I'll be damned
 

On 5/30/2017 7:29 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/29/17 7:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/29/2017 5:25 PM, Tim wrote:

Had to look hard to find an unfavorable comment about Trump's
Memorial Day speech today.

But CNN came through in a pinch. Even with a decent headline and
story, they had to get in a
negative line when they could:
.....

That's understandable. They've had a vendetta since he called them
"fake news" so they scrape what they can hoping to churn up something.

Want a champagne popsicle?



Like the headline of an article appearing yesterday in the NYTimes:

"A Constitutional Puzzle: Can the President Be Indicted?"

The headline suggests that Trump has already been found guilty of
something and now we are on to the Constitutional debate of his
indictment.

Trump has *not* been found guilty of anything. In fact, nobody has
released any evidence that he has done anything even remotely illegal.

I agree with you Tim. The liberal press has had a vendetta against
Trump ever since he announced his candidacy.



By the way, it is too bad and very telling that you and your fellow
right-wingers didn't bother to read the article you singled out.

"A Constitutional Puzzle: Can the President Be Indicted?"

The article had almost nothing to do with Trump and almost everything to
do with the Constitutional issues involved in prosecuting a sitting
POTUS for criminal infractions.

As for Trump as it was for Nixon...we need to know if the president is a
crook.



I know. I read the article. As I pointed out in another post it was the
*headline* of the article, and it's very obvious timing.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

I'll be damned
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/30/2017 7:29 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/29/17 7:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/29/2017 5:25 PM, Tim wrote:

Had to look hard to find an unfavorable comment about Trump's
Memorial Day speech today.

But CNN came through in a pinch. Even with a decent headline and
story, they had to get in a
negative line when they could:
.....

That's understandable. They've had a vendetta since he called them
"fake news" so they scrape what they can hoping to churn up something.

Want a champagne popsicle?



Like the headline of an article appearing yesterday in the NYTimes:

"A Constitutional Puzzle: Can the President Be Indicted?"

The headline suggests that Trump has already been found guilty of
something and now we are on to the Constitutional debate of his
indictment.

Trump has *not* been found guilty of anything. In fact, nobody has
released any evidence that he has done anything even remotely illegal.

I agree with you Tim. The liberal press has had a vendetta against
Trump ever since he announced his candidacy.



By the way, it is too bad and very telling that you and your fellow
right-wingers didn't bother to read the article you singled out.

"A Constitutional Puzzle: Can the President Be Indicted?"

The article had almost nothing to do with Trump and almost everything to
do with the Constitutional issues involved in prosecuting a sitting
POTUS for criminal infractions.

As for Trump as it was for Nixon...we need to know if the president is a
crook.



I know. I read the article. As I pointed out in another post it was the
*headline* of the article, and it's very obvious timing.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



The headline was fine. You are looking too hard for reportage rhat supports
your biases.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

I'll be damned
 

On 5/30/2017 9:12 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/30/2017 7:29 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/29/17 7:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/29/2017 5:25 PM, Tim wrote:

Had to look hard to find an unfavorable comment about Trump's
Memorial Day speech today.

But CNN came through in a pinch. Even with a decent headline and
story, they had to get in a
negative line when they could:
.....

That's understandable. They've had a vendetta since he called them
"fake news" so they scrape what they can hoping to churn up something.

Want a champagne popsicle?



Like the headline of an article appearing yesterday in the NYTimes:

"A Constitutional Puzzle: Can the President Be Indicted?"

The headline suggests that Trump has already been found guilty of
something and now we are on to the Constitutional debate of his
indictment.

Trump has *not* been found guilty of anything. In fact, nobody has
released any evidence that he has done anything even remotely illegal.

I agree with you Tim. The liberal press has had a vendetta against
Trump ever since he announced his candidacy.



By the way, it is too bad and very telling that you and your fellow
right-wingers didn't bother to read the article you singled out.

"A Constitutional Puzzle: Can the President Be Indicted?"

The article had almost nothing to do with Trump and almost everything to
do with the Constitutional issues involved in prosecuting a sitting
POTUS for criminal infractions.

As for Trump as it was for Nixon...we need to know if the president is a
crook.



I know. I read the article. As I pointed out in another post it was the
*headline* of the article, and it's very obvious timing.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



The headline was fine. You are looking too hard for reportage rhat supports
your biases.



Trust me. Nobody has to look hard at all.

I'll be damned
 

On 5/30/17 9:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/30/2017 9:12 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/30/2017 7:29 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/29/17 7:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/29/2017 5:25 PM, Tim wrote:

Had to look hard to find an unfavorable comment about Trump's
Memorial Day speech today.

But CNN came through in a pinch. Even with a decent headline and
story, they had to get in a
negative line when they could:
.....

That's understandable. They've had a vendetta since he called them
"fake news" so they scrape what they can hoping to churn up
something.

Want a champagne popsicle?



Like the headline of an article appearing yesterday in the NYTimes:

"A Constitutional Puzzle: Can the President Be Indicted?"

The headline suggests that Trump has already been found guilty of
something and now we are on to the Constitutional debate of his
indictment.

