Jump to content
270soft Forum

Trump Leadership Shines Again


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

That's what I'm saying! They are simply reporting an anonymous claim. They haven't done any sort of adequate investigation into it.

You literally have no proof behind that, so it's not a credible discussion to get into. Unless you're somehow in the Atlantic or the AP's news room, you don't know. And I don't know. So it's best not to discuss whether they've done "Any investigation". 

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.

2 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

You literally have no proof behind that, so it's not a credible discussion to get into. Unless you're somehow in the Atlantic or the AP's news room, you don't know. And I don't know. So it's best not to discuss whether they've done "Any investigation". 

So do you think they interviewed all those people, got quotes, and then decided not to run them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, why do this credible sources unveil their information, which is awful when true, just now? Why did they wait, I mean it would have been a shocker at any time, so it would have been their duty to speak out immediately. For me that's a political motivated move, even when true, because they calculated to release the information during the campaign period. Hiding something awful for two years, doesn't make you much better than the perpetrator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

By the way, why do this credible sources unveil their information, which is awful when true, just now? Why did they wait, I mean it would have been a shocker at any time, so it would have been their duty to speak out immediately. For me that's a political motivated move, even when true, because they calculated to release the information during the campaign period. Hiding something awful for two years, doesn't make you much better than the perpetrator.

Because it's American media. As I've said, all of their outlets are this blatantly disingenuous, sensationalist, and unethical, regardless of "ideological slant," (the fact that those are so completely undisguised and in one's face is also a real huge blow to any credibility there, as well).

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

Because it's American media. As I've said, all of their outlets are this blatantly disingenuous, sensationalist, and unethical, regardless of "ideological slant," (the fact that those are so completely undisguised and in one's face is also a real huge blow to any credibility there, as well).

Yeah, but that one is even more on the sources than on the media, which I hardly defend. The media can't report something they are not told unless the whole story is fake and made up by the media itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Yeah, but that one is even more on the sources than on the media, which I hardly defend. The media can't report something they are not told unless the whole story is fake and made up by the media itself.

Again, this isn't atypical or out of the ordinary for the snake-in-the-grass, post Cronkite American news media, regardless of ideological leaning. Please, stop pretending it's some unprecedented and shocking new escalation of lack of integrity that proves some new (and partisan) trend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Patine said:

Again, this isn't atypical or out of the ordinary for the snake-in-the-grass, post Cronkite American news media, regardless of ideological leaning. Please, stop pretending it's some unprecedented and shocking new escalation of lack of integrity that proves some new (and partisan) trend.

Ah, I am not so sure about that. The story is labelled as a new low of Trump, so yes it's also damaging to the sources and the media when hidden for two years, isn't it? 

Regarding partisan tactics: Yes, I believe most mainstream media is left-wing. I never got the whole newly popping up feud of Trump with Fox News, I certainly think it's stupid, but yeah I don't think Fox News is part of the mainstream media, as you might be viewed as a pariah outside the US when relying on it. It's probably also not that popular here, so perhaps people wouldn't even know Fox News. I don't know how much Austrians are aware of American news outlets. Anyway yes my impression is, left-wing media is quite in and is rarely criticized publicly.

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

Ah, I am not so sure about that. The story is labelled as a new low of Trump, so yes it's also damaging to the sources and the media when hidden for two years, isn't it? 

Regarding partisan tactics: Yes, I believe most mainstream media is left-wing. I never got the whole newly popping up feud of Trump with Fox News, I certainly think it's stupid, but yeah I don't think Fox News is part of the mainstream media, as you might be viewed as a pariah outside the US when relying on it. It's probably also not that popular here, so perhaps people wouldn't even know Fox News. I don't know how much Austrians are aware of American news outlets. Anyway yes my impression is, left-wing media is quite in and is rarely criticized publicly.

If mainstream U.S. media was "left-wing," what major political party would they support? It seems that you, like many people, actually believe the  Democratic Party of the United States is a full-out left-wing party with a powerful far-left-extremist wing. This just isn't so, and is the distorted viewpoint advanced by disingenuous liars and propaganda artists like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Back, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Counter, Tucker Carlson, and their ilk - none of whom seem to have any credible education in political science. The Democratic Party of the United States is, ideologically and in terms of it's significant elected members of real power and influence, centre-right to centrist to centre-left at the furthest. And there is no far-left-extremist wing of great influence - just, as I said above, some mild Social Democrats, ideologically, as we'd call them in Canada and Europe. The "radical left-wing," of American politics is protesters, social media influencers, NGO's, and bloggers - NOT the Democratic Party of the Untied States, who are not even under threat of their platform being hijacked by this actual left-wing, nor do they ever REALLY given them MUCH at all - just a few parsimonious crumbs from their table. You need a sense of perspective and proportion here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The anonymous source might be John Kelly. Trump was randomly attacking him at a conference today. 

