• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

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

trump doesn't do rules.

Sure he does, Just not the arbitrary, non-codified rules of the chattering class in Washington.

But did any republicans speak ill of Roy Moore? Or did they dissemble and issue non-denial denials?

What a silly question. The answer is yes. Trump even endorsed Luther Strange against Moore.
 
Even if the sources were named you be whining about how they were lying.

Nope, if the sources were named, we would know if they were actually in the meeting that morning, if they have strong credibility etc....

Why don't you want to know that information?
 
Nope, if the sources were named, we would know if they were actually in the meeting that morning, if they have strong credibility etc....

Why don't you want to know that information?

I would love to know that information.


But those sources are not stupid
 
It’s pretty obvious by now that Kelly is one of the sources.

LOL. You are still speaking in baseless assumptions, I see. :roll:

When faced with the fact that you can't corroborate an anonymous source the intelligent people reject the claim until their is verifiable proof... everyone else makes presumptions to fit their preconceived belief.
 
Nope, if the sources were named, we would know if they were actually in the meeting that morning, if they have strong credibility etc....

Why don't you want to know that information?

He doesn't want to know the information because he likes the lies he is telling himself.
 
LOL. You are still speaking in baseless assumptions, I see. :roll:

When faced with the fact that you can't corroborate an anonymous source the intelligent people reject the claim until their is verifiable proof... everyone else makes presumptions to fit their preconceived belief.

The sources are credible
 
Nope, if the sources were named, we would know if they were actually in the meeting that morning, if they have strong credibility etc....

Why don't you want to know that information?

They would be murdered by boogs. Or at least that's what they would be told.
 
Even if the sources were named you be whining about how they were lying.

Nope, if we knew the names we would know where they were and whether they would have first hand knowledge.

Also, your guess that one of the sources is Kelly fails to consider a key problem with that presumption: If Kelly were one of the sources there would be no justification for anonymity. He doesn't work for Trump anymore, nor does he work in government. Furthermore, Kelly hasn't shied away from speaking against Trump since his ouster. So, by logical deduction, the only reason why someone outside of the WH would want to remain anonymous is that they have a reputation to maintain and don't want to be caught spreading lies.
 
Full stop. You did say exactly that. I shall paste your exact quote:

"The named sources cannot prove it didnt happen...."

Why do you lie about things so readily proven false?
What I didnt say, that your lack of context left out, was that the options were not either those claiming "we didn't hear him say that" are lying, and therefore he said it, or telling the truth, and therefore he didn't say it. Those are not the only options. Context matters.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Nope, if we knew the names we would know where they were and whether they would have first hand knowledge.

Also, your guess that one of the sources is Kelly fails to consider a key problem with that presumption: If Kelly were one of the sources there would be no justification for anonymity. He doesn't work for Trump anymore, nor does he work in government. Furthermore, Kelly hasn't shied away from speaking against Trump since his ouster. So, by logical deduction, the only reason why someone outside of the WH would want to remain anonymous is that they have a reputation to maintain and don't want to be caught spreading lies.

Your security clearance follows you for life
 
Your security clearance follows you for life

As a holder of a TS, I can assure you that it does not.

Not only does it not follow you for life, but even with the proper clearance you only have access to need-to-know data which nobody outside the Government has. There is a renewal process that everyone must follow every few years to maintain that clearance.

In the case of a former gov employee who has a TS clearance or higher, or a current TS cleared employee not on the need-to-know list, you'd need to be cleared by the controlling office to be read-in on a project before you would be granted access to information. In reality, the "Need-to-Know" is the ultimate and unquestioned clearance. Without it your clearance means nothing, and with it your clearance means nothing. There are many cases where uncleared individuals will get access to classified data because the classification authority determines a need to know (a good example for this would security briefings for presidential candidates), there are no cases where a cleared individual has legal access to cleared data where they have not been placed on the need-to-know roster.

What this has to do with this discussion, however, is a mystery.. other than to reinforce that you tend to say stupid things on topics you know nothing about.
 
Last edited:
There is no context that will save the illogical premise of that statement. No named source can ever prove something didn't happen because it is impossible to prove a negative.
You said that I said the story must be true. That is where the context comes in. I did not state in my post that you left things out of that the story must be true because they cannot prove it wrong. My comments were specifically in regards to not being able to prove the accusation wrong from the claims made, as others were claiming was done or saying that otherwise those claiming they didn't hear it were lying.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
They are anonymous....like deepthroat was
All of Deep Throat's allegations were independently verified, except for the one that he tried to warn Woodward and Bernstein away from. In other words he would advise them of a payment or transaction and "Deep Throat" was never the only source. This is far different, where there is no proof and no one is speaking for the record.
 
As a holder of a TS, I can assure you that it does not.

Not only does it not follow you for life, but even with the proper clearance you do only have access to need-to-know data which nobody outside the Government has. There is a renewal process that everyone must follow every few years to maintain that clearance.

In the case of a former gov employee who has a TS clearance or higher, or a current TS cleared employee not on the need-to-know list, you'd need to be cleared by the controlling office to be read-in on a project before you would be granted access to information.

What this has to do with this discussion, however, is a mystery.. other than to reinforce that you tend to say stupid things on topics you know nothing about.

If trump said this will you vote for him?
 
All of Deep Throat's allegations were independently verified, except for the one that he tried to warn Woodward and Bernstein away from. In other words he would advise them of a payment or transaction and "Deep Throat" was never the only source. This is far different, where there is no proof and no one is speaking for the record.

Not initially. They published over 200 articles on watergate mostly using anonymous sources. This story is just the beginning
 
The Atlantic specified which conversation this was allegedly said, Bolton said, he was there, that this is false.

But now Bolton is lying?
No it didn't. You are making that assumption based on them linking it to the decision not to travel to the cemetery but that was not stated as exactly when it was said. The losers comment was said to allegedly be made during a conversation that morning with senior staff. No other context or info is given about what exactly that particular conversation was about or who from Senior staff was involved.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Yes, we do, the ****ing article says it was.....I mean holy ****, are we now saying the article is lying?
No it doesnt. It does not specific a specific conversation, only that it was in the morning with Senior staff. That does not mean it had to include all senior staff not that it was a deciding conversation.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom