Resistance From Inside Trump Admin

[Dark_Grey]

5 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

If he simply denied it or pressed them to admit it's a hoax, then it just turns into a case of "he said, she said".  By pressing them to identify the author he's putting the onus of proof squarely on the NYT, in effect telling them to "put up or shut up".

This. He's obviously trying to call the NYT bluff. Looking forward to finally identifying this mystery author

[Robotic Jew]

4 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

This. He's obviously trying to call the NYT bluff. Looking forward to finally identifying this mystery author

So, you seek to destroy the very protection that has exposed so many cases of corruption? Just, do away with the ability to whistleblow without fear of repercussions? That's dangerous.

[Helen of Annoy]

24 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

If he simply denied it or pressed them to admit it's a hoax, then it just turns into a case of "he said, she said".  By pressing them to identify the author he's putting the onus of proof squarely on the NYT, in effect telling them to "put up or shut up".

They've put up. (Not that anyone sane was surprised with the description of the tragic situation in the WH.)

And they won't shut up. Because in non-totalitarian societies, press does not shut up just because the president personally doesn't like what was published. 

[Big Jim]

12 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

So, you seek to destroy the very protection that has exposed so many cases of corruption? Just, do away with the ability to whistleblow without fear of repercussions? That's dangerous.

Our entire history is based on people's signatures.  You can't get any kind of license without a signature.  The Magna Carta is just a piece of parchment without King John's signature.  The 95 Theses would be forgotten graffiti if Martin Luther hadn't signed it.  The intent of the NYT article is to take down a sitting President.  It is just so much fish wrap without knowing the identity and credentials of the person who wrote it.  One of the fundamental rights that we are assured of is the right to face our accuser.  When it comes to the President we are constantly reminded that "no one is above the law".  Well, no one is lacking it's protection either.

[RAyMO]

5 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

The intent of the NYT article is to take down a sitting President.

Was it? Or was it to Republicans - keep the faith we have we have your back covered?

[Big Jim]

8 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Was it? Or was it to Republicans - keep the faith we have we have your back covered?

If you wanted to sell something to Republicans would you put your only ad in the NYT?

[RAyMO]

Just now, Big Jim said:

If you wanted to sell something to Republicans would you put your only ad in the NYT

Yip if you didn't want outed by the Trump lot.

[Setton]

22 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Our entire history is based on people's signatures.  You can't get any kind of license without a signature.  The Magna Carta is just a piece of parchment without King John's signature.  The 95 Theses would be forgotten graffiti if Martin Luther hadn't signed it.  The intent of the NYT article is to take down a sitting President.  It is just so much fish wrap without knowing the identity and credentials of the person who wrote it.  One of the fundamental rights that we are assured of is the right to face our accuser.  When it comes to the President we are constantly reminded that "no one is above the law".  Well, no one is lacking it's protection either.

And if this was a legal case, he would have the right to face his accuser.

As it is not, however, this is another attempt to distract from the issue. Whether you like that people know it or not, your president's administration is a shambles. 

[Dark_Grey]

58 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

So, you seek to destroy the very protection that has exposed so many cases of corruption? Just, do away with the ability to whistleblow without fear of repercussions? That's dangerous.

Does it really matter what I think? Obama campaigned on a promise to protect whistle blowers and we all know how that story ended. If you have the wrong things to say about the right people, anonymity probably won't do you much good as it is.

Now considering the number of fluff pieces, attack pieces and outright fabrications that have come from the media giants to discredit or hurt Trump, I don't think I'm out of turn when I say I want to vet this "opinion" piece before we started popping champagne bottles.

[+OverSword]

3 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

They've put up. (Not that anyone sane was surprised with the description of the tragic situation in the WH.)

And they won't shut up. Because in non-totalitarian societies, press does not shut up just because the president personally doesn't like what was published. 

So you admit we're not totalitarian then?

[Big Jim]

3 hours ago, Setton said:

And if this was a legal case, he would have the right to face his accuser.

As it is not, however, this is another attempt to distract from the issue. Whether you like that people know it or not, your president's administration is a shambles. 

Are you distracted?  Good, because that's not what I was trying to do.  Without a name on the article we know nothing.  It could have come from anybody, anywhere.  The NYT can't even vouch for the writer's integrity without knowing who it is.  They must have published it merely because it reinforces their own bias.  Is that also why you believe it?

[pallidin]

Come now. Trump is not, nor has even been a true Republican.

Recall during the early race he said:

"If the Republican party will not accept me, I will run as an independent"

His exact words.

So, there you have it. Trump is a Republican by "convenience", not conviction.

 

[pallidin]

I feel that it would be in the best interest of our Country for Trump not to seek a second term (unlikely), or to have an actually mature Republican be in viable contention.

[AnchorSteam]

4 hours ago, pallidin said:

Come now. Trump is not, nor has even been a true Republican.

...

An expert on that, are you? 

Okay, if you want to make generalized judgements about everyone in a political party, lets volley that right back at you;

Trump's opposition from the orthodoxy seems incredible to the Left, where rigid adherence to Democrat Fundamentalism is an absolute requirement. A Leftist can be excommunicated for any deviation from the Party line, or any sign of disobedience from (or criticism of) the Deep State. All Govt Bureaucracies are above suspicion, no matter how corrupt they are or how hated they were until the day before they started working against Trump.

In the case of the CIA, it literally was an over-night switch-a-roo. 

And "true Republicans" are not supposed to become hopelessly corrupt cogs in machine known as Big Government and then lie about it all the time, give results that are identical to what a Democrat would have given, and be a perpetual disapointment to all of the people who voted for them. In other words, they failed to represent the very people they conned into voting for them.

Now, I know Democrats love that kind of Republican (RINO) and even Hero-ize them when they die, and (I have no idea why any Leftist would care about this.... ) that ain't how a Representative form of Govt is supposed to work. In fact, it is a stealth form of one-Party Rule.

So, instead of being blindly loyal to a corrupt Party, Republicans have chosen to ignore labels and support a man based on his merits instead.

"Gasp, a Meritocracy, how awful!!!!"

Heh heh.... you ain't see nothing yet. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by AnchorSteam

[Astra.]

3 hours ago, pallidin said:

Come now. Trump is not, nor has even been a true Republican.

Recall during the early race he said:

"If the Republican party will not accept me, I will run as an independent"

His exact words.

So, there you have it. Trump is a Republican by "convenience", not conviction.

 

Yes, wasn't he once a Republican....then turned Independent....then turned Democrat...then didn't want to be involved in any party.... then turned Republican again. If so, then no real surprise. He's rather well known for 'flip flopping'. 

[+and-then]

10 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

There is nothing you can cite that would actually verify this claim....

There is nothing I can cite that would ever be accepted as proof by those of your mindset.  Which is why I feel no need to try.  Deal with it... or not...

[Space Commander Travis]

4 hours ago, pallidin said:

Come now. Trump is not, nor has even been a true Republican.

No, and that was his selling point, it's really not difficult to understand is it

[Setton]

6 hours ago, Big Jim said:

Are you distracted?  Good, because that's not what I was trying to do.  Without a name on the article we know nothing.  It could have come from anybody, anywhere.  The NYT can't even vouch for the writer's integrity without knowing who it is.  They must have published it merely because it reinforces their own bias.  Is that also why you believe it?

Just because they won't tell Trump who it is, doesn't mean they don't know. 

And I believe it not because it reinforces my bias but because it matches well with other accounts of this administration and, most of all, because Trump didn't respond with 'why do you make these stories up' but with 'who told you?'. 

Even if the piece was fake, Trump's response shows it's accurate. Although I don't know of many over the age of 10 who would drop themselves in it like that. 

[bee]

1 hour ago, AnchorSteam said:

So, instead of being blindly loyal to a corrupt Party, Republicans have chosen to ignore labels and support a man based on his merits instead.

 

although there was some resistance... I think Trump was voted in to represent the Republicans because
they knew that he stood a better chance than anyone of beating Clinton...

and they were right...

 

 

[bee]

4 minutes ago, Setton said:

Even if the piece was fake, Trump's response shows it's accurate. Although I don't know of many over the age of 10 who would drop themselves in it like that. 

