New York Times has ran nearly 50 negative columns on Ramaswamy

[iamwhatiseem]

Exactly zero positive.
This is a campaign by NYT against him.
Clearly.

In a recent interview - I like how Ramaswamy responded.
If you don't want to watch it... in a nutshell, the article NYT ran specifically about how he made $millions why other shareholders lost money on a failed Alzheimer medicine bid.

"They engaged in all 3 types of lying by the media - all in one article"
1) Outright lie. He did not sell one share of his holdings of that bid when it failed to pass FDA.
2) Lie by Omission. They said "he made $100s millions during the loss". Yes he did. Because his company broke the record for the highest number of drugs to gain FDA approval by a startup in U.S. history during the same time period. OBVIOUSLY he made money.
3) Stylistic lying. Telling something that is true, but doing so in such a way as to leave the impression the opposite is true. "Because the way he orchestrated his company, it was protected from the losses from the failed drug". The way he set up his company was done 3 years prior to this drug. It was not designed to avoid losses, it was designed to allow laboratories and chemist to be able to invest in a specific drug they are developing "skin in the game" instead of how other large pharma companies are designed to only allow people to invest in the company as a whole. This allows people who have a stake to make considerably more money than other companies from a drug they are developing, but by the same token - yes it increases chance of loss if it fails.

 

[Independent thinker]

Exactly zero positive.
This is a campaign by NYT against him.
Clearly.

In a recent interview - I like how Ramaswamy responded.
If you don't want to watch it... in a nutshell, the article NYT ran specifically about how he made $millions why other shareholders lost money on a failed Alzheimer medicine bid.

"They engaged in all 3 types of lying by the media - all in one article"
1) Outright lie. He did not sell one share of his holdings of that bid when it failed to pass FDA.
2) Lie by Omission. They said "he made $100s millions during the loss". Yes he did. Because his company broke the record for the highest number of drugs to gain FDA approval by a startup in U.S. history during the same time period. OBVIOUSLY he made money.
3) Stylistic lying. Telling something that is true, but doing so in such a way as to leave the impression the opposite is true. "Because the way he orchestrated his company, it was protected from the losses from the failed drug". The way he set up his company was done 3 years prior to this drug. It was not designed to avoid losses, it was designed to allow laboratories and chemist to be able to invest in a specific drug they are developing "skin in the game" instead of how other large pharma companies are designed to only allow people to invest in the company as a whole. This allows people who have a stake to make considerably more money than other companies from a drug they are developing, but by the same token - yes it increases chance of loss if it fails.

That's because they are racist.

 

[Darkwind]

Exactly zero positive.
This is a campaign by NYT against him.
Clearly.

In a recent interview - I like how Ramaswamy responded.
If you don't want to watch it... in a nutshell, the article NYT ran specifically about how he made $millions why other shareholders lost money on a failed Alzheimer medicine bid.

"They engaged in all 3 types of lying by the media - all in one article"
1) Outright lie. He did not sell one share of his holdings of that bid when it failed to pass FDA.
2) Lie by Omission. They said "he made $100s millions during the loss". Yes he did. Because his company broke the record for the highest number of drugs to gain FDA approval by a startup in U.S. history during the same time period. OBVIOUSLY he made money.
3) Stylistic lying. Telling something that is true, but doing so in such a way as to leave the impression the opposite is true. "Because the way he orchestrated his company, it was protected from the losses from the failed drug". The way he set up his company was done 3 years prior to this drug. It was not designed to avoid losses, it was designed to allow laboratories and chemist to be able to invest in a specific drug they are developing "skin in the game" instead of how other large pharma companies are designed to only allow people to invest in the company as a whole. This allows people who have a stake to make considerably more money than other companies from a drug they are developing, but by the same token - yes it increases chance of loss if it fails.

In another thread, someone had claimed that one of the bad policies that Trump promoted that harmed America was that he often called the 'Media' dishonest and 'Fake News", a term first used and coined by Hilary Clinton. That post ignored, with regard to the media, -- other aspects listed as well, but I'll stick with the media in this reply -- the fact that the media is a full-fledged member of the Democrat party. They carry their water, actively protect their leaders, and insert themselves into issues to derail the right so the Democrats don't have to bother. The example given by Dr. Peterson's conversation proves just a tiny portion of that. They also run cover by actively ignoring an issue that could be harmful to the Democrats and run a complete information blackout of deleterious events and information.

In another thread, I posted an interview of Vivek on CNN by Dana Bash in which she made excuses for the coverage and criminal lack of interrogative inquisition in the Biden administration, going so far as to make excuses for the administration that they would not do for a Republican.

This example you provided is precisely why I have moved away from the short-form information reporting prevalent in our legacy media.

When any daily subject or issue is given just 8 minutes of coverage and discussion, the direction of the information can be manipulated in such a way as to promote a particular way of thinking. With long-form interviews and discussions, an issue can be fully explored, and all the nuances can be discussed. This keeps the participants from manipulating the discussion by hiding information they don't care to reveal while also refuting misinformation of the media and government.

 

[Moonglow]

Vivek would do well to stop whining and start winning.

 

[Missourian]

How many negative stories has the Cobwebbed Lady run on Trump?

Thousands.

And how many positive?

Zero.

 

[BackAgain]

I wouldn’t know. I don’t usually read the NY Slimes.

 

[scruffy]

Exactly zero positive.
This is a campaign by NYT against him.
Clearly.

In a recent interview - I like how Ramaswamy responded.
If you don't want to watch it... in a nutshell, the article NYT ran specifically about how he made $millions why other shareholders lost money on a failed Alzheimer medicine bid.

"They engaged in all 3 types of lying by the media - all in one article"
1) Outright lie. He did not sell one share of his holdings of that bid when it failed to pass FDA.
2) Lie by Omission. They said "he made $100s millions during the loss". Yes he did. Because his company broke the record for the highest number of drugs to gain FDA approval by a startup in U.S. history during the same time period. OBVIOUSLY he made money.
3) Stylistic lying. Telling something that is true, but doing so in such a way as to leave the impression the opposite is true. "Because the way he orchestrated his company, it was protected from the losses from the failed drug". The way he set up his company was done 3 years prior to this drug. It was not designed to avoid losses, it was designed to allow laboratories and chemist to be able to invest in a specific drug they are developing "skin in the game" instead of how other large pharma companies are designed to only allow people to invest in the company as a whole. This allows people who have a stake to make considerably more money than other companies from a drug they are developing, but by the same token - yes it increases chance of loss if it fails.

What's the big deal with Rama, he's not white?

We could use some color around the White House, that way the libtards' use of the race card would be rendered moot.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

What's the big deal with Rama, he's not white?

We could use some color around the White House, that way the libtards' use of the race card would be rendered moot.

No it won't. Biden made it OK to be racist against any minority that doesn't vote Democrat.

 

[Marener]

Exactly zero positive.

That’s because he keeps saying dumb shit.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

How many negative stories has the Cobwebbed Lady run on Trump?

Thousands.

And how many positive?

Zero.

I bet there were plenty of positive stories before He beat the White Lady out of her turn.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

That’s because he keeps saying dumb shit.

Would you like to see a compilation of Biden saying dumb shit better than Trump ?

 

[Foxfyre]

Exactly zero positive.
This is a campaign by NYT against him.
Clearly.

In a recent interview - I like how Ramaswamy responded.
If you don't want to watch it... in a nutshell, the article NYT ran specifically about how he made $millions why other shareholders lost money on a failed Alzheimer medicine bid.

"They engaged in all 3 types of lying by the media - all in one article"
1) Outright lie. He did not sell one share of his holdings of that bid when it failed to pass FDA.
2) Lie by Omission. They said "he made $100s millions during the loss". Yes he did. Because his company broke the record for the highest number of drugs to gain FDA approval by a startup in U.S. history during the same time period. OBVIOUSLY he made money.
3) Stylistic lying. Telling something that is true, but doing so in such a way as to leave the impression the opposite is true. "Because the way he orchestrated his company, it was protected from the losses from the failed drug". The way he set up his company was done 3 years prior to this drug. It was not designed to avoid losses, it was designed to allow laboratories and chemist to be able to invest in a specific drug they are developing "skin in the game" instead of how other large pharma companies are designed to only allow people to invest in the company as a whole. This allows people who have a stake to make considerably more money than other companies from a drug they are developing, but by the same token - yes it increases chance of loss if it fails.

We don't have much of a free press anymore. Most of it, including the NYT, are controlled by a deep state organization that dictates what editorial policy will be from the propaganda they are to promote to what information they are required to suppress.

Ramaswamy is being actively attacked not only by the NYT but by most of the MSM because he is currently surging in the polls. Just as 99.9% of the press they put out on Donald Trump is negative and they don't care if it is dishonest. They do that to DeSantis too.

If these current front runners drop below the radar in public interest, you can expect the MSM to target whatever Republican emerges as the leader.

 

[BluesLegend]

New York Times has ran nearly 50 negative columns on Ramaswamy​

Democrats love smear campaigns and witch hunts. It's like the Nazi's propaganda on Jews.

 

[Marener]

Would you like to see a compilation of Biden saying dumb shit better than Trump ?

Vivek is clueless. We all know it.

 

[ActionJackson]

Exactly zero positive.
This is a campaign by NYT against him.
Clearly.

In a recent interview - I like how Ramaswamy responded.
If you don't want to watch it... in a nutshell, the article NYT ran specifically about how he made $millions why other shareholders lost money on a failed Alzheimer medicine bid.

"They engaged in all 3 types of lying by the media - all in one article"
1) Outright lie. He did not sell one share of his holdings of that bid when it failed to pass FDA.
2) Lie by Omission. They said "he made $100s millions during the loss". Yes he did. Because his company broke the record for the highest number of drugs to gain FDA approval by a startup in U.S. history during the same time period. OBVIOUSLY he made money.
3) Stylistic lying. Telling something that is true, but doing so in such a way as to leave the impression the opposite is true. "Because the way he orchestrated his company, it was protected from the losses from the failed drug". The way he set up his company was done 3 years prior to this drug. It was not designed to avoid losses, it was designed to allow laboratories and chemist to be able to invest in a specific drug they are developing "skin in the game" instead of how other large pharma companies are designed to only allow people to invest in the company as a whole. This allows people who have a stake to make considerably more money than other companies from a drug they are developing, but by the same token - yes it increases chance of loss if it fails.

The mainstream media doesn't go on the offensive unless their target is a true threat. Anyone who stands for America and nationalism and against the cancer of Globalism is the enemy. Ramaswamy should wear it as a badge of honor.

 

[scruffy]

Vivek is clueless. We all know it.

He is intelligent and insightful.

 

[Moonglow]

Much ado about nothing.

 

[Marener]

He is intelligent and insightful.

He’s not. He’s a dude that doesn’t know what he’s talking about but can bullshit the morons into thinking he does.

 

[odanny]

How many negative stories has the Cobwebbed Lady run on Trump?

Thousands.

And how many positive?

Zero.

The NYT has followed Trump for decades before he was President, because Trump insisted on always being in the news in NYC. There was one time the man-child pretended to be his own spokesman, John Miller.

 

[scruffy]

He’s not. He’s a dude that doesn’t know what he’s talking about but can bullshit the morons into thinking he does.

Sounds like the entirety of the DNC.