Anonymous Op-Ed by "Senior Official in the Trump Administration"

[ClydeR]

This can't possibly be real. Can it? When Certain People read this, they are going to be so angry. This seems like one of those things where it's a spoof website but I'm not sophisticated enough to recognize it, or somebody hacked the Times website, or the White House really is CrazyTown.


he Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

More... (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html)

[SHAFT]

This can't possibly be real. Can it? When Certain People read this, they are going to be so angry. This seems like one of those things where it's a spoof website but I'm not sophisticated enough to recognize it, or somebody hacked the Times website, or the White House really is CrazyTown.

Maybe it's Trump himself? Probably Kelly-Anne Conway, though.

[kutter]

So a newspaper that loathes the president prints an anonymous op-ed and we are supposed to think there is any credibility to it? I am not a big Trump gomer but even I know that does not pass the smell test.

[Tgo01]

Stopped reading at anonymous.

[time4fun]

So a newspaper that loathes the president prints an anonymous op-ed and we are supposed to think there is any credibility to it? I am not a big Trump gomer but even I know that does not pass the smell test.

What possible reason would NYT have to puts all of its credibility on the line over something like that? As though just accurately reporting on his behaviors doesn't make him look bad enough.

Look- the people in his administration are trying to tell you that there's a problem here. That's why they're sitting down with authors and telling them what's going on. That's why they leak when Trump tries to do things like fire Mueller. And that's why they're posting this op-ed here.

This is a senior, Republican Trump administration official who is waving a red flag and begging you to rise above petty partisan bickering and to acknowledge the reality- the man in the White House right now is dangerous.

[Tgo01]

What possible reason would NYT have to puts all of its credibility on the line over something like that? As though just accurately reporting on his behaviors doesn't make him look bad enough..

Remember when ABC/NBC/whoever it was put all of their credibility on the line when they used an anonymous source that said Trump told Flynn to make contact with the Russians before he won the election then it turned out that wasn't true at all?

They even had to interrupt the highly classy "The View" with "breaking news" to report on this blatant lie.

[time4fun]

These quotes right here hit at the heart of the problem:


The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.


There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.



We are watching this man threaten to take away media licenses because he doesn't like the (accurate) coverage of his actions. We're watching a President call for the jailing of private citizens. He has not only threatened to force social media companies to show more favorable coverage of him, but they're apparently actually taking action. He has suggested that protests should be illegal. He has directed the DoJ to go after his political rivals. He's publicly shamed the DoJ for not giving people breaks in the administration of justice based solely on their party affiliation. He has disparaged our allies, he's started trade wars. He's venerated dictators. He allowed Russia to attack our elections and continues to cast doubt on that fact. He took the word of Vladimir Putin over our own US Intelligence Agencies. He lies, threatens, and bullies on a daily basis.

This is UN-American. This is not what our country is supposed to be. And at some point we have to stop being Democrats and Republicans and just stand up for the fundamental tenants of democracy.

We can disagree on taxes, on healthcare, and even on civil rights.

But are we really going to force ourselves to disagree over whether or not we should have a free press? Whether or not our Justice system should be used for Presidential revenge and should start handing out favors for party loyalty? Are we actually going to disagree over whether or not it's okay for a US President- who is supposed to be the leader of the free world- to cozy up to and repeatedly praise some of the most corrupt and amoral dictators in the world?

If so- WHY? What happened in the last few years to suddenly make these things unimportant? What happened that suddenly made it okay to attack the foundations of a free society?

[Parkbandit]

What possible reason would NYT have to puts all of its credibility on the line over something like that? As though just accurately reporting on his behaviors doesn't make him look bad enough.

Look- the people in his administration are trying to tell you that there's a problem here. That's why they're sitting down with authors and telling them what's going on. That's why they leak when Trump tries to do things like fire Mueller. And that's why they're posting this op-ed here.

This is a senior, Republican Trump administration official who is waving a red flag and begging you to rise above petty partisan bickering and to acknowledge the reality- the man in the White House right now is dangerous.

You can't possibly be serious right now.. can you?

[Candor]

I seriously doubt this letter is a fake. If it is this fact will be found out sooner or later, and the reputation of the New York Times will go down the toilet forever. I just don't believe the staff of this newspaper would be that stupid.

The real question is the accuracy of the author's statements.

[Androidpk]

Good stuff, glad to see some of those in the Republican party are putting country before party, as they should.

[time4fun]

I seriously doubt this letter is a fake. If it is the truth will be found out sooner or later, and the reputation of the New York Times will go down the toilet forever. I just don't believe the staff of this newspaper would be that stupid.

Exactly.

And, again, it's entirely consistent with EVERYTHING that has come out from the people working around him. The Wolf book, Omarosa's book, Comey's book, Woodward's book, etc etc. And it's consistent with the reporting we've seen on the comments the people around him make in private.

And, candidly, it's entirely consistent with his public behavior.

[Tgo01]

Exactly.

And, again, it's entirely consistent with EVERYTHING that has come out from the people working around him. The Wolf book, Omarosa's book, Comey's book, Woodward's book, etc etc. And it's consistent with the reporting we've seen on the comments the people around him make in private.

And, candidly, it's entirely consistent with his public behavior.

So what about Flynn testifying that Trump ordered him to work with the Russians before Trump won the election?

You people are amazing. "Don't trust everything you hear! Question EVERYTHING! Unless it comes from a far left leaning news organization, then believe every word they print, even if they have been caught outright lying at least half a dozen times since Trump won the election."

[Candor]

Exactly.

And, again, it's entirely consistent with EVERYTHING that has come out from the people working around him. The Wolf book, Omarosa's book, Comey's book, Woodward's book, etc etc. And it's consistent with the reporting we've seen on the comments the people around him make in private.

And, candidly, it's entirely consistent with his public behavior.

I'm afraid you replied before I added: "The real question is the accuracy of the author's statements".

The letter isn't proof of anything, but I am unfortunately inclined to believe that the author, at least from his/her viewpoint, is being truthful. Obviously I can't state this for certain, but it's where I am leaning.

[time4fun]

I'm afraid you replied before I added: "The real question is the accuracy of the author's statements".

The letter isn't proof of anything, but I am unfortunately inclined to believe that the author, at least from his/her viewpoint, is being accurate. Obviously I can't state this for certain, but it's where I am leaning.

Candidly- has he said anything about Trump that you found surprising?

There's a reason why you're leaning towards it being accurate.

[Candor]

Candidly- has he said anything about Trump that you found surprising?

There's a reason why you're leaning towards it being accurate.

The severity of what the letter is describing is stronger than I expected. I would want proof of some of the letter's stronger statements. But do I consider the statements completely implausible? No.

[Some Rogue]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/76595bd5d8fdcbc68afa6f8b138ddee4/tenor.gif

[time4fun]

The severity of what the letter is describing is stronger than I expected. I would want proof of some of the letter's stronger statements. But do I consider the statements completely implausible? No.

Which pieces, specifically, do you want more proof of?

[Tgo01]

Which pieces, specifically, do you want more proof of?

Yeah, Candor. What more proof do you need than an anonymous op ed in a newspaper that has been flagrantly anti-Trump since 2015?

[Androidpk]

You say anti-Trump as if thats a bad thing :lol:

[Androidpk]

Trump says if this person is real the NYT needs to hand them over to law enforcement for national security reasons.. JFC...

[time4fun]

Also he apparently doesn't understand what an Op-Ed is.

And I hate to break it to you little Tgo, but the stories broken by the NYT about Trump have been true.

So it's not that the NYT is anti-Trump.

It's that the facts are.

[Tgo01]

And I hate to break it to you little Tgo, but the stories broken by the NYT about Trump have been true.

So where's the source for SCOTUS stating tweets by the president are official statements?

What about a source showing that an acquittal is an official verdict of innocence?

Or that someone can be tried for the exact same crime twice after being found not guilty as long as the prosecution finds new evidence?

Come on, time4fun. It's beginning to look like you just make shit up on the spot. Would someone do that? Just go on the internet and lie?

[cwolff]

This is it right here. This one line from the whole piece sums up not only the problem with hiring trump, but the reason we such drastic moral flexibility from his followers. It's been said before, character counts. And that's especially true for the POTUS.


The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

EDIT:

Also he apparently doesn't understand what an Op-Ed is.

And I hate to break it to you little Tgo, but the stories broken by the NYT about Trump have been true.

So it's not that the NYT is anti-Trump.

It's that the facts are.


