Posted on 09/05/2016 12:07:02 PM PDT by upchuck
I would urge journalists to ask whether they are reporting facts or simply engaging in innuendo, and urge the public to read with a critical eye. If reports about a candidate talk about how something “raises questions,” creates “shadows,” or anything similar, be aware that these are all too often weasel words used to create the impression of wrongdoing out of thin air.
And here’s a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate’s character are to look at what he or she has actually done, and what policies he or she is proposing. Mr. Trump’s record of bilking students, stiffing contractors and more is a good indicator of how he’d act as president; Mrs. Clinton’s speaking style and body language aren’t. George W. Bush’s policy lies gave me a much better handle on who he was than all the up-close-and-personal reporting of 2000, and the contrast between Mr. Trump’s policy incoherence and Mrs. Clinton’s carefulness speaks volumes today.
In other words, focus on the facts. America and the world can’t afford another election tipped by innuendo.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Guarantee you if Trump wins by a close margin, the Dems will sue.
Works for me, I’ll take Bush-Gore re-do, except this time no media manipulation regarding the polls closing in Florida, and no throwing out the military ballots, and we’ll be just fine. Hitlery can spend the next 4 years (or the rest of her life, whichever comes first) on a constant crusade for abolishing the electoral college. It’ll be fun.
In reality, It’s feeling like 1980 and a convincing Trump victory in November.
It is both blindingly and laughably obvious that Krugman has a serious deficit in the self-awareness department.
Krugman does not bat an eye at Hillary's lies, corruption, innuendo, incompetence, or crimes. Probably because they mirror his own.
Will he ever get tired of patting his own back in celebration of his own supposed wisdom, generosity, truthfulness, and candor (barf)?
What was that about the beam in your own eye vs. the mote in others', Paul?
I knew Krugman back when he was a petty young socialist denying reality. Now he’s a bitter old socialist denying reality, but he’s otherwise exactly the same pathetic loser I remember.
He does this by putting down all of us peons who know the Clintons are rank scumbags.
Paul Krugman implores us to focus on the facts.
Hilarity.
“the contrast between Mr. Trump’s policy incoherence and Mrs. Clinton’s carefulness speaks volumes today.”
Huh?
INDEED!
Did he have that deranged look in his eyes back then?
Yes, the horrendous mistake by the Supreme Court when they agreed to hear Bush v. Gore will cause trouble from now on.
To think it was just a few months ago this little twat was complaining that Bernie Sanders was such a whiner.
Krugman will definitely be on the Top 10 Butthurt for Hillary List on November 9th, lol...
I think we should have a (Krugman Alert) added to any article written by Krugman. It’s not quite the same as a (Barf Alert), because a Krugman Alert indicates an additional component of bull manure, along with a strong dose of liberal condescension, and pseudo-science all mixed together.
“Pro tips” from a guy who has been wwrong about everything?
I guess Krugman missed the FBI comments about how careless Hillary was with classified information. Hillary's idea of "careful" is what most people call gross negligence and corruption. Hillary's idea of careful is how her assistant Huma's husband acts, knowing full well he has been caught before and is in under scrutiny.
The last thing our nation needs is "Mrs. Clinton’s carefulness"
If the Republicans, as I expect, give the sultan his USSC justice int he lame duck session, then the election is guaranteed to go to the USSC if the Democrats lose the vote. The USSC then will decree that the Dem has won no matter what the recorded margin.
Not quite everything my FRiend. He is apparently a whine connoisseur and his taste in whine is unimpeachable.
Strange - I heard the FBI director say she was very careless with our national security information repeatedly - and he not only said it, it was very true. Does Mr. Krugman think he's actually talking about the same person?
Krugman is just saying the same thing about this GOP candidate as he has said about every GOP candidate every election cycle. Hillary could clone herself and be running on both party tickets with everything being identical and Krugman would describe the "Republican" Hillary as dangerous and inferior to the Democrat Hillary. He has zero credibility as a commentator.
> If reports about a candidate talk about how something “raises questions,” creates “shadows,”
Clinton does this routinely
He had a lot of strange looks back then, including some that left me surprised each time he married a woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.