WH Trump Resisters

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

WH Trump Resisters

Postby KeithE » Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:25 pm

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
Hope the author comes forward (he/she/they should - **** their jobs, go public and resign).

A group of cabinet members are part of that resistance (according to the article).

Of course in response Trump just called this “fake news” from the totally “discredited NYTimes” who "did not get a single vote in the election", and threw out some supposedly new article about his success economically (which I have not been able to find yet).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8857
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:20 pm

KeithE wrote:I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
Hope the author comes forward (he/she/they should - **** their jobs, go public and resign).



I’m hoping they don’t resign just yet. We may need people on the inside to continue to tell us about the dangerous behavior going on inside the White House.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5996
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby KeithE » Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:15 pm

Also for your consideration:

13 people who might be the author of The New York Times op-ed.
And the author suggests many people are part of the “Resistance”. So many on this list (an inside-the-WH “cabal”) may be in on this corralling of Trump.

While Trump Clearly Horrible President, Critics Denounce Right-Wing 'Unelected Cabal' Represented by Anonymous Op-Ed
The Op-Ed author is no left-winger and the “resisters” are probably all WH republicans.

And yesterday’s news:
Bob Woodward’s Book “Fear"
which supports the Op-Ed author about the chaotic nature of the Trump White House.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8857
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Jim » Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:27 pm

KeithE wrote:Also for your consideration:

13 people who might be the author of The New York Times op-ed.
And the author suggests many people are part of the “Resistance”. So many on this list (an inside-the-WH “cabal”) may be in on this corralling of Trump.

While Trump Clearly Horrible President, Critics Denounce Right-Wing 'Unelected Cabal' Represented by Anonymous Op-Ed
The Op-Ed author is no left-winger and the “resisters” are probably all WH republicans.

And yesterday’s news:
Bob Woodward’s Book “Fear"
which supports the Op-Ed author about the chaotic nature of the Trump White House.

You obviously have gone hook, line and sinker for the letter being legit. How naïve! It would be interesting to know who at the NYT actually wrote this and attributed it to an anonymous source. Woodward also did a book-number on Bush after he was elected, so what else is knew?
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Sandy » Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:05 pm

Woodward's books, including the one on Bush, have all been factually correct, heavily documented, and generally unchallengeable. There's always lots of conservative whining and shrieking when it comes to truth being exposed about one of their faves. Find something Woodward wrote that wasn't factually correct. Then you can whine and shriek. And I have yet to find a conservative whiner about the New York Times or The Washington Post who can point to any factual errors that they publish.

It's a credibility issue. To whine about Woodward and the Times, but believe what comes out of the repugnant liar-in-chief in the White House is laughable. You've been deceived by Trump for so long, you can't recognize a true statement when you read it.
Sandy
 
Posts: 8902
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Haruo » Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:00 pm

Jim wrote:
KeithE wrote:Also for your consideration:

13 people who might be the author of The New York Times op-ed.
And the author suggests many people are part of the “Resistance”. So many on this list (an inside-the-WH “cabal”) may be in on this corralling of Trump.

While Trump Clearly Horrible President, Critics Denounce Right-Wing 'Unelected Cabal' Represented by Anonymous Op-Ed
The Op-Ed author is no left-winger and the “resisters” are probably all WH republicans.

And yesterday’s news:
Bob Woodward’s Book “Fear"
which supports the Op-Ed author about the chaotic nature of the Trump White House.

You obviously have gone hook, line and sinker for the letter being legit. How naïve! It would be interesting to know who at the NYT actually wrote this and attributed it to an anonymous source. Woodward also did a book-number on Bush after he was elected, so what else is knew?

Jim, you appear to be unaware that Woodward also did a book on, and critical of, Obama, and that Trump very clearly and explicitly praised Woodward and his criticisms, in that case. Woodward's track record on this stuff is nonpartisan.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12283
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Sandy » Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:33 pm

KeithE wrote:Also for your consideration:

13 people who might be the author of The New York Times op-ed.
And the author suggests many people are part of the “Resistance”. So many on this list (an inside-the-WH “cabal”) may be in on this corralling of Trump.

While Trump Clearly Horrible President, Critics Denounce Right-Wing 'Unelected Cabal' Represented by Anonymous Op-Ed
The Op-Ed author is no left-winger and the “resisters” are probably all WH republicans.

And yesterday’s news:
Bob Woodward’s Book “Fear"
which supports the Op-Ed author about the chaotic nature of the Trump White House.


