Anonymous Cannot Be Trusted

[NeverTrump]

I trust the bias of the NYT. They wouldn't bend over backwards to allow the anonymous op-ed if they thought it might help Trump. They wouldn't bend over backwards to allow the anonymous op-ed if they didn't find the source credible.

I trust them to have accurately characterized the status of the author.


I don't think it would be Mike Pence. His soul is bought and paid for by the Prince of Orangeness. That would be pretty amazing if it were Pence -- but I just don't believe it. And I don't think Trump's outrage is an act.



Anyway, I trust the NYT and I trust that they interrogated the source to learn their motives, and so I trust the source to a significant degree.

I'm not saying that the NYT willingly helped the President, I'm saying the WH is willingly trolling the country and part of it anyway is using this story to work it in their favor.

 

[Amelia]

Good recap by CNN on the 25th. Majority of the 15 Cabinet members AND Pence. When trump denies it, Cabinet votes 🗳 again. Then 2/3 of each chamber.

None of this will happen until McConnell gets kavanaugh first. The Kavanaugh Court could easily sit on the Mueller Report. McConnell must realize that GOPs would be better off in 2020, even 2018, with Pence/Kasich.

Kasich will bring back Suburban GOPs and many Independents, just for starters. They would be tough to beat in 2020. Pence would keep the Evangelicals, even this year, as he’s currently doing on the stump.

I understand them waiting until they get Kavanaugh. But do you really think people would return to the GOP for a Pence ticket even if Kasich was on it?

I'd think the GOP would be much more damaged than that by the impeachment. All these people were Trump enablers. If it got so bad that they were finally willing to boot Trump, I don't think people would rally to a ticket with Trump's sphincter-licking vice president on it.

So, things would have to get many degrees worse than they are now before there would be an impeachment. And if they got that bad, how could they not be in for an electoral spanking? I think the GOP will take a page from Trump's book (and Bill Clinton's) and just try to brazen this out.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I don't know how you came to that conclusion reading my post...

That's what you seemed to be saying .... that the White House could have penned the anonymous NYT article.

From where I sit, that notion is absurd.

 

[apdst]

Michael Cohen and Lanny Davis are people that the liberals should look hard at if they want to prop up Anonymous as some sort of hero. That didn't work out too much. Now, CNN did a special with George Papadopoulos. This stuff sickens me just as much as those people being in the WH.

So, what's going to be your stance if it turns out that the NYT fabricated this op-ed?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

CT's, even those pushed by the mainstream, are nothing more than CT's.
There's a place for them...and it's not in political discussion.

Iirc, you bring a number to the discussion when you come.
D33pSt4t3™

 

[Rogue Valley]

I'm not saying that the NYT willingly helped the President, I'm saying the WH is willingly trolling the country and part of it anyway is using this story to work it in their favor.

But of course. The White House trolls this country everyday. No one with a working brain allows Trump White House/Base yammering to color their viewpoints. Not after almost 2 years in.

The White House is a corrupt cesspool of unmitigated dysfunction. Nothing they say will change that fact. Trumps polling numbers verify that his "messages" have little gravitas with the American people.

 

[NeverTrump]

That's what you seemed to be saying .... that the White House could have penned the anonymous NYT article.

From where I sit, that notion is absurd.

Someone in the WH did. I'm not saying it's the President. I really don't think so, however the WH is capitalizing on it and I have reason to suspect that they are using the story for their own advantage the best way they can. In fact I wouldn't be surprised that all those denying they wrote it, but not strongly denouncing the writer probably agree with and know more about what's going on than the President, who seems to just watch Fox News all day. It wouldn't surprise me if the "shadow government," is a lot bigger than what the Op-Ed writer wrote about. Maybe they don't even know that it might include everyone but the President's family.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

This Opinion piece is in total harmony with at least four expose books on Trumps White House that have been published, the latest from Bob Woodward.

1) The op-ed literally lines up almost exactly with Woodward's portrayal of the White House.

It also matches reports from GOP members since Trump's first year in office.

Still waiting on the report from someone in the mix which says Trump runs an admirably tight ship — being the awesomest alpha billionaire businessman guy and all that.
That's one of his main selling points, iirc.


Trump said that too much turnover in the executive branch is a sign of failing.

Trump is either right or wrong about that.
Maybe Trump is right that too much turnover is a sign of a poorly run executive branch.

Or maybe Trump is wrong.
Maybe Trump doesn't know enough to know if excessive turnover is a sign of bad management of the executive branch..


Either way, it looks bad for Trump when you judge Trump by his own standard.
Must be the fault of someone else.
Trump ain't responsible for his own job performance.
Things are just unfair, unfair, unfair for Trump — poor little guy.

 

[Cardinal]

I'm one of those who believe that the author would have done more by the country by quitting and adding his voice to those who have already expressed the same warnings about what's happening in the White House.

But that said, I can't help but feel that watching how the President reacts to the anonymous op-ed is quite educational as well. Let's be clear, in addition to the Woodward book, the op-ed was always going to be Trump's Kobayashi Maru. There's no way he could react to either of them in which he was going to win, but there are definitely worse ways to lose, and Trump is charging for the latter options like a crazed bull. He's justifying the claims in the op-ed and the book with near perfection.

 

[Mycroft]

CT? NO. Gossip? Hell yeah. Note. I didn't explain who wrote the OP-Ed. I only speculated about who the likely culprits were, and why they shouldn't be trusted.

CTs usually try to pin the event on some type of shadowy group. And that the person exposing the CT should be trusted rather than the official story.

So once again, you are wrong.

LOL!!

You concocted an elaborate CT and based it on the ridiculous notion that the NYT is helping Trump.

 

[NeverTrump]

LOL!!

You concocted an elaborate CT and based it on the ridiculous notion that the NYT is helping Trump.

You can falsely think that but that is not what I said. I said the NYT is helping the Op-Ed writer who was helping the WH.

 

[NeverTrump]

I'm one of those who believe that the author would have done more by the country by quitting and adding his voice to those who have already expressed the same warnings about what's happening in the White House.

There is no by-line either so that means that we don't know who at the New York Times knows who anonymous is, but man I would surely love to see that interrogation and the debate over whether or not to publish it. Hopefully makes for great TV in The Fourth Estate Season 2.

 

[Cardinal]

There is no by-line either so that means that we don't know who at the New York Times knows who anonymous but man I would surely love to see that interrogation.

Why would there be a by-line for an op-ed that was anonymously written? I don't and have never worked in news so I'm genuinely curious if I'm missing something.

 

[NeverTrump]

Why would there be a by-line for an op-ed that was anonymously written? I don't and have never worked in news so I'm genuinely curious if I'm missing something.

They used an op-ed as a breaking news story. So it breaks all types of rules and perhaps has impacted journalism in ways we don't even realize yet.

 

[Cardinal]

They used an op-ed as a breaking news story. So it breaks all types of rules and perhaps has impacted journalism in ways we don't even realize yet.

I'm going to wait on somebody like Kobie or Fearandloathing to drop in and say whether bylines are used for anonymously contributed op-eds. I honestly don't know one way or the other.

 

[BWG]

It also matches reports from GOP members since Trump's first year in office.

Still waiting on the report from someone in the mix which says Trump runs an admirably tight ship — being the awesomest alpha billionaire businessman guy and all that.
That's one of his main selling points, iirc.


Trump said that too much turnover in the executive branch is a sign of failing.

Trump is either right or wrong about that.
Maybe Trump is right that too much turnover is a sign of a poorly run executive branch.

Or maybe Trump is wrong.
Maybe Trump doesn't know enough to know if excessive turnover is a sign of bad management of the executive branch..


Either way, it looks bad for Trump when you judge Trump by his own standard.
Must be the fault of someone else.
Trump ain't responsible for his own job performance.
Things are just unfair, unfair, unfair for Trump — poor little guy.

Yeah here's a couple

“You know, I don’t know how to talk about it, yet. I mean honestly, I’m still processing it,” Sasse (Sen. Ben (R-NE) said. “It’s just so similar to what so many of us hear from senior people around the White House, you know, three times a week. So it’s really troubling, and yet in a way, not surprising.”

“This is what all of us have understood to be the situation from Day One,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters. He added, “That’s why I think all of us encourage the good people around the president to stay.”

 

[Mycroft]

You can falsely think that but that is not what I said. I said the NYT is helping the Op-Ed writer who was helping the WH.

a=b
b=c
a=c