The NYT has not been a trusted single news source since the Iraq war. They're not worth dismissing outright bit they're also not staunchly progressive either and all of their articles should be checked amongst other, more reputable sources.
Too bad an anti-imperialist fell for the myth that Tulsi is actually a dove.Too bad Mike Gravel admitted he's just going to get up on the debate stage to endorse Tulsi if he makes it.
He's more motivating than her.
Exactly. It's disappointing.Too bad an anti-imperialist fell for the myth that Tulsi is actually a dove.
Seriously?Too bad Mike Gravel admitted he's just going to get up on the debate stage to endorse Tulsi if he makes it.
He's more motivating than her.
Not sure what you're reacting to, but if you are wondering about his endorsement plan he notes it here:
The NYT has not been a trusted single news source since the Iraq war. They're not worth dismissing outright bit they're also not staunchly progressive either and all of their articles should be checked amongst other, more reputable sources.
Well yes to your first point.I don't believe in a single trusted news source and every news source should be checked against other reputable sources. Having said that, every independent fact-checking organization I've seen pegs them as leaning more left than right.
Not sure what you're reacting to, but if you are wondering about his endorsement plan he notes it here:
Well yes to your first point.
As to your 2nd point that's Overton windoe problems. I wouldn't call the NYT left and going off of what your personal policies seem to be, I don't think you would either.
- Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on word and story selection that moderately favors the left, but highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources for information due to proper sourcing and well respected journalists/editors.
AllSides' initial research, as well as a UCLA 2005 study, found The New York Times news section to have a Lean Left media bias rating. Initial results from a March 2013 Blind Survey by AllSides confirmed the Lean Left rating, but later results trended toward a bias rating of Center. As of July 2016, the AllSides Bias Rating™ for The New York Times is Lean Left; however, the majority of the almost 7,000 of the AllSides community disagrees with the Lean Left rating. When users were asked what the New York Times news bias rating should be, the average of the votes was found to actually be Lean Left.
In a 2007 survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports, 40% of survey takers believed the New York Times had liberal bias, 20% thought it had no bias, and 11% believed it to be conservative. In 2004, Daniel Okrent, the then-public editor of The New York Times, wrote an editorial in which he explained that when covering some social issues, the paper did in fact have a liberal bias. Since Eisenhower ran for president in 1956, the paper has not endorsed a single Republican nominee for president, but has endorsed every other Democratic candidate.
I think he's been careful to not be divisive in some respects.
He had a chance to land an easy shot on Joe Biden last night. Joe may be one of his toughest challengers.
Bernie knew better to not needlessly attack a DNC favorite. Instead he called him a long time friend and political ally.
It'd be very easy to call him a centrist who lacks the will for change. But he didn't.
Not sure what you're reacting to, but if you are wondering about his endorsement plan he notes it here:
Why on earth would it be fabricated?Left or not, do we know already if the times piece was fabricated?
Cbs was also reporting as a fact that some top donnors were plotting on how to stop Sanders.
Left or not, do we know already if the times piece was fabricated?
According to who?The NYT has not been a trusted single news source since the Iraq war. They're not worth dismissing outright bit they're also not staunchly progressive either and all of their articles should be checked amongst other, more reputable sources.
I'm not answering for this person but in my personal opinion you should not trust any one single news source. As in not taking it as gospel. There obviously has to be some level of "trust", but everything has to be taken with a grain of salt and should be verified with other sources whenever possible. I would argue that the New York Times is a trusted source of news overall (even one of the most trusted) but even they are not infallible with cases like Judith Miller or Jayson Blair.
No?Hold up
You guys are actually arguing the NY Times is fake news? Good lord.
Big money behind Pete. I remember alot of Bernie supporters being upset about the mere insinuation that Beto was bundling....
Big money behind Pete. I remember alot of Bernie supporters being upset about the mere assumption(false) that Beto was bundling....
Even then, he's become so insufferable that I actually wish Beto was still the golden boy.
If you're including me in that, no. I'm a Sanders supporter so doing that would do me no good here anyway. I'm just saying that any single source regardless of it's history/reputation should not automatically be completely trusted and taken as 100% fact. You should get your news from multiple sources whenever possible. Simple as that.Hold up
You guys are actually arguing the NY Times is fake news? Good lord.
Bernie Sanders ($20.7 million)
- Norah Jones: $2,500
- Chris Shiflett (Foo Fighters guitarist): $1,000
- Jonathan Fishman (Phish drummer): $1,000
- Brandi Carlile: $600
- Oteil Burbridge (Dead & Company bassist): $550
- Noelle Scaggs (Fitz and the Tantrums singer): $500
- Rostam Batmanglij (formerly of Vampire Weekend): $250
- Bob Ezrin (producer): $250
- Dustin Davidson (August Burns Red bassist): $216
- Jackson Browne: $101
Elizabeth Warren ($16.5 million)
- Jackson Browne: $300
Kamala Harris ($13.2 million)
Beto O'Rourke ($9.4 million)
- Willie Nelson: $2,800
- Boyd Tinsley (Dave Matthews Band violinist): $2,800
- Phil Lesh (Grateful Dead bassist): $1,850
Cory Booker ($7.9 million)
- Jon Bon Jovi: $5,600 ($2,800 of which was reattributed to Bon Jovi's wife based on contribution limits)
- Joel Madden (Good Charlotte singer): $2,800
Pete Buttigieg ($7.1 million)
- Mandy Moore: $2,000
- Taylor Goldsmith (Dawes singer/guitarist): $250
- Paul Doucette (Matchbox Twenty drummer): $250
Andrew Yang ($1.8 million)
Musicians who donated to the candidates:
https://www.spin.com/2019/04/musicians-political-donations-2020-rivers-cuomo-foo-fighters/
Norah Jones stays winning :)
Big money behind Pete. I remember alot of Bernie supporters being upset about the mere assumption(false) that Beto was bundling....
Big money behind Pete. I remember alot of Bernie supporters being upset about the mere assumption(false) that Beto was bundling....
I almost am enjoying this. Everyone was discounting Pete. Even myself, a Beto boy.Bernie supporters were saying fuck Beto and yay Pete because deep down they didn't think he was a threat. Now that his momentum is going out of control, let's see that tone change. Of course, I'm not talking about the vast majority of good Bernie guys out there, including some of my dearest friends in the world. I'm talking about the reddit clowns.
Musicians who donated to the candidates:
https://www.spin.com/2019/04/musicians-political-donations-2020-rivers-cuomo-foo-fighters/
Norah Jones stays winning :)
I almost am enjoying this. Everyone was discounting Pete. Even myself, a Beto boy.
Yeah, the desperation by some to cANceL anyone who's a threat to their precious Daddy Sanders is hysterical and so, so transparent.Bernie supporters were saying fuck Beto and yay Pete because deep down they didn't think he was a threat. Now that his momentum is going out of control, let's see that tone change. Of course, I'm not talking about the vast majority of good Bernie guys out there, including some of my dearest friends in the world. I'm talking about the reddit clowns.
I keep going back and forth on how much of a threat Schultz could be. Like, there is always the risk that he takes just enough votes to be a spoiler and save Trump. Lord knows that has happened.
But I also wonder if a debate stage with Warren v. Schultz v. Trump doesn't just help drive home her message of "us against the billionaires."
Yeah, Warren or Sanders could easily vilify Schultz with that kind of rhetoric.
Yeah, the desperation by some to cANceL anyone who's a threat to their precious Daddy Sanders is hysterical and so, so transparent.
Nah. The rush to "cancel" is exclusive to the more... shall we say extreme Sanders devotees.
Bernie supporters were saying fuck Beto and yay Pete because deep down they didn't think he was a threat. Now that his momentum is going out of control, let's see that tone change. Of course, I'm not talking about the vast majority of good Bernie guys out there, including some of my dearest friends in the world. I'm talking about the reddit clowns.