Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

choie

(4,111 posts) Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:39 PM Mar 2016

more proof that the NY Times is anti-Sanders...

the current headline, in large print:

"Trump and Clinton are Strong, but Cruz takes two states.."

and then in little little print down the page "Sanders wins Vermont and Oklahoma." WTF? They are so very threatened by Sanders...

http://www.nytimes.com/?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion®ion=TopBar&module=HomePage-Title&pgtype=article

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

more proof that the NY Times is anti-Sanders... (Original Post) choie Mar 2016 OP

Just think of the ad revenue they would lose with single payer. Bonhomme Richard Mar 2016 #1

Pathetic noretreatnosurrender Mar 2016 #2

This is a war between the Oligarchy and the 99%. Clinton has amassed a huge wealth from rhett o rick Mar 2016 #3

Bonhomme Richard

(9,000 posts)

1. Just think of the ad revenue they would lose with single payer.

Reply to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:43 PM

Mar 2016

I am sure they have.

noretreatnosurrender

(1,890 posts)

2. Pathetic

Reply to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:46 PM

Mar 2016

They should be ashamed.

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)

3. This is a war between the Oligarchy and the 99%. Clinton has amassed a huge wealth from

Reply to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:52 PM

Mar 2016

donations from the Wealthy 1%. She is not on the side of the People. She doesn't even try to pretend. She had Ms. Williams of Black Lives Matter thrown out at the exclusive get together they were having.

Reply to this discussion