|
|
Post by pixiechick on Sept 8, 2020 19:35:58 GMT
Add another to the list... Senior advisor and assistant to General John Kelly, Zach Fuentes also said it didn’t happen. He said he personally briefed the president on the weather situation that led to the trip being canceled. “You can put me on record denying that I spoke with The Atlantic. I don’t know who the sources are. I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather. Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let ANYONE call fallen Marines losers? “ He also believes The Atlantic’s sources “are unlikely to be first hand accounts.” So many people willing to go on record, including some Trump critics that have said it didn’t happen. In addition to wondering why this is only coming out now, right before the election instead of more than 2 years ago when it supposedly happened, I also have to wonder why the FOIA records that dispute the accusations weren’t included in the article, why John Bolton wasn’t asked? Or if he was, why wasn’t his answer included in the article? Why weren’t the other people that were there asked and included in the article? Things that make you go hmm.  |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Sept 8, 2020 19:37:21 GMT
I think anyone who is still saying “both sides” and defending Trump is being willfully ignorant at best. I don’t see that as name calling. It is the truth. You have to realize by now that anyone who speaks up against trump is denigrated and ruined. While those who back him are heralded by him. Them giving their names is not proof of them telling the truth when it comes to this administration. It is just the opposite. My guess is there are plenty of people who honestly believe BOTH! SIDES! are equally insulting/intolerant/dismissive/dishonest/unfair, belief which is often fueled by a narrative about collective persecution of conservatives (and often Evangelical Christians). Problem is this can lead to blindness toward resultant actual manipulation/destruction/criminality. It’s very Gia reminiscent. She (plural) was a true believer in this kind of calculation of parity. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 8, 2020 19:53:08 GMT
One trickchick.
|
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Sept 8, 2020 19:55:32 GMT
I appreciate your response. And I know it is difficult when this thread is mostly opposed to Trump. But that is the crux of it for me. It is not supporting Biden as much as it is opposing Trump. I don't see any hypocrisy when I feel that no president has been as immoral, racist, dishonest... as our current one. The changes that I have seen in our country the last 3.5 years terrify me and I'm not sure that we will survive 4. But the beauty of our country, at least it has been, is that we each get our opinion and to cast our own vote. I appreciate you coming on and having a discussion, it is much needed from both sides in our current climate. I agree 100% and appreciate that you shared your opinion respectfully without calling names and being a jerk. I am fascinated by and truly want to hear the reasoning for the support of our president. Because I cannot imagine it, I am interested in hearing from people who stand behind him. It often seems like there is just a whole lot of mindless glee, like cheering on your favorite WWF wrestler when he breaks a chair over the referee’s head, with Trump followers. It is interesting to hear from someone who is aware of the actual goings on in the administration and wants to stand up and defend him. It can’t be easy. Thank you, I too appreciate those that just want to kindly and honestly share ideas and opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by dizzycheermom on Sept 8, 2020 20:21:17 GMT
Add another to the list... Senior advisor and assistant to General John Kelly, Zach Fuentes also said it didn’t happen. He said he personally briefed the president on the weather situation that led to the trip being canceled. “You can put me on record denying that I spoke with The Atlantic. I don’t know who the sources are. I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather. Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let ANYONE call fallen Marines losers? “ He also believes The Atlantic’s sources “are unlikely to be first hand accounts.” So many people willing to go on record, including some Trump critics that have said it didn’t happen. In addition to wondering why this is only coming out now, right before the election instead of more than 2 years ago when it supposedly happened, I also have to wonder why the FOIA records that dispute the accusations weren’t included in the article, why John Bolton wasn’t asked? Or if he was, why wasn’t his answer included in the article? Why weren’t the other people that were there asked and included in the article? Things that make you go hmm. Very interesting that Gen. Kelly hasn't commented - I think his silence speaks volumes. We have repeatedly seen people that work for him lie to cover his ass. He has a proven record of destroying anyone that speaks the truth and rewarding those who are loyal to him. Actions speak way louder than words...he still hasn't spoken or acted on the Russian bounty on troops. John Bolton lost all credibility when he wouldn't testify at the impeachment hearing. Sorry but I believe Trump is guilty on this one. Can't wait to vote him out. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Sept 8, 2020 22:04:54 GMT
Not trying to convince anyone, just adding to the conversation. We can all make up our own minds, just do it with all of the information available. We have 4 more people vouching for the president now.