Did someone say "Nice opinon piece" saracastically. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that from trump fans. HAHAHAHA. Its the dumbest thing but you see it happen a lot.

[Fortybox]

All this from an "anonymous" source. The vive la résistance! tactic is hilarious.

This is why the media is frowned upon so much and why places like CNN has declining viewership.

The swamp will never go down quietly and I think crap like this only fuels more support for Trump, the duly elected outsider.

[cwolff]

All this from an "anonymous" source. The vive la résistance! tactic is hilarious.

This is why the media is frowned upon so much and why places like CNN has declining viewership.

The swamp will never go down quietly and I think crap like this only fuels more support for Trump, the duly elected outsider.

It doesn't matter if it was anonymous. It could have been written by Gen. Mattis and you all would call him a deep state libtard shill. You know enough to know that trump is fucked up. That you continue to choose to follow him is on you. You can't say you weren't warned.

[cwolff]

This can't possibly be real. Can it? When Certain People read this, they are going to be so angry. This seems like one of those things where it's a spoof website but I'm not sophisticated enough to recognize it, or somebody hacked the Times website, or the White House really is CrazyTown.

Ok, now this is crazy town. Maybe it's a fake, I don't know, but it seems to be from trumps twitter. Freedom loving right wing Americans are certainly appalled by this tweet...but then again, they voted for the guy. LOL


Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1037485664433070080

[SHAFT]

It doesn't matter if it was anonymous. It could have been written by Gen. Mattis and you all would call him a deep state libtard shill. You know enough to know that trump is fucked up. That you continue to choose to follow him is on you. You can't say you weren't warned.

NY Times knows who it is.

We’ll learn the identity eventually.

[cwolff]

NY Times knows who it is.

We’ll learn the identity eventually.

Oh ya. It'll come out. Trumps got the deep state working on uncovering the author to be turned over to the government. Woodwards contacts will be outed too. He did keep Mark Felt a secret but with his trump book there are so many people dishing and they all are going to know who was who.

[Fortybox]

This piece is going to backfire. The author, if there really is one, is comprised morally and ethically as they assert the President is. It also establishes that there are individuals purposefully trying to thwart a duly elected President.

This person should immediately resign and speak up. But they won't do so. Why? Because it's all about power and politics in the swamp as usual.

This is why Trump was elected in the first place. The butthurt of the establishment really shows here.

[cwolff]

This piece is going to backfire. The author, if there really is one, is comprised morally and ethically as they assert the President is. It also establishes that there are individuals purposefully trying to thwart a duly elected President.

This person should immediately resign and speak up. But they won't do so. Why? Because it's all about power and politics in the swamp as usual.

This is why Trump was elected in the first place. The butthurt of the establishment really shows here.

There is no onus on this person to step out of the shadows and become a target of the information warfare campaign you are promoting here. The author spoke his/her piece. It's on you to read the words. You may take it or leave it, but you don't get to say what one, who is apparently serving the interests of the nation to the best of his/her ability, should do.

What you've chosen to do is immediately answer the clarion call to rally around your wounded leader and defend him with the tools given to you by his propaganda machine.

[Androidpk]

Some trolls have simply drunk too much Kool-Aid.

[cwolff]

Some trolls have simply drunk too much Kool-Aid.

It's weird man. It's like Stockholm Syndrome or some other psychological voodoo.

[ClydeR]

Who was it? There are too many possibilities to do a poll.

Mike Pence?
Jeff Sessions?
Ivanka?
Sarah Huckabee?

Should Trump interrogate everybody to find out who it was?

[Fortybox]

There is no onus on this person to step out of the shadows and become a target of the information warfare campaign you are promoting here. The author spoke his/her piece. It's on you to read the words. You may take it or leave it, but you don't get to say what one, who is apparently serving the interests of the nation to the best of his/her ability, should do.

What you've chosen to do is immediately answer the clarion call to rally around your wounded leader and defend him with the tools given to you by his propaganda machine.

I know you really want this and are probably convinced that this will lead to the dismantlement of a man you hate so much.

It's just not going to work and in fact has a very high chance of helping him out. The American people have known Trump's demeanor and are very familiar with him over the years. The American people decided to elect him anyways. Again, you are only displaying to the world your complete stupidity or unwillingness to understand why he was elected in the first place.

You...don't...get...it.

[cwolff]

Who was it? There are too many possibilities to do a poll.

Mike Pence?
Jeff Sessions?
Ivanka?
Sarah Huckabee?

Should Trump interrogate everybody to find out who it was?

It could be any of them. The sleeper cells have awoken:rofl::

The column, which published midafternoon Wednesday, sent tremors through the West Wing and launched a frantic guessing game (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-sleeper-cells-have-awoken-trump-and-aides-shaken-by-resistance-op-ed/2018/09/05/ecdf423c-b14b-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html). Startled aides canceled meetings and huddled behind closed doors to strategize a response. Aides were analyzing language patterns to try to discern author’s identity, or at a minimum the part of the administration where the author works.

“The problem for the president is it could be so many people,” said one administration official, who like many others interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. “You can’t rule it down to one person. Everyone is trying, but it’s impossible.”
The phrase, “The sleeper cells have awoken,” circulated on text messages among aides and outside allies.
“It’s like the horror movies when everyone realizes the call is coming from inside the house,” said one former White House official in close contact with former co-workers.

[cwolff]

I know you really want this and are probably convinced that this will lead to the dismantlement of a man you hate so much.

It's just not going to work and in fact has a very high chance of helping him out. The American people have known Trump's demeanor and are very familiar with him over the years. The American people decided to elect him anyways. Again, you are only displaying to the world your complete stupidity or unwillingness to understand why he was elected in the first place.

You...don't...get...it.

That's not quite accurate is it. The American people wanted Hillary. Trump was elected through the quirk that is the electoral college, third party candidates and collusion with Russia and Gulf States. I get that he won. He got the electors. It's dishonest to say that we decided to elect him. Shit happens, and this time it was a big dump.

[cwolff]

A central theme of the book is the stealthy machinations used by those in Trump’s inner sanctum to try to control his impulses and prevent disasters, both for the president personally and for the nation he was elected to lead.

This was put out a day before the OpEd. Prescient?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bob-woodwards-new-book-reveals-a-nervous-breakdown-of-trumps-presidency/2018/09/04/b27a389e-ac60-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html

[Wrathbringer]

That's not quite accurate is it. The American people wanted Hillary. Trump was elected through the quirk that is the electoral college, third party candidates and collusion with Russia and Gulf States. I get that he won. He got the electors. It's dishonest to say that we decided to elect him. Shit happens, and this time it was a big dump.

9148

[~Rocktar~]

That's not quite accurate is it. The American people wanted Hillary. Trump was elected through the quirk that is the electoral college, third party candidates and collusion with Russia and Gulf States. I get that he won. He got the electors. It's dishonest to say that we decided to elect him. Shit happens, and this time it was a big dump.

Winning because the system functioned exactly as intended is not a quirk you jackass. Get off the bullshit. The Electoral College is DESIGNED to prevent a local ideologue from getting elected. Hillary didn't win because she sucked and because she sat on her ass and played to the Left coast instead of possibly campaigning in the middle of the country. Now, my dear civics impaired soywolff, we the people DID decide to elect him. You fail at civics and at life so please shut the fuck up about it.


On the OP, no matter what you think of the idea of disobeying the POTUS, there are methods to deal with one built in to our system. Otherwise, what the person is describing is genuinely in the zone of treason and at the least should have the person tossed out immediately. Imagine if someone said that about Hillary, she would be screaming for trials, executions or someone(s) would just decide to commit suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head twice. Again.

[Fortybox]

That's not quite accurate is it. The American people wanted Hillary. Trump was elected through the quirk that is the electoral college, third party candidates and collusion with Russia and Gulf States. I get that he won. He got the electors. It's dishonest to say that we decided to elect him. Shit happens, and this time it was a big dump.

You forgot rich white men who forced their womenz to vote for Trump in your list.

It's not dishonest. I realize you want a socialist utopia (because NOTHING will ever go wrong there despite history saying otherwise) where a handful of cities will decide the outcome for a whole nation but thankfully our founding fathers were more wise than you.

[Wrathbringer]

Winning because the system functioned exactly as intended is not a quirk you jackass. Get off the bullshit. The Electoral College is DESIGNED to prevent a local ideologue from getting elected. Hillary didn't win because she sucked and because she sat on her ass and played to the Left coast instead of possibly campaigning in the middle of the country. Now, my dear civics impaired soywolff, we the people DID decide to elect him. You fail at civics and at life so please shut the fuck up about it.

x11345

[Wrathbringer]

You forgot rich white men who forced their womenz to vote for Trump in your list.

