch from Moscow in March of 1933 describing the “mess” of collectivization. “But – to put it brutally – you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”

Duranty helped make sure that many Americans are still largely ignorant about the Soviet mass starvation of Ukrainian farmers and their forced collectivization. Also the way that those who refused would be sent off to concentration camps.

The Times kept Duranty on staff until 1941.

All Trump has to do is stand back and let his enemies talk and write. That's all.

And he knows his enemy. He knows they cannot HELP but to keep talking, keep digging, keep smearing.

This entire election is going to come down to the Left and the Media, putting Trump in office themselves.

And he knows it. It's brilliant.

a reply to: ketsuko

And the reporter dude in Cuba who kept saying how good Castro was, back in the day.