Trump shits all over the troops again

[wildcat09 29258]

46 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

Funny story about Gitmo: my 1L Federal Civ Pro professor was a former attorney for the military and "spent a lot of time at Gitmo".  He swears to this day that not one person was tortured at Gitmo.  This dude also saw Abe Lincoln as a traitor and made sure to drive around in his diesel truck Earth Day because it is all a lie anyways.  Probably the worst professor I had in law school. 

Funny story about law school: fuck federal civil procedure.

[Guest Lobo]

You bite your tongue.  That was my only A in law school.  

[sheeeit 129]

17 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

Wait! Defense contractors send our troops to war? Maybe I mis-read the constitution. 

Nope.  But the defense contractors collectively donate $100s of millions annually to the people that do.

[High Plains Drifter 10977]

18 hours ago, GRHorn said:

This would be an incredible idea. Which means it will never happen. To even have someone like DTJr suggest it is pretty amazing. If you applied something similar across all branches of government it would be nice first step in actually “DrAiNinG tHe SwAmP”. 

 

 

WHY NOT DONE?

[High Plains Drifter 10977]

15 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I personally can't fucking wait for all the American military pull back gonna happen Jan 2021 under Biden. 

Just like Guantanamo. 

 

This is some pretty weak Both-Siderism, even for you.

[Guest Lobo]

5 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Nope.  But the defense contractors collectively donate $100s of millions annually to the people that do.

The whole point of waging pointless wars was to increase the DoD budget for a few years.  Trump already did it voluntarily (ironic, given his draft dodging status).  The good news about Capt. Dumbass is we don't need to go globe-trotting for several years because we've pre-funded all the worthless weapons systems we'll need for quite awhile (littoral ships notwithstanding).  

[wildcat09 29258]

I'm old enough to remember when Trump said we've got to let Saudi Arabia chop up American residents because they buy stuff from our arms manufacturers.

[sheeeit 129]

15 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Is Biden's team publicly chastising military leadership for endless wars today or are you just being silly again? 

Trump and Associates: "Endless Wars! Why won't somebody do something?!?"

People with Brains: "He's the Commander in Chief, he's the one who can do something."

Anastasis: "But Obama! But Biden!"

Do you genuinely not see the logical failure in that response? 

Hilarious that this post received so many likes. 

Biden on the campaign trail right now "Acknowledging those forces, Biden promised to “end the forever wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East” and terminate U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war. "

So, yes, Biden is saying exactly that.

Further, Biden/Obama in 2010 or so said that all troops would be out of Afghanistan by 2014.  Biden was incensed that anyone would suggest it would not happen.   "We're starting it in July of 2011, and we're going to be totally out of there, come hell or high water, by 2014," Biden said on NBC in December 2010."

Obama had at least 3 different "end the war in Afghanistan" promises during his tenure and we are still there.  Obama spent $866B on "war related initiatives" during his tenure (compared to $816B under Bush) even though he pledged every chance he could that he would end the high cost of war that was crippling americans.

Trump is, indeed, an idiot.  I don't believe him and I didn't believe Obama when he said it and I don't believe Biden when he says it.  

[kevwun 15653]

Ha, you know it's a bad scandal when sheeeit gets called out of retirement.

[Huckleberry 32703]

4 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Hilarious that this post received so many likes. 

Biden on the campaign trail right now "Acknowledging those forces, Biden promised to “end the forever wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East” and terminate U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war. "

So, yes, Biden is saying exactly that.

Further, Biden/Obama in 2010 or so said that all troops would be out of Afghanistan by 2014.  Biden was incensed that anyone would suggest it would not happen.   "We're starting it in July of 2011, and we're going to be totally out of there, come hell or high water, by 2014," Biden said on NBC in December 2010."

Obama had at least 3 different "end the war in Afghanistan" promises during his tenure and we are still there.  Obama spent $866B on "war related initiatives" during his tenure (compared to $816B under Bush) even though he pledged every chance he could that he would end the high cost of war that was crippling americans.

Trump is, indeed, an idiot.  I don't believe him and I didn't believe Obama when he said it and I don't believe Biden when he says it.  

So you can't read very well. I asked if Biden was saying that yesterday because the Trump team's statements were current news. You respond with "WHY INDEED YES CHECK OUT THIS STORY FROM TWO YEARS AGO." Whiff.

Pray tell, why exactly did you jump back up to mess up a gotcha against Biden but stayed silent when the discussion was Trump's idiocy? You're like the dumb and less active version of Anastasis with your pitiful both sides attempts.

[Anastasis 23394]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm old enough to remember when Trump said we've got to let Saudi Arabia chop up American residents because they buy stuff from our arms manufacturers.

To Biden's credit, he has committed to ceasing arms sales to Saudi Arabia, our single largest customer.  In sincerely hope that he is able to carry through on that commitment.

Edited September 8, 2020 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23394]

53 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Trump is, indeed, an idiot.  I don't believe him and I didn't believe Obama when he said it and I don't believe Biden when he says it.  

I think that they all "mean it".  Well at least the latter two did on some level probably more than just campaign rhetoric. The point I was making in that series of posts that huck attempted to condense down to "but obama, but biden" was that they can believe and mean it all they want, but the reality of the system is such that the executive cannot implement their aims because they really do not have total control over the system. Misplaced power endangering our democratic processes.  I referenced Ike earlier...really do recommend the Why We Fight documentary for a watch.

 

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by Anastasis

[GRHorn 105]

18 hours ago, F250 said:

Counterpoint

 

 

 

Amash is right to want them all back home. I agree with him.
 

Returning troop level to “about where they were” sounds to me like there’s fewer than before otherwise Justin would’ve just said so. 
 

It’s true that Trump is Commander in Chief, but these decisions are complicated by an extensive media and political apparatus, including a large part of his own party, that oppose these kinds of moves. 
 

18 hours ago, bolverk said:

Shouldn't we be just as, if not more concerned, that the current Secretary of Defense is a former defense contractor lobbyist? I mean, the decisions he makes now could profit the future employer he'd go back to after leaving the administration.

yes.  That is similar to what I brought up in other fields, Mnuchin, Holder, Geithner. All extreme pieces of shit that came in corrupted by their jobs in the private sector, happened to do exactly what their previous employers would’ve wanted, to the detriment of our society, and then went back into private life handsomely rewarded for their “service”. I guess Mnuchin hasn’t left yet, but I don’t picture him taking up some noble cause.

 

[sheeeit 129]

On 9/6/2020 at 12:56 PM, Celery Man said:

The Atlantic is known for being fanatical about fact checking,

This is the main reason I wanted to post on this topic.  This current story is a microcosm of what is wrong with political journalism today.  This is NOT a defense of Trump.  He very well may have said what the Atlantic accuses him of.  My personal guess is that there is a kernel of truth in the reporting but that the anonymous quotes were put into a context to be seen in the worst possible light and the author is conflating comments Trump may have said about VOLUNTEERS in the Vietnam war and war veterans from WWI and WWII.  

But this is the issue with political journalism.  First, the Atlantic certainly may have been fanatical about fact checking in the past but times change, and viewership changes, and subscriptions change, and money changes, and competition increases and the chase to be first is heightened and, as a result, the values that we attributed to a magazine like the Atlantic previously may not exist now.  Case in point, the Atlantic published an article from a woman in July of 2020 about her experience with a police shooting that, she claimed, caused her to become a police "abolitionist".   She claimed she was at a public park gym with her sister and that a cop burst in and shot a black "boy" for not signing into the gym register book.  She also claimed that the cop suffered no consequences.  In fact, the "boy" who was shot was over 18 (was the shooters cousin and the dispute had nothing at all to do with registering in the gym book) and the "cop" was actually an independent park security guard and the security guard was arrested.  So every main point in her story (child shot for no reason, cop did shooting, no repercussions to cop) were outright lies.  The Atlantic did not "fact check" anything.  And to make matters worse, an editor for the Atlantic tweeted the story under the Atlantic banner.  

The only reason I found this story was I googled the Atlantic and any recent retractions/corrections because I was curious.  And I do not think this is specific to the Atlantic.  It seems to be in all forms of political journalism from both the right and left.  Hell, the head of the FBI (Comey) said in open congressional hearings that a recent story at the time from the NYT was a lie.  That story, shockingly, was also a hit piece on Trump that relied entirely on anonymous sources.  Again, not meant as a defense of Trump but as an indictment on political journalism.

Now I do not think that Goldberg simply made up the quotes/sources he used in the report.  But this is the problem with journalism.  If we stipulate that Goldberg did in fact have sources who told him a variation of the story he wrote, then what is the role of the Atlantic as a "fact checker".  I do understand the need for anonymous sources but, the reporter has to try and corroborate the source.  And when no one is willing to go on record, then all you have to go on is the anonymous sources.  However, in this particular story, there were multiple people present when the supposed quotes by Trump were made and plenty of those folks were willing to go on the record and they were neither contacted by Goldberg nor used in the story.  Some sources, like Melania, would make no sense to even ask because they would never go against the potus but Bolton was there and said it didnt happen (no fan of trump) and Kelly's aid was there and said it didn't happen and said Kelly would have never let it stand if he did hear it (I actually applaud Kelly for taking a principled stand to not comment on a sitting president, for or against, and will say that it is highly, highly unlikely that Kelly's aid would tell a different story than Kelly). In fact, 21 different people that were present have gone on the record publicly that the quotes never happened. The Atlantic absolutely had a journalistic duty to talk to the other people present.  IMO, the only way the Atlantic can be considered non-biased and have any journalistic integrity, they should have presented both sides, one group willing to go on the record and one not willing to, and let the reader decide.  That is the true role of political journalism.  

 

[GRHorn 105]

7 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

This is the main reason I wanted to post on this topic.  This current story is a microcosm of what is wrong with political journalism today.  This is NOT a defense of Trump.  He very well may have said what the Atlantic accuses him of.  My personal guess is that there is a kernel of truth in the reporting but that the anonymous quotes were put into a context to be seen in the worst possible light and the author is conflating comments Trump may have said about VOLUNTEERS in the Vietnam war and war veterans from WWI and WWII.  

But this is the issue with political journalism.  First, the Atlantic certainly may have been fanatical about fact checking in the past but times change, and viewership changes, and subscriptions change, and money changes, and competition increases and the chase to be first is heightened and, as a result, the values that we attributed to a magazine like the Atlantic previously may not exist now.  Case in point, the Atlantic published an article from a woman in July of 2020 about her experience with a police shooting that, she claimed, caused her to become a police "abolitionist".   She claimed she was at a public park gym with her sister and that a cop burst in and shot a black "boy" for not signing into the gym register book.  She also claimed that the cop suffered no consequences.  In fact, the "boy" who was shot was over 18 (was the shooters cousin and the dispute had nothing at all to do with registering in the gym book) and the "cop" was actually an independent park security guard and the security guard was arrested.  So every main point in her story (child shot for no reason, cop did shooting, no repercussions to cop) were outright lies.  The Atlantic did not "fact check" anything.  And to make matters worse, an editor for the Atlantic tweeted the story under the Atlantic banner.  

The only reason I found this story was I googled the Atlantic and any recent retractions/corrections because I was curious.  And I do not think this is specific to the Atlantic.  It seems to be in all forms of political journalism from both the right and left.  Hell, the head of the FBI (Comey) said in open congressional hearings that a recent story at the time from the NYT was a lie.  That story, shockingly, was also a hit piece on Trump that relied entirely on anonymous sources.  Again, not meant as a defense of Trump but as an indictment on political journalism.

Now I do not think that Goldberg simply made up the quotes/sources he used in the report.  But this is the problem with journalism.  If we stipulate that Goldberg did in fact have sources who told him a variation of the story he wrote, then what is the role of the Atlantic as a "fact checker".  I do understand the need for anonymous sources but, the reporter has to try and corroborate the source.  And when no one is willing to go on record, then all you have to go on is the anonymous sources.  However, in this particular story, there were multiple people present when the supposed quotes by Trump were made and plenty of those folks were willing to go on the record and they were neither contacted by Goldberg nor used in the story.  Some sources, like Melania, would make no sense to even ask because they would never go against the potus but Bolton was there and said it didnt happen (no fan of trump) and Kelly's aid was there and said it didn't happen and said Kelly would have never let it stand if he did hear it (I actually applaud Kelly for taking a principled stand to not comment on a sitting president, for or against, and will say that it is highly, highly unlikely that Kelly's aid would tell a different story than Kelly). In fact, 21 different people that were present have gone on the record publicly that the quotes never happened. The Atlantic absolutely had a journalistic duty to talk to the other people present.  IMO, the only way the Atlantic can be considered non-biased and have any journalistic integrity, they should have presented both sides, one group willing to go on the record and one not willing to, and let the reader decide.  That is the true role of political journalism.  

 

No surprise that people here breathlessly accept the story as true.
 

Remember the anonymous sources were scared to go public because of “mean tweets”.  Puhleeze. Someone with a verifiable bombshell story like that would be paraded around like a paragon of virtue, they’d have a seven figure book deal and gofundme in a matter of days. I call Bs. 
 

It’s also a fascinating coincidence that this story dropped within a day of the Afghanistan ambassador announcement. A story run by Goldberg and backed up by David Frum, he of the splendid reputation.

 

[totallynotabuttpirate 5342]

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

No surprise that people here breathlessly accept the story as true.
 

Remember the anonymous sources were scared to go public because of “mean tweets”.  Puhleeze. Someone with a verifiable bombshell story like that would be paraded around like a paragon of virtue, they’d have a seven figure book deal and gofundme in a matter of days. I call Bs. 
 

It’s also a fascinating coincidence that this story dropped within a day of the Afghanistan ambassador announcement. A story run by Goldberg and backed up by David Frum, he of the splendid reputation.

 

You ever hear the story of the boy who called wolf? 

Guy who lies almost every time he speaks, is now supposed to get the benefit of the doubt when accusing other people of lying? 

[Celery Man 20886]

Hey look, it's the stupid people who have been fundamentally broken by the GOP.

[GRHorn 105]

1 minute ago, totallynotabuttpirate said:

You ever hear the story of the boy who called wolf? 

Guy who lies almost every time he speaks, is now supposed to get the benefit of the doubt when accusing other people of lying? 

It’s not the benefit of the doubt, it’s people on record, including some that don’t like Trump, saying it’s bs versus anonymously sourced article run by people with their own history of dishonesty. 

[Guest Lobo]

i'll have you know that I once met Alex Morgan here in Austin through some mutual friends (former Senior Editor of "The Atlantic"), and she said something about their unparalleled fact-checking being the benchmark.  Of something, something, or something.  I dunno, I was busy looking at her ass. She is just absolutely beautiful and smart.  Anyway, I think they may be onto something over there at the Atlantic.  

[totallynotabuttpirate 5342]

3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

It’s not the benefit of the doubt, it’s people on record, including some that don’t like Trump, saying it’s bs versus anonymously sourced article run by people with their own history of dishonesty. 

Please, who are these very honest and trustworthy people who have said it's BS? I'd love to hear about it. 

 

 

[totallynotabuttpirate 5342]

Here's John Bolt calling it "BS" lol: 

"I didn't hear that. I'm not saying he didn't say them later in the day or another time but I was there for that discussion...

I haven't heard anybody yet react to say, 'That's not the Donald Trump I know.'" Bolton also told Bloomberg it's "it's certainly possible" Trump made the comments "later in the day."

https://theweek.com/speedreads/936038/john-bolton-didnt-hear-trumps-reported-comments-disparaging-troops-but-says-theyre-not-character

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

So you can't read very well. I asked if Biden was saying that yesterday because the Trump team's statements were current news. You respond with "WHY INDEED YES CHECK OUT THIS STORY FROM TWO YEARS AGO." Whiff.

Interesting.  So since, you claim, Biden only said it 2 years ago (which is already stupid because the quote I used is from July 2019 which is 14 months ago but you knew your response was going to be so fucking lame that you had to exaggerate it) then it doesn't matter if he meant it or not?  High bar but typical.  What exactly is your point?  You were curious if Biden said it "yesterday" as if that would be different from him saying it throughout the campaign?  I am pretty sure Trump said he would get out of the wars during his first campaign and he obviously didn't.  How is it any different?  The guys that immediately preceded Trump said the same thing and vowed to do the same thing and didn't either.  That was the point.

Plus, that was just the quote I found in a 30 second search.  It is pretty hard to get current quotes from Biden since he rarely talks and even more rarely responds to questions.  But the platform he pledged to uphold at the DNC a mere 3 weeks ago said he would end the current wars.  Is 3 weeks current enough?

[TXSG8R 3360]

33 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

No surprise that people here breathlessly accept the story as true.
 

Remember the anonymous sources were scared to go public because of “mean tweets”.  Puhleeze. Someone with a verifiable bombshell story like that would be paraded around like a paragon of virtue, they’d have a seven figure book deal and gofundme in a matter of days. I call Bs. 
 

It’s also a fascinating coincidence that this story dropped within a day of the Afghanistan ambassador announcement. A story run by Goldberg and backed up by David Frum, he of the splendid reputation.

 

[Guest Lobo]

Pfffft, Vindman?  Airborne Tab, c'mon.  Those are just Suckers that fall from the sky. 

[Biff Tannen 45499]

It is wild to watch them try and spin this unspinnable situation. Keep em coming you morons. 

[Chuckie Finster 22600]

No surprise that people here breathlessly accept the story as true.
 
Remember the anonymous sources were scared to go public because of “mean tweets”.  Puhleeze. Someone with a verifiable bombshell story like that would be paraded around like a paragon of virtue, they’d have a seven figure book deal and gofundme in a matter of days. I call Bs. 
 
It’s also a fascinating coincidence that this story dropped within a day of the Afghanistan ambassador announcement. A story run by Goldberg and backed up by David Frum, he of the splendid reputation.
 

Numerous folks have gone on the record and are just labeled as “disgruntled” by galaxy brains like yourself.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

19 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I want to open a male strip club called "Henanigans".

subscribed.

[JimmyJames 12271]

So now its I’m a high and mighty person but I don’t like anonymous sources so its probably all true but we can’t believe it because of...anonymity. 

Just admit you will support trump no matter what. Jesus Christ himself could come down from heaven to testify against trump and you wouldn’t believe it because where’s God and the Holy Ghost to back him up?

I bet the anonymous sources come forward sometime in the next month. The Atlantic Editor says the story isn’t over. Then you will claim they are just military leaders for former military leaders or John Kelly or whoever who always vote republican but are traitors to trump so can’t be trusted, and blah blah blah, or whatever bs you come up with. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

55 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

It’s not the benefit of the doubt, it’s people on record, including some that don’t like Trump, saying it’s bs versus anonymously sourced article run by people with their own history of dishonesty. 

So if Trump tells me he didn't say it, and Huckabee Sanders tells me he didn't say it, I know for got damned sure he said it, because neither one of those people are capable of telling the truth.  

Also, while I'm at it sheeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiitttttttttt.  That's as close as I'm going to get to a reply to that disingenuous moron.

[SizzleChest 8275]

The most impactful, notorious anonymous source of all time was 2nd in command at the FBI, but you know, deep state and all.

[Celery Man 20886]

If Jesus came down he'd be grabbed off the street and sent back to his shithole country as a marxist radical and potential terrorist (islam??). Rube Goldbrick up there would be rubbing his thumbs under his suspenders and talking about how Jesus has blue eyes and blonde hair.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

It’s not the benefit of the doubt, it’s people on record, including some that don’t like Trump, saying it’s bs versus anonymously sourced article run by people with their own history of dishonesty. 

 

The Atlantic is a reputable news source, not some fly by night internet "publication" or a Twitter hack with a blue check trying to make a name for themselves. And putting any of that aside, common sense and Trump's own history would tell you that it's almost certainly true that he feels that way about the troops. I guess it wouldn't pass a "beyond a reasonable doubt", death-sentence litmus test, but it does pass a common sense, "yeah, he probably said that" litmus test for informed, objective human beings. 

You probably know that I've been pretty critical of the media, particularly for a non-Trumper, but I have a reasonably high level of confidence that the story is true.

[otisdog 365]

53 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

thank you, was going to go here.....

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

43 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

a reputable news source,

 

 

 

 

I honestly don't give a fuck if he said it or not, as the actions are way worse imo.  But I do get bemused at the need to believe any rumor ever written about him.  I guess at least this one wasn't to sell a book.  And plenty of "reputable news sources" cheered on the lead up to the war in Iraq.  Then again, so did Biden, so yeah as noted by others it isn't like the war machine is going to lose no matter who wins in November.  

 

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

 

 

 

 

I honestly don't give a fuck if he said it or not, as the actions are way worse imo.  But I do get bemused at the need to believe any rumor ever written about him.  I guess at least this one wasn't to sell a book.  And plenty of "reputable news sources" cheered on the lead up to the war in Iraq.  Then again, so did Biden, so yeah as noted by others it isn't like the war machine is going to lose no matter who wins in November.  

 

Good to know about the journalist, thanks for sharing. Either way (and as stated in my post), it doesn't really matter how reputable the Atlantic is. He's said, on record, plenty of things that make it very obvious how he views our troops.

[Anastasis 23394]

10 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

And plenty of "reputable news sources" cheered on the lead up to the war in Iraq.  Then again, so did Biden, so yeah as noted by others it isn't like the war machine is going to lose no matter who wins in November.  

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Anastasis

[Bullneck 18987]

On 9/4/2020 at 2:18 PM, Anastasis said:

Trump is a piece of shit. But if we want to talk about really caring for the men and women who serve our country, a few things that we should do:

1. Invest in making the VA one of the best health care systems in the world, in particular by focusing on the mental health care needs of our soldiers returning home.

2. Scale down our international military deployment substantially, ending our decades old engagement in Afghanistan in particular. 

3. As we scale down our military forces, both in terms of head count and financial investment, retrain our soldiers as necessary to enter the world with marketable trades and skill set. Consider redeploying these resources to address domestic needs such as infrastructure.      

That's something Democrats would vote for.  Your Republican friends are more interested in Defense Department corporate welfare. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

The war machine took hold in the 50s and 60s which is Exactly what Eisenhower, who would know, warned about it toward the end of his presidency. And it was a truly bipartisan endeavor with the SoCal republicans and Nixon and the DFW and Houston Democrats (democrats at the time) supporters in Texas thanks to LBJ benefitting more than anybody.  The CIA and the Brits overthrew the elected government of Iran in 1953, which Eisenhower Certainly didn’t stop and approved of I do believe, continued their deal with the Saudis, and the game was on. Korea, Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and on. Eisenhower had regrets later on. Probably realized he made a mistake. And here we are. 

[Bullneck 18987]

3 hours ago, sheeeit said:

This is the main reason I wanted to post on this topic.  This current story is a microcosm of what is wrong with political journalism today.  This is NOT a defense of Trump.  He very well may have said what the Atlantic accuses him of.  My personal guess is that there is a kernel of truth in the reporting but that the anonymous quotes were put into a context to be seen in the worst possible light and the author is conflating comments Trump may have said about VOLUNTEERS in the Vietnam war and war veterans from WWI and WWII.  

But this is the issue with political journalism.  First, the Atlantic certainly may have been fanatical about fact checking in the past but times change, and viewership changes, and subscriptions change, and money changes, and competition increases and the chase to be first is heightened and, as a result, the values that we attributed to a magazine like the Atlantic previously may not exist now.  Case in point, the Atlantic published an article from a woman in July of 2020 about her experience with a police shooting that, she claimed, caused her to become a police "abolitionist".   She claimed she was at a public park gym with her sister and that a cop burst in and shot a black "boy" for not signing into the gym register book.  She also claimed that the cop suffered no consequences.  In fact, the "boy" who was shot was over 18 (was the shooters cousin and the dispute had nothing at all to do with registering in the gym book) and the "cop" was actually an independent park security guard and the security guard was arrested.  So every main point in her story (child shot for no reason, cop did shooting, no repercussions to cop) were outright lies.  The Atlantic did not "fact check" anything.  And to make matters worse, an editor for the Atlantic tweeted the story under the Atlantic banner.  

The only reason I found this story was I googled the Atlantic and any recent retractions/corrections because I was curious.  And I do not think this is specific to the Atlantic.  It seems to be in all forms of political journalism from both the right and left.  Hell, the head of the FBI (Comey) said in open congressional hearings that a recent story at the time from the NYT was a lie.  That story, shockingly, was also a hit piece on Trump that relied entirely on anonymous sources.  Again, not meant as a defense of Trump but as an indictment on political journalism.

Now I do not think that Goldberg simply made up the quotes/sources he used in the report.  But this is the problem with journalism.  If we stipulate that Goldberg did in fact have sources who told him a variation of the story he wrote, then what is the role of the Atlantic as a "fact checker".  I do understand the need for anonymous sources but, the reporter has to try and corroborate the source.  And when no one is willing to go on record, then all you have to go on is the anonymous sources.  However, in this particular story, there were multiple people present when the supposed quotes by Trump were made and plenty of those folks were willing to go on the record and they were neither contacted by Goldberg nor used in the story.  Some sources, like Melania, would make no sense to even ask because they would never go against the potus but Bolton was there and said it didnt happen (no fan of trump) and Kelly's aid was there and said it didn't happen and said Kelly would have never let it stand if he did hear it (I actually applaud Kelly for taking a principled stand to not comment on a sitting president, for or against, and will say that it is highly, highly unlikely that Kelly's aid would tell a different story than Kelly). In fact, 21 different people that were present have gone on the record publicly that the quotes never happened. The Atlantic absolutely had a journalistic duty to talk to the other people present.  IMO, the only way the Atlantic can be considered non-biased and have any journalistic integrity, they should have presented both sides, one group willing to go on the record and one not willing to, and let the reader decide.  That is the true role of political journalism.  

 

Would you care to cite your sources?  It would help to reinforce your argument that Trump is trustworthy and the Fake News Media isn't.

[Nivek 16861]

This is the main reason I wanted to post on this topic.  This current story is a microcosm of what is wrong with political journalism today.  This is NOT a defense of Trump.  He very well may have said what the Atlantic accuses him of.  My personal guess is that there is a kernel of truth in the reporting but that the anonymous quotes were put into a context to be seen in the worst possible light and the author is conflating comments Trump may have said about VOLUNTEERS in the Vietnam war and war veterans from WWI and WWII.  
But this is the issue with political journalism.  First, the Atlantic certainly may have been fanatical about fact checking in the past but times change, and viewership changes, and subscriptions change, and money changes, and competition increases and the chase to be first is heightened and, as a result, the values that we attributed to a magazine like the Atlantic previously may not exist now.  Case in point, the Atlantic published an article from a woman in July of 2020 about her experience with a police shooting that, she claimed, caused her to become a police "abolitionist".   She claimed she was at a public park gym with her sister and that a cop burst in and shot a black "boy" for not signing into the gym register book.  She also claimed that the cop suffered no consequences.  In fact, the "boy" who was shot was over 18 (was the shooters cousin and the dispute had nothing at all to do with registering in the gym book) and the "cop" was actually an independent park security guard and the security guard was arrested.  So every main point in her story (child shot for no reason, cop did shooting, no repercussions to cop) were outright lies.  The Atlantic did not "fact check" anything.  And to make matters worse, an editor for the Atlantic tweeted the story under the Atlantic banner.  
The only reason I found this story was I googled the Atlantic and any recent retractions/corrections because I was curious.  And I do not think this is specific to the Atlantic.  It seems to be in all forms of political journalism from both the right and left.  Hell, the head of the FBI (Comey) said in open congressional hearings that a recent story at the time from the NYT was a lie.  That story, shockingly, was also a hit piece on Trump that relied entirely on anonymous sources.  Again, not meant as a defense of Trump but as an indictment on political journalism.
Now I do not think that Goldberg simply made up the quotes/sources he used in the report.  But this is the problem with journalism.  If we stipulate that Goldberg did in fact have sources who told him a variation of the story he wrote, then what is the role of the Atlantic as a "fact checker".  I do understand the need for anonymous sources but, the reporter has to try and corroborate the source.  And when no one is willing to go on record, then all you have to go on is the anonymous sources.  However, in this particular story, there were multiple people present when the supposed quotes by Trump were made and plenty of those folks were willing to go on the record and they were neither contacted by Goldberg nor used in the story.  Some sources, like Melania, would make no sense to even ask because they would never go against the potus but Bolton was there and said it didnt happen (no fan of trump) and Kelly's aid was there and said it didn't happen and said Kelly would have never let it stand if he did hear it (I actually applaud Kelly for taking a principled stand to not comment on a sitting president, for or against, and will say that it is highly, highly unlikely that Kelly's aid would tell a different story than Kelly). In fact, 21 different people that were present have gone on the record publicly that the quotes never happened. The Atlantic absolutely had a journalistic duty to talk to the other people present.  IMO, the only way the Atlantic can be considered non-biased and have any journalistic integrity, they should have presented both sides, one group willing to go on the record and one not willing to, and let the reader decide.  That is the true role of political journalism.  
 

Based on your logic, if Jerry Sandusky declines and interview then the article is dead and should never be written. Oh wait that is easy. If Adolph Hitler denies the gas chambers then that article should never be written. Shit, Godwin’s law. So, if Trump denies the kids in cages story it shouldn’t be written? Oh, that was true? What about Snowden’s claims? True as well? Watergate? Fuck that was true? Wait, I understand now, if it is something negative against your team, then we need to exceed the preponderance criteria, past reasonable doubt, and move to the criteria somewhere between beyond all doubt and scientific theory?

Speaking of misinformation and not checking sources, I seem to recall you posting fictitious costs for Michele Obama’s travel, because no one could be bothered to check the source or actually perform unit conversions, yet you readily repeat this famed propaganda networks spin on here.

I seem to recall your propaganda and bullshit network lying over and over and no one really caring on the left, because well, we know the fable of the scorpion and the frog. And that’s ‘just the editorial’ side of the program.

[sheeeit 129]

25 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Would you care to cite your sources?  It would help to reinforce your argument that Trump is trustworthy and the Fake News Media isn't.

Well I certainly never said Trump is in anyway trustworthy and I never even remotely made that argument. I think he is an immoral and abhorrent person and I wish someone else was potus.  I would really rather that person not be Biden but he is going to be the choice.

What exactly do you want me to cite?  The July Atlantic article that was lies?   Just google “Atlantic Derecka Purnell”. It’s an easy find.  Same with the 21 folks on record that deny the Atlantic story.  Google is pretty easy to use.  There are many sources.  
 

While you are at it, google “Atlantic Gaetz tweet dozere “. Another great example of the Atlantic doing a bang up job of fact checking.   Atlantic reporter tweets a supposed scoop. It gets picked up by dozens of media outlets. It is later determined to not be true. No one cares and the Atlantic never corrected the issue.

Look, believe whatever you want.  if you want me to agree with you that I wish the president was more truthful and less of an ass then I am happy to agree.  My post was about the media.   How many examples of lying and misreporting by the media do you need to agree that there is very little integrity left.  
 

As a person or an organization you are either principled or not.  Trump is most definitely not.  Allowing yourself to lose your own principles because someone else is not principled is your fault not theirs.   

[sheeeit 129]

12 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Based on your logic, if Jerry Sandusky declines and interview then the article is dead and should never be written. Oh wait that is easy. If Adolph Hitler denies the gas chambers then that article should never be written. Shit, Godwin’s law. So, if Trump denies the kids in cages story it shouldn’t be written? Oh, that was true? What about Snowden’s claims? True as well? Watergate? Fuck that was true? Wait, I understand now, if it is something negative against your team, then we need to exceed the preponderance criteria, past reasonable doubt, and move to the criteria somewhere between beyond all doubt and scientific theory?

Speaking of misinformation and not checking sources, I seem to recall you posting fictitious costs for Michele Obama’s travel, because no one could be bothered to check the source or actually perform unit conversions, yet you readily repeat this famed propaganda networks spin on here.

I seem to recall your propaganda and bullshit network lying over and over and no one really caring on the left, because well, we know the fable of the scorpion and the frog. And that’s ‘just the editorial’ side of the program.

That is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever read.  Congrats. 
Michelle Obama?  What are you talking about?  

[Bullneck 18987]

11 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

 

What exactly do you want me to cite?  The July Atlantic article that was lies?   Just google “Atlantic Derecka Purnell”. It’s an easy find.  Same with the 21 folks on record that deny the Atlantic story.  Google is pretty easy to use.  There are many sources.  
 

Yes, that's what I want you to post.  You made the comment, now back it up.

[SizzleChest 8275]

2 hours ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

 

 

 

 

I honestly don't give a fuck if he said it or not, as the actions are way worse imo.  But I do get bemused at the need to believe any rumor ever written about him.  I guess at least this one wasn't to sell a book.  And plenty of "reputable news sources" cheered on the lead up to the war in Iraq.  Then again, so did Biden, so yeah as noted by others it isn't like the war machine is going to lose no matter who wins in November.  

 

Uh, Glenn, you know 4 other major news outlets, including FNC, validated Goldberg's reporting?

Greenwald YOLO'd his way out of mainstream journalism, giving zero fucks, when he closely aligned with Snowden (and later Assange and the Russians).  

Throwing a casual "yes, Trump is a serial liar" out there is a rare moment for ol' Glenn who has a habit of defending Trump.  

Edited September 9, 2020 by SizzleChest

[Anastasis 23394]

12 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

Greenwald YOLO'd his way out of mainstream journalism, giving zero fucks, when he closely aligned with Snowden

Truth. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

I dont defend trump and I hate what he says but I’m here to post about the evils of journalism and all its flaws that seemingly keep attacking trump, who by the way, I dont defend and hate.

Have I got it right? 

[Biff Tannen 45499]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I dont defend trump and I hate what he says but I’m here to post about the evils of journalism and all its flaws that seemingly keep attacking trump, who by the way, I dont defend and hate.

Have I got it right? 

Pretty much. Also, I do see where his supporters are coming from on this. You see, in their minds, anything bad said about Dotard has to be a nefarious lie concocted by liberals because that is how they would operate if the shoe were on the other foot.  They can’t fathom that’s not also how everyone else works. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

8 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

WHY NOT DONE?

It's curious that this somewhat snooty British phrase has worked its way into Trump's brain given that most of his catchphrases are moronic and lowbrow.

[Left Coast 863]

The other problem with the Trump denials is that there is video and tweets of Trump calling McCain a loser for being captured. “I like my war heroes not captured” is what he said (or something close to that, I’m too lazy to look up the exact quote).

Is it really that big of a leap to see him calling the men and women who died on the battlefield “losers”?

He has shown who he is through his words and actions, and when someone shows you who they are, believe them.

[RomaVicta 29794]

7 hours ago, totallynotabuttpirate said:

You ever hear the story of the boy who called wolf? 

Guy who lies almost every time he speaks, is now supposed to get the benefit of the doubt when accusing other people of lying? 

It's exactly that simple. Establishments whose very reputation depends upon devotion to accuracy are called into question by the wholly unsubstantiated wailings of a proven, constant, despicable liar.

Wake the fuck up.