It's not dishonest. I realize you want a socialist utopia (because NOTHING will ever go wrong there despite history saying otherwise) where a handful of cities will decide the outcome for a whole nation but thankfully our founding fathers were more wise than you.

This is correct.

[cwolff]

Just wait for the day we get an electoral college winning, popular vote losing liberal. These dudes will flip.

Here's the deal. The electoral college is there in part to stop the "mob" from electing obviously unfit presidents. They failed us.

TREASON?

[Wrathbringer]

Just wait for the day we get an electoral college winning, popular vote losing liberal. These dudes will flip.

Here's the deal. The electoral college is there in part to stop the "mob" from electing obviously unfit presidents. They failed us.

TREASON?

god damn you're stupid.

[Fortybox]

Just wait for the day we get an electoral college winning, popular vote losing liberal. These dudes will flip.

Here's the deal. The electoral college is there in part to stop the "mob" from electing obviously unfit presidents. They failed us.

TREASON?

Again, this is why your side lost.

You...don't...get...it.

[time4fun]

On the OP, no matter what you think of the idea of disobeying the POTUS, there are methods to deal with one built in to our system. Otherwise, what the person is describing is genuinely in the zone of treason and at the least should have the person tossed out immediately. Imagine if someone said that about Hillary, she would be screaming for trials, executions or someone(s) would just decide to commit suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head twice. Again.

Dear god you are sincerely broken. That is nowhere near the zone of "treason" in any sense. Among other things, treason is about working with enemies to hurt the country.

Trump is NOT the country. (And I'd be REALLY careful about throwing the "T" word around if I were you- all things considered)

You love to talk about how important freedom and democracy are, and you embrace a wannabe dictator and actually treat him like he's your dictator.

You are vile.

[cwolff]

Again, this is why your side lost.

You...don't...get...it.

My side is America

[cwolff]

Dear god you are sincerely broken. That is nowhere near the zone of "treason" in any sense. Among other things, treason is about working with enemies to hurt the country.

Trump is NOT the country. (And I'd be REALLY careful about throwing the "T" word around if I were you- all things considered)

You love to talk about how important freedom and democracy are, and you embrace a wannabe dictator and actually treat him like he's your dictator.

You are vile.

He got the word straight from his leader who sent this tweet three hours ago:

TREASON?

[Fortybox]

My side is a radically transformed America

FTFY

[Fortybox]

Dear god you are sincerely broken. That is nowhere near the zone of "treason" in any sense. Among other things, treason is about working with enemies to hurt the country.

Trump is NOT the country. (And I'd be REALLY careful about throwing the "T" word around if I were you- all things considered)

You love to talk about how important freedom and democracy are, and you embrace a wannabe dictator and actually treat him like he's your dictator.

You are vile.

Oh, so now he is a wannabe dictator but us deplorables are treating him like a dictator. Please talk more. This is why Trump won.

[cwolff]

Oh, so now he is a wannabe dictator but us deplorables are treating him like a dictator. Please talk more. This is why Trump won.

umm...he's always been a wannabe dictator. That ain't no riddle.

But I see that you seem to be defending your poor political choices by blaming us for making you vote for him. That's a common theme on the PC. We see a lot of the trolls saying things like to defend all manners of deplorable behavior. It's a cop out and a weak response.

[Fortybox]

umm...he's always been a wannabe dictator. That ain't no riddle.

But I see that you seem to be defending your poor political choices by blaming us for making you vote for him. That's a common theme on the PC. We see a lot of the trolls saying things like to defend all manners of deplorable behavior. It's a cop out and a weak response.

ROFLMAO

Oh honey... . .. . .. .,

you didn't make me vote for Trump.

[cwolff]

ROFLMAO

Oh honey... . .. . .. .,

you didn't make me vote for Trump.

You keep saying "this is why trump won". What are you talking about?

[~Rocktar~]

Dear god you are sincerely broken. That is nowhere near the zone of "treason" in any sense. Among other things, treason is about working with enemies to hurt the country.

Trump is NOT the country. (And I'd be REALLY careful about throwing the "T" word around if I were you- all things considered)

You love to talk about how important freedom and democracy are, and you embrace a wannabe dictator and actually treat him like he's your dictator.

You are vile.

https://56packardman.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/obama-treason.jpg

[cwolff]

Here again Rocktar you can not defend what you're saying so you do a whataboutism. I do not believe I'm involved with occupy democrats anyway and without googling it I wouldn't know what it is. Turns out it's a facebook page. Weaksauce dude.

[Fortybox]

You keep saying "this is why trump won". What are you talking about?

https://media2.giphy.com/media/gqvNszYECpaIo/giphy.gif

Someone else explain it to him. Good grief.

[Fortybox]

https://56packardman.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/obama-treason.jpg

Remember when this quote was SUPER DUPER MEAN AND BAD?

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-ladies-and-gentlemen-the-economic-disaster-the-tailspin-the-destruction-of-the-greatest-rush-limbaugh-65-42-27.jpg

[time4fun]

Here again Rocktar you can not defend what you're saying so you do a whataboutism. I do not believe I'm involved with occupy democrats anyway and without googling it I wouldn't know what it is. Turns out it's a facebook page. Weaksauce dude.

When you're outmatched by someone's argument, instead create an imaginary argument and pretend like they're the one who made it. Then quote a fake news article and make some insane claim about Marxism and rapists.

~The book of Rockstar

[Some Rogue]

https://56packardman.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/obama-treason.jpg

https://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/298/881/e3c.jpg

[Androidpk]

I think it's safe to finally say we are in a constitutional crisis.

[time4fun]

We've been in one for some time now.

Fundamentally, the question isn't about whether or not Trump is cancer on the Presidency.

The question is- how did we let this happen? How was it SO easy to get so many people in this country to completely throw away their democratic ideals in favor of authoritarianism and demagoguery?

The system didn't fail us. We, as a country, failed the system.

[Fortybox]

I think it's safe to finally say we are in a constitutional crisis.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/jSAoq2irkOt32/giphy.gif

[Fortybox]

We've been in one for some time now.

Fundamentally, the question isn't about whether or not Trump is cancer on the Presidency.

The question is- how did we let this happen? How was it SO easy to get so many people in this country to completely throw away their democratic ideals in favor of authoritarianism and demagoguery?

The system didn't fail us. We, as a country, failed the system.

Flippity flop TF4:


Trump isn't in office because "the people" voted for him. He's here because of the electoral college system.


Um, he lost by almost 3 million votes.

He was elected on the equivalent of an electoral technicality.

...

So let's stop pretending like everything is all fun and roses. Most of the country doesn't like him


WTF? Clinton WON the popular vote. Do none of the Conservatives of PC read?


Oh and for fun (because she is such a brilliant analyst):


No, he can't. Right now the guy is polling in the 30s in 4 way match ups. I mean- this is beyond over. At this point, Clinton would need to be caught on camera boiling babies in Pagan rites for her to lose. Trump is in full-on self-destruct mode, and it's almost unthinkable that we won't have more damaging leaks in the next few weeks. I know everyone is holding out for wikileaks releases against Clinton, but to be honest there just doesn't seem to be much there to leak that's any worse than what folks have already seen.


Not really. He's being destroyed in the polls by women, people of color, and even white voters with college degrees (which is the first time a GOP nominee has lost that demographic in modern political history).

This is going to hurt. He's officially out of demographics to try to sway, and you can't win an election with just non-college educated white men.

He's going to get nailed on this by the media, and even if he were capable of dealing with this in the middle of Sunday's debate (and it WILL come up), this just isn't something he's going to be able to come back from.

[Fortybox]

Has anyone gone through T4F posts? It's hillarious. Here's some more gems:


Truth be told, the Electoral College works against Republicans in general.


Interestingly enough, the Electoral College was, in many ways, created to save us from someone like Donald Trump. It was a system created as an emergency fail safe in case the people tried to elect someone who was unfit and/or dangerous.

[Tgo01]

https://media2.giphy.com/media/gqvNszYECpaIo/giphy.gif

Someone else explain it to him. Good grief.

cwolff suffers from entirely too much white guilt to make him understand anything.

[Tgo01]

Has anyone gone through T4F posts? It's hillarious. Here's some more gems:

One post she said something like "You all are just angry white men who are upset that a black man has ruled over you for 8 years and a woman is about to rule over you for another 8."

