• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Pomises Libel Suit Against NY Times

Erod said:
You think the NYT will investigate Bill Clinton's love child? Or any of the claims coming out about him and Hillary over this laundry list of women he's torn up?

Hypocrisy from the NYT will nullify this story. They have no credibility whether it's true or not.
Click to expand...

Is HRC suing any media outlets?
 
JackA said:
Donald Trump threatens to sue New York Times over sexual harassment report - Oct. 12, 2016

Question on cross examination: "Mr. Trump, how can you have been damaged by having your own statements factually confirmed?"
Click to expand...

Let's see if he really does.

I was a journalist for 30 years or so, and I know the NYT would LOVE to get Mr. Trump under oath in discovery.

I do believe Nixon also said he would sue, and then a whole list of people promised to sue over the Pentagon Papers. I am pretty sure the Pulitzer prize winning New York Times is shaking in their boots....NOT


Trump has t say this to keep up the myth he's a revolutionary.
 
Praxas said:
I fail to see how he can sue the NYT over allegations someone else has made. They are merely reporting on another person's allegations against Trump. I can see Trump wanting to sue the women who are saying this (if it's untrue), but I don't think he has jack **** against the NYT.
Click to expand...

That's like arguing that Gawker had a right publish the video of Hulk Hogan screwing his friend's wife, because Gawker was simply disseminating what someone else had wrongfully recorded. The courts said otherwise.
 
sanman said:
That's like arguing that Gawker had a right publish the video of Hulk Hogan screwing his friend's wife, because Gawker was simply disseminating what someone else had wrongfully recorded. The courts said otherwise.
Click to expand...
It's not like that at all. In fact, it's nowhere near close to it. In fact, the two cases are so far apart, I think only a Trump supporter could actually think it was a good argument.

You a Trump supporter?
 
Slyfox696 said:
It's not like that at all. In fact, it's nowhere near close to it. In fact, the two cases are so far apart, I think only a Trump supporter could actually think it was a good argument.

You a Trump supporter?
Click to expand...

Yes, if it means I'm not a Hillary loyalist like you.
 
sanman said:
Yes, if it means I'm not a Hillary loyalist like you.
Click to expand...
What makes me a Hillary loyalist? The fact I'm intelligent enough to understand how utterly ridiculous your comparison was?

This is the problem with you playing team politics. You think anyone who isn't on your team must automatically be for the other team. But some of us possess the ability to think for ourselves. And, as one of those people, I simply pointed out how the examples were completely unrelated.

Your examples have absolutely no relation. None. Try harder.
 
sanman said:
That's like arguing that Gawker had a right publish the video of Hulk Hogan screwing his friend's wife, because Gawker was simply disseminating what someone else had wrongfully recorded. The courts said otherwise.
Click to expand...

It's actually nothing like that at all. If you are familiar with the details of that case, it will be overturned on appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom