[erimir]

Originally Posted by davidm

Anyone who thinks The New York Times cost Hillary Clinton the election has a screw loose. You’re also in the good company of the Times’ biggest enemies, President Cheeto Benito and his demented followers. Funny, that, eh? I think you make good bedfellows. You’re all equally deranged.

Trump does not believe the NYT cost Clinton the election, as far as I know. I don't think and have never said that the NYT single-handedly cost her the election either! Although I do think their coverage contributed to her loss. So how it would put me in his company, I don't know.

In fact, I'm reasonably certain that proclaiming that the media did not cover Clinton's emails poorly (by overhyping the issue and dedicating far too much time to the story) would put you in the company of Trump.

Or the fact that AML pulled out this, which is very similar to things you've said:

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

the same liberal media that got Trump elected by pushing the idea that the only reason to be against "the most prepared politician ever" is being a misogynist

You two make good bedfellows, eh?

You (and people like Greenwald, who you are a fan of) like attacks by association. For example, Greenwald was making one in that tweet I linked to about Bill Kristol. But strangely, you and Watser and Greenwald seem completely untroubled by being on the same side of an issue as Trump, Putin, alt-right Nazis, etc. when proclaiming that there's no evidence of collusion, it's a witch hunt, and the media did not cover Clinton unfairly. Perhaps you would like to reconsider making such fallacious and idiotic attacks?

Your projection is quite a bit Trump-like, though

(See also: complaining about others uncharitably interpreting your arguments while making, at this point, about a dozen posts based off a straw man that I debunked after your first post about it.)

I’m not going to waste my breath debating this

Well this was a lie. Immediately contradicting yourself is also a bit Trump-like!

And yes, you can find examples of articles and op-eds published by the NYT which do not actually address my criticism, because you have only ever attacked a straw man of my position and have proclaimed you have no intention of reading my posts* and finding out what my actual position is.

But keep fucking that chicken.

*Also a lie, obviously, but you may have been telling the truth about not reading the one where I elaborated my criticism of the NYT/media in general.

Originally Posted by davidm

Ya know what? I think over the next week or so I'm going to dig up and post links to the entirety of the Times' coverage of Comey/Clinton/Trump just to publicly show up erimir for the prating prick that he is.

I've been provoked enough by this clueless twit.

Oh, you're going compile all the NYT coverage of Clinton's emails? You go right ahead. I'm sure I'll be totally owned