Jump to content

NY Times Publishes Op-Ed From Trump Senior Official


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/35515/nyts-anonymous-source-traitor-troll-or-tall-tale-michael-j-knowles?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

This guy gets it, especially in the last paragraph.

 

The time is coming to destroy these domestic enemies of our country. I can't wait.

 

 

The bolded is a big reason why I think Trump is bad for our country. Many could have said the same thing about all those actively trying to bring down and oppose Obama..it is okay to disagree vehemently with someone in public office, its why we have the greatest country in the world..everything is challenged....it does not mean people on either side are enemies of our country or enemies of the people...that rhetoric is what is the true enemy of our country. I dont think Trump is an enemy of the country..I think he is bad for the country, but that is a completely different thing.

 

Having said that, i found the second theory in the piece interesting. I agree with the author, no one knows how to steer and manipulate the press better than Trump..could this just be troll used to prove Trump's point on the MSM? Did Trump plant this thing on purpose? I think publishing this was the absolute wrong decision by theTimes, and as I said in the other thread it does go a long way towards proving Trump's point. I need @Deranged Rhino to weigh in here!?

 

Last, quick note on something I saw this morning. On CBS this morning, Major Garrett was talking about his own book coming out. on Trump..and while he said some of the anecdotes in the piece sound reasonable and close to things he has in his book, he had never, ever heard of any movement towards invoking the 25th amendment..and he is a pretty plugged in dude. He implied that was pretty clearly fiction, and as such cast doubt on the rest of the piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

The bolded is a big reason why I think Trump is bad for our country. Many could have said the same thing about all those actively trying to bring down and oppose Obama..it is okay to disagree vehemently with someone in public office, its why we have the greatest country in the world..everything is challenged....it does not mean people on either side are enemies of our country or enemies of the people...that rhetoric is what is the true enemy of our country. I dont think Trump is an enemy of the country..I think he is bad for the country, but that is a completely different thing.

 

Having said that, i found the second theory in the piece interesting. I agree with the author, no one knows how to steer and manipulate the press better than Trump..could this just be troll used to prove Trump's point on the MSM? Did Trump plant this thing on purpose? I think publishing this was the absolute wrong decision by theTimes, and as I said in the other thread it does go a long way towards proving Trump's point. I need @Deranged Rhino to weigh in here!?

 

Last, quick note on something I saw this morning. On CBS this morning, Major Garrett was talking about his own book coming out. on Trump..and while he said some of the anecdotes in the piece sound reasonable and close to things he has in his book, he had never, ever heard of any movement towards invoking the 25th amendment..and he is a pretty plugged in dude. He implied that was pretty clearly fiction, and as such cast doubt on the rest of the piece.

 

That paper and the WaPo have published NUMEROUS "anonymous source" articles. Can never trust them, they're liars and biased toward the unelected civil service of this country. That makes them undemocratic, and anti-American.

 

That's indisputable.

 

Edited by joesixpack
spelling errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

That paper and the WaPo have published NUMEROUS "anonymouse source" articles. Can never trust them, they're liars and biased toward the unelected civil service of this country. That makes them undemocratic, and anti-American.

 

That's indisputable.

 

of course it's disputable..and that it is disputable is in itself indisputable.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey it always makes a lot of sense to me that the non-politician billionaire from NYC  who took out 16 GOPe opponents, the Bush machine, the Clinton machine, the Obama machine (what there is of it anyway), and the MSM to become President of the United States has no idea what he is doing in office.    insert huge sarcasm emoji


But do let us thank the NY Times for confirming there is a deep state.  That was nice of them after screeching it was a "conspiracy theory" for so long. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, joesixpack said:


What constitutes a "credible source" when the Times can't even be used as one?

 

so in other words..you cant??? I don't want some crap on Info Wars or other such nonsense...show me one instance where the Times has protected an anonymous source and it has led to the death of American soldiers...just show me one instance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, plenzmd1 said:

so in other words..you cant??? I don't want some crap on Info Wars or other such nonsense...show me one instance where the Times has protected an anonymous source and it has led to the death of American soldiers...just show me one instance. 

 

That wasn't MY assertion. Keep your responses straight.

 

My assertion is that the Times is, at best, a work of FICTION. They use "anonymous sources" and have NO verification in the open of said sources.


Refute THAT.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, plenzmd1 said:

please link credible sources and stories to back this claim up...

 

Really? 

 

For starters, there was the unnecessary exposure of the SWIFT monetary transfers by terrorist groups that were monitored by US security.   Then ongoing publications of anti-terror strategies throughout the Iraq occupation.  Topped off by the publication few weeks ago exposing US spying networks in China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

Exceptin  if they are  blind republican  Trump supporters..then law enforcement should let the swamp be the swamp.Trump said so himself the other day

4 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

That wasn't MY assertion. Keep your responses straight.

 

My assertion is that the Times is, at best, a work of FICTION. They use "anonymous sources" and have NO verification in the open of said sources.


Refute THAT.

 

Quote

What else would you expect from an enemy of the people

You liked the  post and them posted this..don't run from your own words

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

No one's running from **** here, lackey of the deep state.

 

Refute my points or move along.

 

 

What is there to refute. Just cause you say something does not make it so. Dumb argument. I say Trump is racist..prove me wrong!

13 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Really? 

 

For starters, there was the unnecessary exposure of the SWIFT monetary transfers by terrorist groups that were monitored by US security.   Then ongoing publications of anti-terror strategies throughout the Iraq occupation.  Topped off by the publication few weeks ago exposing US spying networks in China.

and...please show direct causality between these stories( i confess I do not know these pieces) and American deaths on the battlefield.

 

And this conversation has gone off the rails..again my point was I think the Times fugged up here..I have said it many times and I think it hurts their  credibility.

Edited by plenzmd1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

What is there to refute. Just cause you say something does not make it so. Dumb argument. I say Trump is racist..prove me wrong!

and...please show direct causality between these stories( i confess I do not know these pieces) and American deaths on the battlefield.

 

And this conversation has gone off the rails..again my point was I think the Times fugged up here..I have said it many times and I think it hurts there credibility.

GG is pretty out there. Just sayin 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

What is there to refute.


Refute the fact that the NYT and WaPo rely almost exclusively on anonymous sources without any named source verification.

 

Refute that these "stories" are, therefore, not able to be relied on for anything other than entertainment purposes.

 

Edited by joesixpack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, joesixpack said:


Refute the fact that the NYT and WaPo rely almost exclusively on anonymous sources without any named source verification.

 

Refute that these "stories" are, therefore, not able to be relied on for anything other than entertainment purposes.

 

 

Times would disagree

 

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, joesixpack said:


Refute the fact that the NYT and WaPo rely almost exclusively on anonymous sources without any named source verification.

 

Refute that these "stories" are, therefore, not able to be relied on for anything other than entertainment purposes.

 

Trump is taking them as real 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...