Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Fox News is relying on its own sources, not the Atlantic's, to confirm key parts of the story, and definitely the general tenor. So yeah, I think that carries some weight.

Fake news.  2 in- named sources in the trump administration already debunked.

 

If there is one thing this administration is known for, it's unerring honesty

If there is one thing this administration is known for, it's unerring honesty

"It's fake news!"


Ahh, shit. He got us.

Sam, that made me actually chuckle. A literal LOL. Kudos.

Me too.  I think of Schiff, Schurmur, Pelosi, Nadler.  Their lies have been openly proven.

Me too.  I think of Schiff, Schurmur, Pelosi, Nadler.  Their lies have been openly proven.

HB, can you explain to me, and I'm asking you as earnestly as you asked me to explain some of the things in the last day...

For someone who doesn't plan to vote for Trump, and doesn't seem to be a big fan of him, why do you defend him so vociferously? 

I don't quite get it. And I'm honestly and sincerely interested.

No.  Read man. They are not corroborating  anything-other than making an accusation of a general atmosphere In the White House.

They are both vehemently outspoken critic of Trump,  And their claim about the atmosphere has numerous current White House staff totally disagreeing with every word they say.

guess what- more fake news.

Again, read it...

The Atlantic magazine published a story on Thursday based on four sources close to the president who said Trump cancelled a visit to pay respects at an American military cemetery outside Paris in 2018 because he thought the dead soldiers were “losers” and “suckers” and he did not want the rain to mess up his hair.

Both Elizabeth Neumann, a former assistant secretary of counter-terrorism in the Department of Homeland Security, and Miles Taylor, a former chief of staff in that department, said the account was true, asserting that Trump’s low opinion of soldiers killed and wounded in combat was well-known inside the administration.

The language is clear. The writer is first and foremost referring to the account of Paris 2018 allegations, and saying both of these people "said the account was true". 

Language-wise, the follow up of "asserting that Trump's low opinion of soldiers" et cetera is an add-on. 

It's like saying "yeah, I shot that dude, plus he was a well-known asshole". You can't claim that statement was purely about the dude being a well-known asshole and then act like the "I shot that dude" wasn't stated.

Again, if the writer is flat out lying and misrepresenting what these two NAMED sources have said, I'm sure they'll step up and say "that's not what I told the reporter". But you as a reader can't simple read that and say that they were an accusation of general atmosphere, the way the sentence is written. That's not how English works, and would hope that writers for The Guardian, a British rag, would know their own language. 

Now, yes they're outspoken critics of Trump. Maybe because they directly saw behavior like this from him and have reason to be critics? 

HB, can you explain to me, and I'm asking you as earnestly as you asked me to explain some of the things in the last day...

For someone who doesn't plan to vote for Trump, and doesn't seem to be a big fan of him, why do you defend him so vociferously?

I don't quite get it. And I'm honestly and sincerely interested.

See post below- Which I sent before you even posed this question but clearly answers the question.

We have already discussed this but to rehash, like you I was hopeful that his election, being an outsider and not a career politician, would have some positives to it. The liberals in the media began their attacks long before he took office. It’s a 24 seven attack cycle and has been every single day of his presidency. They cannot acknowledge A single positive thing that he has accomplished, which in my view there are quite a few. No political figure in modern history has had as much of the media against him working diligently to undermine him since before he took office and then this poor guy has. And while you guys will try to deny that I firmly believe you’re being dishonest and you all know that. There really is no disputing it.

after I voted for Obama, and he and that entire party turned me off to such a high degree, this despicable treatment from the media has just made me sicker by the day. 
It’s not that you criticize him correctly, which you do but seriously how can I take anything you guys say seriously when you’re trying to blame him for things that clearly could or should be blamed on the left?

To Trump, The media are attack dogs and have been since day one.  To Biden, they are lapdogs. They won’t ask him any questions and when they do their huge fat softballs. 

it is clear to me and many many many others that the liberal playbook is to do bad things and then try to paint a picture that he is the cause of those things. Over and over and over.


Was it you that said you’re surprised he has so much support?  Stop and take a look at what the “other side “is offering?  It’s all one great big huge turn off. 

if Trump wasn’t such a dick, or if he was just half as much of a dick as he is, I would definitely be voting for him just to stop the left agenda which I just hate.  But I have to look in the mirror and I know I can’t do that if I vote for him and I definitely can’t do that if I vote for the “other side“
it will be interesting to me when he’s out of office next year how much of things that might not go well or go wrong the Democrats will still be trying to blame on him. I’m going to guess it will go on for years.