NY Times wimps out: Endorses two candidates for president

Didn’t the RNC spend $100,000 just so Don Jr’s book would top the New York Times best seller list?

high school xc coach wrote:

you have very autistic tendencies

Hey I was going to stay out of this squable but would you mind elaborating on that?

What does it matter if someone has autism? I am 35 and found out I am on the spectrum, according to one medical professional 2 years ago. I lived 33 years always thinking I was a bit different, going through hell at times. And I'm lucky for my diagnosis in a way. Lots of people have lived longer than I and never receieved one or any supports.

What's wrong with having any autism, how is it in any way a bad thing? Matt Boling has autism, how does that hinder him?

If you said this as a coach in front of your team and one of your athletes had autism, would you keep your job if it was reported? How would you feel if your job was in jeaporady because of a silly comment?

Ciro wrote:

Didn’t the RNC spend $100,000 just so Don Jr’s book would top the New York Times best seller list?

$100k wouldn't get you anywhere close to the NYT bestseller list.

Treadhead wrote:

You still don’t have an actual comeback, it’s clear for everyone to see.

:)

there is nothing wrong with it. it is simply the reason i have no interest in the back and forth political argument he is itching for.

Hardloper wrote:

Ciro wrote:

Didn’t the RNC spend $100,000 just so Don Jr’s book would top the New York Times best seller list?

$100k wouldn't get you anywhere close to the NYT bestseller list.

Maybe so, but it clearly illustrates that they cared about the New York Times rankings, given the subject matter ironic and perhaps hypocritical.

The ~$100,000 may not have been the only reason but it certainly helped.

Ciro wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

$100k wouldn't get you anywhere close to the NYT bestseller list.

Maybe so, but it clearly illustrates that they cared about the New York Times rankings, given the subject matter ironic and perhaps hypocritical.

The ~$100,000 may not have been the only reason but it certainly helped.

No it doesn't. They had legitimate reason to buy copies. They only bought 4k copies while it sold 115k in the first week. Also, the NYT bestseller list is good at excluding bulk orders, they just keep their algorithm private. So no, they did not rig the bestseller list and it did not make a difference.

Hardloper wrote:

Ciro wrote:

Maybe so, but it clearly illustrates that they cared about the New York Times rankings, given the subject matter ironic and perhaps hypocritical.

The ~$100,000 may not have been the only reason but it certainly helped.

No it doesn't. They had legitimate reason to buy copies. They only bought 4k copies while it sold 115k in the first week. Also, the NYT bestseller list is good at excluding bulk orders, they just keep their algorithm private. So no, they did not rig the bestseller list and it did not make a difference.

I believe bulk orders were not excluded in this situation. Open to correction if you have some evidence to suggest otherwise,

Greg,

Best to ignore such hateful chatter. Looks like the Mods had the decency to delete his ignorant comments.

Ciro wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

No it doesn't. They had legitimate reason to buy copies. They only bought 4k copies while it sold 115k in the first week. Also, the NYT bestseller list is good at excluding bulk orders, they just keep their algorithm private. So no, they did not rig the bestseller list and it did not make a difference.

I believe bulk orders were not excluded in this situation. Open to correction if you have some evidence to suggest otherwise,

Bulk sales are always excluded and as I've said, it made no difference.

Hardloper wrote:

Ciro wrote:

I believe bulk orders were not excluded in this situation. Open to correction if you have some evidence to suggest otherwise,

Bulk sales are always excluded and as I've said, it made no difference.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/21/trump-jr-thanked-deplorables-making-him-bestseller-rnc-bought-his-book-bulk/

Not so sure.

Later.

patriotic American wrote:

Ciro wrote:

I believe bulk orders were not excluded in this situation. Open to correction if you have some evidence to suggest otherwise,

You’re wrong. So shut your lying mouth, you non-American piece of trash.

Make me.

Ciro wrote:

Not so sure.

[links]

Neither article refutes my point. As they confirm:

1. Book sold 115k copies, bulk order only accounted for 4k copies, so it made no difference

2. Bulk order was used as gift for donors, so it was legitimate and not for boosting the rank

3. The NYT bestseller algorithm is private but excludes bulk orders, which in this case are easily detectible

Any one of these points individually would refute your claim, all 3 together thoroughly debunks your case.

Hardloper wrote:

Ciro wrote:

Not so sure.

[links]

Neither article refutes my point. As they confirm:

1. Book sold 115k copies, bulk order only accounted for 4k copies, so it made no difference

2. Bulk order was used as gift for donors, so it was legitimate and not for boosting the rank

3. The NYT bestseller algorithm is private but excludes bulk orders, which in this case are easily detectible

Any one of these points individually would refute your claim, all 3 together thoroughly debunks your case.

I never said it made the difference just that it counted which it appears it did. Bulk/donor call it whatever you like.

To the original point, Junior and RNC cared about the New York Times ranking. Good night.

Seems like we are destined for 16 straight years of Donald Trump as president (at a minimum, assuming the current Trump doesn't do three terms). Junior is the spitting image.

pierre_paris_206 wrote:

Seems like we are destined for 16 straight years of Donald Trump as president (at a minimum, assuming the current Trump doesn't do three terms). Junior is the spitting image.

I bet you’re right.

Ciro wrote:

pierre_paris_206 wrote:

Seems like we are destined for 16 straight years of Donald Trump as president (at a minimum, assuming the current Trump doesn't do three terms). Junior is the spitting image.

I bet you’re right.

C’mon now, don’t go getting my hopes up.

Anyhow, I’m sure you leftists with the help of the NYT will find some way to your goal of destroying America.

high school xc coach wrote:

Trump is carrying them on his back. Their numbers have soared with him in office. They still fail in the credibility dept.

If you think the Times fails in the credibility dept., what words would you use to describe Trump's credibility? I am not sure Roget's Thesaurus has adequate synonyms to describe his lying. Which is why his own lawyers did not want him to testify under oath if questioned in person by Mueller and his team.

The NY Times is not liberal. Repeat. The NY Times is not liberal. They hired Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss to join conservative lizards like Ross Douthat and David Brooks without hiring anyone on the progressive side of the spectrum (Liz Bruenig was recently hired, but she is a bit of a progressive white elephant in that she is a devout Catholic and often writes about religion). The NY Times editorial board looks very diverse and progressive, but if you look deeper, they are almost all from Ivy league schools (or Ivy adjacent, very academically competitive schools). They are all pro capitalist and pro US interventionist. They may have been single handedly responsible for pushing through the Iraq war with horrible coverage of the WMD allegations.

The double endorsement was just an extension of the faux diversity at the NY times editorial board. Biden is a strong front runner who despite his sundowning is a very strong candidate in the rust belt. Sanders also has some of the best Trump crossover numbers and offers the greatest potential to bring in new voters. But the NY Times twice endorsed Hillary (2008 and 2016) and is determined to make sure that its brand of faux diversity is adopted in the primary. So, the NY times is basically saying that it has to be a woman because diversity matters more than substance.