I'm going to guess that it's Coats. After watching several reports last night, I thought it might be Pence. Who would have more to gain, and less liability, since the President can't do anything to him? He can drop a nice, verifiable op-ed into the New York Times that will hasten the inevitable, gain a Presidency to which he would never be elected, and manage to salvage something politically before disaster befalls the GOP in November. But after seeing a couple of news analysts point to the content, and where the person would need to be situated, I think it is Coats. He represents that element of the Republican Party who believe that Trump has betrayed their values, and that his continued presence is not only a liability for the party in future elections, but is a real danger to the security of the country. I think Mattis and Kelly have also concluded that Trump is a danger, but it's not their style to draft an op-ed. I think they'd be more direct.
Sandy
 
Posts: 8902
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Jim » Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:57 pm

I saw a TV interview with Woodward. He admitted he had only what he called irrefutable hearsay (my term) but had no actual corroboration for his “facts.” He, of course, would have had no access to the White House or to the president, no matter what he says. Part of the interview included Woodward saying as much (Trump didn't answer his phone call) as if Trump should have given him the time of day. Maybe Woodward will find another Deep Throat.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Haruo » Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:41 pm

Jim wrote:I saw a TV interview with Woodward. He admitted he had only what he called irrefutable hearsay (my term) but had no actual corroboration for his “facts.” He, of course, would have had no access to the White House or to the president, no matter what he says. Part of the interview included Woodward saying as much (Trump didn't answer his phone call) as if Trump should have given him the time of day. Maybe Woodward will find another Deep Throat.

Didn't the failing, struggling, fake NYT just find one for him? I didn't hear the interview you mention, so I have no idea what words of Woodward's you have recast as "irrefutable hearsay".
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12283
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby KeithE » Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:41 pm

Everyone seems to be guessing who the author was. The article itself speaks of a group of “resistors”. The author may be just one person who volunteered to write for the group. Many including Pence, Coats, Pompeo, and many more have denied being the author but they may be “resistors”. Woodward also speaks of many people trying to limit damage from this president.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8857
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Sandy » Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:06 am

Jim wrote:I saw a TV interview with Woodward. He admitted he had only what he called irrefutable hearsay (my term) but had no actual corroboration for his “facts.” He, of course, would have had no access to the White House or to the president, no matter what he says. Part of the interview included Woodward saying as much (Trump didn't answer his phone call) as if Trump should have given him the time of day. Maybe Woodward will find another Deep Throat.


Actually, the key word here is "irrefutable." And he didn't say he didn't have any corroboration, what he said was that what he wrote was what his sources gave him. Woodward has never jumped to conclusions and he has always stated clearly that what he's written depends on the credibility of the sources he uses. His book isn't even out yet but having read most everything else he's written, it would be a pretty sure bet that his documentation is as thorough as it always is.

The other side of the issue is to compare Woodward's credibility with Trump and his cronies. No contest there. I wouldn't believe Trump if he said the sky was blue and looked at his watch to tell the time. Aside from that, some of Trump's insiders have admitted to most of what the Times article and Woodward's book talk about.

I would agree that while the Times story might be the work of one person, it was probably a collaborative effort and the whole group decided on who would be best to take the risk and write it. It's not like what they're writing about are some kind of deep, dark secrets.
Last edited by Sandy on Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sandy
 
Posts: 8902
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Jim » Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:32 am

This bit of subterfuge seems to be a possible use of Amendment 25. I think the dems tried this on Reagan (senile), too, but he shot them down. The “progressives” (new definition of the Democrat Party) are losing on the SCOTUS nominee and see a big bust in the mid-terms, so anything goes at this point. I've watched the Kavanaugh hearing and saw the mendacity toward and inability to cope with the nominee, who virtually recited all cases brought up. The screaming protesters interrupted constantly and had to be thrown out. George Soros probably hired them all but to no avail, most of them seeming to be women dressed for an afternoon pot-party. Probably good pay and a handy bail bondsman. The primary subject for discussion was abortion and a bit about gun-control—the usual. The anger of the dem senators came through quite well but the nominee was as calm as could be possible. As Clarence Thomas would say, they tried for a lynching and got nowhere. Reminiscent of the Thomas hearing, when Anita Hill was brought in to do what would be called today a "Me, too" on Thomas, whom she had followed around back in the day and was rejected by him.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Sandy » Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:39 am

