DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

Warren is a centrist politician?

She's the epitome of one.

Warren is a left wing extremist.

Yeah, a few years ago she could've argued differently. The 2016 election as well as the shift to the left, has made her rather centrist, but still a good beacon for the establishment left to follow.

Deep State working against him?

You're familiar with Occam's Razor, right?

Definition Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation

So there are 2 possible explanations:
1. There is a massive conspiracy involving all levels of our current/past FBI, CIA, internal cabinet members and WH staff, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and every other media outlet not named Fox News.

Or

2. Trump is just unfit for this job and being exposed for it.

That's never been how journalism works, Donald.

LOL Ok,, I like it

boom.

You do realize that who ever is responsible for this fable can be prosecuted under national security laws?

I think that this Op-ep has already proven to be a hoax, but the penalty still applies.

How has it been proven to be a hoax? I mean I've seen nothing saying that other than Trump and FOX news. Neither of which can be trusted...

Because it doesn't have an author willing to state his/her name, does not mean it is a hoax. And there are other sources like the Woodward book and multiple reports to senators that this is exactly what is going on.

That's an interesting take.

I wonder what your take was on nonfactual and unproven reports that supported your political beliefs at the time? Fake news about Obama's religious beliefs. About his nationality? About Benghazi? About the Clinton pizza shop sex ring? What about the lie that CNN and other anti Trump news coverage is all fake news?

I am pretty sure that the NYT would not have printed anything without having verified the source and the source being relevant and senior. Go ahead and by all means dismiss anything that challenges what you choose to believe. Ignorance is bliss.

The mob, prison inmates and gang bangers all say that.

If it isn't raining on your roof, your roof doesn't leak.

Lies are just that, lies. Leaks are something that falls through the cracks.

I see you're still in denial of the definition of what the word leak means. lol

It depends on the reaction by the people the report is about. If everyone is lining up to deny they said it, attacking those who reported, and looking within their own ranks for the guilty party who said it, I would consider the validity much stronger than if it was just laughed off and ignored.

You see, you refuse to address points I bring up that you have no real answer for. I said that when the statement came out, I had no idea if it were true or not. I still don't know if the entire thing is true.

Here's what I do know. They're looking for someone in The White House to find the guilty party. If this was all just made up, why would they even think it was one of their own? Wouldn't they just think it was someone on the outside that made it up?

They called it a "leak", not lies. Words have meaning. Something you still wish to ignore.

So I'm not sure just how much of it is actually true. But I do know when someone gets busted they act exactly how the White House is acting now. And you know it too.

Let me explain it again.

When someone tells nothing but lies, they're a liar.

When something true leaks out, you have a leaker.

Just like when that rain comes through an old roof, you can't have a leak unless there's rain to leak through.

That doesn't make it a hoax....Hey look, if you hear it once from one source, you discard it. If you hear it twice, maybe you look at it a little. But this is the third time in the last 6 months that this stuff has been brought up. (more if you count Media reports which I don't)

Now couple that with Trumps erratic behavior, you gotta believe that something is there for real.

Again, just because the author didn't come out, doesn't mean it's a PROVEN HOAX.

I think your second sentence hits the nail on the head.



That's key. Nonfactual and unproven reports, and what 'side' you're on.

And I'll be honest - O's religious beliefs didn't matter a whole lot to me. His nationality did. Turns out my 'side' was wrong. Benghazi? Because of my not liking hillary, I was hoping something would come of that. It didn't. The clinton pizza shop sex ring? I guess I don't and didn't know much about it.

But, in all fairness, I wanted it to be true. So we could pin her to the wall and prosecute her. But, I didn't really follow it.

Just as the left is doing now. Any and every possible bad thing is being reported about Trump. And as much as the left wants it to be true - just like the right wanted bad news to be true about hillary - ....I'll stop now.


We still have an "anonymous" source saying these things. Anonymous sources don't work for me.

And, you are pretty sure the NYT would not print anything without having verified the source, etc. That's because your "side" wants it to be true. Just as my side wants it to be not true.

Good bad or indifferent, at this time, anonymous loses credibility.

Anyone could've made that up and the fact that no one is claiming it adds to the bull aspect of it.

Your last 3 words? I won't respond to those.

I'm sure I have biases and I am sure they make me lean one way or another on certain situations.

But I never act in a hypocritical way and I try to be rational regarding any news item from any source regarding either side of the aisle. I try to filter the BS and get to what is the truth of the situation and don't blindly follow or accept anything without further scrutinizing the message, the messenger and most importantly to me, analyzing what the messenger wants me to take away and what they avoided saying in order to do that.

Sure there is a ton of noise from the Left on Trump and some of it is hysterical nonsense born of agenda and over reaction. That doesn't mean none of the noise is true or that some of the stories are accurate. Vers has pointed out the disservice it actually does to blow everything out of proportion - and I tend to agree. But then I also understand OCD and his belief that being loud and not letting any little chance to bash Trump is more affective than 'fighting fair' so to speak.

Some simple facts regarding Trump: He's his own worst enemy. He's a compulsive liar. He's a bully and hasn't or won't try to understand that lashing out at anyone who criticizes him is counter productive now he is the POTUS - and in fact most of his angry responses only reinforce that he's a very self serving and petty individual. I don't know whether he is a racist - but I know he goes out of his way to court and appease white nationalists and I think that's disgusting. He claimed he'd never have time for golf - and he'd surround himself with the best people.... uh-huh, enough said. And regarding those two things, to each individual either it either matters or it doesn't ... and to me it matters and says something about Trump.... His continued, unrelenting attacks on Mueller coupled with his constantly changing story indicate (to me) he's hiding something. Mueller has a stellar reputation - he's a republican. Trying to say otherwise in an effort to undermine the investigation is wrong (and pathetic) especially when so many senior Republicans are on record as saying the Mueller investigation is legitimate and valid.

Whether you choose to believe there is any truth to the Woodward book which paints the same picture as the Op Ed - or whether you think both are completely false ... totally up to you. There isn't proof one way or the other at this stage.

Or...

1-The insider who is fighting to save the Nation from President Trump but help the good parts of his agenda to succeed has unnecessarily outed the entire organization.

2-A disgruntled employee made it all up.

I did a double take on this..

O's nationality is American.... so what is the problem with the American president being an American citizen?

Elizabeth Warren is anything but centrist. Where the heck did you get this idea from?

There IS no problem.

Either you didn't understand what I wrote, or I didn't state it coherently enough.

I'll try again: There was a time that Obama's natural born citizenship status was in question. In question by 1 'side'. While that particular 'side' wanted it to be true - it was not true.

This is what 'sides' do. If they dislike the person, they are easy to convince on any little issue that arises.

I've done it. Most have done it, and do it.

Let me bring up another point you posed. And that is that Woodward is just trying to sell a book. That's true and I consider it a valid point.

But let's extrapolate that to the conclusion you're trying to make. That would lead one to the conclusion that every expose' ever written hasn't had a shred of validity. We both know that's not true. It doesn't mean Woodward's book is factual. It also doesn't mean it's false. It could just as well mean the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But just by claiming "Someone is trying to sell a book" doesn't mean there isn't some basis of truth in what they're selling. That very disingenuous.

Possible. There very well might be some truth in woodwards book.

But let's face it bud: Times have changed. And I don't mean in the last couple of years, or the last decade even.


'Scandal' sells. And now, here we are in a 'twitter' world where instantaneous ,so called "news" is available to anyone that chooses to read it.



Nah - I don't go for it. Hey - I get sucked in sometimes. Just recently I posted about Corey Booker releasing classified e-mails.................which, was politely pointed out to me: Those e-mails were actually declassified.

I guess I digressed a bit there.




Yeah, books need scandal to sell for the most part. Political scandal, when we're talking about a political book.

I don't really see where that's changed the way you do. Scandal has sold books for decades. Whether it was movie starts, politicians or sports stars.

