President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Professor Moriarty

Kitsunegari wrote: »

What's extraordinary is using unnamed sources as a basis for an argument. You can believe everything you read in the press. I'll stick to traditional journalism where your sources can be checked. Anything else is just unproven speculation.

I never stated that either. Assumptions are the mother of all **** ups.

If you "stick to traditional journalism" but consider The Guardian, NYT and WP to be unreliable as news sources, which news sources do you consider to be reliable and to contain "traditional journalism"?

mcmoustache

demfad wrote: »

What's also noticable is that any time 'big news' occurs in the Trump Russia storry one or two of these posters take the thread off on a nit-picking tangent and dominate the dialogue until the bad news has subsided.

I know. Some pop into this one from time to time to yell "Fake News" and post things that they know to be either false or disingenuous but I have to admit, these posters are sincere in that they support Trump.

InTheTrees

Kitsunegari wrote: »

What's extraordinary is using unnamed sources as a basis for an argument. You can believe everything you read in the press. I'll stick to traditional journalism where your sources can be checked.

Have you heard of Watergate? President Nixon was forced to resign based largely on information from unnamed sources.

The source at the white house was nicknamed "Deep Throat" and fed information to journalists Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post.

Seriously. If you're going to expound on the history of "traditional journalism" at least read up on it a bit.

BabyCheeses

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Yes, if they exist. I'm suggesting that they don't based on the WP history. I'm not sure why you're being pedantic.

If people think that unnamed officials are trusted sources of information then I give up.

Even made up stories are probably still closer to the truth than the president with the biggest inauguration and landslide win ever.

hmmm

Politico - "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was seen arriving at the Senate Intelligence Committee's secure office spaces Thursday afternoon. Sources told POLITICO Rosenstein had requested to meet with the Intelligence Committee leaders, Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.), who both hastily left an open, televised committee hearing for what Burr said was a meeting "we can't push off.""

https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/862705197361106944

hmmm

AP - "Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe tells Senate panel he will not update the White House on the Russia investigation"

It's all happening today. I have to think Rosenstein is key, he has some responsibility to shoulder - thankfully he appears to be respected on both sides of the house.

hmmm

Video of a man walking down a hall, nothing to see here.

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/862701691610710016

InTheTrees

hmmm wrote: »

AP - "Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe tells Senate panel he will not update the White House on the Russia investigation"

It's all happening today. I have to think Rosenstein is key, he has some responsibility to shoulder - thankfully he appears to be respected on both sides of the house.

McCabe has basically said the FBI investigations will continue uninterrupted. He also gave a glowing endorsement of Comey and said that that FBI fully supported him. Directly contradicting the nonsense statement trump gave.

Rosenstein has also reportedly said he was told by the white house to write the memo recommending conveys dismissal.

Professor Moriarty

InTheTrees wrote: »

McCabe has basically said the FBI investigations will continue uninterrupted. He also gave a glowing endorsement of Comey and said that that FBI fully supported him. Directly contradicting the nonsense statement trump gave.

Rosenstein has also reportedly said he was told by the white house to write the memo recommending conveys dismissal.

Wow. If that's true, that's a complete misuse of presidential authority. More blood in the water.

Christy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Wow. If that's true, that's a complete misuse of presidential authority. More blood in the water.

If it is true. And I do mean if as I have seen nothing on this it is also doesn't say a lot for Rosenstein's spine given he is barely in position.

However not something I am too sure on now. There are issues on how Comey handled the e-mail scandal and given the fine margins he may have been the difference between the two candidates. So I can see wanting to fire Comey but I don't believe Trump wishes to punish someone for potentially handing him the whitehouse.

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

If it is true. And I do mean if as I have seen nothing on this it is also doesn't say a lot for Rosenstein's spine given he is barely in position.

However not something I am too sure on now. There are issues on how Comey handled the e-mail scandal and given the fine margins he may have been the difference between the two candidates. So I can see wanting to fire Comey but I don't believe Trump wishes to punish someone for potentially handing him the whitehouse.

