A very credible book written by a very credible journalist describing a president who is wholly unfit for office, a potential danger. I also just saw an op ed written by one of the president's own people, describing a president who is a habitual liar, who is amoral, who is wholly unfit for office and a potential, credible danger to human rights and liberty.
I also just saw not a single conservative blogger (in the circles I frequent) raise a concern about any of this, after several days' of this knowledge being out there.
This includes conservatives who say that they ARE opposed to Trump and didn't vote for him, so see (they say), we ARE legitimately unbiased and doing what we can to oppose this president?
Thank you for not responding on topic, and for multiple posts of dodging questions and avoiding hypotheticals. You’re a credit to your political ideology.
Unfortunately, I’ve been working on the posts on those topics, but real life is more pressing.
Patience, consistency, and intellectual honesty aren’t high priorities for you.
Hypocrisy is allowing your groupie and yourself to behave in ways you don’t allow others to behave.
One must be very careful when citing the "paper of record". They've proven themselves less than reliable many times in recent years.
But I'll withhold further commentary on the off-topic subject until Craig posts something about it.
Well, OK, one more thing: How "credible" can a book or its author be when people the author quoted in the book insist they never said what the author quoted them as saying? Jim Mattis, John Kelly, John Dowd and Jay Sekulow all deny how they are depicted in the book. That goes to "credibility".
The main thing is that Trump is smeared again and for lefties, particularly those like Dan, merely saying a nasty thing about a Republican means it's true. That is was said is all the proof Dan needs.
I’d agree that the number of people saying that Woodward misrepresented them (made stuff up) raises credibility questions about the book.
I’d also say that I’m not sure about how I feel about the anonymous author of the op/ed and how seriously to take someone who hides behind anonymity. Nor sm I sure how to respond to this op/ed (ie not a news report) and the people who are uncritically accepting this unsourced, unverified, opinion piece as unquestionably the truth.
Therein lies the real issue. It's bad enough that questionable stories are printed by news outlets who tout themselves as "the paper of record", but for anyone to accept it as gospel without question is the true matter of concern.
I agree. It may be an accurate depiction of the administration, it may not. The author may be credible, or may not. Either way, it’s not a piece of news reporting, yet it’s being uncritically accepted as exactly that.
Of course, what does it say about the author who’s not willing to expose themselves to any risk, but expects to be taken seriously.
My problem is that I’m sympathetic to the notion that Trumps behavior may indicate a mental unfitness for office, but I’m certainly not willing to support action based on an unproven, unsourced, opinion piece by an unidentifiable author.
7 comments:
I just saw...
A very credible book written by a very credible journalist describing a president who is wholly unfit for office, a potential danger. I also just saw an op ed written by one of the president's own people, describing a president who is a habitual liar, who is amoral, who is wholly unfit for office and a potential, credible danger to human rights and liberty.
I also just saw not a single conservative blogger (in the circles I frequent) raise a concern about any of this, after several days' of this knowledge being out there.
This includes conservatives who say that they ARE opposed to Trump and didn't vote for him, so see (they say), we ARE legitimately unbiased and doing what we can to oppose this president?
I just saw hypocrisy.
Thank you for not responding on topic, and for multiple posts of dodging questions and avoiding hypotheticals. You’re a credit to your political ideology.
Unfortunately, I’ve been working on the posts on those topics, but real life is more pressing.
Patience, consistency, and intellectual honesty aren’t high priorities for you.
Hypocrisy is allowing your groupie and yourself to behave in ways you don’t allow others to behave.
One must be very careful when citing the "paper of record". They've proven themselves less than reliable many times in recent years.
But I'll withhold further commentary on the off-topic subject until Craig posts something about it.
Well, OK, one more thing: How "credible" can a book or its author be when people the author quoted in the book insist they never said what the author quoted them as saying? Jim Mattis, John Kelly, John Dowd and Jay Sekulow all deny how they are depicted in the book. That goes to "credibility".
The main thing is that Trump is smeared again and for lefties, particularly those like Dan, merely saying a nasty thing about a Republican means it's true. That is was said is all the proof Dan needs.
Art,
I’d agree that the number of people saying that Woodward misrepresented them (made stuff up) raises credibility questions about the book.
I’d also say that I’m not sure about how I feel about the anonymous author of the op/ed and how seriously to take someone who hides behind anonymity. Nor sm I sure how to respond to this op/ed (ie not a news report) and the people who are uncritically accepting this unsourced, unverified, opinion piece as unquestionably the truth.
Therein lies the real issue. It's bad enough that questionable stories are printed by news outlets who tout themselves as "the paper of record", but for anyone to accept it as gospel without question is the true matter of concern.
I agree. It may be an accurate depiction of the administration, it may not. The author may be credible, or may not. Either way, it’s not a piece of news reporting, yet it’s being uncritically accepted as exactly that.
Of course, what does it say about the author who’s not willing to expose themselves to any risk, but expects to be taken seriously.
My problem is that I’m sympathetic to the notion that Trumps behavior may indicate a mental unfitness for office, but I’m certainly not willing to support action based on an unproven, unsourced, opinion piece by an unidentifiable author.
“The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man."
Despite all the comparisons to Hitler recently, I’m not sure I’ve seen any Republicans hanging out with people who think Hitler was a “great man”.
Anti Semitism is one of the acceptable prejudices on the left.
Hypocrites much?
Post a Comment