As I stated before, I tend to look more at the reactions after things are published to get some gauge of if there's any credibility to what was published. Now I agree that doesn't tell the whole story.

But for some reason the White House seems to think whoever wrote the op-ed resides inside the White House. They're searching for this source within the White House. If it were just s bunch of nonsense it seems to me they wouldn't have any idea if it even came from someone within the White House. People within the White House have been lining up in droves to deny they're the person that wrote the op-ed. They've called it "a leak".

So I have no idea how much truth is contained in the op-ed. I never stated that I did. But what I can say is that with all of activity within the White House since this thing was published, I'm inclined to believe that at least a part of this is somewhere close to the mark.

I mean neither the op-ed nor Woodwards book are even close to the first things we've heard about the chaos within the west Wing.

Arch, serious questions:

You admit being wrong on the birtherism, or your side was wrong anyway. And you just pointed out that you basically did something similar on Booker's 'classified' email thing just the other day, which I assume popped up on conservative news as your source.

So my first question is do you trust Trump's admin is telling the truth about collusion (conspiracy to defraud against the US and voters to steal the election) and do you believe Trump is an honest man?

No politics, just your gut feeling based on all the facts you've gathered from your perspective as a conservative.

Assuming you may not believe Trump has the best character but think he is innocent of collusion because there is no proof yet released by Mueller, will you believe the proof if Mueller does produce it or will that be a deep state conspiracy against Trump in your eyes?

The reason I ask these questions I guess is to see an honest answer from somebody that I know won't try to BS me. I'm trying to wrap around how we can see the same things so differently.

I don't trust Trump at all. I think he lies just to lie. I think he is most likely guilty of all the things we expect he is guilty of but I do want verification. If Mueller comes out and says Trump did not collude but was duped, I will have a hard time accepting that but will have to accept it. If Mueller says he did nothing wrong, I will also accept that but will work to vote him out regardless.

But if Mueller comes out and says it's all true, Trump did it; I wonder if the right will accept that and do the right thing by removing him or if it will just be another fight.

Final question, if you woke up tomorrow and found out all the things you believe about Trump are wrong like you did about birtherism... will you still trust your news sources? How much would that change your life?

I guess I've not heard that the white house seems to think that whoever wrote the essay RESIDES in the whitehouse.


I mean, who DOES live in the whitehouse? Trump and his wife.

Or did you mean something different by 'reside'?

something that isn't true isn't a leak.

pit is correct. perfect example: look at the overall reaction from the WH with the book on omarosa.

now look at the reaction with this new book and the Op-Ed.

night and day. they weren't trying to make officials go through lie-detector test over the past books.

why now?

I just wish I could've been a fly on the wall to see Trump react to this when he found out about it. lmfao You know he got all bug eyed mad over this one.

Why am I not surprised that you used a bait and switch con game when you have no more legitimate arguments left. lmao

Yet you think there's only one meaning to resides?

be situated.
"the paintings now reside on the walls of a restaurant"
synonyms: be situated, be found, be located, lie
"the paintings reside in an air-conditioned vault"

For a guy who can't seem to comprehend what the word leak means I don't really see you as being fluent enough to give grammar lessons.

Kellyanne Conway: Trump Believes Op-Ed Writer Is In National Security

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kellyanne-conway-trump-believes-op-011605737.html

lololol. i got 20 on Jared. who's putting money on Kelly?

I'm hoping it was Ivanka for the throat punch finishing move... lol

lol, i love how people try to call this leaks, while the guy they voted for believes its all very real.

bro if ivanka wrote that....lmfao my god.

maybe it was mattis.

My bet is Coats or somebody working with him.

Everyone within the White House knew it came from the White House. I mean they lined up so fast to deny it that it made their heads swim.

Those in denial?

It's like having six kids in the house and a lamp gets broken. EVERY kid is quick to line up and say they didn't break the lamp.

Now tell me, when have you ever seen kids deny breaking a lamp that didn't get broken?

perfectly stated.