• 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!

Hillary demands New York Times Back Off.....

Dittohead not! said:
She's a former first lady and the presumed front runner for the Democratic nomination in '16. How is it she's not a public figure?

If she runs, then she'll learn just what scrutiny is. If she wins, then it will intensify. Whatever she says will be blown out of proportion, made to look foolish, and repeated over and over. If she says nothing, the press will make stuff up. If she actually does make a foolish move, the press will never get over it. That's how we treat our public figures.

Hillary should declare her non candidacy now if she doesn't want to be scrutinized in the press, and then drop out of sight and live a private life.

Like that would ever happen.
Click to expand...

MMC said:
You know She wont JB.....she thinks she can fix the World. Her own Words and what it basically comes down to.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. This will never happen. Even if she's already come to the conclusion that she won't run, she's making far too much money with her speaking engagements and book deal(s) - probably more in the future. The possibility of her being a presidential candidate keeps her popular in some people's minds.

As long as the money keeps rolling in, I see her keeping it ambiguous for as long as she can to continue to milk the money train. I mean, why wouldn't she continue to trade on her possible candidacy for continued profits and donations? However, this can't go on forever like this, so eventually she'll have to declare candidacy, or declare non candidacy.

Last I heard, the Clinton Foundation wouldn't last long without continuous fund raising by the Clintons, particularly Bill, something that would have to stop should she became a candidate and even more so should she win the office. So sacrifice the Clinton Foundation on the alter of a presidential run, which she must already know will be a brutally challenged campaign?

Worried that the foundation’s operating revenues depend too heavily on Mr. Clinton’s nonstop fund-raising, the three Clintons are embarking on a drive to raise an endowment of as much as $250 million, with events already scheduled in the Hamptons and London. And after years of relying on Bruce R. Lindsey, the former White House counsel whose friendship with Mr. Clinton stretches back decades, to run the organization while living part-time in Arkansas, the family has hired a New York-based chief executive with a background in management consulting.
Click to expand...
Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions

Even if she declares her non candidacy, it won't curb much of the press scrutiny, as she's still very much a controversial and divisive public figure.
 
Dittohead not! said:
She's a former first lady and the presumed front runner for the Democratic nomination in '16. How is it she's not a public figure?

If she runs, then she'll learn just what scrutiny is. If she wins, then it will intensify. Whatever she says will be blown out of proportion, made to look foolish, and repeated over and over. If she says nothing, the press will make stuff up. If she actually does make a foolish move, the press will never get over it. That's how we treat our public figures.

Hillary should declare her non candidacy now if she doesn't want to be scrutinized in the press, and then drop out of sight and live a private life.

Like that would ever happen.
Click to expand...

You do realize she's not a Republican candidate, don't you? :mrgreen:
 
Dittohead not! said:
She's a former first lady and the presumed front runner for the Democratic nomination in '16. How is it she's not a public figure?

If she runs, then she'll learn just what scrutiny is. If she wins, then it will intensify. Whatever she says will be blown out of proportion, made to look foolish, and repeated over and over. If she says nothing, the press will make stuff up. If she actually does make a foolish move, the press will never get over it. That's how we treat our public figures.

Hillary should declare her non candidacy now if she doesn't want to be scrutinized in the press, and then drop out of sight and live a private life.

Like that would ever happen.
Click to expand...

Your statement would apply to some/most, but not in this case. Hillary has little or nothing to learn about "scrutiny". Through the White House scandals of the '90s and her unsuccessful 2008 campaign, she has seen it all. And she is a political ninja at dealing with it.

And the press in general is unlikely to "go after" Hillary if/when she receives the Democratic nomination....
 
pragmatic said:
HillaryandNYT_zps02721dc0.jpg


dr-evil-gif-laugh-211.gif
Click to expand...

the bald dude has better legs!
 
Have to love the CON game being run by some apparently very fearful CONs.

First the title is incorrect, Hillary isn't quoted saying anything, apparently the WT and Free Beacon (must refer to the price as the content rivals Breit Bart) are just making crap up. The Free Beacon CLAIMS people in the Hillary 'camp' GRIPPED in the closed door meeting about press coverage (that is a far cry from Hillary DEMANDS but since when do CONs care about facts in partisan hack attacks???) but no one is saying Hillary said any sort of thing... :doh

No proof is offered anyone said anything about press coverage, just the Free Beacon being quite creative about a meeting they have no real source inplace.

Then another unsourced rumor that there is a family feud over Chelsea's MiL feeling unsupported in her race...

