Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Resistance From Inside Trump Admin


Farmer77
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

Well according to many the bar is that low right now, despite the fact that none of that has even come close to happening.

Still, it's hardly a lofty ideal to aim for. 

You're happy for that to be the legacy?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kartikg said:

If hate can damage brain, trump haters have their beyond repair. 

lmao, you just proved the opposite by your own example,  when and if you are in better shape, look up who is doing all the hate, or you can look in the mirror

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, aztek said:

lmao, you just proved the opposite by your own example,  when and if you are in better shape, look up who is doing all the hate, or you can look in the mirror

Indeed he did. 

Obviously it's affected you so badly you didn't understand your own post. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pretty much why I voted for Trump.   I knew that the politicians on both sides didn't like him.   Closest thing we have had to a 3rd party.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Hang on. So a government insider goes to a news outlet and offers up an anonymous op-ed and the outlet is partisan for running it?

Absolutely Farmer77. 

If they'd written a news story covering the anonymous letter, with context and commentary, then that is journalism. 

But to hand over their entire EDITORIAL page to it ? Without ANY challenge to the authenticity of what is being said, well.... that is  partisanship, pure and simple. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Absolutely Farmer77. 

If they'd written a new story covering the anonymous letter, with context and commentary, then that is journalism. 

But to hand over their entire EDITORIAL page to it ? Without ANY challenge to the authenticity of what is being said, well.... that is  partisanship, pure and simple. 

This is....ridiculous. 

Had they done what you are suggesting there would be screams of partisanship because they "cherry picked" and took things "out of context".

And if they know who the author is(which they say they do) why would they need to challenge the authenticity of the claims? IT'S AN OPINION PIECE. If the person who wrote it, holds a position within the White House that can be confirmed there's no reason no to publish. Especially considering the fact that this is more or less the same stuff we've now heard about this joke of an administration from MULTIPLE sources.

The NYT doesn't just print stuff without verifying facts to the best of their abilities regardless of what Trump would have you believe. They don't just take phone calls from any Joe Blow off the street, grab a negative quote and make up a story and say it's from an anonymous source. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, two thoughts spring to mind.... 

Firstly, the New York Times has thoroughly nailed its colours to the mast. An anonymous, anti-Trump full-page editorial ? On the run up to the mid-terms, and That's pretty unheard-of, and exceedingly partisan. 

Secondly; this is very bad for President Trump. It will be interesting to see how he spins it. 

It shows a certain level of desperation, IMO.  What's the need, if as we hear daily, a blue wave is on the way to set things right?  It just reinforces the idea that those within the establishment will risk ANYTHING to regain power.  If we are faced with a foreign crisis that could potentially mean war, who does he now listen to if his instinct is to disbelieve his counselors?  This "highly placed insider" could well be just an op-ed by the times and it could make him fail to trust a staffer at a crucial moment for America.  Well done, "patriots".  You might want to remember that if the house burns down, it's yours too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually a bit miffed about it.  Basically the guy is confessing that he and a bunch of others have been covering up Trump's incompetence and deceiving the American people about Trump's ineptitude.  And now that it looks like their party might lose power because of the midterms and/or the investigations, he wants to confess and have history note him as being one of the "good" guys?  He seems more like a rat saving his own butt to me.

His/her name is going to be revealed.  Something like this doesn't stay anonymous.  He is just hedging that it just takes long enough for Trump to be out of power.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The person is a 'senior' White House official, not some low level staffer. That is the definition of a credible source.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

"I find the reaction to the NYT op-ed fascinating — that people seem so shocked that there is a resistance from the inside," one senior official said. "A lot of us [were] wishing we’d been the writer, I suspect ... I hope he [Trump] knows — maybe he does? — that there are dozens and dozens of us."

Source: Axios

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robotic Jew said:

This is....ridiculous. 

Had they done what you are suggesting there would be screams of partisanship because they "cherry picked" and took things "out of context".

And if they know who the author is(which they say they do) why would they need to challenge the authenticity of the claims? IT'S AN OPINION PIECE. .......

Well, indeed Robotic Jew. My point is that - by placing it in the Editorial page - it has become the opinion of the New York Times . Hence why I say it is partisanship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just goes to show that they're willing to go however far it takes to remove him from office.  I'm surprised that no one has tried assassination, yet. Maybe they fear the consequences.  They SHOULD.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, indeed Robotic Jew. My point is that - by placing it in the Editorial page - it has become the opinion of the New York Times . Hence why I say it is partisanship. 

No. It didn't. Not to any rational thinking person.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, indeed Robotic Jew. My point is that - by placing it in the Editorial page - it has become the opinion of the New York Times . Hence why I say it is partisanship. 

 

2 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

No. It didn't. Not to any rational thinking person.

A newspaper editorial reflects the opinion of the Editor of the newspaper. Traditionally, this is taken to be the official stance of the newspaper. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, and then said:

It just goes to show that they're willing to go however far it takes to remove him from office.  I'm surprised that no one has tried assassination, yet. Maybe they fear the consequences.  They SHOULD.

My God do you ever stop salivating over the prospect of one doomsday or another. 'In Alabama we'd just kill them', 'war in the Middle East will signal end times and the rapture' or something like that, 'we're the ones with all the guns'. You've said things along these lines numerous times. Then you have the gall to prattle on about ANTIFA or the hateful left.

You're supposed to be a Christian, yet you seem to be one step away from picking up your rifle and ending your enemies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

A newspaper editorial reflects the opinion of the Editor of the newspaper. Traditionally, this is taken to be the official stance of the newspaper. 

It's the space given for such opinions to be published, but it doesn't automatically mean that that's its only purpose.

How can it be the opinion of the NYT when none of their writers gave an opinion? 

Besides, if anything it is a positive aimed at disillusioned Republicans. 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

How can it be the opinion of the NYT when none of their writers gave an opinion? 

Because... it's... on... the... EDITORIAL... page ? 

Perhaps newspapers work differently in the USA than they do in the UK ? Over here... the Editorial Column (or page) is for the EDITOR of the newspaper to give his or her opinion, which - in turn - is normally accepted as being the position of the newspaper. That is why it is called.... an EDITORIAL. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, and then said:

 I'm surprised that no one has tried assassination, yet.

I'm a bit surprised too.   With the overwhelming emotion that is driving their hate, I would have thought that one would have stooped to that level.  

Many thought Obama would be shot because of all the racist people in the country.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
21 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Because... it's... on... the... EDITORIAL... page ? 

Perhaps newspapers work differently in the USA than they do in the UK ? Over here... the Editorial Column (or page) is for the EDITOR of the newspaper to give his or her opinion, which - in turn - is normally accepted as being the position of the newspaper. That is why it is called.... an EDITORIAL. 

It's an op-ed: New York Times article.

So called because it's the page opposite the editorial, usually reserved for opinions of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

It's an op-ed: New York Times article.

So called because it's the page opposite the editorial, reserved for opinions of others.

It IS ? 

Oh. 

Umm... we don't have such new-fangled constructs over here in the UK. 

Oh dear... how embarrassing. :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

It IS ? 

Oh. 

Umm... we don't have such new-fangled constructs over here in the UK. 

Oh dear... how embarrassing. :( 

S'okay. It happens. They were new for me, too, when I first came here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aztek said:

and it makes little difference, it is still someones opinion.

Yes.. but it's not the NEWSPAPERS opinion any more !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RoofGardener said:

Yes.. but it's not the NEWSPAPERS opinion any more !

yea, but still an opinion that fits newspaper's line of thinking, you really do not think they would publish one, that contradicts it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.