Trump has *not* been found guilty of anything. In fact, nobody has
released any evidence that he has done anything even remotely illegal.

I agree with you Tim. The liberal press has had a vendetta against
Trump ever since he announced his candidacy.



By the way, it is too bad and very telling that you and your fellow
right-wingers didn't bother to read the article you singled out.

"A Constitutional Puzzle: Can the President Be Indicted?"

The article had almost nothing to do with Trump and almost
everything to
do with the Constitutional issues involved in prosecuting a sitting
POTUS for criminal infractions.

As for Trump as it was for Nixon...we need to know if the president
is a
crook.



I know. I read the article. As I pointed out in another post it was the
*headline* of the article, and it's very obvious timing.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



The headline was fine. You are looking too hard for reportage rhat
supports
your biases.



Trust me. Nobody has to look hard at all.



Well, I think your "take" on the headline of the article in question is
incorrect. I thought the headline was inquisitive and neutral.

I'll be damned
 

8:35 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Well, I think your "take" on the headline of the article in question is
incorrect. I thought the headline was inquisitive and neutral.
....

Harry, you're probably correct about it, but "John Q. Public" looks at it as being guilty of "something" and it doesn't matter what.

Also it's a question not a headline, which leads to a false pretense of guilt or a wrong doing.

False narrative?

I'll be damned
 

On 5/30/17 10:00 AM, Tim wrote:
8:35 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Well, I think your "take" on the headline of the article in question is
incorrect. I thought the headline was inquisitive and neutral.
...

Harry, you're probably correct about it, but "John Q. Public" looks at it as being guilty of "something" and it doesn't matter what.

Also it's a question not a headline, which leads to a false pretense of guilt or a wrong doing.

False narrative?


I question whether "John Q. Public" reads any serious newspapers,
whether the paper or the on-line edition.

My take and the take of my seriously liberal friends is that there is no
evidence generally available -yet- that says that Donald Trump has
committed any serious crimes since the election, although there are
suspicions he has obstructed justice. Can't say the same for some of his
high-level staffers. Trump has said a lot of really stupid things and
has taken some horrific actions, but...these are political decisions,
and not criminal.

I'll be damned
 

"I question whether "John Q. Public" reads any serious newspapers,
whether the paper or the on-line edition. "
.....

You're probably right and the papers know that, so they state the opening header in such a manner to sway a public opinion, which does (in many cases) provides the intended result.

I'll be damned
 

On Tue, 30 May 2017 10:26:25 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
"I question whether "John Q. Public" reads any serious newspapers,
whether the paper or the on-line edition. "
....

You're probably right and the papers know that, so they state the opening header in such a manner to sway a public opinion, which does (in many cases) provides the intended result.


Journalism nowadays has taken on the National Enquirer style of
misleading readers.

That right there is the truth. And, the major media has adopted the grocery line style of headlines.

I'll be damned
 

On 5/30/2017 9:35 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/30/17 9:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/30/2017 9:12 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/30/2017 7:29 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/29/17 7:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/29/2017 5:25 PM, Tim wrote:

Had to look hard to find an unfavorable comment about Trump's
Memorial Day speech today.

But CNN came through in a pinch. Even with a decent headline and
story, they had to get in a
negative line when they could:
.....

That's understandable. They've had a vendetta since he called them
"fake news" so they scrape what they can hoping to churn up
something.

Want a champagne popsicle?



Like the headline of an article appearing yesterday in the NYTimes:

"A Constitutional Puzzle: Can the President Be Indicted?"

The headline suggests that Trump has already been found guilty of
something and now we are on to the Constitutional debate of his
indictment.

Trump has *not* been found guilty of anything. In fact, nobody has
released any evidence that he has done anything even remotely
illegal.

I agree with you Tim. The liberal press has had a vendetta against
Trump ever since he announced his candidacy.



By the way, it is too bad and very telling that you and your fellow
right-wingers didn't bother to read the article you singled out.

"A Constitutional Puzzle: Can the President Be Indicted?"

The article had almost nothing to do with Trump and almost
everything to
do with the Constitutional issues involved in prosecuting a sitting
POTUS for criminal infractions.

As for Trump as it was for Nixon...we need to know if the president
is a
crook.



I know. I read the article. As I pointed out in another post it was
the
*headline* of the article, and it's very obvious timing.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



The headline was fine. You are looking too hard for reportage rhat
supports
your biases.



Trust me. Nobody has to look hard at all.



Well, I think your "take" on the headline of the article in question is
incorrect. I thought the headline was inquisitive and neutral.


I'd agree if it was an article in the Wall Street Journal or if the
NYT's didn't have such a history of biased reporting. They've been on
the hunt since last November. Anything they can toss at the wall is
news fit to print apparently.

I'll be damned
 

On 5/30/2017 10:10 AM, Tim wrote:
"I question whether "John Q. Public" reads any serious newspapers,
whether the paper or the on-line edition. "
....

You're probably right and the papers know that, so they state the opening header in such a manner to sway a public opinion, which does (in many cases) provides the intended result.


That was exactly my point. The masses don't go far beyond the headlines.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com