Finally the WT includes a swipe at the NYT over firing their female CEO...WTF????

So let's recap the CON fail-

No one says Hillary demanded a damn thing.

No one says her 'camp' demanded a damn thing.

Unsubstantiated rumor of a family feud.

Silly swipe at a rival paper over their firing of a CEO.

But CON after CON will roll in to do a dance.... :roll:
 
eohrnberger said:
Absolutely correct. This will never happen. Even if she's already come to the conclusion that she won't run, she's making far too much money with her speaking engagements and book deal(s) - probably more in the future. The possibility of her being a presidential candidate keeps her popular in some people's minds.

As long as the money keeps rolling in, I see her keeping it ambiguous for as long as she can to continue to milk the money train. I mean, why wouldn't she continue to trade on her possible candidacy for continued profits and donations? However, this can't go on forever like this, so eventually she'll have to declare candidacy, or declare non candidacy.

Last I heard, the Clinton Foundation wouldn't last long without continuous fund raising by the Clintons, particularly Bill, something that would have to stop should she became a candidate and even more so should she win the office. So sacrifice the Clinton Foundation on the alter of a presidential run, which she must already know will be a brutally challenged campaign?

Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions

Even if she declares her non candidacy, it won't curb much of the press scrutiny, as she's still very much a controversial and divisive public figure.
Click to expand...



Mornin Eorhn. :2wave: Oh and with her Book coming out and her trying to Downplay Benghazi she will be in alls sight. Not to mention the NY Times isn't going to mention what Aides they were talking to either.


“We are not going to comment,” said a Times spokesperson when contacted by the Free Beacon.....snip~
 
MMC said:
Mornin Eorhn. :2wave: Oh and with her Book coming out and her trying to Downplay Benghazi she will be in alls sight. Not to mention the NY Times isn't going to mention what Aides they were talking to either.


“We are not going to comment,” said a Times spokesperson when contacted by the Free Beacon.....snip~
Click to expand...

I guess it'd be fair to say that the NY Times won't be publishing any Hillary articles without her or her campaign staff's approval before hand.
Something to take note of. Biased Lame Stream Media in full view.
 
notquiteright said:
Have to love the CON game being run by some apparently very fearful CONs.

First the title is incorrect, Hillary isn't quoted saying anything, apparently the WT and Free Beacon (must refer to the price as the content rivals Breit Bart) are just making crap up. The Free Beacon CLAIMS people in the Hillary 'camp' GRIPPED in the closed door meeting about press coverage (that is a far cry from Hillary DEMANDS but since when do CONs care about facts in partisan hack attacks???) but no one is saying Hillary said any sort of thing... :doh

No proof is offered anyone said anything about press coverage, just the Free Beacon being quite creative about a meeting they have no real source inplace.

Then another unsourced rumor that there is a family feud over Chelsea's MiL feeling unsupported in her race...

Finally the WT includes a swipe at the NYT over firing their female CEO...WTF????

So let's recap the CON fail-

No one says Hillary demanded a damn thing.

No one says her 'camp' demanded a damn thing.

Unsubstantiated rumor of a family feud.

Silly swipe at a rival paper over their firing of a CEO.

But CON after CON will roll in to do a dance.... :roll:
Click to expand...

Among those in the Hillary camp is her noted/trusted advisor Humma Weiner.

(Really has no relevance to anything. Other than i get a kick out of typing that name.....)
 
eohrnberger said:
I guess it'd be fair to say that the NY Times won't be publishing any Hillary articles without her or her campaign staff's approval before hand.
Something to take note of. Biased Lame Stream Media in full view.
Click to expand...

That's alright.....Hillary wont ever get around that issue of, she never checked back on her people to see if they made it out Alive from Benghazi.

Which anyone who has money and power.....knows she can't be trusted. Other than those supporters of hers.
 
MMC said:
That's alright.....Hillary wont ever get around that issue of, she never checked back on her people to see if they made it out Alive from Benghazi.

Which anyone who has money and power.....knows she can't be trusted. Other than those supporters of hers.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows. Seems like it's showing up in the polls as well.
There is a lot of talk about Hillary Clinton lately, but that's not helping the public's opinion of her, according to a new Gallup poll.

While a majority of Americans continue to have a favorable opinion of her, it's been on the steady decline since 2012 when it hit 66 percent. Now, 54 percent view her favorably, which is down from 59 percent in February.

