Jump to content
270soft Forum

Trump Leadership Shines Again


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

He’s called himself a nationalist. The source states Alt-Light holds many of the ideas of Alt-Right but not its nationalism. I think Miller is probably a nationalist too but I don’t know if he’s admitted that he is.

I think you're conflating 'white nationalism' with 'nationalism'. Bannon and Miller are nationalists. Alt-right types are white nationalists. Big difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/515062-trump-called-american-war-dead-in-french-cemetery-losers-report   Trump calls US dead “losers.” However, according to four sources with k

And yet people claim he is a true patriot. I genuinely don't understand how people still support him. 

I’m just wondering how @admin_270 @Conservative Elector 2 @ThePotatoWalrus and even though I’ve blocked them, what @servo75 and @billay react to this.

25 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Richard Spencer (who just endorsed Biden) coined the term 'alt-right'.

That's true, I forgot about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

How do you know? I've not read that anywhere. Likewise some teenagers could have trolled The Atlantic.

So I’m not sure you understand how the media works? In order for a story to be run, sources need to be confirmed by news outlets. You can’t just “troll the Atlantic and the AP” that’s not at all how this works. And yes, one of the sources was a four-star general, of whom we don’t have very many. Again, it had to be someone. I don’t doubt for a moment that he said it.

1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Not sure I follow. Is this a response to what I said?

Yes

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

So I’m not sure you understand how the media works? In order for a story to be run, sources need to be confirmed by news outlets. You can’t just “troll the Atlantic and the AP” that’s not at all how this works. And yes, one of the sources was a four-star general, of whom we don’t have very many. Again, it had to be someone. I don’t doubt for a moment that he said it.

Yes

What about calling in as someone who has hot information, but can't speak freely? I am talking about such an incident. I think the media is very sensational these days and could probably take the bait.

But my main question was, where is this noted about the general? I googled for it, nothing came up regarding a four-star general leaking this report. I also read articles on the incident. They spoke about anonymous sources not noting any general. Do you assume this just by the people who have been involved with the trip?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

So it wasnt a troll I think is the point

I sure *hope* it wasn't a teenage troll! No, it just sounds like something a troll would say. It's basically a projection of what libs want to hear, and how they think of Trump, fed back to them via their media. Like the Wolffe book.

Now, is it true? It might be. Or it might be true but out of context. Or it might be flat out fabricated. Having anonymous sources doesn't help here, and Goldberg's reason for keeping them anonymous (they don't want 'mean tweets') isn't reassuring. There's no question it's an election hit job, so motives are instantly suspect. Multiple people who were there have now gone on the record saying the relevant claims are false.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I sure *hope* it wasn't a teenage troll! No, it just sounds like something a troll would say. It's basically a projection of what libs want to hear, and how they think of Trump, fed back to them via their media. Like the Wolffe book.

Now, is it true? It might be. Or it might be true but out of context. Or it might be flat out fabricated. Having anonymous sources doesn't help here, and Goldberg's reason for keeping them anonymous (they don't want 'mean tweets') isn't reassuring. There's no question it's an election hit job, so motives are instantly suspect. Multiple people who were there have now gone on the record saying the relevant claims are false.

 

It’s also along the lines of what Trump said about McCains. It sort of reinforces what Trump has said about combat vets, POWs, and such. Additionally, how trustworthy is a Trump denial? Even conservatives are aware that he lies frequently. I’m likely to trust a 4-star general and the Associate Press (arguably the least biased news source) than I am Trump. Trump’s credibility for being believed is close to 0%. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

the Associate Press (arguably the least biased news source) than I am Trump.

This is the key thing for me. The AP doesn't get fooled very often.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I think you're conflating 'white nationalism' with 'nationalism'. Bannon and Miller are nationalists. Alt-right types are white nationalists. Big difference.

In a trove of emails provided to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group, Miller cited and promoted white nationalist ideologies of white genocide, immigrants as criminals and eugenics, all of which were once considered fringe and extreme. White nationalists embrace white supremacist and white separatist views.”
 

and along with this, Bannon told a crowd of alt-fighters to wear “racist” like a “badge of honor” a few years ago.

I think both are white nationalists; however, they know it is political suicide to present it openly. It leaks out of them instead.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think both are white nationalists; however, they know it is political suicide to present it openly. It leaks out of them instead.

Perhaps, but in terms of what they have said and done publicly, they aren't.

Perhaps Sanders is a communist, but knows it is political suicide to present it openly. But it leaks out of him instead.

(Oh gosh, that sounds terrible. 😀 )

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

This is the key thing for me. The AP doesn't get fooled very often.

Ya, but it's not really about whether the AP is getting fooled. It's about whether the anonymous source is telling the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, but it's not really about whether the AP is getting fooled. It's about whether the anonymous source is telling the truth.

They must think so. The bad Twitter thing is a not-great reason (I would've phrased it differently), but it could lead to things like death threats and other malignant actions against the source. If it is a 4-star general, could also publicly damage the military's representation as impartial. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Perhaps, but in terms of what they have said and done publicly, they aren't.

Perhaps Sanders is a communist, but knows it is political suicide to present it openly. But it leaks out of him instead.

(Oh gosh, that sounds terrible. 😀 )

I think Sanders is definetly to the left of where he presents himself. While he's never admitted to being a communist (and I doubt he is one), I definetly believe that he is a seize the means of productions socialist. He has heaped for too much praise on Cuba and on Venezuela (before their inevitable demise of course) for him to simply be a social democrat.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

How do you know that? How would they even come to a conclusion without doing an investigation?

Why would they publish it if they didn't think it was true? You're also assuming that the AP didn't do any sort of investigation on the sources, which in reality, they probably did. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Why would they publish it if they didn't think it was true? You're also assuming that the AP didn't do any sort of investigation on the sources, which in reality, they probably did. 

Oh yes, in the 12 hours since the story broke they've done an exhaustive investigation. 😂

Perhaps they forgot to interview the now many people who have gone on record saying the claims are false.

My guess is they don't know if it's true or not, they're just confirming the anonymous source is in fact saying Trump wouldn't go to an event because he didn't want rain on his hair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Oh yes, in the 12 hours since the story broke they've done an exhaustive investigation. 😂

Perhaps they forgot to interview the now many people who have gone on record saying the claims are false.

My guess is they don't know if it's true or not, they're just confirming the anonymous source is in fact saying Trump wouldn't go to an event because he didn't want rain on his hair.

You don't know what's happened. So you can't claim they didn't. And do you have sources on who these people are? I read the Fox News account of the story, but they're anonymous too. So apparently some anonymous sources are okay while others aren't? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

And do you have sources on who these people are?

Sure.

Tony Ornato (Secret Service Special Agent in charge of Presidential protective division)

Jordan Karem (Assistant to President)

John Bolton (NSA, there most of day)

Johnny DeStefano (Counselor)

Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Press Secretary)

Hogan Gidley (Deputy Press Secretary)

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/wtas-officials-say-the-atlantic-story-is-false/

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Sure.

Tony Ornato (Secret Service Special Agent in charge of Presidential protective division)

Jordan Karem (Assistant to President)

John Bolton (NSA, there most of day)

Johnny DeStefano (Counselor)

Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Press Secretary)

Hogan Gidley (Deputy Press Secretary)

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/wtas-officials-say-the-atlantic-story-is-false/

 

 

 

So everyone connected to Trump who has a distinct advantage of keeping him there? The only one who I'd put any faith in is the Secret Service Agent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

So everyone connected to Trump who has a distinct advantage of keeping him there?

You seem to think the person anonymously making these claims isn't hostile to Trump. Or that Goldberg (editor of Atlantic) isn't hostile to Trump. Or AP editors like Trump. C'mon, man!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

You seem to think the person anonymously making these claims isn't hostile to Trump. Or that Goldberg (editor of Atlantic) isn't hostile to Trump. Or AP editors like Trump. C'mon, man!

The newspaper writers are simply reporting - regardless of whether they like or dislike Trump. The AP never lets politics get into it - that's why they're so trusted. The anonymous person could be or could not be hostile to Trump, it depends. We won't know until (or if) the name is revealed. This what-about-ism is going a little too far...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

The anonymous person could be or could not be hostile to Trump, it depends. We won't know until (or if) the name is revealed.

That's a fun little game, isn't it?

It's obviously an election hit job. Strongly suggests anonymous who-ever wants to inflict damage on Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...