Jim wrote:This bit of subterfuge seems to be a possible use of Amendment 25. I think the dems tried this on Reagan (senile), too, but he shot them down. The “progressives” (new definition of the Democrat Party) are losing on the SCOTUS nominee and see a big bust in the mid-terms, so anything goes at this point. I've watched the Kavanaugh hearing and saw the mendacity toward and inability to cope with the nominee, who virtually recited all cases brought up. The screaming protesters interrupted constantly and had to be thrown out. George Soros probably hired them all but to no avail, most of them seeming to be women dressed for an afternoon pot-party. Probably good pay and a handy bail bondsman. The primary subject for discussion was abortion and a bit about gun-control—the usual. The anger of the dem senators came through quite well but the nominee was as calm as could be possible. As Clarence Thomas would say, they tried for a lynching and got nowhere. Reminiscent of the Thomas hearing, when Anita Hill was brought in to do what would be called today a "Me, too" on Thomas, whom she had followed around back in the day and was rejected by him.


Really? You must be watching the alternative hearing in the alternative universe. Senator Harris nailed him to the wall, left him speechless, and requesting a recess, and when he still tried to obfuscate, she came right back at him. Seems like he has a lot to hide, given all the documents that the Republicans are trying to hide from public scrutiny by the "committee confidential" declaration, which is not a thing.

The Democrats didn't try the "25th Amendment thing" on Reagan. That was Alexander Haig. And as far as the protesters go, well, you are a hypocrite if you are a conservative, strict constructionist and you don't want to interfere with unrestricted gun rights. They're just as entitled to their free speech, and I do mean entitled.

The Democratic strategy here to derail Kavanaugh is pretty simple. With McCain being replaced by John Kyl, they need two. And they have several options. They have Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who both will vote against a nominee they perceive as being a danger to the Roe decision. So that's why the line of questioning went that way. Marco Rubio and Tim Scott of South Carolina have voted thumbs down on some Trump nominees for the federal judiciary because of connections with the alt-right, white supremacists, and a record as an activist racist, the most recent one being just a week ago. So that's why they're digging into that line of questioning. There are at least two Republicans who are pretty strong on whether or not the President is above the law, and can't be indicted while serving, so there's been that line of questioning, along with the revelations of the hidden documents. There's also the issue of his support for torture. The Democrats need two votes, so the strategy is to hit the questions hard on the specific issues that they know are non-negotiables with some Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... -democrats
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... n-decades/

Hill had conclusive proof on Thomas, but that was a different day. He wouldn't get away with that now.
Sandy
 
Posts: 8902
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Jim » Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:39 am

Sandy wrote:
Jim wrote:This bit of subterfuge seems to be a possible use of Amendment 25. I think the dems tried this on Reagan (senile), too, but he shot them down. The “progressives” (new definition of the Democrat Party) are losing on the SCOTUS nominee and see a big bust in the mid-terms, so anything goes at this point. I've watched the Kavanaugh hearing and saw the mendacity toward and inability to cope with the nominee, who virtually recited all cases brought up. The screaming protesters interrupted constantly and had to be thrown out. George Soros probably hired them all but to no avail, most of them seeming to be women dressed for an afternoon pot-party. Probably good pay and a handy bail bondsman. The primary subject for discussion was abortion and a bit about gun-control—the usual. The anger of the dem senators came through quite well but the nominee was as calm as could be possible. As Clarence Thomas would say, they tried for a lynching and got nowhere. Reminiscent of the Thomas hearing, when Anita Hill was brought in to do what would be called today a "Me, too" on Thomas, whom she had followed around back in the day and was rejected by him.


Really? You must be watching the alternative hearing in the alternative universe. Senator Harris nailed him to the wall, left him speechless, and requesting a recess, and when he still tried to obfuscate, she came right back at him. Seems like he has a lot to hide, given all the documents that the Republicans are trying to hide from public scrutiny by the "committee confidential" declaration, which is not a thing.

The Democrats didn't try the "25th Amendment thing" on Reagan. That was Alexander Haig. And as far as the protesters go, well, you are a hypocrite if you are a conservative, strict constructionist and you don't want to interfere with unrestricted gun rights. They're just as entitled to their free speech, and I do mean entitled.

The Democratic strategy here to derail Kavanaugh is pretty simple. With McCain being replaced by John Kyl, they need two. And they have several options. They have Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who both will vote against a nominee they perceive as being a danger to the Roe decision. So that's why the line of questioning went that way. Marco Rubio and Tim Scott of South Carolina have voted thumbs down on some Trump nominees for the federal judiciary because of connections with the alt-right, white supremacists, and a record as an activist racist, the most recent one being just a week ago. So that's why they're digging into that line of questioning. There are at least two Republicans who are pretty strong on whether or not the President is above the law, and can't be indicted while serving, so there's been that line of questioning, along with the revelations of the hidden documents. There's also the issue of his support for torture. The Democrats need two votes, so the strategy is to hit the questions hard on the specific issues that they know are non-negotiables with some Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... -democrats
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... n-decades/

Hill had conclusive proof on Thomas, but that was a different day. He wouldn't get away with that now.


Senator Harris nailed him to the wall, left him speechless, and requesting a recess, and when he still tried to obfuscate, she came right back at him. Seems like he has a lot to hide, given all the documents that the Republicans are trying to hide from public scrutiny by the "committee confidential" declaration, which is not a thing.

**Neither you nor anyone else knew why that brief “rest” was occasioned, but my best guess is it had to do with an attempt on his life. As for hiding documents, Hillary not only hid 33,000 of them but made sure, through her computer bashing, that they would never be found. There were a few later found on pervert Weiner's site (actually his wife's, which he most likely checked occasionally) but they were “not important.” I have no idea what "committee confidential" means but to each his own.

The Democrats didn't try the "25th Amendment thing" on Reagan. That was Alexander Haig. And as far as the protesters go, well, you are a hypocrite if you are a conservative, strict constructionist and you don't want to interfere with unrestricted gun rights. They're just as entitled to their free speech, and I do mean entitled.

**The 25th had nothing to do with Haig since it names the vice president as the one who will conduct the nation's business until an incapacitated president gives notification that he is well and will take over his job. If memory serves, the dems (or somebody(ies) then and now keep plugging away at somehow proving the president too crazy to run the country. He's done fairly well, especially considering the former administration. The amazing statement was made by Booker, who turned the proceeding into racism by calling himself Spartacus, even if it cost him his seat. Booker wants to be Obama II – laughable.

The Democratic strategy...that they know are non-negotiables with some Republicans.

**Thanks for all the explanations. I simply would have never known.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Sandy » Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:11 pm

Jim wrote: As for hiding documents, Hillary not only hid 33,000 of them but made sure, through her computer bashing, that they would never be found.


Aside from being totally irrelevant to this case, the fact of the matter is that Hillary's alleged "33,000 missing emails" or as Trump has cited on different occasions, 20,000, 25,000 or 30,000 since the liar can't remember what lie he told from one day to the next, were never missing. As clearly stated in the FBI report, those emails were designated by the investigator as not being essential to the case. The right wing extremist media, however, seized upon this non-factual information, as they usually do, and promoted the false perspective among their gullible, hypocritical audience. But since you offer no source except your off the top of the head rambling, then that gets a credibility rating of zero.

Jim wrote: The 25th had nothing to do with Haig since it names the vice president as the one who will conduct the nation's business until an incapacitated president gives notification that he is well and will take over his job.


Maybe you need some refresher news clippings from that particular incident. It didn't seem to matter to Haig that the constitution named the vice-president as the President's successor, and beyond that, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority leader, and that he wasn't close to getting the White House, but he went ahead with the statement anyway. It was an embarassing moment for him, and one of many bumbles of the Reagan Administration (like the outright denial of Iran-Contra, which included acts of lying to Congress and perhaps even treason) which is why extremist right wingers attempt to bury it, wipe it from memory and revise that little bit of history by blaming it on Democrats. I'll bet you can't name a Democrat that was involved, mainly because there weren't any.

Interestingly, Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease shortly after leaving the Presidency, and there were questions raised about whether that might have been the cause of some of his erratic behavior during the last couple of years of his term. On the other hand, I have no doubt that Trump is insane.

Jim wrote: Thanks for all the explanations. I simply would have never known.


You are welcome. It was pretty clear from your previous whining post that you didn't get it, and didn't know. Now you do.
Sandy
 
Posts: 8902
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Jim » Sun Sep 09, 2018 4:05 pm

Sandy wrote: On the other hand, I have no doubt that Trump is insane.

Jim wrote: Thanks for all the explanations. I simply would have never known.


You are welcome. It was pretty clear from your previous whining post that you didn't get it, and didn't know. Now you do.