Mick Mulvaney “So, just to be clear: These claims are simply outrageous. I never heard the President disparage our war dead or wounded. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I was with him at the 75th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion in Normandy. As we flew over the beaches by helicopter he was outwardly in awe of the accomplishments of the Allied Forces, and the sacrifices they paid.”
Johnny DeStefano “I was on this trip. The Atlantic bit is not true. Period.”
Derek Lyons “I was with the president the morning after the scheduled visit. He was extremely disappointed that arrangements could not be made to get him to the site and that the trip had been cancelled. I have worked with the president for his entire administration. One of my responsibilities is working with him on the many letters he signs to the families of our nation’s fallen heroes. In all my time at the White House. I have never heard him utter a disparaging remark of any kind about our troops. In my view, he holds the brave men and women of our armed forces in the highest regard.”
Dan Walsh “I can attest it to the fact that there was a bad weather called in France and that the helicopters were unable to safely make the flight. Overall, the president’s support and respect for our American troops past and present is unquestionable.”
As of now we have 11 people (including some that dislike the president) willing to speak out personally saying it didn’t happen, against 4 anonymous sources. Make of it whatever you like.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Sept 8, 2020 22:17:17 GMT
Anonymous sources corroborate anonymous sources and it’s a done deal, true!!
Named sources deny and refute the story and they aren’t to be believed, lies!!
Crazy.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,613 
Location: In the leaves and rain.
|
Post by stittsygirl on Sept 8, 2020 22:37:58 GMT
Anonymous sources corroborate anonymous sources and it’s a done deal, true!! Named sources deny and refute the story and they aren’t to be believed, lies!! Crazy. Character counts. The IMPOTUS is a proven liar, obfuscator, hyperbolist, and degrader of all kinds of people who aren’t white, wealthy, straight men or foreign dictators (or Ghislaine Maxwell, of course). He surrounds himself with the same kinds of people - total yes-men and women who know which side their bread is buttered on. Traitors to Trump get shown the door. Why should we believe either Trump or any of these people? How have any of them earned that benefit of the doubt? |
|
|
|
Post by peasapie on Sept 8, 2020 22:39:46 GMT
Add another to the list... Senior advisor and assistant to General John Kelly, Zach Fuentes also said it didn’t happen. He said he personally briefed the president on the weather situation that led to the trip being canceled. “You can put me on record denying that I spoke with The Atlantic. I don’t know who the sources are. I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather. Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let ANYONE call fallen Marines losers? “ He also believes The Atlantic’s sources “are unlikely to be first hand accounts.” So many people willing to go on record, including some Trump critics that have said it didn’t happen. In addition to wondering why this is only coming out now, right before the election instead of more than 2 years ago when it supposedly happened, I also have to wonder why the FOIA records that dispute the accusations weren’t included in the article, why John Bolton wasn’t asked? Or if he was, why wasn’t his answer included in the article? Why weren’t the other people that were there asked and included in the article? Things that make you go hmm. But why don't you use your original name?? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 17:42:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 23:33:44 GMT
Add another to the list... Senior advisor and assistant to General John Kelly, Zach Fuentes also said it didn’t happen. He said he personally briefed the president on the weather situation that led to the trip being canceled. “You can put me on record denying that I spoke with The Atlantic. I don’t know who the sources are. I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather. Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let ANYONE call fallen Marines losers? “ He also believes The Atlantic’s sources “are unlikely to be first hand accounts.” So many people willing to go on record, including some Trump critics that have said it didn’t happen. In addition to wondering why this is only coming out now, right before the election instead of more than 2 years ago when it supposedly happened, I also have to wonder why the FOIA records that dispute the accusations weren’t included in the article, why John Bolton wasn’t asked? Or if he was, why wasn’t his answer included in the article? Why weren’t the other people that were there asked and included in the article? Things that make you go hmm. But why don't you use your original name?? And why should we care if this person was on the board using another name? I have never understood this thinking that more than a few times when someone new shows up on the board and they jump right in that automatically makes them someone who had previously been on the board, left and now they are sneaking back on using a different name. Who cares, your dealing with the person before you now, and not someone who may or may not have been on this board , left and came back. I’m probably going to irritate a few with these comments, but I just don’t get it. |
