real question for everyone - isn’t it customary for past presidents to hold off on endorsement of a candidate in their party’s primary until after the primary is over? I recall that the idea is that past presidents respect the primary process and do not wield their prior occupancy of the presidency as a political tool in the primary process. I’m happy to stand corrected, but did past presidents weigh in on the republican primary in 2016? Or did they weigh in during obama v Hillary?
Why did she not bring it up 6 months ago when she said Biden touched her in a non sexual way? The MSM knew about Ford for awhile but they did not report on it until it was introduced at the confirmation, a clear overreach IMO.
You are correct. The only president I remember getting involved in any primary is trumpybear. You'd think he'd stop, too, with his horrid record of backing eventual losers but he keeps on keeping on.
Because the accusers come out of the woodworks when they are encouraged by the opposite party, regardless if the claim is true or not. NYT sat on the story for 19 days at the request of the Biden campaign. MSM already doing the predictable: https://www.mediaite.com/print/nyt-...n-was-edited-after-biden-campaign-complained/ We should all know how this plays out by now. The accused get off. The accuser is shamed. etc. etc. Regardless of party... It's the corruption associated with power. I'm not passing judgment on Biden by any means. Innocent until proven guilty. Just cover it the same as you would any other politician.
I thought forum rules were against using all-caps and special characters in thread titles to grab attention.
That article is saying they edited out a line, not sitting on the story for 19 days. Did you read the article or are you being willfully deceitful?
The article does say that the NYT was asked why they sat on the story for 19 days. There is a link to a separate story as to their explanation.
The article does not say they sat on the story on the request of bidens camp as he posted. Not debating if they sat on the story just what the poster is representing the article is about. This is what he said the article is about. NYT sat on the story for 19 days at the request of the Biden campaign. MSM already doing the predictable: Nowhere in that article it says that.
"The NYT’s intrepid new media columnist Ben Smith conducted an interview with Baquet on Monday about the piece, asking first why Reade’s allegation took 19 days to be printed in the Times." I'm NOT being willfully deceitful. I'm basing the statement from this quote. The link to the interview requires a subscription. I added "at the request from the Biden campaign" after reading another article on the subject. If it's untrue, I haven't seen anything that tells me that. Do you know otherwise? It's fair to say that the other article I read may be proven wrong. I'd have to dig up through my browsing history as to how I concluded that. Are you saying that you know it to be wrong or just pointing out that I'm making statements without providing information to back it up. I suspect the latter. Fair enough.
"Then there was the controversial sentence coming to Biden's defense. Baquet admitted they deferred to the Biden campaign's wishes and struck it: SMITH: I want to ask about some edits that were made after publication, the deletion of the second half of the sentence: “The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.” Why did you do that? BAQUET: Even though a lot of us, including me, had looked at it before the story went into the paper, I think that the [Biden] campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct. And that’s not what the sentence was intended to say." https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...bles-defense-covering-kavanaugh-rougher-biden Looks like it's this writer's assessment of why it was delayed. I just parroted it. Looks like I'm guilty of what I accuse a lot of you guys doing. Thanks for calling me out and forcing me to recognize what I've done. I say that with all honesty because It drives me mad when I see the same thing happen. And hopefully, my mistake will lead to others self policing themselves. So, they may not have delayed it specifically because the Biden campaign asked them to. But it's clear there was some back and forth over the language used and that factored into the delay. And it's clear they accommodated the Biden campaign about what language to use.
I am still missing anything that says the NYT buried this story at the request of the Biden camp, what quote are you using? What I am saying is that nothing you have posted shows your initial title has merit. You have not seen anything that should make you think its true, do you know otherwise?
Dude the writers assesment is talking about the edited item it says nothing about a delay. You are parroting something the article never says. Do you not see that?
Headline of this article: NYT delays Biden allegations story Yep, it's from Fox, so I don't expect you to give watch it, give it merit or anything along those lines. Just note the headline. So, is your point that the delay didn't happen or that the article didn't say it? I believe I conceded that in a previous post. But it wasn't good enough. So, what's your point? Here's what I said: Looks like it's this writer's assessment of why it was delayed. I just parroted it. Looks like I'm guilty of what I accuse a lot of you guys doing. Thanks for calling me out and forcing me to recognize what I've done. I say that with all honesty because It drives me mad when I see the same thing happen. And hopefully, my mistake will lead to others self policing themselves. - two post above Good enough?
My point you claimed that the Biden camp had something to do with the delay, wich is never stated in the article. Once again this is what you posted. NYT sat on the story for 19 days at the request of the Biden campaign. MSM already doing the predictable: No not good enough. Why did you tie the Biden campaign with this delay?
I'll simplify this for you. I was wrong in using that headline without facts to back it up. I made the headline based on my assumptions. NYT sat on the story for 19 days while collaborating with Biden campaign on the language used in the article. MSM already doing the predictable: This change in the headline is accurate. Now a reader might infer that the sole reason for the delay was because of time spent in the collaboration, which I can't prove but I'm not sure you can either. Maybe it took 19 days for them to hash out what Biden's campaign wanted to say. Maybe it didn't. Regardless, it's a bullsh!t headline for the thread and I've said I was in the wrong for doing so (I've said it a few times now). But since you keep hammering on about it, I feel good about the change I proposed in bold. I wonder why it took them 19 days to get the language agreed upon?
WOW - Biden is going to need to step down. This is Tara Reade's mother calling in to Larry King many years ago.
Caller is from the EXACT SAME area as Tara Reade's mother's house and the timing is the EXACT SAME month as the alleged sexual assault. BIMBO ERUPTIONS