Perhaps Trump, decided to put the pressure on the NYT rather than just dismiss it out of hand...

because now the quest is full on to discover the author (if there is one) and possibly take them
to court over it... or expose the NYT for shameless deception...

I saw a video clip but have lost it... where some media outlet was starting to imply / speculate it wasn't an
individual author but a collection of contributions --- and I took this as a move to take the heat off and
muddy the waters....

because Trump has provided two options now... find and prosecute the individual OR expose the NYT.. 

Can't Stump the Trump... 

 

[Setton]

10 minutes ago, bee said:

Perhaps Trump, decided to put the pressure on the NYT rather than just dismiss it out of hand...

because now the quest is full on to discover the author (if there is one) and possibly take them
to court over it... or expose the NYT for shameless deception...

I saw a video clip but have lost it... where some media outlet was starting to imply / speculate it wasn't an
individual author but a collection of contributions --- and I took this as a move to take the heat off and
muddy the waters....

because Trump has provided two options now... find and prosecute the individual OR expose the NYT.. 

Can't Stump the Trump... 

 

Take them to court for doing nothing illegal. Yeah, sounds like Trump. 

And put pressure on the NYT? What, by saying making a demand they can just say no to? Great pressure, how will they cope?

You could 'stump the Trump' by putting him in a wet paper bag with a map to the emergency exits marked by floor and ceiling level lighting. 

[bee]

6 minutes ago, Setton said:

You could 'stump the Trump' by putting him in a wet paper bag with a map to the emergency exits marked by floor and ceiling level lighting. 

 

Yet no one has managed to do it yet..... 

Try as they might

(edit to add..... name calling and spiteful insults don't count as 'stumping') 

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by bee

[Farmer77]

12 hours ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

why is it bad when the incestuous relationship is between Hitler and Fox, but not when it's between every other media outlet and Hillary (pbuh)? Or would that, in your book, have been just as bad and would you be complaining about it to the same extent now? 

I would have been complaining about it for sure. Whether to the same extent I think would depend on what insanity she was up to and how the media outlets responded and of course whether she stocked her white house with exemployees of a single particular outlet.

[bee]

 

of course the whole op ed thing (besides attempts to divide and rule) ---

could as suggested here be a smokescreen to take attention away from the Kavanaugh hearing 
and the bad publicity the Democrats made for themselves in terms of vote catching moderate
free thinking democrats... many who are WalkingAway...
 

Dan Rather questioned the timing of the 'New York Times' op-ed written by someone claiming to be a senior administration in the Trump White House. In an interview with CNN's Don Lemon on Thursday, Rather wondered if its a smokescreen for the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
(end of quote..)

and the RNC have used the SCOTUS protests in an advert so maybe the DNC and backers had to give
the Mind Control Media something a bit juicy to fill their copy with... and quick... 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by bee

[Astra.]

2 hours ago, bee said:

of course the whole op ed thing (besides attempts to divide and rule) ---

No, I don't agree. I read the op-ed article again...and in my opinion it came across as being honest and sincere from those in this administration (true insiders) who are terribly concerned in how Mr Trump is handling things behind the scenes. Also, I can understand why the author wants to remain anonymous, as the consequences could be calamitous if he / she came forward at this time. I also believe that the author of this epistle has the backing of other highly ranked senior officials (probably another very important reason as to stay anonymous) as the author mentions "we" a number of times throughout the article. Have you read it bee ?

2 hours ago, bee said:

Dan Rather questioned the timing of the 'New York Times' op-ed written by someone claiming to be a senior administration in the Trump White House. In an interview with CNN's Don Lemon on Thursday, Rather wondered if its a smokescreen for the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
(end of quote..)

and the RNC have used the SCOTUS protests in an advert so maybe the DNC and backers had to give
the Mind Control Media something a bit juicy to fill their copy with... and quick... 

Hmm, sounds like another possible conspiracy theory....a few maybe's...wonders...and speculations. Could be that the timing was only a coincidence as well.  

2 hours ago, bee said:

 

 

I saw this aired on television. It's difficult to believe that a bunch of adults would carry on like this. Strange times...and much more to come no doubt.