Joe Biden on the Atlantic article

[pjohns]

There is plenty of evidence that Trump has never respected any endeavor that didn’t result in a personal profit for the individual involved. No need to define it to just the military.

Well, President Trump donates his annual salary--$400,000, or 1.6 million dollars for four years; 3.2 million dollars if he is re-elected--to the VA; to the National Park Service; to the Department of Health and Human Services, in an effort to combat the coronavirus; etc.

You guys keep bragging that you didn’t elect a saint and then bust out into vapors when people you want to vote for your not-saint guy get disgusted with how much of a not-saint he is.

It is true that he was elected as Commander-in-Chief--not as Minister-in-Chief.

But this is not what the left means when it attempts to smear the man.

It is attempting to claim that he is lower on the moral order than any other president in modern times--perhaps lower than any other president, period.

So let us be candid: That is the source of the objection.

 

[beefheart]

I see that you chosen to believe the Atlantic article--uncritically...

I see that you have chosen to believe cult leader. Who am I kidding, you have no choice when you are in a cult...:lamo

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Well, President Trump donates his annual salary--$400,000, or 1.6 million dollars for four years; 3.2 million dollars if he is re-elected--to the VA; to the National Park Service; to the Department of Health and Human Services, in an effort to combat the coronavirus; etc.



It is true that he was elected as Commander-in-Chief--not as Minister-in-Chief.

But this is not what the left means when it attempts to smear the man.

It is attempting to claim that he is lower on the moral order than any other president in modern times--perhaps lower than any other president, period.

So let us be candid: That is the source of the objection.

Well, since we are being candid:

-I don’t know why you brought up him donating his salary. Its a performative gesture when we know he’s made millions off of taxpayers from his golf courses. Plus, if he’s a billionaire, I’m not clear on why his giving up change in the cushions is some remarkable gesture.

-Donald Trump is easily the least moral person to hold that office at least in my lifetime, I’m 46 so YMMV. I’m not going to waste either of our time with the scroll of objectively immoral items because you’re just going ot hand wave them away. What I will say is this: He was brought into office on the declaration that he would drain the swamp and be an ethical anti-Hillary. That was the deal on the table from the GOP 4 years ago. The outsider riding in to save us from the swamp of Washington. And whenever we find out that is not the case, the first thing the right does is tell us that he’s no better than all the people you told us 4 years ago he was better than and that’s why we should vote for him.

I’m not interested in *any* republican ever again whining about hypocrisy. I just don’t care because neither do any of you.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I see that you chosen to believe the Atlantic article--uncritically...

Uncritically would require me to dismiss it outright. Trump’s history is to mock and demean, and we’ve already heard hi disparage military personnel.

I am fortunate I don’t suffer from amnesia. Praise be to Allah.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

I see that you have chosen to believe cult leader. Who am I kidding, you have no choice when you are in a cult...:lamo

And you believe 'Anonymous Sources'.You can expect to hear from many more of them before election day. They tend to disappear back in their cubbyholes shortly thereafter.

 

[noonereal]

And you believe 'Anonymous Sources'.You can expect to hear from many more of them before election day. They tend to disappear back in their cubbyholes shortly thereafter.

watergate

 

[beefheart]

And you believe 'Anonymous Sources'.You can expect to hear from many more of them before election day. They tend to disappear back in their cubbyholes shortly thereafter.

Remember Watergate?

Evidently you don't.

Keep spinning, its funny.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Remember Watergate?

Evidently you don't.

Keep spinning, its funny.

WAtergate from how many years ago? And how many 'anonymous sources' have there been since then?

As well, if you read the post carefully, I said "tend to disappear" - and I shouldn't have to explain what that means.

 

[ReubenSherr]

There are now three confirmed, named sources vs. one anonymous source.

The only comparison to Watergate will be the scandal the Biden Campaign will be in, when it is confirmed that Biden purposely released a story to the public as truth, that was based on one anonymous source. And purposely timed a false story about military voters a week before military ballots went out.

BTW with Watergate, the anonymous source did not wait two years before releasing information to a journal. Which, in this case, is extremely suspicious.

 

[beefheart]

WAtergate from how many years ago? And how many 'anonymous sources' have there been since then?

As well, if you read the post carefully, I said "tend to disappear" - and I shouldn't have to explain what that means.

Does it matter how many years ago? Anonymous sources are a long tradition in journalism, you should know that.

 

[MTAtech]

There are now three confirmed, named sources vs. one anonymous source.

The only comparison to Watergate will be the scandal the Biden Campaign will be in, when it is confirmed that Biden purposely released a story to the public as truth, that was based on one anonymous source. And purposely timed a false story about military voters a week before military ballots went out.

BTW with Watergate, the anonymous source did not wait two years before releasing information to a journal. Which, in this case, is extremely suspicious.

Gen. Kelly, when asked by Trump to state that the story wasn’t true, refused to do so. That’s a confirmation that the Atlantic article IS true.

To attack anonymous sources is also meritless. Using anonymous sources, who fear retribution, is a standard in journalism.

 

[ReubenSherr]

To attack anonymous sources is also meritless. Using anonymous sources, who fear retribution, is a standard in journalism.

To attack confirmed, named sources is meritless.

And prioritizing anonymous sources over confirmed, named sources is NOT a standard in journalism.

Especially when the confirmed, named sources outnumber the anonymous sources.

How well did it work out for the NYT when an anonymous source fed them information that Bush was not going to vote for Trump, and Bush himself had to come out and clear that up?

 

[MTAtech]

To attack confirmed, named sources is meritless.

And prioritizing anonymous sources over confirmed, named sources is NOT a standard in journalism.

Especially when the confirmed, named sources outnumber the anonymous sources.

How well did it work out for the NYT when an anonymous source fed them information that Bush was not going to vote for Trump, and Bush himself had to come out and clear that up?

When several anonymous sources say the same thing, it's journalistically confirmed.

But when we add this to Trump's previous distain for military people in the past -- such as what he said about John McCain, what he said about Gold Star families, coupled with what he just said YESTERDAY -- that generals are warmongers who are conspiring with defense contractors, we see a clear pattern and that pattern tells us that he surely said these things.

But, we know this will not shake your support for him. Trump can machine gun dozens of civilians on Fifth Avenue and it wouldn't shake your support. That's how cults work.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

When several anonymous sources say the same thing, it's journalistically confirmed.

I just spoke to several anonymous sources and they all said that's nonsense. And if you have any doubts I can quote dozens more.

 

[MTAtech]

I just spoke to several anonymous sources and they all said that's nonsense. And if you have any doubts I can quote dozens more.

The difference, of course, is that you aren't a journalist who is working for a respected publication that maintains standards. You can bet that the editor of the Atlantic questioned the reporter about the credibility of the sources. Yours, not so much.

 

[sjmay]

When several anonymous sources say the same thing, it's journalistically confirmed.

But when we add this to Trump's previous distain for military people in the past -- such as what he said about John McCain, what he said about Gold Star families, coupled with what he just said YESTERDAY -- that generals are warmongers who are conspiring with defense contractors, we see a clear pattern and that pattern tells us that he surely said these things.

But, we know this will not shake your support for him. Trump can machine gun dozens of civilians on Fifth Avenue and it wouldn't shake your support. That's how cults work.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE ARE SEVERAL?

Could it just be the same news outlets, talking to THE SAME SOURCE? Nope, couldn't be that....ok great...prove it please.

 

[sjmay]

The difference, of course, is that you aren't a journalist who is working for a respected publication that maintains standards. You can bet that the editor of the Atlantic questioned the reporter about the credibility of the sources. Yours, not so much.

WTF the editor AND the reporter are the same ****ing person....do you think he talked to himself?

 

[OpportunityCost]

When several anonymous sources say the same thing, it's journalistically confirmed.

But when we add this to Trump's previous distain for military people in the past -- such as what he said about John McCain, what he said about Gold Star families, coupled with what he just said YESTERDAY -- that generals are warmongers who are conspiring with defense contractors, we see a clear pattern and that pattern tells us that he surely said these things.

But, we know this will not shake your support for him. Trump can machine gun dozens of civilians on Fifth Avenue and it wouldn't shake your support. That's how cults work.

Much like the dossier, a journalistic circle jerk of bull****.

 

[ReubenSherr]

When several anonymous sources say the same thing, it's journalistically confirmed.

Where is your evidence that SEVERAL anonymous sources said the same thing?

Independent sources, not one group of people acting together?

Because we have three confirmed, named sources verifying the claim is false.

Why would all of these “sources” remained silent for two years? If there are, in fact, more than one?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

To attack confirmed, named sources is meritless.

And prioritizing anonymous sources over confirmed, named sources is NOT a standard in journalism.

Most of the people commenting in Trump's favor are known to be liars who lie on Trump's behalf. Trump, the Liar-in-Chief, has lied over 20,000 times since assuming office.

I mean you could pick any random person off the street and have them speak on any random topic known to humankind, and they'd more likely to convey something with more accuracy and honesty than Trump or anyone associated with Trump.

Trump's problem is a credibility problem. The sources Griffin and Goldberg get their information from are credible, Pentagon sources. People trust the military. No one, not even Trump supporters think Trump is ever telling the truth on any topic.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

The difference, of course, is that you aren't a journalist who is working for a respected publication that maintains standards. You can bet that the editor of the Atlantic questioned the reporter about the credibility of the sources. Yours, not so much.

In fact I can tell you anything I want, as can any 'journalist', and you can choose to believe me or not. And given that very few people trust the media anymore, and with good reason, we should all be more suspicious of them no matter which side we fall politically.

Will you continue to believe further 'anonymous sources' as we get closer to the election? I believe some people hope you do.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Where is your evidence that SEVERAL anonymous sources said the same thing?

The same source who said there were several sources.

 

[vegas giants]

In fact I can tell you anything I want, as can any 'journalist', and you can choose to believe me or not. And given that very few people trust the media anymore, and with good reason, we should all be more suspicious of them no matter which side we fall politically.

Will you continue to believe further 'anonymous sources' as we get closer to the election? I believe some people hope you do.

This is from a,credible source

 

[vegas giants]

Where is your evidence that SEVERAL anonymous sources said the same thing?

Independent sources, not one group of people acting together?

Because we have three confirmed, named sources verifying the claim is false.

Why would all of these “sources” remained silent for two years? If there are, in fact, more than one?

There are 4

 

[ReubenSherr]

There are 4

Please provide a source verifying that 4 people independently approached the Atlantic about this, two years after the event took place.

Quite a coincidence.