Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

not everyone is a left wing billionaire who has strong anti-Trump hatred and owns a publication or a media outlet to express their biases . The left wing media bias is not a myth. Knowing the biases up front allows me to consume a balanced news diet .

---

What about the facts noted in the article? You didn't address that.

Assuming editorial policy reflects ownership is not necessarily true. The Atlantic has a superb reputation for factual reporting. Editor Goldberg is a highly respected journalist often called a neoconservative. (also called a liberal).

Referring to Goldberg's "blockbuster revelation," the Intelligencer said "The scope and intensity of the pushback was nuclear." It added, "While it's impossible to directly prove any of these allegations, there is an impressive amount of corroborating evidence. Almost all of it supports Goldberg's reporting," which the Associated Press, The New York Times, Fox News, and The Washington Post "quickly confirmed."

Quote:

---

FOX News confirmed the Atlantic article, then said it was not true, then reconfirmed it, then false again, and finally confirmed it. A roller coaster of good contending with evil.

---

So it did not, as you claimed, confirm the story. Simple.

Quote:

---

I acknowledge your right to post whatever you want. I retain the right to personally block whatever you write which I will resume after finishing this post - although I may unblock you from time to time as needed.

---

Please. Make my day. Block me.

Very simple ;sources should come out and make their charge publicly . You know that we are going to be deluged with stories from unnamed sources in the next 2 months .Ten people on the trip have come forward to say the Atlantic story is false; including John Bolton who said that if it was true he would've put it in his book . Also denying it are Mick Mulvaney, former Chief of Staff and Johnny DeStefano, former counselor to the president ,Derek Lyons, staff secretary and counselor to the president, and Dan Walsh, former White House deputy chief of staff .
Lyons' statement :
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.

Walsh’s statement: “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. " Mulvane's statement :“As you all can probably imagine, I have seen more than my share of outrageous (and false) attacks on the President over the last few years. But this whole injured soldiers thing really, really pushes the envelope.”

DeStefano tweeted : I was on this trip. The Atlantic bit is not true. Period.

Now what would you expect of the dufus and his gang of sycophant to say? Their job is to be loyal to the boss and defend him right? If it becomes public who those unnamed anonymous sources are they would become instant targets akin to a mob boss putting the kiss of death to a flunky. Have you forgotten what the dufus demands of his workers or what he does when they don't do as he says?

This whole weekend has been a montage of the dufus loser sucker reruns in public on tape so what's so far fetched about his private uttering being more of the same?

So everyone with the courage to be named says the story is garbage, and the only response is, "Now what would you expect..?" So there is no satisfying the "We hate Trump" crowd. A lie is as good as the truth to them. It's Kavanaugh all over again except worse.

Doesn't take courage for a sycophant to do what the boss says, or understand the fear of being fired and attacked if you do otherwise. Given past words and actions by the dufus it's rather easy to believe he bad mouths people in private. More likely than NOT for sure, and just as easy for his fans to go along with it like you forever dufus defenders no matter what he does.

maybe you missed this in their descriptions

Mick Mulvaney, former Chief of Staff and Johnny DeStefano, former counselor to the president ,Derek Lyons, staff secretary and counselor to the president, and Dan Walsh, former White House deputy chief of staff .

Add to that John Bolton ;who hates Trump's guts was former National Security Advisor . Why would they be concerned about being fired ?

This is just a lame attempt to decouple Trump from his base . I guess to employ the same strategery to Quid you would have to make claims that he was bad mouthing the 'peaceful' protesters .

Here is Nikki Haley's comment today ; All of us who worked with Donald Trump witnessed the tremendous amount of love and respect he has for our military. He was determined to protect them. We had many conversations in NSC meetings about protecting them.

Quote:

---

A lie is as good as the truth to them. It's Kavanaugh all over again except worse.

---

this reminds me of the hit piece they tried on Bush in 2004 about his deserting his National Guard service . When Dan Rather got caught lying they said the story was "fake but accurate " .
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/u...-accurate.html

Wonder where all those folks were when he was knocking McCain and the Khans? If they can ignore what's on the record why can't they ignore what wasn't?

Surprised no one has asked those sycophants about those comments. That response would be a hoot. Go ahead dismiss the allegations as BS like you dismiss Cohen who went to jail for lying for the dufus, and dismiss his niece in her new book, and dismiss Melanie's friend too while you're at it.

The guy's a lying cheating crook now and has always been so defend him all you want.

Khan put himself in the political crossfire by making an address at the DNC against Trump .

His feud with McCain was long standing . He ripped off a comedy bit by Chris Rock (who's audience thought was hilarious ) and used it inappropriately . You will find no one here defending that . But it reflects the feud he had against McCain and not his attitude about the military .

So explain away this by a real hero!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mi...cid=uxbndlbing

Everybody wants to dump on the poor dufus. Cry me a river!

nothing to explain He is basing his opinion on the words of anonymous sources .

Quote:

---

If they can ignore what's on the record why can't they ignore what wasn't?

---

What???

As to the Sully story, it might as well have said, "Sully, who has zero first hand knowledge of the supposed incident, has decided to believe what un-named sources supposedly said."

This hatred driven commenting really gets sickening. The "We believe in tolerance" crowd just hate the guy, and so they are willing to believe anything and everything no matter how sickeningly phony it might be.

Oh stop, even repubs HATE the dufus and his words, antics and ways, so stop pretending he is but a victim. He deserves every ounce of derision and mistrust that gets thrown his way and then some and for sure that's what he will get.

Nobody should tolerate is abuse and blatantly lying. No excuse! NONE! You wonder why it's so easy to believe unnamed sources about this dude? You haven't been paying much attention.

If you want to criticize him for lying, then fine. I also hope you were equally critical of Obama. But to stand on a ridiculous story about him making disparaging remarks about dead military heroes makes your position appear cheap.

Get over yourself as where were you when he disparaged a gold star family and McCain? That wasn't cheap? You said nothing and now you cry when what the dufus sent around comes back to him.

Quote:

---

disparaged a gold star family

---

That's nonsense. Didn't happen. And please don't just blindly post a link you have not bothered to read. If you will read the accounts carefully, you will see the accounts are, at the very least, disputed.

His comments about McCain, AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, were stupid. They were about on the same level as Biden claiming that poor kids could perform at the same level as white kids, a comment at least mildly racist and one which I'm sure you have criticized on this board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That's nonsense. Didn't happen. And please don't just blindly post a link you have not bothered to read. If you will read the accounts carefully, you will see the accounts are, at the very least, disputed.

---

I was on his team until, during his 2015 campaign, he mocked disabled reporter, Sergei Kovaleski, (https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/07/...bled-reporter/) and later creepily shadowed Hillary during the debates (https://www.wane.com/news/national-w...-debate-stage/).

This morning, Biden went to church. Trump went golfing.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/ne...h-service.html

Perhaps Biden heard something that would correct his pro-abortion, anti-life, anti-traditional marriage positions.

The complaint that Hillary's "skin crawled" was really funny. If she can't handle that minor annoyance, she certainly had no business being president. You guys are really desperate.

Quote:

---

seemingly mocked Kovaleski’s physical appearance.

---

Another one of those definite maybes.

Have ya'll had much luck with changing the history books to now show that Edison actually did NOT develop the first light bulb?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Khan put himself in the political crossfire by making an address at the DNC against Trump .

---

Tom, this is one of the strangest things you've ever posted. A man whose son died in Irag fighting for his country criticizes Trump for his anti-Muslim attitude ("read the Constitution"), and you say it's his own fault because he put himself in the "political crossfire".

Quote:

---

Trump ripped off a comedy bit by Chris Rock (who's audience thought was hilarious ) and used it inappropriately

---

Inappropriately? I'll say!

Quote:

---

You will find no one here defending that

---

Except for you, you mean?

Quote:

---

But it reflects the feud he had against McCain and not his attitude about the military .

---

Sheer hogwash!! His very words reflected his attitude against US prisoners of war, and by extension, the US military. Your defense of Trump is getting desperate, tomder.

spare me the crying over McCain . The Dems love Repubs ....when they are dead . The Dems absolutely trashed him during the 2008 campaign. He was every Dems favorite rogue Repub until the campaign . Then Harry Reid said that he hated McCain and that McCain did not have the temperament to be President .He was called a racist (for voting against MLK Day) and a war monger . John Lewis said that McCain was stoking hatred and compared him to George Wallace .The emperor said in a debate ;“John, you are absolutely right, presidents have to be prudent about what they say. But coming from you, who in the past have threatened extinction for North Korea and sung songs about bombing Iran, I don’t know how credible that is.” The emperor accused him of being ignorant of real America " “I don’t believe that Sen. McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of Americans — I just think he doesn’t know.” The NY slimes endorsed him during the NY Repub primaries and then they ran a fake adultery story on him.
Many of the things Trump says about McCain he heard first from the Dems .
It was the Dems that said he was too old and senile
It was the Dems that said his service in Vietnam was no big deal.Gen Wesley Clarke said just because you get shot down, that doesn't qualify you to be President.
The fact is that the things the Dems say about Trump today are the very same things they said about Reagan ,the Bush's ,McCain and Romney .

so what does Trump REALLY think about wounded Soldiers ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLej...ature=emb_logo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

spare me the crying over McCain . ......................................<skip>...... ...............................<skip>............. .................................................. ................out bombing Iran, I don’t know how credible that is.” The emperor accused ..................................don’t believe that Sen. McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the .................................................e s endorsed him during the NY Repub primaries and then they ran a fake adultery story on him.

---

Tom, not a SINGLE thing you wrote about McCain has anything to do with Trump's slamming the war hero McCain. It's not about McCain's politics. It's all about Trump's disgusting characterization of McCain's service to his country - a service Trump was a draft dodger for.

If this were only about the military, it would be bad enough, but Trump also made a mockery of a severely disabled man on national and world-wide television.

Today we learned Trump hired a look-alike to Obama to practice with. Ultimately, he fired the look-alike.

Can anyone seriously maintain that Trump is not a mental case?

Wife of Jeffrey Goldberg, worked as a senior adviser to Evita and donated the max dollar amount to her 2016 campaign. She also gave $1,000 to Quid in March.

As for the unbiased reporting of Goldberg ;here are some of the articles he's written during the Trump years


Donald Trump’s Mafia Mind-Set

Listening to a legendary American mobster and hearing the president of the United States


Mattis Always Understood Trump’s Severe Defects

And his resignation means he knows that the president will never change.


The Atlantic Bears Witness to Trump’s Destructive Presidency

Editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg explains “Unthinkable,” an attempt to chronicle the most bizarre—and dangerous—moments of this presidency.


Impeachment: An Argument


He’s Getting Worse

Trump is turning the American presidency into a platform for the wholesale demonization of minorities.

The Man Who Couldn’t Take It Anymore

“I had no choice but to leave,” General James Mattis says of his decision to resign as President Trump’s secretary of defense.


James Mattis Denounces President Trump, Describes Him as a Threat to the Constitution

In an extraordinary condemnation, the former defense secretary backs protesters and says the president is trying to turn Americans against one another.

Am I seeing a pattern with conservatives? Unable to separate the simple nuances of reality? Political campaigns are often close and personal between candidates, debates are often personal attacks to raise profiles and lower your opponents. That's always been the nature of the beast. It's a given in our politics. Opponents often are more friends off season and off camera, remember Reagan and O'Neil? Meadows and Cummings?

My point is conservatives tend to conflate these very different behaviors in ways that distort the reality whether by accident or intentionally and the case in point is tying the call for police reform with the criminal behavior that follow. The dufus is good at stoking that difference emphasizing the criminal, and ignoring the protestors all together. Amazing he and his conservative defenders and sycophants don't address BOTH constructively, rather ignoring the issue of police brutality altogether.

Not surprising then that we have this current controversy with how he feels about the military since he has said many things that make it very easy to believe he actually said his behind the scenes disgusting comments, and not believe his denials, because he is a habitual liar, exaggerator and fountain of misinformation, and that his defenders and sycophants are quick to ignore these things. He adds to his legacy of lying, cheating, stealing and bullying every friggin day, so forget the benefit of a doubt folks, he hardly deserves it.

So go ahead and hide behind the unnamed sources, because we all know you're just waiting with knives a ready to cut whomever these sources are. We saw what was done to political opponents and whistleblowers and those IG's, AG's and Department Secretaries that don't toe the Dufus Party line that requires strict loyalty to him and only him.

Make no mistake the repubs are dead, and the dufus IS the party. Conservative need to face that reality and start defining republicanism again, instead of embracing dufusism. I know, hard to tell the difference, but for sure defending the dufus ain't republicanism...or is it?

That's not good either way!

Quote:

---

So go ahead and hide behind the unnamed sources,

---

That made me laugh. Hide behind unnamed sources? Aren't you, in fact, the very one doing that? You believe Trump said certain things because unnamed sources said he did, but you discount the actual named sources who deny the allegations and dismiss them as "sycophants". So who, in fact, is really the one hiding behind unnamed sources?

Our sources are named. Yours are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Make no mistake the repubs are dead, and the dufus IS the party. Conservative need to face that reality and start defining republicanism again, instead of embracing dufusism. I know, hard to tell the difference, but for sure defending the dufus ain't republicanism...or is it?

---

A most important point! The con man from New York has taken over what was once a Grand party. After 2020, the Republican Party will need years to recover. They have shaken hands with the devil and are about to pay dearly for it.

Quote:

---

Make no mistake the repubs are dead, and the dufus IS the party.

---

Make no mistake the Dems are dead and the All Out Crazies have taken over the party agenda .

Quote:

---

Conservative need to face that reality and start defining republicanism again, instead of embracing dufusism. I know, hard to tell the difference

---

Liberals need to face that reality and start defining what it is to be a Democrat again, instead of embracing radical progressive socialism. I know, hard to tell the difference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

instead of embracing radical progressive socialism. I know, hard to tell the difference

---

Do you know what socialism is?

Reading this thread I released you are all out of your minds, each side thinks the other insane and there is a rational explanation for this, you have driven each other mad with your incessant bickering

Quote:

---

Do you know what socialism is?

---

of course I do

so I assume you are going to now ask me what I think socialism is . Ok
Socialism is an anti-capitalist movement that developed in the 19 century .It demands economic equality guaranteed and enforced by the state . It envisons a society where the means of production ,distribution and labor are owned and/or highly regulated by the state .

From that premise 2 thoughts emerged . 1. Democratic Socialism . It is a gradual Fabian like movement to gradually transform society to their goals . 2. A more radical revolutionary means to abolish existing institutions to hasten the move to a full socialist state . Marxism takes it a step further and abolishes the state . Fascism puts the illusion of capitalism into a state control of the economy . Fascism and Marxism are socialism by definition .
Socialism has been a failure .So it's proponents white washed it and relabeled it 'progressivism' . I would like to thank your bible 'The Atlantic' for in many words ,pointing out that socialism and progressivism is a distinction without a difference .
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...essive/593095/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

so I assume you are going to now ask me what I think socialism is .

---

Ha ha - right on! Yup, exactly what I was going to ask.

Quote:

---

Fascism puts the illusion of capitalism into a state control of the economy

---

I might quibble here. But let's stay with socialism.

Quote:

---

I would like to thank your bible 'The Atlantic'

---

The Atlantic my Bible? LOL - if you only knew.

Ok, thank you.

Would you describe specifically why you consider the Democratic Party "socialistic"? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if I haven't characterized your opinion correctly re the Party, please change it.

In any case, please be as specific and detailed as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

so I assume you are going to now ask me what I think socialism is . Ok
Socialism is an anti-capitalist movement that developed in the 19 century .It demands economic equality guaranteed and enforced by the state . It envisons a society where the means of production ,distribution and labor are owned and/or highly regulated by the state .

From that premise 2 thoughts emerged . 1. Democratic Socialism . It is a gradual Fabian like movement to gradually transform society to their goals . 2. A more radical revolutionary means to abolish existing institutions to hasten the move to a full socialist state . Marxism takes it a step further and abolishes the state . Fascism puts the illusion of capitalism into a state control of the economy . Fascism and Marxism are socialism by definition .
Socialism has been a failure .So it's proponents white washed it and relabeled it 'progressivism' . I would like to thank your bible 'The Atlantic' for in many words ,pointing out that socialism and progressivism is a distinction without a difference .
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...essive/593095/

---

I think those are false premises that fails to take into account who implements and how rules and regulations are implemented. That is what defines any system. Implementation has always been my peeve against repubs even as somethings make sense (ID'S), but the shenanigans behind the implementation is atrocious (Closing urban DMV's and moving them to rural locations without transportation, and with limited days and hours of service.).

Capitalism-The philosophy that money is GOD, and profits come before people.

partly right capitalism is the private ownership of property and the means of production . It is a name created by socialists to misbrand it the way you have . A better name for it would be economic individualism (Adam Smith's definition) . The pursuit of self interest and the right to own private property are morally defensible and legally legitimate ; the state exists to protect individual rights. Subject to certain restrictions, individuals (alone or with others) are free to decide where to invest, what to produce or sell, and what prices to charge. Yes profits are a key motivator .But that is by providing goods and services that others want ;but can't or don't want to do themselves .Adam Smith said “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” I may want the steak the butcher provides . But I don't know the first thing about raising cattle ,or slaughtering them to make the steak .So I am willing to pay the butcher for the service . It is win win. Those exchanges happen frequently in a free market "capitalist " economy .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Would you describe specifically why you consider the Democratic Party "socialistic"? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if I haven't characterized your opinion correctly re the Party, please change it.

In any case, please be as specific and detailed as possible.

---

No answer to my question posted above?

give me time . I also have a life to live .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

give me time . I also have a life to live .

---

OK ..........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I may want the steak the butcher provides . But I don't know the first thing about raising cattle ,or slaughtering them to make the steak .So I am willing to pay the butcher for the service . It is win win. Those exchanges happen frequently in a free market "capitalist " economy .

---

But that butcher works for a huge conglomerate such as Walmart or Whole Foods or Trader Joe's or Wegman's that buys those sides of beef. He cuts out those steaks for you and gets paid by the particular conglomerate he works for. You pay the conglomerate, not the butcher.

Did you watch the debates (or the video I posted) when Trump crept around on the stage, shadowing Hillary? I was screaming at her to turn around and punch him in his fat gut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

partly right capitalism is the private ownership of property and the means of production . It is a name created by socialists to misbrand it the way you have . A better name for it would be economic individualism (Adam Smith's definition) . The pursuit of self interest and the right to own private property are morally defensible and legally legitimate ; the state exists to protect individual rights. Subject to certain restrictions, individuals (alone or with others) are free to decide where to invest, what to produce or sell, and what prices to charge. Yes profits are a key motivator .But that is by providing goods and services that others want ;but can't or don't want to do themselves .Adam Smith said “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” I may want the steak the butcher provides . But I don't know the first thing about raising cattle ,or slaughtering them to make the steak .So I am willing to pay the butcher for the service . It is win win. Those exchanges happen frequently in a free market "capitalist " economy .

---

Nice spin Tom. Just enough truth to SOUND logical. Just like the justification for Reaganomics (AKA Trickle down and supply side) was the job creation. The problem was the application of who decided the value of labor and we both know rich guys pay peanuts to workers and are take more than the lions share of profit.

The result is plants move overseas for cheap labor, and the rich guys get a tax break out of it for creating a ghost town. Look around your own country bud.