|
|
|
Post by peano on Sept 8, 2020 23:36:43 GMT
Anonymous sources corroborate anonymous sources and it’s a done deal, true!! Named sources deny and refute the story and they aren’t to be believed, lies!! Crazy. Can you explain what you mean by the part I have bolded? |
|
|
|
Post by peasapie on Sept 8, 2020 23:50:25 GMT
But why don't you use your original name?? And why should we care if this person was on the board using another name? I have never understood this thinking that more than a few times when someone new shows up on the board and they jump right in that automatically makes them someone who had previously been on the board, left and now they are sneaking back on using a different name. Who cares, your dealing with the person before you now, and not someone who may or may not have been on this board , left and came back. I’m probably going to irritate a few with these comments, but I just don’t get it. Who said you should care? And by the way, who is we? Is it because you left in a huff and came back with a newish name yourself? I personally like to know there is some consistency about the person posting if I am going to take the time to respond — that’s why *I* care. I’m not going to waste my time reading posts by someone who doesn’t have the integrity to at least use the same fake moniker, someone posting and agreeing with themselves under various alter egos. But you go ahead and validate all those multiple personalities with your responses. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 17:42:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 23:52:45 GMT
Not trying to convince anyone, just adding to the conversation. We can all make up our own minds, just do it with all of the information available. We have 4 more people vouching for the president now. Mick Mulvaney “So, just to be clear: These claims are simply outrageous. I never heard the President disparage our war dead or wounded. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I was with him at the 75th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion in Normandy. As we flew over the beaches by helicopter he was outwardly in awe of the accomplishments of the Allied Forces, and the sacrifices they paid.” Johnny DeStefano “I was on this trip. The Atlantic bit is not true. Period.” Derek Lyons “I was with the president the morning after the scheduled visit. He was extremely disappointed that arrangements could not be made to get him to the site and that the trip had been cancelled. I have worked with the president for his entire administration. One of my responsibilities is working with him on the many letters he signs to the families of our nation’s fallen heroes. In all my time at the White House. I have never heard him utter a disparaging remark of any kind about our troops. In my view, he holds the brave men and women of our armed forces in the highest regard.” Dan Walsh “I can attest it to the fact that there was a bad weather called in France and that the helicopters were unable to safely make the flight. Overall, the president’s support and respect for our American troops past and present is unquestionable.” As of now we have 11 people (including some that dislike the president) willing to speak out personally saying it didn’t happen, against 4 anonymous sources. Make of it whatever you like. 1. The way trump talks about people makes it entirely possible he would indeed say this about our military folks. If this was being said about Clinton, Bush, or Obama I wouldn’t believe it because they have never shown the vindictiveness against others as trump has. 2. Yesterday when he tried to clean this up, he insulted all the generals by saying they probably don’t like him because all they want to do is start wars and make defense contractors rich. Maybe it’s just me, but that is not how you make your point that all the “anonymous” folks were lying. 3. As far as being anonymous, think Deep Throat. They didn’t find out who he was until years after the story broke. Or I should say decades. Also trump has a history of retaliating against those who he sees as his enemy and that is anyone who speaks out against him. 4. Those that are coming out to defend trump have their own credibility problems. Meaning they have been caught in lies. Bottom line, do I believe trump has said these things. I do and I base it on what he has said in the past. I do believe when trump talks about the military, he is more excited about the weaponry then he is about the personal. To him they are an afterthought. So I’m going to disagree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Sept 9, 2020 0:24:09 GMT
You can choose to believe that he said those things or not. There are plenty of things that he’s done and said, that are well documented that are insulting and denigrating to the military. The most recent? Claiming that generals don’t like him because all they want to do is start wars. In my opinion, it’s entirely plausible that he used the words suckers and losers given his history and actions, regardless of what his staff claims.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 17:42:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 0:39:01 GMT
And why should we care if this person was on the board using another name? I have never understood this thinking that more than a few times when someone new shows up on the board and they jump right in that automatically makes them someone who had previously been on the board, left and now they are sneaking back on using a different name. Who cares, your dealing with the person before you now, and not someone who may or may not have been on this board , left and came back. I’m probably going to irritate a few with these comments, but I just don’t get it. Who said you should care? And by the way, who is we? Is it because you left in a huff and came back with a newish name yourself? I personally like to know there is some consistency about the person posting if I am going to take the time to respond — that’s why *I* care. I’m not going to waste my time reading posts by someone who doesn’t have the integrity to at least use the same fake moniker, someone posting and agreeing with themselves under various alter egos. But you go ahead and validate all those multiple personalities with your responses. I say “we” because there are others like yourself who it seems to matters to. Now I know. |
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Sept 9, 2020 1:14:31 GMT
Anonymous sources corroborate anonymous sources and it’s a done deal, true!! Named sources deny and refute the story and they aren’t to be believed, lies!! Crazy. Can you explain what you mean by the part I have bolded? Your own links posted earlier cite anonymous sources corroborating the anonymous sources, plus there’s more. I don’t know anything about the Atlantic, but I like Jennifer Griffin and trust that she herself trusts her sources. When named sources won’t be trusted because of who they are, but people automatically believe unnamed sources without knowing their credibility and/or motivations, or at least questioning the timing behind it, it’s just more noise. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Sept 9, 2020 1:27:09 GMT
I don’t need to know who the anonymous sources are to believe them. I believe that he used those words because of well documented things he’s said in the past. And I believe that the Washington Post and the Associated Press, who corroborated the story are trustworthy. I don’t trust Fox News, but the fact that Jennifer Griffin also corroborated the story definitely makes it more credible. You could have 50 named sources vouching for him and I wouldn’t believe them. Trump’s desperate to hold on to votes and he’s lied more than 18,000 times. Anyone who works for him and enables those lies is not trustworthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by dizzycheermom on Sept 9, 2020 1:27:41 GMT
I am much more likely to trust a vetted anonymous source than a whole list of Trump's liars. PERIOD!
Doesn't really matter if the 2 people on this thread don't believe it. Seems like MANY MANY veterans and military believe it and are changing their votes.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
|
Post by sassyangel on Sept 9, 2020 1:32:15 GMT
Can you explain what you mean by the part I have bolded? Your own links posted earlier cite anonymous sources corroborating the anonymous sources, plus there’s more. I don’t know anything about the Atlantic, but I like Jennifer Griffin and trust that she herself trusts her sources. When named sources won’t be trusted because of who they are, but people automatically believe unnamed sources without knowing their credibility and/or motivations, or at least questioning the timing behind it, it’s just more noise. If a named source doesn’t have a history of lying early and often, I’m quite willing to consider what they have to say. The problem is too many of the people openly volunteering to vet him, have massive credibility problems like this. |
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Sept 9, 2020 1:32:18 GMT
I am much more likely to trust a vetted anonymous source than a whole list of Trump's liars. PERIOD! Doesn't really matter if the 2 people on this thread don't believe it. Seems like MANY MANY veterans and military believe it and are changing their votes. Which is exactly why the story was reported-if what you say is true, mission accomplished. These anonymous sources kept these juicy tidbits quiet for the past 2 1/2 years, and decided that 60 days before the election was the right time. That's serious willpower to keep it all to themselves. And that people don't care or question who or why the story just came to light, all the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Sept 9, 2020 1:39:46 GMT
I am much more likely to trust a vetted anonymous source than a whole list of Trump's liars. PERIOD! Doesn't really matter if the 2 people on this thread don't believe it. Seems like MANY MANY veterans and military believe it and are changing their votes. Which is exactly why the story was reported-if what you say is true, mission accomplished. These anonymous sources kept these juicy tidbits quiet for the past 2 1/2 years, and decided that 60 days before the election was the right time. That's serious willpower to keep it all to themselves. And that people don't care or question who or why the story just came to light, all the better.
I don’t think you’re giving veterans or military enough credit. They’re not changing their vote because of something he said or didn’t say 2 1/2 years ago. They’re changing their votes because of a long laundry list of not supporting the military, well documented statements and actions taken or not taken. Not to mention his mishandling of the pandemic, almost 200,000 deaths and more than 18,000 lies. Nothing that this man does is honorable. Veterans and service members changing their vote have plenty of reasons to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Sept 9, 2020 1:42:06 GMT
Which is exactly why the story was reported-if what you say is true, mission accomplished. These anonymous sources kept these juicy tidbits quiet for the past 2 1/2 years, and decided that 60 days before the election was the right time. That's serious willpower to keep it all to themselves. And that people don't care or question who or why the story just came to light, all the better.
I don’t think you’re giving veterans or military enough credit. They’re not changing their vote because of something he said or didn’t say 2 1/2 years ago. They’re changing their votes because of a long laundry list of not supporting the military, well documented statements and actions taken or not taken. Not to mention his mishandling of the pandemic, almost 200,000 deaths and more than 18,000 lies. Nothing that this man does is honorable. Veterans and service members changing their vote have plenty of reasons to do so. My response was directly related to dizzycheermom's comment that vets/military believe Trump said it and they're changing their votes because of it. |
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,613
Location: In the leaves and rain.
|
Post by stittsygirl on Sept 9, 2020 2:02:58 GMT
The recent polls done among military members, showing that more of them were likely to now vote for Biden over Trump, we’re done before the conventions and before The Atlantic article was published. Trump has been slipping in popularity amongst the troops since he took office. The Atlantic article just confirmed what many of us already knew - Trump cares very little for the actual humans and their families that make up our military. He is a self-serving narcissist and has always been.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
|
Post by sassyangel on Sept 9, 2020 2:06:26 GMT
I’m honestly incredulously amused that half of the people on my Facebook openly complaining about The Atlantic’s anonymous sources in this instance, have been fully sucked in by the beyond sketchy QAnon - poster child for out there in the Twilight Zone anonymous sources. 🙄 The mental gymnastics of this are staggering.
|
|
|
|
Post by dizzycheermom on Sept 9, 2020 2:22:45 GMT
I’m honestly incredulously amused that half of the people on my Facebook openly complaining about The Atlantic’s anonymous sources in this instance, have been fully sucked in by the beyond sketchy QAnon - poster child for out there in the Twilight Zone anonymous sources. 🙄 The mental gymnastics of this are staggering. YES!!! Irony, anyone??? |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Sept 9, 2020 2:38:17 GMT
I think it’s important to note, as John Kerry pointed out, the generals in the story have not come out and denied it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Sept 9, 2020 3:01:15 GMT
Which is exactly why the story was reported-if what you say is true, mission accomplished. These anonymous sources kept these juicy tidbits quiet for the past 2 1/2 years, and decided that 60 days before the election was the right time. That's serious willpower to keep it all to themselves. And that people don't care or question who or why the story just came to light, all the better.
I don’t think you’re giving veterans or military enough credit. They’re not changing their vote because of something he said or didn’t say 2 1/2 years ago. They’re changing their votes because of a long laundry list of not supporting the military, well documented statements and actions taken or not taken. Not to mention his mishandling of the pandemic, almost 200,000 deaths and more than 18,000 lies. Nothing that this man does is honorable. Veterans and service members changing their vote have plenty of reasons to do so. The USS Roosevelt. They can fly some blow hard out there to belittle their captain but can’t be bothered to bring ppe for the sailors left to clean the ship. Speaks volumes about this administration |
|
|
|
Post by peano on Sept 9, 2020 3:14:18 GMT
Can you explain what you mean by the part I have bolded? Your own links posted earlier cite anonymous sources corroborating the anonymous sources, plus there’s more. I don’t know anything about the Atlantic, but I like Jennifer Griffin and trust that she herself trusts her sources. When named sources won’t be trusted because of who they are, but people automatically believe unnamed sources without knowing their credibility and/or motivations, or at least questioning the timing behind it, it’s just more noise. You clearly don't understand how journalism works. That fact is at play with a large number of people in this country, unfortunately. Nixon was brought down by anonymous sources. Do you dispute that fact or the validity of Woodward and Bernstein's methodology? It's cool you like and trust Jennifer Griffin, but are you actually thinking her method of journalism differs from Jeffrey Goldberg's method? If so, why? If the only difference is that you "like" Jennifer Griffin, then that seems illogical. Reputable journalists employed by legacy publications like the Atlantic, like the WSJ, like the NY Times, like the WaPo, who over many years, and many journalism awards, comply with a rigorous code of ethics, and don't publish articles with assertions made by only one source. They need confirmation from multiple sources before a reputable publication will run an article. Their credibility depends upon it. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryann on Sept 9, 2020 3:18:17 GMT
This administration is collectively the “boy who cried wolf”. It’s so easy to not believe anything they say as all we’ve been told is lie, after lie, after lie. At this point, if Trump said the sky is blue, I wouldn’t believe him. Any credibility he had (if at all...) is looooong gone.
Also, for those that take issue with the timing of the story, do you think it came about overnight? It has likely been in the works for months. As to why publish it now... Why would any media outlet at this point want to do anything that could be seen as remotely helpful to this administration after the 3 year barrage of attacks they’ve endured under Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Sept 9, 2020 4:25:41 GMT
1. The way trump talks about people makes it entirely possible he would indeed say this about our military folks. If this was being said about Clinton, Bush, or Obama I wouldn’t believe it because they have never shown the vindictiveness against others as trump has. I do understand this line of thinking. I agree with you on Bill Clinton and Bush (either one) but if we're talking about Hillary or Obama, they have shown vindictiveness. Especially Hillary. 2. Yesterday when he tried to clean this up, he insulted all the generals by saying they probably don’t like him because all they want to do is start wars and make defense contractors rich. Maybe it’s just me, but that is not how you make your point that all the “anonymous” folks were lying. I agree with you 100% here. 3. As far as being anonymous, think Deep Throat. They didn’t find out who he was until years after the story broke. Or I should say decades. Also trump has a history of retaliating against those who he sees as his enemy and that is anyone who speaks out against him. The Associated Press Stylebook lays out the parameters for using anonymous sources. The stylebook says: Under AP’s rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if: The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report. The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source. The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information. Reporters who intend to use material from anonymous sources must get approval from their news managers. Explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, describe the source’s motive for disclosing the information.
The story also must provide attribution that establishes the source’s credibility; simply quoting a source is not allowed. Be as descriptive as possible about the source of information.
We know at least the last 2 weren't adhered to. excerpt from hereOver the past few years, reporters and editors have increasingly abandoned these rules. More and more often, no reason is even given for the anonymity, and sources treat newspapers as dumping grounds for cowardly and ungrounded political hits they’re not held accountable for. The reporters and editors, equally addicted to the attention that breaking news brings, allow it. When unscrupulous reporters who blend who is who to cover for the rumors, gossip, and innuendo they pass as journalism these days. Phrases like “according to former and current officials,” for example, sound important but the reality of many of the actually important jobs in government is former employees don’t know what is happening one week after they’ve left the building. For some reporters, using phrasing to blend a host of “formers” in with maybe one current employee creates the illusion of exhaustive reporting and trustworthy sourcing. 4. Those that are coming out to defend trump have their own credibility problems. Meaning they have been caught in lies. I'm not aware of their lies. Educate me. Bottom line, do I believe trump has said these things. I do and I base it on what he has said in the past. I do believe when trump talks about the military, he is more excited about the weaponry then he is about the personal. To him they are an afterthought. I understand. So I’m going to disagree with you. I also understand this. |
|