Indeed, it's all just speculation. However, I don't believe for one second that Comey was fired because of the Clinton emails. Plus it could be argued that Rosenstein is showing a spine by going public (if that's what is happening). There were a lot of reports circulating that he was unhappy which would corroborate the rumour that he was forced to write the memo. In all of this, there is no smoke without fire.

Kitsunegari

InTheTrees wrote: »

Have you heard of Watergate? President Nixon was forced to resign based largely on information from unnamed sources.

The source at the white house was nicknamed "Deep Throat" and fed information to journalists Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post.

Seriously. If you're going to expound on the history of "traditional journalism" at least read up on it a bit.

Ah ok, so unnamed sources should be relied upon as fact because of Watergate. Stop using one example to proove a point. My point was that unnamed sources cannot be relied upon. That still stands. Your strawman argument isn't working with me either. Stop moving the goalposts.

Water John

The standard practise of a journalist, when relying on unnamed sources for a story, is to get it from two independent sources.

Deep Throat pointed Woodward and Bernstein in certain directions. They still had to get collobaration.

MSM publish with good faith.. Ocassionally, get it wrong and have to retract.
Totally different to fake news.
Of course now Trump, Conway et al are deliberately calling anything they don't agree with, fake news.

It is quite simple, any obfuscation here, are simply attempts to muddy the waters.

InTheTrees

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Stop using one example to proove a point.

I was actually using one example of watergate and deep throat, to disprove your point that unnamed sources are not reliable.

Itssoeasy

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Ah ok, so unnamed sources should be relied upon as fact because of Watergate. Stop using one example to proove a point. My point was that unnamed sources cannot be relied upon. That still stands. Your strawman argument isn't working with me either. Stop moving the goalposts.

Yeah why rely on the small event in US history like watergate. It's just a footnote sure. News outlets use sources all the time. It's how both TV and newspapers fill the time and column inches. Also there's a reason they are unnamed as to protect the persons identity, as normally the info they have is going to implicate someone in something. Have you heard the phrase "protect your sources" ? I've found your arguments in your post to be utterly ridiculous and yet despite several poster explaining to you in simple language you just kept going.

InTheTrees

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Ah ok, so unnamed sources should be relied upon as fact because of Watergate.
...
Stop moving the goalposts.

Ah ok... Except nobody said unnamed sources "should be relied on as fact" did they?

InTheTrees

Trump signed an executive order today establishing an agency to investigate voter fraud in the last election.
No doubt he hopes his idiot claim of three million illegal votes will be proved.

But it's actually far more likely that such an agency will also end up investigating the Russian interference because that's the most blatant fraud out there.

mcmoustache

hmmm wrote: »

Video of a man walking down a hall, nothing to see here.

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/862701691610710016

Also right now, FBI raiding GOP fundraising/consulting firm in Annapolis, according to Twitter.

B_Wayne

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Ah ok, so unnamed sources should be relied upon as fact because of Watergate. Stop using one example to proove a point. My point was that unnamed sources cannot be relied upon. That still stands. Your strawman argument isn't working with me either. Stop moving the goalposts.

By your very own logic, Watergate should have been dismissed. Unnamed sources are common practice, it protects them and offers them safety. Even in Ireland, we've had our Garda whistleblower. There have been whistleblowers on the smoking industry, There was whistleblowing on Abu Ghraib abuse of prisoners, these are the ones I've thought of off hand.

Many had their identities eventually revealed but were they less credible when they were anonymous sources that the press had investigated the credibility of? The press's reputation relies on credible sources.

Christy42

InTheTrees wrote: »

Trump signed an executive order today establishing an agency to investigate voter fraud in the last election.
No doubt he hopes his idiot claim of three million illegal votes will be proved.

But it's actually far more likely that such an agency will also end up investigating the Russian interference because that's the most blatant fraud out there.

At least he is attempting to back up his claim. I mean I think it will be a waste of resources but given he has made the claim he should back it up (granted given how definitively he made he should have had the results of the investigation then and there but anyhow).

Given it is an executive order and not part of working with Congress where will the funds come from? Or is it more of a I tried order like Obama with Gitmo.

BoatMad

we must be getting closer and closer to a watergate style melt down

Water John

According to the WP, Deputy Attorney General has threatend to resign, over being thrown, under the bus.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.92484b69da74&wpisrc=nl_most-draw8&wpmm=1

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

According to the WP, Deputy Attorney General has threatend to resign, over being thrown, under the bus.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.92484b69da74&wpisrc=nl_most-draw8&wpmm=1

The Washington Post? Fake news.

Itssoeasy

President trump has said he was going to fire James comey regardless of what the deputy AG said.

Yet Sean spicer is saying the opposite more or less.

Kitsunegari

B_Wayne wrote: »

By your very own logic, Watergate should have been dismissed. Unnamed sources are common practice, it protects them and offers them safety. Even in Ireland, we've had our Garda whistleblower. There have been whistleblowers on the smoking industry, There was whistleblowing on Abu Ghraib abuse of prisoners, these are the ones I've thought of off hand.

Many had their identities eventually revealed but were they less credible when they were anonymous sources that the press had investigated the credibility of? The press's reputation relies on credible sources.

Like I said you can believe whatever you want from the papers and I'll remain sceptical until proven otherwise. There is a huge difference between Watergate and what happened in TWP yesterday. If you can't see how ridiculous it is to compare the two then I'm not sure there is a point in debating it any further. It's bizarre the logic people will try and use to defend an article full of hear say.

People have an irrational hatred from Trump. It's hard to debate when you've already made your mind up about everything and just use the media to validate your view points. It's very clear that in this thread you're on one side or the other. As Trump would say: It's Sad!

InTheTrees

mcmoustache wrote:

Also right now, FBI raiding GOP fundraising/consulting firm in Annapolis, according to Twitter.

This is a huge deal. RICO is being mentioned. Its a statute to do with money laundering and corruption which is usually used to go after organised crime syndicates.

We may be getting closer to President Hatch.

InTheTrees

Kitsunegari wrote: »

People have an irrational hatred from Trump.

45,000 people died every year in the USA before obamacare because of lack of healthcare.

Trump wants to return to that.

I am baffled as to how you think that's "irrational". Is not wanting people to die irrational??

BoatMad

Rightwing wrote: »

More facts: The caliphate has crumbled, and it didn't crumble by itself.

mainly as a result of Iraqi troops and their Iranian friends , ( and ISISs mistaken belief that you can hold ground with fighters aircraft these days )
the net result being that Iraq has become in effect a Iranian client state

The net effect of this will be the Sunnis turning to another ISIS soon enough

Professor Moriarty

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Like I said you can believe whatever you want from the papers and I'll remain sceptical until proven otherwise. There is a huge difference between Watergate and what happened in TWP yesterday. If you can't see how ridiculous it is to compare the two then I'm not sure there is a point in debating it any further. It's bizarre the logic people will try and use to defend an article full of hear say.

People have an irrational hatred from Trump. It's hard to debate when you've already made your mind up about everything and just use the media to validate your view points. It's very clear that in this thread you're on one side or the other. As Trump would say: It's Sad!

Freudian slip: "People have an irrational hatred from Trump."

At the risk of repeating myself, if you don't consider The Guardian, NYT and the WP to be worthy news sources, whI have news outlets are reliable sources of '"traditional journalism"?

BoatMad

There is a huge difference between Watergate and what happened in TWP yesterday.

only from the perspective of hindsight , knowing the full watergate process, but Nixon did exactly the same thing , tried to silence individuals when he thought they were getting close to damaging him.

it then all added up in the end, like it will fro Trump, if history teaches him anything ( and it may not it seems ) its that these things dont do away

People have an irrational hatred from Trump

I would argue they dont ( allowing for your slip ) , they just see him as he is, a chancer and a dangerous one at that