I suspect everyone remembers Haig's mad dash to save the government -- laughable. But the 25th had nothing to do with him, as I said. As for Trump's insanity, you wish.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Sandy » Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:20 pm

Jim wrote: But the 25th had nothing to do with him, as I said. As for Trump's insanity, you wish.


Maybe, though apparently there are a number of individuals within the Trump administration who see him up close and work on a daily basis to keep his insanity from endangering the country. If he has cabinet members and staff members who are working to derail his plans, and he can't seem to remember from day to day what he planned, or what papers they swiped or what calls they made, then I'd say he's at the very least senile.

At any rate, whether he is or not, he's clearly incompetent, and his corruption is already proven to the impeachment standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.

I saw a commentary today, actually from a conservative perspective, that hints at the New York Times op-ed writer being an insider who is trying to manipulate from within, and get rid of some others in order to enhance their own power. The Trump administration has already been a pit of backbiting, character assassinating ambition that has led to more dismissals and resignations than any other in history, so the thought is that this might be someone who is careful enough to use terminology and a writing style that might be identified with someone they want to see hit the trail. Since the speculation is pretty high that this sounds a good bit like Pence, the thought is that someone may be trying to get him out in order to become VP, knowing that the top dawg stands a good chance of being impeached and removed once Mueller's evidence comes out. So there's a quick path to the Presidency. There are a lot of slime balls in there.
Sandy
 
Posts: 8902
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Jim » Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:49 pm

Sandy wrote:
Jim wrote: But the 25th had nothing to do with him, as I said. As for Trump's insanity, you wish.


Maybe, though apparently there are a number of individuals within the Trump administration who see him up close and work on a daily basis to keep his insanity from endangering the country. If he has cabinet members and staff members who are working to derail his plans, and he can't seem to remember from day to day what he planned, or what papers they swiped or what calls they made, then I'd say he's at the very least senile.

At any rate, whether he is or not, he's clearly incompetent, and his corruption is already proven to the impeachment standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.

I saw a commentary today, actually from a conservative perspective, that hints at the New York Times op-ed writer being an insider who is trying to manipulate from within, and get rid of some others in order to enhance their own power. The Trump administration has already been a pit of backbiting, character assassinating ambition that has led to more dismissals and resignations than any other in history, so the thought is that this might be someone who is careful enough to use terminology and a writing style that might be identified with someone they want to see hit the trail. Since the speculation is pretty high that this sounds a good bit like Pence, the thought is that someone may be trying to get him out in order to become VP, knowing that the top dawg stands a good chance of being impeached and removed once Mueller's evidence comes out. So there's a quick path to the Presidency. There are a lot of slime balls in there.

The media hacks live by what they call unnamed high government sources. When they come out with this stuff I simply disbelieve it. The notion that anyone near the top in government and therefore able to do any underhanded thing to hurt the president is laughable. I don't like him myself but the country is doing okay and that's what matters. I believe someone at the NYT has made up the whole thing thinking the “deplorables” like me are so gullible that they will swallow this garbage. FBI guy Strozk e-mailed his FBI concubine that they would stop Trump but got cold feet if anticipating assassination. Or, if someone in government actually wrote the op-ed, the FBI would be a good place to start looking since the top FBI honchos have tried every trick in the book to snare POTUS on something. I'm reading Sedgwick's War of Two about Hamilton and Burr and discovering anew how venal politicians could be way back then. Nothing has changed since then.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Jim » Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:50 am

Jim wrote:
Sandy wrote: On the other hand, I have no doubt that Trump is insane.

Jim wrote: Thanks for all the explanations. I simply would have never known.


You are welcome. It was pretty clear from your previous whining post that you didn't get it, and didn't know. Now you do.


I suspect everyone remembers Haig's mad dash to save the government -- laughable. But the 25th had nothing to do with him, as I said. As for Trump's insanity, you wish.

The most interesting final act of the Kavanaugh hearing came in the appearance of ex-con John Dean to excoriate the judge, the same Dean who made a deal vis-a-vis the Nixon hearings to save himself from five years in the Big House and $10,000 fine on six charges whittled down to one. He sang like a bird then to save himself and then expected anyone to believe him in the just-ended hearing. He served all of four months, if memory serves. Senator Kennedy chastised him unmercifully for his actions. He was the democrat's hero in the final panel of witnesses, almost as ridiculous as Senator Booker's claim to be Spartacus, thus screaming racism at Kavanaugh. Disgusting.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Sandy » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:30 am

Jim wrote:I believe someone at the NYT has made up the whole thing thinking the “deplorables” like me are so gullible that they will swallow this garbage.


Well, Donald Trump certainly believes that, with good reason.

As I've said on many occasions, if you can point out where the NYT gets its facts wrong, or where it turns into a political agenda promoter like Fox, or Rush, or the rest of the "follow the money" right wing media circus, you're welcome to offer proof. I think you are confusing the NYT with the extremist right wing media sources you listen to that don't bother with facts and which do things like this all the time. Those people are the ones who think that "deplorables" are so gullible, they'll swallow anything, so they keep coming up with more. The Times doesn't publish without verifiable sources.
Sandy
 
Posts: 8902
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Jim » Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:52 am

Sandy wrote:
Jim wrote:I believe someone at the NYT has made up the whole thing thinking the “deplorables” like me are so gullible that they will swallow this garbage.


The Times doesn't publish without verifiable sources.

The NYT has offered no verifiable sources yet. How long shall we wait? The prexy probably pretends to believe there is an actual outside source to goad the Times into admitting it has none or will not endanger its "source" with a prison term by identifying him/her to be hammered by a congressional committee charging contempt for silence. The NYT's Woodward offers no verifiable sources for the wild accusations in his book, either. If there actually is a source, I will appreciate its identification. His attempt to sabotage the prexy's try for another term without any corroboration is unlike the writers of Unfit for Command, the book by his fellow officers that deep-sixed Kerry back in the day when he aspired to the office. There was abundant, well-documented corroboration for that book.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Sandy » Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:35 am

Jim wrote:
Sandy wrote:
Jim wrote:I believe someone at the NYT has made up the whole thing thinking the “deplorables” like me are so gullible that they will swallow this garbage.


The Times doesn't publish without verifiable sources.

The NYT has offered no verifiable sources yet. How long shall we wait? The prexy probably pretends to believe there is an actual outside source to goad the Times into admitting it has none or will not endanger its "source" with a prison term by identifying him/her to be hammered by a congressional committee charging contempt for silence. The NYT's Woodward offers no verifiable sources for the wild accusations in his book, either. If there actually is a source, I will appreciate its identification. His attempt to sabotage the prexy's try for another term without any corroboration is unlike the writers of Unfit for Command, the book by his fellow officers that deep-sixed Kerry back in the day when he aspired to the office. There was abundant, well-documented corroboration for that book.


No, that is not the case. They have not disclosed any sources but they have verified all of them. They have clearly stated that the information they published was verified before it ever was published. It is an op-ed piece, not a news story, so all the Times has to do is verify who wrote the story, and have them sign all the legal paperwork before publishing it. The credibility belongs to the authors, though the newspaper that published it is standing behind the fact that those words are the author's words.

I've watched several Woodward interviews, and about the only person in the White House he didn't talk to directly was the orange hair himself. Of course, the sources in something like this will be anonymous. We'd never have found out what a crook Nixon was without them. Free speech is a guaranteed right, and the courts have decided, from a long time back, that responsibility and anonymity are equally balancing elements without which speech is not free. If your words are true, and that can be verified, you can speak anonymously and be protected from retaliation, especially when the retaliation comes from a crooked snake in the grass criminal operative like the orange haired president. You, of all people, shouldn't have a problem with "verified anonymous sources," since that is a trademark of the extremist right wing media. Woodward is probably one of the best at getting to the truth without compromising someone's identity and protecting them from retaliation.

I can see why this might be a confusing issue for Jim. He seems to have ignored the fact that once the book "Unfit for Command" was written, all kinds of facts and evidence came forward to prove that the author, Jerome Corsi, really had only one anonymous source. Kerry never bothered with who that might be because the book was so full of provable lies, and because so many of those who served with him came forward to provide personal testimony of his character and service, that it made the "anonymous source" superfluous. And that author, Jerome Corsi, is a discredited hack who has to hang around and wordsmith for nut case extremist right wingers. He's virtually not even on the same literary planet as a powerhouse like Woodward. You don't like Woodward because he writes the truth about orange hair, and it makes him look bad. But that's not Woodward's fault. He just dug up the truth and put it out there for people to see.
Sandy
 
Posts: 8902
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Jim » Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:55 pm

S: No, that is not the case. They have not disclosed any sources but they have verified all of them. They have clearly stated that the information they published was verified before it ever was published. It is an op-ed piece, not a news story, so all the Times has to do is verify who wrote the story, and have them sign all the legal paperwork before publishing it. The credibility belongs to the authors, though the newspaper that published it is standing behind the fact that those words are the author's words.

I've watched several Woodward interviews, and about the only person in the White House he didn't talk to directly was the orange hair himself. Of course, the sources in something like this will be anonymous. We'd never have found out what a crook Nixon was without them. Free speech is a guaranteed right, and the courts have decided, from a long time back, that responsibility and anonymity are equally balancing elements without which speech is not free. If your words are true, and that can be verified, you can speak anonymously and be protected from retaliation, especially when the retaliation comes from a crooked snake in the grass criminal operative like the orange haired president. You, of all people, shouldn't have a problem with "verified anonymous sources," since that is a trademark of the extremist right wing media. Woodward is probably one of the best at getting to the truth without compromising someone's identity and protecting them from retaliation.

I can see why this might be a confusing issue for Jim. He seems to have ignored the fact that once the book "Unfit for Command" was written, all kinds of facts and evidence came forward to prove that the author, Jerome Corsi, really had only one anonymous source. Kerry never bothered with who that might be because the book was so full of provable lies, and because so many of those who served with him came forward to provide personal testimony of his character and service, that it made the "anonymous source" superfluous. And that author, Jerome Corsi, is a discredited hack who has to hang around and wordsmith for nut case extremist right wingers. He's virtually not even on the same literary planet as a powerhouse like Woodward. You don't like Woodward because he writes the truth about orange hair, and it makes him look bad. But that's not Woodward's fault. He just dug up the truth and put it out there for people to see.

Jim: If you actually believe that wordy swamp, you are to be pitied. Take some aspirin and a nap. Until there's proof for any of the NYT or Woodward slime, it remains an obvious attempt to accomplish some political objective. As for Kerry, winning three or four Purple Hearts involving just a half-day of lost duty was a little much, especially since at least one of his horrible wounds was accidentally self-inflicted. But they got him sent home after four months so he could throw his medals “over the wall.” His goose was cooked that memorable day in California when he said the guys too dumb to make it in school went to the Middle East. Stick with the “progressives” but be glad Hillary lost since she promised us 500,000 Syrian Muslims.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Sandy » Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:39 pm

It will take a lot more than a pill and a nap for you to recover from being deceived, duped and deluded by president orange hair.

Jim wrote:but be glad Hillary lost since she promised us 500,000 Syrian Muslims.


Hillary never gave us a specific number, but if you bought into this bogus claim without doing a little fact checking, I don't think a pill and a nap will help you much. I'd suggest a jigger or two of Maker's Mark or Jack Daniels so that you can calm down a bit, and an hour of Tom and Jerry on the cartoon channel. If you're still duped by orange hair after that, I don't know what would help.
Sandy
 
Posts: 8902
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: WH Trump Resisters

Postby Jim » Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:59 am

Sandy wrote:It will take a lot more than a pill and a nap for you to recover from being deceived, duped and deluded by president orange hair.

Jim wrote:but be glad Hillary lost since she promised us 500,000 Syrian Muslims.


Hillary never gave us a specific number, but if you bought into this bogus claim without doing a little fact checking, I don't think a pill and a nap will help you much. I'd suggest a jigger or two of Maker's Mark or Jack Daniels so that you can calm down a bit, and an hour of Tom and Jerry on the cartoon channel. If you're still duped by orange hair after that, I don't know what would help.

Woodward appeared with “Morning Joe” (onetime avid Trump supporter) again this morning explaining how he (Woodward) could be absolutely right despite having no firsthand knowledge of anything, just hearsay one presumes, from actual unhappy persons warning against Trump's incapacitation, (probably mostly lunacy-oriented?). All the denials by the Trump-officials with enough clout to actually do anything to harm Trump have put W in a hard spot. I believe he answered sorta like “What do you expect from them now, no matter they told me before?”. Reminds of the time CBS's Dan Rather advertised down the line of stations that he had set up Bush 41 and to not miss it, only to be left with a huge amount of dead air when Bush noted the violation of his agreement with Rather to talk about something else, not what Rather had brought up, and simply walked out. Rather seemed about to have a hernia. Maybe Morning Joe had hoped for a top job in the Trump administration and didn't get it, so turned democrat, which just suited NBC.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Next

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests