[W:720, 995]Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’

[Novichok]

My opinion is that you don't understand facts.

You also don't seem to comprehend that the topic of this thread is Trump calling dead US soldiers ‘losers’ and ‘suckers’.

You were not there so you are just repeating what you were told. We call it hearsay.

BTW, you forgot "allegedly". That sentence of yours could make the accused very rich if you were CNN and the target of your accusation a private person. Like that kid staring down the guy with a drum.

Do you want me to count how many posts in this thread are off-topic? Really?

 

[JBG]

Maybe because of the thousands of death threats that went around when Christine Blasey Ford publicly disagreed with him? That sort of thing?

I guess you don't believe in the constitutional right to confront your accuser. Christine Blasi Ford had many of the drawbacks of an anonymous complainer. It's very hard to effectively rebut a story from more than 30 years ago. Remembering the weather, much less rounding up other contrary witnesses, becomes a challenge.

What is it about people more liberal than myself seem to find a right in anonymous accusation? This would do Joe McCarthy proud. For those who don't know he waved around rolls of paper with alleged lists of communists. He refused to display the list.

 

[jpn]

I fact checked this with liberal fact check organization "Snopes". This is the first time I can recall Snopes not giving an answer. They usually describe a claim made as, for example, " True", "False", "Mostly true", "partly true" etc..
Here's what they said: "This article is republished here with permission from The Associated Press. This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors." And they post the article making the claim. That's liberal double talk for "We wish it was true, but there's no evidence supporting the claim.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ers-suckers/&usg=AOvVaw3CdwqM1U0_g10uUasFDMVt

This is not the kind of thing they do, generally. This is Atlantic article was well-sourced, published in a mainstream publication, and written by a respected journalist. (All those terms mean nothing to inhabitants of the right-wing alternative reality, of course).

Snopes is more in the business of shooting down, or verifying, whacky notions that get started in whacky publications or just begin appearing in Facebook and then forwarded on by non-mainstream publications.

Funny that you consider Snopes "liberal." It just reports what the facts are. On second thought, I guess that does make it "liberal" these days, doesn't it?

 

[Luce]

I guess you don't believe in the constitutional right to confront your accuser. Christine Blasi Ford had many of the drawbacks of an anonymous complainer. It's very hard to effectively rebut a story from more than 30 years ago. Remembering the weather, much less rounding up other contrary witnesses, becomes a challenge.

What is it about people more liberal than myself seem to find a right in anonymous accusation? This would do Joe McCarthy proud. For those who don't know he waved around rolls of paper with alleged lists of communists. He refused to display the list.

The Atlantic is not a court of law.

If he wants to see sources, he can sue the Atlantic.

 

[mrdeltoid]

This is not the kind of thing they do, generally. This is Atlantic article was well-sourced, published in a mainstream publication, and written by a respected journalist. (All those terms mean nothing to inhabitants of the right-wing alternative reality, of course).

Snopes is more in the business of shooting down, or verifying, whacky notions that get started in whacky publications or just begin appearing in Facebook and then forwarded on by non-mainstream publications.

Funny that you consider Snopes "liberal." It just reports what the facts are. On second thought, I guess that does make it "liberal" these days, doesn't it?

Since "The resistance" began it's 4 year attack on Trump, the term "well sourced" is a pretty low bar to meet. I remember a time when this story would have never made it past the editor's desk, let alone a "Bombshell" driving a news cycle on every MSM outlet. Well, maybe it would've been a paragraph or so in a gossip rag.

 

[Threegoofs]

Since "The resistance" began it's 4 year attack on Trump, the term "well sourced" is a pretty low bar to meet. I remember a time when this story would have never made it past the editor's desk, let alone a "Bombshell" driving a news cycle on every MSM outlet. Well, maybe it would've been a paragraph or so in a gossip rag.

Really?

How many stories with four different, high level sources, which are then confirmed by multiple news sources do you think have been spiked in the past?

And when, specifically?

[emoji849]

 

[vegas giants]

Since "The resistance" began it's 4 year attack on Trump, the term "well sourced" is a pretty low bar to meet. I remember a time when this story would have never made it past the editor's desk, let alone a "Bombshell" driving a news cycle on every MSM outlet. Well, maybe it would've been a paragraph or so in a gossip rag.

Was this the 1930's?

 

[jpn]

Since "The resistance" began it's 4 year attack on Trump, the term "well sourced" is a pretty low bar to meet. I remember a time when this story would have never made it past the editor's desk, let alone a "Bombshell" driving a news cycle on every MSM outlet. Well, maybe it would've been a paragraph or so in a gossip rag.

Funny, I don't remember a time like that, and I'm 64. The reporting used similar standards that reporters have used all my life.

What sources do you rely on to get the real facts?

 

[mrdeltoid]

Funny, I don't remember a time like that, and I'm 64. The reporting used similar standards that reporters have used all my life.

What sources do you rely on to get the real facts?

I'm more likely to believe sources that are willing to sign their name to it. Even then, somebody said, that somebody said, is just hearsay that doesn't really amount to much. I vote on the issues.

 

[Casca XV]

You mean like blocking anyone from the White House from testifying during the impeachment trial? Is that censorship to you?

No, That is called "Executive Privilege". Every President since and including George Washington has used it. You cant possibly be that ill-informed.

Censorship is trying to stop people from stating fact and opinions that contradict you ideology. It's only the Left that is doing this.