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

What do you mean by 'confirm'? That there is an anonymous source claiming that?

Fox News's National Security Reporter confirmed the anonymous sources. 

“I’ve spoken with two U.S. senior officials who were on the trip to France who confirmed to me key details in The Atlantic article and the quotes attributed to the president,” Griffin said.

According to Griffin’s sources, one of whom she said was a former Trump administration official, “The president would say about American veterans, ‘What’s in it for them? They don’t make any money.'”

Griffin also said one of her sources said, “It was a character flaw of the President. He could not understand why someone would die for their country, not worth it.”

“Regarding the French trip to mark the end of WWI, according to this former official, the president was not in a good mood,” Griffin continued. “French President Macron had said something that made him mad, he questioned why he had to go to two cemeteries. ‘Why do I have to do two?’ His staff explained he could cancel, but he was warned they — they press — are going to kill you for this. The president was mad as a hornet when they did, according to this source.”

 

Here's Mayor Pete using Fox against Fox:

https://twitter.com/tweber/status/1302021294712553476?s=20

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Fox News's National Security Reporter confirmed the anonymous sources. 

“I’ve spoken with two U.S. senior officials who were on the trip to France who confirmed to me key details in The Atlantic article and the quotes attributed to the president,” Griffin said.

According to Griffin’s sources, one of whom she said was a former Trump administration official, “The president would say about American veterans, ‘What’s in it for them? They don’t make any money.'”

Griffin also said one of her sources said, “It was a character flaw of the President. He could not understand why someone would die for their country, not worth it.”

“Regarding the French trip to mark the end of WWI, according to this former official, the president was not in a good mood,” Griffin continued. “French President Macron had said something that made him mad, he questioned why he had to go to two cemeteries. ‘Why do I have to do two?’ His staff explained he could cancel, but he was warned they — they press — are going to kill you for this. The president was mad as a hornet when they did, according to this source.”

 

Here's Mayor Pete using Fox against Fox:

https://twitter.com/tweber/status/1302021294712553476?s=20

Not clear here if this is simply repeating the same anonymous claims, or different people. If different, the parts quoted aren't about the President's hair and rain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Not clear here if this is simply repeating the same anonymous claims, or different people. If different, the parts quoted aren't about the President's hair and rain.

Yeah, I don't know how much of it was confirmed since it is said that only key details were confirmed. The new part is the part about Trump being in a bad mood that he was requested to visit two cemeteries. I'm not sure if Fox wants to let its viewers no what parts were confirmed or not. I could see them not wanting to be clear on that since it might alienate their viewers.

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

I'm not sure if Fox wants to let its viewers no what parts were confirmed or not. I could see them not wanting to be clear on that since it might alienate their viewers.

That's what journalism is all about...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2020 at 12:11 AM, admin_270 said:

Sounds ridiculous. All anonymous sources. Trump has denied.

If there's harder evidence, or someone wants to go on the record, then I would take the claims more seriously.

Trump himself is on record publicly mocking POWs and attacking a Gold Star family (the parents of a US soldier who died in combat). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Patine said:

No, let me correct you here. That's what AMERICAN journalism is all about...

It’s not much better up north Mr. CBC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2020 at 4:34 PM, Hestia11 said:

You can say some are better than others, or whatever, but seven times is enough. Combined they should be enough. 

Well, I believe the quality of an excuse or distancing statement matters as well. The quality signals whether it is meant sincere or not. Likewise, I think it needs a strong condemnation of the KKK and Alt-Right movement as well, but Trump failed here most likely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Well, I believe the quality of an excuse or distancing statement matters as well.

You literally said some were better than others, which means some were good. 

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

You literally said some were better than others, which means some were good. 

Yes, and I meant it that way. I try to value when something's good even when I might be biased towards Republican talking points. I am not in the stage of fundamental opposition.

 

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

You mean McCain? Ya, he doesn't like McCain. I can believe he's said pretty rough stuff about McCain in private.

and in public

  • Upvote 1
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...