The US Presidency 2020
- Thread starter FJAG
- Start date
- Status
Dimsum said:
This at least calls for a rebuttal or denial from Trump and it's not just a one-time comment that can be put down to Mary lying about it.
For anybody not trusting the Atlantic, there are dozens of other sites that are spinning this story as if their lives depended on it.
- Reaction score
- 5,487
- Points
- 1,360
Even CTV news ripped the story....."not one person on record".
Weinie said:
Google is everybody's friend with qualifications. It depends on which direction we're trying to spin the story.
In this case Google is a friend to both of us because it motivated you to find Trump's rebuttal! And so as Jackie Gleason used to say, 'Away we go'!
This story contains more than just the one accusation. It's suggested that Trump has a history of this sort of behaviour.
:cheers:
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 230
Dimsum said:
Hi Dimsum
About that Atlantic story that came out yesterday
John Bolton, who is no friend of the president and who was there, repudiates this via a passage in his recent anti-Trump book:
https://therightscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/bolton_paris1.jpg
https://therightscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/bolton_paris2-768x566.jpg
there’s a push by left for this ‘anonymous source’ to come out of the shadows and reveal themselves.
Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg explains why he used unnamed sources in report about Trump insulting dead soldiers:
"They don’t want to be inundated with angry tweets and all the rest..."
https://twitter.com/danielchaitin7/status/1301880528480673793
Note: The a/m was from https://therightscoop.com/even-john-boltons-book-disproves-crucial-parts-of-the-bombshell-atlantic-story-that-so-many-say-is-not-true/
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,278
- Points
- 1,160
QV said:
You do know that the only reason Trump is pushing for looser money and less interest is that he's a huge consumer of borrowed money and has gone to extremes to get financing.
:stirpot:
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 6,828
- Points
- 1,040
It would be easier to know that if we could find a clip of Trump saying that. It's still pretty much guaranteed that no person knows what any other person is thinking.
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 652
- Points
- 1,160
Weinie said:
"Trump and his aides pushed back hard against the reports, but then James LaPorta, a Marine Corps veteran and investigative reporter at The Associated Press, got confirmation from two sources. The Washington Post and The New York Times followed up with their own sources confirming Trump's dismissive comments about POWs and slain soldiers."
Link
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,421
- Points
- 1,010
shawn5o said:
So now, Trump supporter are allowed to decide which parts of Bolton's book are true and which ones are false. And are they to be the only "Interpreters-of-the-Bolton", one may ask?
Will that become like theology? Only the Priest of the cult can decide which parts of the Bible are to true and to be followed and which must simply be seen as allegories, subject to the priest's interpretation. And with no indication as to any basis to make such choice (other than a theology degree from Oral Roberts University ;D).
QV said:
I couldn't help but notice this part:
And this part:
So the fed has already done basically everything it reasonably can with the tools it has available to stimulate economic growth and prosperity. If you haven't been paying attention, the fed has cut the interest rate all the way down to below a tenth of a percent.
So, hypothetically, if the fed has already done basically everything it can, who else might conceptually bear some responsibility for the overall wealth and prosperity of the US and the growth of its economy?
- Reaction score
- 21,701
- Points
- 1,090
Fox is now confirming the story in The Atlantic.
https://twitter.com/JenGriffinFNC/status/1301975321495973889?s=19
https://twitter.com/JenGriffinFNC/status/1301975321495973889?s=19
Donald H said:
I'm skeptical it'll have much impact. I don't think there are many minds still open to being changed at this point. America seems to be very heavily polarized. Anyone who is still willing to support Trump at this juncture likely isn't going to finally suddenly change their mind just because he dishonours soldiers. There's really nothing new about that to anyone who's been paying attention. They either don't care or will choose not to believe it.
Donald H said:
That really does sound like you've conceded the point that Trump dishonours soldiers. If that is correct then a vehemently disagree just on general principle.
And I said IF it is correct. One thing that both sides in the political fight agree upon in America is that their troops are sacred cows and especially the dead and the wounded.
:cheers:
Donald H said:
I think it's pretty self evident at this point that any respect he may purport to show for the military or veterans is probably just to suit his own political goals. There's absolutely nothing about anything he's ever shown us that would lead me to believe he has any respect or veneration for people who put others before themselves. His actions in dodging the draft repeatedly and in blatantly insulting POWs, as well as undermining military discipline by pardoning or meddling in the proceedings against war criminals, is convincing enough for me.
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Points
- 1,260
dapaterson said:
At least he still has OAN and Qanon.
Some jokers projected this onto his hotel in D.C.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy7hPszYWRY
Captain Sully ( Miracle on the Hudson ) had this to say,
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 6,828
- Points
- 1,040
It'd still help if some names were provided. "Confirmations" have to demonstrably come from different sources of their own knowledge, not just the same people talking to different reporters or people who heard the tale from the original sources (ie. hearsay).
And yes, the latter does happen - Matt Taibbi unloaded on someone a while back for using people who were told the tale by the source as "confirmation" of the source's claims. That's why it's important to know the names: once you know who was present, you know who is a legitimate witness in the assertion/denial game and who is just passing along something they heard.
[Add: keep in mind that it's "October Surprise" season now; partisans understand that increasing numbers of voters vote early, so the traditional late-campaign dirt - stuff that has to look bad and hold together just until election day - is no longer as effective.]
And yes, the latter does happen - Matt Taibbi unloaded on someone a while back for using people who were told the tale by the source as "confirmation" of the source's claims. That's why it's important to know the names: once you know who was present, you know who is a legitimate witness in the assertion/denial game and who is just passing along something they heard.
[Add: keep in mind that it's "October Surprise" season now; partisans understand that increasing numbers of voters vote early, so the traditional late-campaign dirt - stuff that has to look bad and hold together just until election day - is no longer as effective.]
- Status
Similar threads