Her favorability rating is the lowest it's been since Aug. 2008 (54 percent), when she was gearing up to speak at the Democratic National Convention and endorse then-Sen. Barack Obama for the 2008 presidential nomination.

Here's a closer look at her historical ratings:
ClintonGallup.jpg
Click to expand...
Hillary Clinton favorability rating keeps falling, poll shows | Early & Often

What's that famous quote? "You can fool some of the people some of the time . . . . " :)

That's tail end of the graph, it might be the start of a terminal slide down. Or it might not. Have to wait and see.
 
eohrnberger said:
Everyone knows. Seems like it's showing up in the polls as well.
Hillary Clinton favorability rating keeps falling, poll shows | Early & Often

What's that famous quote? "You can fool some of the people some of the time . . . . " :)

That's tail end of the graph, it might be the start of a terminal slide down. Or it might not. Have to wait and see.
Click to expand...


Yep EB.....and as soon as she says she is in the running. Watch how those numbers all start to come down. All she has now to run on is.....I am woman. Hear me make things up on the fly! :lol:
 
MMC said:
Yep EB.....and as soon as she says she is in the running. Watch how those numbers all start to come down. All she has now to run on is.....I am woman. Hear me make things up on the fly! :lol:
Click to expand...

:lol: That's a good one! But you are right. What accomplishments?
 
MMC said:
Awww.....is Hillary and her people already complaining about unfair coverage.
Click to expand...
So when conservatives and Republicans bash the mainstream media for bad coverage, they're manly men who are unjustly slagged, rather than a pack of thin-skinned whiners? ;)
 
MMC said:
Travel Schedule of Stamina.....so says Claire McCaskill. :lol:
Click to expand...

Spending money without a result. Now there's something to hang you hat on. :shock:
 
Visbek said:
So when conservatives and Republicans bash the mainstream media for bad coverage, they're manly men who are unjustly slagged, rather than a pack of thin-skinned whiners? ;)
Click to expand...

You must be missing at all the media coverage Hillary is getting, and how favored the coverage and softball all the questions are.
It's like the media is licking Hillary's black leather hip high boots before she take the riding crop to them!
 
Visbek said:
So when conservatives and Republicans bash the mainstream media for bad coverage, they're manly men who are unjustly slagged, rather than a pack of thin-skinned whiners? ;)
Click to expand...

Why don't you check with Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham or JC Macfarland.

Then there is Rachael Maddow, Ed Schultz, Chrissy Pissy Mathews.

Perhaps you can tie the same concept to them.....huh? :roll:
 
MMC said:
Why don't you check with Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham or JC Macfarland
Click to expand...
Check what, exactly? Conservatives and Republicans are complaining constantly about how they are covered in the media. Why is it notable when a Democrat makes the exact same type of complaint?
 
Visbek said:
Check what, exactly? Conservatives and Republicans are complaining constantly about how they are covered in the media. Why is it notable when a Democrat makes the exact same type of complaint?
Click to expand...

Its notable since they cry about the same thing that Progressives and Liberals do with the MS Media. Quite evident and really a norm and has been this way for over 30 years or more. So it really doesn't address this issue and Hillary.
 
MMC said:
Its notable since they cry about the same thing that Progressives and Liberals do with the MS Media. Quite evident and really a norm and has been this way for over 30 years or more. So it really doesn't address this issue and Hillary.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I really am not following you here.

How about this? Everyone complains about how they are covered in the media. Politicians, business executives, artists, do-nothing celebrities, whatever. There is nothing remarkable or exceptional or unusual or noteworthy, really, about any public figure complaining about media coverage. The NYT will just ignore it, like they do most other complaints about coverage by public figures.

Insert "obligatory request to ignore idiotic meaningless media horse-race BS and focus on issues" here kthx
 
Visbek said:
I'm sorry, I really am not following you here.

How about this? Everyone complains about how they are covered in the media. Politicians, business executives, artists, do-nothing celebrities, whatever. There is nothing remarkable or exceptional or unusual or noteworthy, really, about any public figure complaining about media coverage. The NYT will just ignore it, like they do most other complaints about coverage by public figures.

Insert "obligatory request to ignore idiotic meaningless media horse-race BS and focus on issues" here kthx
Click to expand...



Who said the anything about what the end result would be with the NY Times? Such is common knowledge.

So those reporting about a tactic the Clinton People would use and have done so for a very long time. Plus are very good at. Is why its up. Shouldn't be to difficult for those that understand Politics and understand such issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom