Trump shits all over the troops again

[RomaVicta 30565]

6 hours ago, Lobo said:

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

And Combat Infantryman's Badge. He's seen combat. My dad told me that that was the most coveted of decorations. Combat soldier.

Edited September 9, 2020 by RomaVicta

[Bama Chick 28596]

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

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.  

He has a nice article on that ‘validation’ as well, but I knew it wouldn’t play well here.

But your opinion on Greenwood doesn’t change mine on Goldberg.

[wildcat09 29579]

Greenwald shitting on other reporters for supporting the Iraq war sure is interesting.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13624]

6 hours ago, Left Coast said:

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.

Right.

The question isn't whether Trump has disparaged those who have risked their lives fighting for our country. It's whether he had disparaged them even more privately than what we know he has publicly. Add to that, we know he has told multiple lies in the process of claiming The Atlantic story is false.

[hpslugga 4097]

8 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

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. 

The thing is, one needn't be a liberal to detest Trump. The thing is, people of all stripes of political thought (even some of his own) loathe and detest him. And it's not because of some cosmic hatred that they have; it's because he's a loathsome and detestable creature. But you're right; what they're exhibiting is what I like to call "the pot calling the silverware black."

[Nivek 17407]

9 hours ago, sheeeit said:

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

Nice attempt of a deflection, but considering I used small words and used your own thesis against you, it makes sense you did not see how it failed and how hypocritical you are.  Shit was that too big of a word?

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

Greenwald shitting on other reporters for supporting the Iraq war sure is interesting.

Not to belabor the point, but it was Goldberg we were talking about.

There was a tweet in there that wasn’t from Greenwald.

There are plenty who have valid issues with him:


https://mondoweiss.net/2020/05/atlantic-editor-who-promoted-erroneous-conspiracy-to-gin-up-iraq-war-bewails-arab-propensity-to-conspiracy-thinking/

[maninblack 7975]

Truth. 

I would make a small change. He closely aligned with the truth and actual journalism.

[sheeeit 129]

10 hours ago, Bullneck said:

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

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-i-became-police-abolitionist/613540/

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/21/the-atlantic-finally-admits-its-police-abolition-piece-is-based-on-a-false-narrative/

https://www.kusi.com/breitbart-news-editor-in-chief-calls-out-the-atlantic-for-publishing-false-story-about-president-trump/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/09/04/whs_mcenany_atlantic_report_on_trump_has_been_categorically_debunked_by_witnesses_clearly_fake_news.html

https://theintercept.com/2020/09/05/journalisms-new-propaganda-tool-using-confirmed-to-mean-its-opposite/

The reason i suggested you google the articles yourself is to get the scope of the issue.  The Atlantic story by Derecka Purnell was shared by hundreds of other outlets.  The whole narrative was a lie.  No one cared.  The Atlantic did not do even a basic amount of fact checking.  They didn't do any.  And then members of their senior staff forwarded it out on their own.  All under the banner of the supposedly righteous Atlantic.

Same with the Matt Gaetz story.  Atlantic reporter tweets a story about Gaetz and a supposed conversation with Trump.  Hundreds of outlets run with the story.  It wasnt true at all.  Gaetz was talking to Ron Desantis not Trump.  No retraction from the Atlantic or the guy who made the tweet.  No reprimand.  

I am not naive that this only occurs by one side of journalism.  I am sure it happens by most of them.  Trump lies.  All politicians lie.  From 100 years ago until today.  We need journalists to be the arbiter of the truth.  They are not.  This is not a Trump issue.  There will be Dems in the white house again and when it happens to them it will be just as big of an issue.

[jimmyjazz 47137]

9 hours ago, Left Coast said:

The other problem with the Trump denials is that there is video and tweets of Trump calling McCain a loser for being captured.

While I fully acknowledge Trump believes McCain was a loser for being captured, as I recall the video, his statement was directed at McCain's Presidential election loss in 2008.  His comments about capture were disparaging McCain's status as an American "war hero".

[TwiceHorn 32074]

9 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

And Combat Infantryman's Badge. He's seen combat. My dad told me that that was the most coveted of decorations. Combat soldier.

Yep.  Note also "Infantryman."  There's a separate decoration for non-infantry that has seen combat.  The Combat Action Badge.

REMFs and pogues don't wear those.

Edited September 9, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 46163]

35 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

While I fully acknowledge Trump believes McCain was a loser for being captured, as I recall the video, his statement was directed at McCain's Presidential election loss in 2008.  His comments about capture were disparaging McCain's status as an American "war hero".

Oh.  Well no harm, no foul then I guess.  

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Nice attempt of a deflection, but considering I used small words and used your own thesis against you, it makes sense you did not see how it failed and how hypocritical you are.  Shit was that too big of a word?

I think you might be retarded.  Honestly.  Your analogies are completely worthless.  Sandusky and Hitler?  I very clearly said that taking the word of Trump or Melania or one of his closest allies was not relevant because they will always defend him.  I am saying there were many people in the room during the supposed comments, including people that have been extremely critical of Trump.  Why weren't they interviewed for the article?  They should have been if the Atlantic had any integrity.

An appropriate analogy would be if Biden was meeting with 10 senators on something and Fox or Breitbart or even the Atlantic published an article that said four people at the meeting anonymously told a reporter that Biden said that black people who dont vote for him were uncle toms.  Hundreds of outlets then repeated the claim.  Then someone from Bidens camp denies it.  Then Lindsay Graham (no fan of Biden) comes out and says he was one of the senators in the meeting and Biden never said any such thing.  And then 6 other people that were at the meeting said the same thing on the record- that Biden never said such a thing.  Who are you going to believe?  I mean Biden did have the "you aint black comment" and he did author the crime bill that devastated the black community and he did say that if we use busing for school integration that his own children would "grow up in a racial jungle" and his own VP accused him of being racist in a national debate and he did co author legislation with Jesse Helms to combat school integration and he did ask a black reporter if he was a "junkie" and he did say the black community was not diverse (with notable exceptions) and so on.  Every one of those examples is true.  They could be taken out of context, but they are all true.  So if i said well because Biden said and did all of those things I believe the story- then I would be a hypocrite.  But I would never say that.  I would say Fox/Brietbart/Atlantic did a horrible job of journalism with the story because they purposefully ignored on record denials of the story by people at the meeting that were not sympathetic to Biden.  Journalism would be using both the anonymous quotes and the on the record quotes and letting the reader decide.

As for Michelle Obama, I have never posted anything about her that I can recall and certainly not something about her trip costs.  Your delusional.

[CowboyFred 1162]

54 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-i-became-police-abolitionist/613540/

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/21/the-atlantic-finally-admits-its-police-abolition-piece-is-based-on-a-false-narrative/

https://www.kusi.com/breitbart-news-editor-in-chief-calls-out-the-atlantic-for-publishing-false-story-about-president-trump/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/09/04/whs_mcenany_atlantic_report_on_trump_has_been_categorically_debunked_by_witnesses_clearly_fake_news.html

https://theintercept.com/2020/09/05/journalisms-new-propaganda-tool-using-confirmed-to-mean-its-opposite/

The reason i suggested you google the articles yourself is to get the scope of the issue.  The Atlantic story by Derecka Purnell was shared by hundreds of other outlets.  The whole narrative was a lie.  No one cared.  The Atlantic did not do even a basic amount of fact checking.  They didn't do any.  And then members of their senior staff forwarded it out on their own.  All under the banner of the supposedly righteous Atlantic.

Same with the Matt Gaetz story.  Atlantic reporter tweets a story about Gaetz and a supposed conversation with Trump.  Hundreds of outlets run with the story.  It wasnt true at all.  Gaetz was talking to Ron Desantis not Trump.  No retraction from the Atlantic or the guy who made the tweet.  No reprimand.  

I am not naive that this only occurs by one side of journalism.  I am sure it happens by most of them.  Trump lies.  All politicians lie.  From 100 years ago until today.  We need journalists to be the arbiter of the truth.  They are not.  This is not a Trump issue.  There will be Dems in the white house again and when it happens to them it will be just as big of an issue.

the bolded is literally a link to mcenany's statement.  There is no mention of the actual witnesses just that 8 have "debunked the story".  She supposedly brings up 2 new "witnesses".  The first, Derek Lyons a staff secretary, straight up says I was with the president the day after.  The second new witness, Dan Walsh, confirms the bad weather call and the helicopters weren't able to fly but thats about it.  Other than that they just gave personal opinions (lol) as to why they don't believe he'd say such a thing.  

I've seen Huckabeef come out and deny it but if you want to call her credible when she has straight up lied or told half-truths during her press conferences while press sec, that is a strange one to take at face value.  I do know Bolton only said he didn't hear it but could see him saying it (this one probably hurts more than it helps).  Trump even slipped up (lol again) and said he even called Melania that morning back at the White House when she was there with him.

This is not a personal attack as I don't typically do those here (swam is gone so we good now) but man this is reaching.  I agree with you on the fact that news reporting (even the Atlantic) has their fuck ups (probably too many than should be happening) and its beyond shitty when the correction doesn't get nearly as much traction as the original.  Also in complete agreement that there is shitty journalism on both sides and journalists should in fact be arbiters of the truth.  Keep the opinion pieces in the opinion section.

On the Trump story being debunked, I cannot agree with you on that.

[sheeeit 129]

9 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

the bolded is literally a link to mcenany's statement.  There is no mention of the actual witnesses just that 8 have "debunked the story".  She supposedly brings up 2 new "witnesses".  The first, Derek Lyons a staff secretary, straight up says I was with the president the day after.  The second new witness, Dan Walsh, confirms the bad weather call and the helicopters weren't able to fly but thats about it.  Other than that they just gave personal opinions (lol) as to why they don't believe he'd say such a thing.  

I've seen Huckabeef come out and deny it but if you want to call her credible when she has straight up lied or told half-truths during her press conferences while press sec, that is a strange one to take at face value.  I do know Bolton only said he didn't hear it but could see him saying it (this one probably hurts more than it helps).  Trump even slipped up (lol again) and said he even called Melania that morning back at the White House when she was there with him.

This is not a personal attack as I don't typically do those here (swam is gone so we good now) but man this is reaching.  I agree with you on the fact that news reporting (even the Atlantic) has their fuck ups (probably too many than should be happening) and its beyond shitty when the correction doesn't get nearly as much traction as the original.  Also in complete agreement that there is shitty journalism on both sides and journalists should in fact be arbiters of the truth.  Keep the opinion pieces in the opinion section.

On the Trump story being debunked, I cannot agree with you on that.

Fair analysis.  And if you read what I have actually typed versus what people have accused me of typing, you would easily see that I never claimed the story to be debunked.  I even said it was quite possible it was true.  I wasn't defending trump nor was I trying to debunk the story.  I was calling out shitty journalism for printing a story based on anonymous quotes when there were plenty of people in the room at the time of the story (if you read the Atlantic story it is very specific on when the alleged quotes by trump were made) that were quite willing to go on the record with what they heard and they were ignored but the anonymous ones were not.  Honest journalism would have included the anonymous quotes and also added that the Atlantic reached out to Bolton, who recently released a book that is extremely critical Trump and Bolton said he never heard anything like that in the meeting, and we reached out to the Ambassador who was in the meeting and she said it never happened and we reached out to the chief of staff for Gen Kelly who was also in the room and he confirmed that the the secret service and Gen Kelly made the call to cancel the flight and that Trump never made any disparaging comments about the soldiers.  That would be good journalism.

[RomaVicta 30565]

1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-i-became-police-abolitionist/613540/

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/21/the-atlantic-finally-admits-its-police-abolition-piece-is-based-on-a-false-narrative/

https://www.kusi.com/breitbart-news-editor-in-chief-calls-out-the-atlantic-for-publishing-false-story-about-president-trump/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/09/04/whs_mcenany_atlantic_report_on_trump_has_been_categorically_debunked_by_witnesses_clearly_fake_news.html

https://theintercept.com/2020/09/05/journalisms-new-propaganda-tool-using-confirmed-to-mean-its-opposite/

The reason i suggested you google the articles yourself is to get the scope of the issue.  The Atlantic story by Derecka Purnell was shared by hundreds of other outlets.  The whole narrative was a lie.  No one cared.  The Atlantic did not do even a basic amount of fact checking.  They didn't do any.  And then members of their senior staff forwarded it out on their own.  All under the banner of the supposedly righteous Atlantic.

Same with the Matt Gaetz story.  Atlantic reporter tweets a story about Gaetz and a supposed conversation with Trump.  Hundreds of outlets run with the story.  It wasnt true at all.  Gaetz was talking to Ron Desantis not Trump.  No retraction from the Atlantic or the guy who made the tweet.  No reprimand.  

I am not naive that this only occurs by one side of journalism.  I am sure it happens by most of them.  Trump lies.  All politicians lie.  From 100 years ago until today.  We need journalists to be the arbiter of the truth.  They are not.  This is not a Trump issue.  There will be Dems in the white house again and when it happens to them it will be just as big of an issue.

You choose a dishonest form of persuasion that diminishes whatever strength your argument has by distorting things. The Atlantic erred in not researching the essay (akin to an opinion piece, but it should still be factual). Then you go on to write this:

The whole narrative was a lie.  No one cared.  The Atlantic did not do even a basic amount of fact checking.  They didn't do any.  And then members of their senior staff forwarded it out on their own.  All under the banner of the supposedly righteous Atlantic.

From your Federalist link:

Quote

The Atlantic Finally Admits Its Police Abolition Piece Is Based On A False Narrative

Four days, six comment requests, and one follow-up story later, The Atlantic issued a series of major corrections that confirmed The Federalist's investigation,

The garish headline and sub-head prove your statements are untrue. Atlantic did follow up. Did correct. Did admit fault. 

Some people point to the NYT, WaPo, or CNN and cite examples of when they were wrong. They all certainly have been. An eye should be kept on any source we rely on for facts. The thing is, the people pointing are usually doing so to discredit those outlets in defense of shit outlets like FOX or Breitbart or American Spectator who actively distort and lie and never bring themselves to account. They hire people like convicted liar Oliver North and produce liars like the current press secretary.

Broad condemnation on narrow evidence, as I wrote above, is a dishonest style of argument to defend dishonesty. Add a pinch of both sides and a disingenuous claim of impartiality on the part of the person decrying credible news outlets, and you give the Russians their victory over the West. And for what?

Seriously, for what?

I won't pretend to know your motives or heart or conscience, but ask yourself that question. Why did you write what you wrote? Why did you choose to push the fact of the Atlantic's dereliction in one case to suggest all media are equally bad? I'd be interested to see what you have to say.

What I quote from your link to the Federalist is black and white (and garish red) proof that the Atlantic, like the NYT, Washington Post, and CNN and others, does indeed care about accuracy.

Would that other outlets and people were more like them.

 

[TwiceHorn 32074]

5 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

 

Broad condemnation on narrow evidence,

 

That is a mighty fine turn of phrase.  Also, unfortunately, a guiding principle these days.

[RomaVicta 30565]

5 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Fair analysis.  And if you read what I have actually typed versus what people have accused me of typing, you would easily see that I never claimed the story to be debunked.  I even said it was quite possible it was true.  I wasn't defending trump nor was I trying to debunk the story.  I was calling out shitty journalism for printing a story based on anonymous quotes when there were plenty of people in the room at the time of the story (if you read the Atlantic story it is very specific on when the alleged quotes by trump were made) that were quite willing to go on the record with what they heard and they were ignored but the anonymous ones were not.  Honest journalism would have included the anonymous quotes and also added that the Atlantic reached out to Bolton, who recently released a book that is extremely critical Trump and Bolton said he never heard anything like that in the meeting, and we reached out to the Ambassador who was in the meeting and she said it never happened and we reached out to the chief of staff for Gen Kelly who was also in the room and he confirmed that the the secret service and Gen Kelly made the call to cancel the flight and that Trump never made any disparaging comments about the soldiers.  That would be good journalism.

That would also be proving a negative. As the editor of Atlantic said on TV, the sources are not anonymous to him. He judged them trustworthy and had more than a single source. The editorial decision was made that the story was credible. It was a considered decision now backed by other credible outlets citing different sources.

Had a number of credible sources denied the truth of the story, that would be considered. An unknown number of sources not denying the story gives weight to credibility. What you concede is fair analysis should be the stopping point in your own analysis.

You don't know that the Atlantic didn't reach out to Kelly. The president's men and women choose to describe the anonymous sources as shadowy cowards not to be relied upon. Now, you want to infer that the other unquoted, unvetted, unnamed sources would doubtless back up McEnany's bald assertion. This is founded on the unsupported assumption that the Atlantic was not duly diligent.

The best defense of Trump so far is supplied by known liars or others saying they did not witness the behavior but will not deny that it happened or could have happened.

At some point, the consumer must make his own choice. Do I believe liars or entities with credible reputations? Then ask himself, why do I tend to believe the liars?

It's strange to so extensively debate something that seems so fucking obvious. Hello 2020.

[sheeeit 129]

3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

You choose a dishonest form of persuasion that diminishes whatever strength your argument has by distorting things. The Atlantic erred in not researching the essay (akin to an opinion piece, but it should still be factual). Then you go on to write this:

The whole narrative was a lie.  No one cared.  The Atlantic did not do even a basic amount of fact checking.  They didn't do any.  And then members of their senior staff forwarded it out on their own.  All under the banner of the supposedly righteous Atlantic.

From your Federalist link:

The garish headline and sub-head prove your statements are untrue. Atlantic did follow up. Did correct. Did admit fault. 

Some people point to the NYT, WaPo, or CNN and cite examples of when they were wrong. They all certainly have been. An eye should be kept on any source we rely on for facts. The thing is, the people pointing are usually doing so to discredit those outlets in defense of shit outlets like FOX or Breitbart or American Spectator who actively distort and lie and never bring themselves to account. They hire people like convicted liar Oliver North and produce liars like the current press secretary.

Broad condemnation on narrow evidence, as I wrote above, is a dishonest style of argument to defend dishonesty. Add a pinch of both sides and a disingenuous claim of impartiality on the part of the person decrying credible news outlets, and you give the Russians their victory over the West. And for what?

Seriously, for what?

I won't pretend to know your motives or heart or conscience, but ask yourself that question. Why did you write what you wrote? Why did you choose to push the fact of the Atlantic's dereliction in one case to suggest all media are equally bad? I'd be interested to see what you have to say.

What I quote from your link to the Federalist is black and white (and garish red) proof that the Atlantic, like the NYT, Washington Post, and CNN and others, does indeed care about accuracy.

Would that other outlets and people were more like them.

 

Huh?  I think you missed the entire point.  I said that the Atlantic did not do any fact checking on the article BEFORE it was published.  That is the whole point.  Multiple people on this thread have said they believe the story because it was in the Atlantic and the Atlantic has this supposed reputation for "fanatical" fact checking.  I simply went to one recent article (the first one that came up when I searched) where it was completely obvious that the Atlantic did not do any fact checking.  A story in July of 2020 about a supposed policeman that shot an unarmed kid over not signing into gym registry before playing basketball?  That is about as incendiary as an article can be in today's environment.  The Atlantic knows that.  They counted on that to help drive the story.  You think it might be importnat to make sure a story like that is actually true before printing it.  And it apparently wasn't too hard to fact check as some other journalist were able to do it.

I can't believe an actual intelligent person would type with a straight face that a publication that fails to fact check an article before it is printed and shared on hundreds of sites and other sources actually does care about facts because they then print a correction when they are shamed into having to admit that they printed a false article.  It is bizarro world.  It is further proof that you and others have completely lost all your ability to think.  

Yes it was somewhat akin to an opinion piece (which are subject to the same fact checking requirements) which is why I specifically included the fact that an Atlantic editor tweeted the article out under the Atlantic banner.

[atomheartbevo 90641]

9 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Trumps are cowards.   They claim to love the troops but don’t want to be the troops, and will find a doctor to make sure they aren’t.  

[TwiceHorn 32074]

I read the Derecka Purnell piece.  It's an opinion piece.  Apparently based in relatively small part on a partially false or inaccurately remembered incident.  One paragraph, and likely just one sentence, out of approximately 27 paragraphs, and not referred to again in the article.

I suppose it belies the rigorousness of the fact-checking of The Atlantic, but it doesn't offer the incident for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather the impact on the author.

Narrow evidence, indeed.

And compared to the wholesale lying of multiple elements of the Trump administration.  All offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Edited September 9, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[4th&Five 41988]

 

[hayden_horn 11402]

13 hours ago, SizzleChest said:

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.  

it's kind of a lot like grhorn and sheeeit. "i'm not defending trump, but let me attack all things critical of him!"

[RomaVicta 30565]

16 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Huh?  I think you missed the entire point.  I said that the Atlantic did not do any fact checking on the article BEFORE it was published.  That is the whole point.  Multiple people on this thread have said they believe the story because it was in the Atlantic and the Atlantic has this supposed reputation for "fanatical" fact checking.  I simply went to one recent article (the first one that came up when I searched) where it was completely obvious that the Atlantic did not do any fact checking.  A story in July of 2020 about a supposed policeman that shot an unarmed kid over not signing into gym registry before playing basketball?  That is about as incendiary as an article can be in today's environment.  The Atlantic knows that.  They counted on that to help drive the story.  You think it might be importnat to make sure a story like that is actually true before printing it.  And it apparently wasn't too hard to fact check as some other journalist were able to do it.

I can't believe an actual intelligent person would type with a straight face that a publication that fails to fact check an article before it is printed and shared on hundreds of sites and other sources actually does care about facts because they then print a correction when they are shamed into having to admit that they printed a false article.  It is bizarro world.  It is further proof that you and others have completely lost all your ability to think.  

Yes it was somewhat akin to an opinion piece (which are subject to the same fact checking requirements) which is why I specifically included the fact that an Atlantic editor tweeted the article out under the Atlantic banner.

You're doubling down. Bold strategy. 

Atlantic failed to fact check the essay. You don't want to move forward through time so you can rattle on about how that proves they don't care about facts. I conceded the error and failure.

Your conclusion is disproved by the actions of Atlantic afterward. They admit error and correct it. They publish the mistake themselves. Once they do so, you're left with arguing that they should be superhuman perfecto; if not, they're clearly lying sacks of shit. Childish.

It's really simple. I won't waste time with the willfully obtuse. Your sophistry is fairly high level, but it's still sophistry and basically dishonest. 

And irony deaf.

[RomaVicta 30565]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I read the Derecka Purnell piece.  It's an opinion piece.  Apparently based in relatively small part on a partially false or inaccurately remembered incident.  One paragraph, and likely just one sentence, out of approximately 27 paragraphs, and not referred to again in the article.

I suppose it belies the rigorousness of the fact-checking of The Atlantic, but it doesn't offer the incident for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather the impact on the author.

Narrow evidence, indeed.

Sheeit clearly counts on no one reading the piece or his links. Again, irony deafness isn't funny.

[Zepol87 9341]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep.  Note also "Infantryman."  There's a separate decoration for non-infantry that has seen combat.  The Combat Action Badge.

REMFs and pogues don't wear those.

pogues. Damn that is a word I haven't heard in a long time

[wildcat09 29579]

Sheeeit is a troll. Stop engaging with him. 

[hayden_horn 11402]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Sheeeit is a troll. Stop engaging with him. 

i disagree. 

he's a trump supporter. engaging with him might shed some light into the way these people think. it's such a weird mindset. it's not uniquely american either. just had a meeting with my boss in the uk when we spoke about how our otherwise intelligent family members support trump/brexit/things that don't make sense outside a hive mind.

attacking a magazine article's sourcing makes perfect sense to these people. oh they "aren't defending trump" but they sure as fuck attack all criticism of trump with some bullshit purity test to which they do not even hold trump. it's madness.

[JimmyJames 12271]

8 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

it's kind of a lot like grhorn and sheeeit. "i'm not defending trump, but let me attack all things critical of him!"

GRUHorn didn’t spend the last several months having his socks rep his cooking recipes and hot Shaka basketball takes to NOT post his crap all over the surly cloak room. 
 

Sheeit is taking the different strategy of posting disingenuous bullshit but being reasonable enough not to neg, at least so far. 

[jimmyjazz 47137]

Wait . . . did The Atlantic pull back on some of their claims in the recent story about Trump & the military, or is sheeeeeeeeit referring to his favorite google-ized piece he found when he searched "please find cases where Communist Rag The Atlantic had to retract part of a story"?

[Brisketexan 106883]

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait . . . did The Atlantic pull back on some of their claims in the recent story about Trump & the military, or is sheeeeeeeeit referring to his favorite google-ized piece he found when he searched "please find cases where Communist Rag The Atlantic had to retract part of a story"?

Oh, it's even better.  See, trolls like this apply evidence the following way:

1) the Atlantic once had to submit a retraction.  This means that they are liars and can't be trusted on anything, any fact, any story.

2) outfits like FOX have NEVER submitted a retraction.  This means that a) you can't prove that any given FOX story is false, and b) therefore, presume every FOX story is true.

The standards for "truth and accuracy" are applied to any outfit even mildly critical of Trump on a microscopic, atom-by-atom level.  The standards for "truth and accuracy" applied to Trump, his admin, or his chosen media mouthpieces like FOX and OANN are.....non-existent.  Don't expect honesty or logical consistency from a Trumpkin -- their god doesn't do it, they aren't gonna do it.

[jimmyjazz 47137]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, it's even better.  See, trolls like this apply evidence the following way:

1) the Atlantic once had to submit a retraction.  This means that they are liars and can't be trusted on anything, any fact, any story.

2) outfits like FOX have NEVER submitted a retraction.  This means that a) you can't prove that any given FOX story is false, and b) therefore, presume every FOX story is true.

The standards for "truth and accuracy" are applied to any outfit even mildly critical of Trump on a microscopic, atom-by-atom level.  The standards for "truth and accuracy" applied to Trump, his admin, or his chosen media mouthpieces like FOX and OANN are.....non-existent.  Don't expect honesty or logical consistency from a Trumpkin -- their god doesn't do it, they aren't gonna do it.

Well, sure.  But answer my question?  I don't have time to keep up with every media outlet.

[Brisketexan 106883]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, sure.  But answer my question?  I don't have time to keep up with every media outlet.

Oh, no -- the Atlantic hasn't had to retract any of the latest story on the Trump shitting on the troops story.  In fact, even FOX has verified all of the facts save one -- Trump actually calling them "losers" etc.  They couldn't get direct confirmation of that yet.

[jimmyjazz 47137]

Ah, so sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit is truly going with the angle that a media outlet which actually does the right thing and retracts factual errors is bad, but those that never submit retractions are obviously pure and true.  Got it.

[ConferenceRoom 6214]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Ah, so sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit is truly going with the angle that a media outlet which actually does the right thing and retracts factual errors is bad, but those that never submit retractions are obviously pure and true.  Got it.

This is some shameful shit. 

[Brisketexan 106883]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Ah, so sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit is truly going with the angle that a media outlet which actually does the right thing and retracts factual errors is bad, but those that never submit retractions are obviously pure and true.  Got it.

Well, it will be more disingenuous than that.  He'll do something like SAY "oh, no, I don't think you can trust ANY media."  But the proof will be in the pudding, when he regurgitates talking points from FOX, Breitbart, etc. as truth, and when he whistles past the graveyard on them breathlessly reporting the president's statements as true without fact-checking them.  One standard for me, the other for thee.

It's a dishonest game, played dishonestly, by dishonest people.  America, 2020

[Dbeasy 15585]

15 hours ago, sheeeit said:

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.   

There it is.  A Trump apologist will go to any length to discredit any negative information about Trump. By this logic, no fact can ever be proven unless all 8 billion people on the planet have heard Trump say something. Unbelievable.

[Mole 4339]

I’ve gone back and forth on the responsibility of the anonymous sources to come out. My current view is that once they come out, they become the story. Their credibility, which is defined as loyalty to Trump, becomes the focus. The moment they are revealed, a new excuse will emerge. As long as they are anonymous, the story remains the focus. I think anonymous is good for now.
 

It’s been confirmed by multiple outlets, including Fox. It rings true based on his own words. The denial was marked by verifiable untruths. As is, it’s extremely credible. 

[Nivek 17407]

21 hours ago, sheeeit said:

I think you might be retarded.  Honestly.  Your analogies are completely worthless.  Sandusky and Hitler?  I very clearly said that taking the word of Trump or Melania or one of his closest allies was not relevant because they will always defend him.  I am saying there were many people in the room during the supposed comments, including people that have been extremely critical of Trump.  Why weren't they interviewed for the article?  They should have been if the Atlantic had any integrity.

An appropriate analogy would be if Biden was meeting with 10 senators on something and Fox or Breitbart or even the Atlantic published an article that said four people at the meeting anonymously told a reporter that Biden said that black people who dont vote for him were uncle toms.  Hundreds of outlets then repeated the claim.  Then someone from Bidens camp denies it.  Then Lindsay Graham (no fan of Biden) comes out and says he was one of the senators in the meeting and Biden never said any such thing.  And then 6 other people that were at the meeting said the same thing on the record- that Biden never said such a thing.  Who are you going to believe?  I mean Biden did have the "you aint black comment" and he did author the crime bill that devastated the black community and he did say that if we use busing for school integration that his own children would "grow up in a racial jungle" and his own VP accused him of being racist in a national debate and he did co author legislation with Jesse Helms to combat school integration and he did ask a black reporter if he was a "junkie" and he did say the black community was not diverse (with notable exceptions) and so on.  Every one of those examples is true.  They could be taken out of context, but they are all true.  So if i said well because Biden said and did all of those things I believe the story- then I would be a hypocrite.  But I would never say that . (But you did)  I would say Fox/Brietbart/Atlantic did a horrible job of journalism with the story because they purposefully ignored on record denials of the story by people at the meeting that were not sympathetic to Biden.  Journalism would be using both the anonymous quotes and the on the record quotes and letting the reader decide. (nice thinly veiled reference to a Fox News slogan )

As for Michelle Obama, I have never posted anything about her that I can recall and certainly not something about her trip costs.  Your delusional.

Well well.  First of all, the word retarded is very offensive, most of us on here have removed it from our common use because we try to be good citizens and sensitive to those whom have taught us the pain this word causes to those whom are disadvantaged and their loving families/friends.   If you think that I am a mentally disabled person you are free to believe that.  But calling a geophysicist mentally challenged is really only an indictment of yourself and clearly demonstrates that you are yet another fine example of Dunning-Kruger among this board.  

But let me play along and indulge you once again.  You admit that Trump is a known liar and such that, interviewing him is often pointless.  Interviewing those around him is possible, but to my knowledge, The Atlantic lacks the power to compel and interview (you should know this) and sometimes, people even decline to be interviewed on record.  So back to the example I posted before, if an intrepid journalist named Bob wrote and article about about genocide but the Nazi high command declined to comment along with its leadership, should the article not be run?  That we know the truth (well some of us do), should make this an easy one to answer.  

Trump denied it.  Trump is a known liar.  Trump denied insulting John McCain and his service.  The evidence that he did is irrefutable.  Trump had difficulty remembering the soldier's name when he called his widow and she was upset with him.  Trump ordered he police to beat protesters so he could take a photo op.  Trump endangered the lives of law enforcement so he could take a photo-op.   These are patterns of behavior with Trump.   His deferment is only an issue because of his posturing as a tough-guy.  That he used the resources available to him to escape service for a conflict he did not believe in would be OK but his fake patriotism coupled with "you think we're so innocent" type comments only make this whole thing hollow, and speaks to his moral flexibility given the momentary audience.   *Ivanka does a much better job at saying nothing and committing to nothing while talking.  Trump uses his con-man skills to attempt to appeal to everyone and it works on the same type of people whom look to profit from their Nigerian Prince friends.

As for your pseudo-analogy,  the issue is that Lindsey didn't state that Biden never said it, but rather that he was not present if it was stated and it is consistent with his actions and other statements and allegation.   While you are pointing out that he supported some legislation which asymmetrically impacted people of color would be the proper way to state it.  Then you would need to ask him did he foresee this impact before actually discussing this point.  You failed to include this part which imparts your own bias as you selectively attempt to discredit him and his support for all people including people of color.  You also failed to include the works he did with people of color, the calls he made to the victims of police brutality, his open willingness to work with and for our first black president who is also his friend which demonstrates that while he may not be a knight in shiny armor, he is at least a knight in rusty armor, but on their side.  Unlike the republican ranks which are filled with proud boys, Klan member in hoods, and neo-nazi's whom form the core of their infantry at this time.   You analogy fails because you willfully ignored the facts and tried to spin it as some thinly veiled attack on Biden to shift the message.    You should have done a much better job at this.   Like this:

Joe Biden was reported to have used racial slurs by the New York Times.  In the Times, they interviewed 3 members who were with him on April 1, 2020 who on the condition of anonymity confirmed the statement.   Several prominent members have spoken out in support of former VP Biden, and others have spoken that they were with him for part of that day and they did not hear him utter the slurs.  Biden however reported that he wasn't there, and was calling his wife from the moon, however we have obtained his itinerary and have photos of him in-fact with his wife at the Crazy Horse in Paris that day and not on the moon as Biden had suggested as his location.   Furthermore no other national or private space agency has reported that Biden has traveled with them or has ever entered any training program required for all celestial travelers.    There has been some issues with Biden and slurs in the past when he passed some children and referred to them as half-breeds but he denies these claims as well.  He did cite his record of working for and being close friends with Mr. President Obama whom he called 'boss' for over 8 years and still refers to him as to this day.  Biden is no stranger to controversy, earlier this year Biden sucked his wife's finger in public at a campaign rally, when you correspondents questioned him he pointed to his pelvic region and stated "as long as de'Walt still works, then she [his wife] better work! get what I am saying!" followed raucous laughter at his own joke.   Joe Biden has denied subsequent interview requests and is currently on campaign to become the next POTUS. 

TLDR: Your post is so stupid it practically drools.   Did you read the actual article?  You assume The Atlantic did not reach out to Trump and members of his administration current and former that could verify it in person or provide credible testimony as to his character.  You assume this, and then you go off on a tangent.  You also make the assumption that 'both sides' need to be told to make a story.   That is simply false.  Whom does one interview when an jet plane crashes?  The deceased passengers  and mountain don't really tend to give great interviews.   Interviewing a liar is not gaining perspective, it is just giving him a platform to lie further.  Fox is an editorialized opinion station and not a news station in the classical sense; they also really hate investigative journalism in favor of local newscaster stories about a shooting in the mall, 2 dead, more at 11 and have done a number on trying to demand that others just report the facts while they claim their political opinion network is anything but.  

[Fudge Nuggets 19453]

Hey guess what... this scandal like every fucking thing else is already out of the news cycle.  Who could have seen this coming?

[bolverk 30320]

Does anyone have a handy timeline of Trump's scandals? I'd love to see one in the form of a Gantt chart showing the lifecycle of each.

Edited September 10, 2020 by bolverk

[Guest]

On 9/10/2020 at 2:52 PM, Fudge Nuggets said:

Hey guess what... this scandal like every fucking thing else is already out of the news cycle.  Who could have seen this coming?

well, nobody wants to read editors' apologies or admissions that they published an atrticle that "might not be true."

 

Nope.  Mission accomplished.  WGAF about journalistic responsibility?

[Fudge Nuggets 19453]

6 minutes ago, slorch said:

well, nobody wants to read editors' apologies or admissions that they published an atrticle that "might not be true."

 

Nope.  Mission accomplished.  WGAF about journalistic responsibility?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Link to corroboration?

[softlynow 1894]

9 minutes ago, slorch said:

Link to corroboration?

Has Kelly denied it happened?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Has Kelly denied it happened?

Not what I asked.

[BrickHorn 18447]

On 9/9/2020 at 11:42 AM, wildcat09 said:

Sheeeit is a troll. Stop engaging with him. 

So you’re saying sheeeit suuuucks?

Edited September 11, 2020 by BrickHorn

[softlynow 1894]

6 minutes ago, slorch said:

Not what I asked.

I’m aware.

This story fading from the news is beneficial to Dotard, because we all know it’s true. You do, too, which is why you immediately refused to answer a simple question. 

[Biff Tannen 46163]

Here. 
 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/corroboration-atlantic-report-trump-troops-soldiers-losers-cemetary-amputees.html