Comment by gragas | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gragas | Hacker News Reader

Mr. Trump said all of these awful things 10 years ago, and according to the Times it is perfectly acceptable to extrapolate these to the modern day and most importantly to predictions about Trump's policy making. Just 10 years ago, Hillary actually said that she opposes same-sex marriage [1][2]. This is DIRECT evidence of what her policy making would be 10 years ago. There is no need to extrapolate. There is no need to guess at how HRC's personal opinion on matters would play into her policies. She was openly against same-sex marriage.

So why isn't HRC held to the same standard? Why isn't there a shred of bad news about her in the Times, but every credible non-partisan newspaper is all over her scandals? Furthermore, why was Benghazi downplayed before anyone was even interviewed? [3] Why did Obama say "there isn't a smidgen of corruption" if no serious and thorough investigation had even been conducted yet? [3]

NYT is extremely biased and openly aligns with the left. They regularly downplay any and all news that could be damaging to left.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1jeJmeeMjs

I would like to hear your thoughts on why you think changing ones opinion is the same as sexual assault.

I think sexual assault is absolutely abhorrent. I don't think NYT being biased wipes clean any of the guilt of Trump. If he truly committed sexual assault he should be held under the same standards as the rest of us.

Conversely, I think that the horrible allegations against Mr. Trump do NOT nullify all of the scandals and atrocities that Clinton has been wrapped up in. And I certainly do not believe that the allegations against Mr. Trump give the Times the right to be blatantly biased in their reporting.

It's a shame that this election seems to have polarized (on both sides) not only a great number of ordinary people but many professional journalists as well. The public's faith in the rule of law is America's greatest strategic asset, and independent, objective journalism has been one of the most important ways that faith has been maintained.

If you haven't seen "a shred" of NYT coverage of Hillary's email scandals then all that means is you haven't looked for it. They covered it ad nauseum.

If you can find me a single NYT article about Combetta's reddit posts (which were reviewed multiple times by the House---to their complete astonishment), please post a link.

There is a fundamental difference between someone changing with the winds of politics and how someone behaves. While I'd rather someone be right the first time, I'm happy when they make it there at all.

My life experiences are substantively different than many HN readers - I've spent a large portion of my career working with working class folks, from a very different background than you'd normally see on HN - we are in general the elites here (both socially and economically) - and the kind of comments Trump made are so common among a wide swath of the population as to not even be newsworthy - no, you may not have heard men talk like that before - but I have, and so have many of my friends who have a working class/blue collar background - in male dominated environments, this kind of talk is very very common. So I discounted that.. but I can't discount two seemingly credible people who show a pattern of bad behavior 30 or so years apart.

As far as Benghazi - four people died, working in a war zone - the US Foreign service is not a safe place to work - between 2001 and 2009 there were 20 attacks on either embassies or consulates resulting in 87 fatalities - nor was this the first time an ambassador was killed either. [1][2] So from my perspective the Benghazi investigations and hearings are more or less just political haymaking.

Dead to rights, Hillary Clinton was guilty of Improper storage of Classified Materials, both in relating to the way her email was handled, and the poor security around her home office and SCIF. [3] But I don't consider her exceptional in this case - the way this country handles classification is honestly, pretty stupid - and the laws are almost always selectively prosecuted. She got lucky, because of her great power.

I'm supporting Gary Johnson - because I'm tired of living in a country that has been in a vague state of war my entire adult life, as well as agreeing with him on a broad swath of other social policy issues.

1 - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/...

2 - http://www.politifact.com/embassyattacks/

3 - http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/14-excerpts-fb...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com