Hard to believe that someone would come along and out-racist her, but dammit if cwolff didn't manage it.

[Tgo01]

One post she said something like "You all are just angry white men who are upset that a black man has ruled over you for 8 years and a woman is about to rule over you for another 8."

Hard to believe that someone would come along and out-racist her, but dammit if cwolff didn't manage it.

So while I'm trying to find this post I came across this post of hers that was in response to Androidpk:


No one is talking about Bill Clinton you pathetic little worm of a boy.

the thing that is so disgusting about people like you, Tgo, and PB is the way you have sat back for over a year and watched a man praising dictators, suggest banning an entire religion from entering the country (suggesting that the ones here should have to register themselves), mocking the disabled, calling Mexican immigrants rapists (though "some" are okay people, right?), implying black people are all poor and murdering each other, calling for large white groups of supporters to go serve as "poll monitors" in "particular precincts", suggesting that we bomb innocent civilians who happen to be related to terrorists, playfully bragging about sexually assaulting women, hiring an unabashed fan of white supremacy to help run his campaign, retweeting antisemitic and white nationalist iconography, flirting with people like David Duke, accusing our first Black President of not having been born here simply because he's black, and loudly yelling about building walls that "Mexico will pay for"- and you act like it's normal.

It's not normal.

You sitting back and acting like it's not a big deal makes you a part of it. I'll give Pirate some credit here- at least he had the guts to just tell everyone that he's a bigot.

Everyone here knows that you, Tgo, and PB sympathize with Trump's racist, sexist, nativist rhetoric. You know what the difference between a bigot and a bigot's sympathizers is?

Nothing.

I bolded for emphasis. I love it.

So we have one post where Androidpk said time4fun was a racist and a sexist, and a post where time4fun calls Androidpk a racist, sexist, nativist bigot, but now they have found love since they both hate Trump more than they hate racists and sexists apparently.

[Candor]

NY Times knows who it is.

We’ll learn the identity eventually.

I agree - the author is unlikely to remain anonymous forever. How the person's name will come out is an interesting question though.

[Tgo01]

Found it.


Dear God I am so tired of entitled straight white men over 35 being so angry all the time.

Sorry that the black guy has been in charge of you for 8 years. Sorry that a white woman is about to be in charge of you for 8 years.

(But not really)

[Fortybox]

So while I'm trying to find this post I came across this post of hers that was in response to Androidpk:



I bolded for emphasis. I love it.

So we have one post where Androidpk said time4fun was a racist and a sexist, and a post where time4fun calls Androidpk a racist, sexist, nativist bigot, but now they have found love since they both hate Trump more than they hate racists and sexists apparently.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/Z9OGuQyrfHAE8/giphy.gif

[time4fun]

There's speculation tonight (https://www.businessinsider.com/lodestar-trump-resistance-op-ed-new-york-times-who-wrote-2018-9)that it's Mike Pence due to the use of the word lodestar. Highly unlikely, of course, as Pence has no conscience. But it's an amusing thought to entertain.

[Fortybox]

Found it.

"in charge of?"

...

https://media2.giphy.com/media/pB27flArJ6u3e/giphy.gif

[Tgo01]

There's speculation tonight (https://www.businessinsider.com/lodestar-trump-resistance-op-ed-new-york-times-who-wrote-2018-9)that it's Mike Pence due to the use of the word lodestar. Highly unlikely, of course, as Pence has no conscience. But it's an amusing thought to entertain.

Why do you think Androidpk is a racist, sexist bigot?

[Fortybox]

There's speculation tonight (https://www.businessinsider.com/lodestar-trump-resistance-op-ed-new-york-times-who-wrote-2018-9)that it's Mike Pence due to the use of the word lodestar. Highly unlikely, of course, as Pence has no conscience. But it's an amusing thought to entertain.

You're not good at this.


Not really. He's being destroyed in the polls by women, people of color, and even white voters with college degrees (which is the first time a GOP nominee has lost that demographic in modern political history).

This is going to hurt. He's officially out of demographics to try to sway, and you can't win an election with just non-college educated white men.

He's going to get nailed on this by the media, and even if he were capable of dealing with this in the middle of Sunday's debate (and it WILL come up), this just isn't something he's going to be able to come back from.

[Tgo01]

"in charge of?"

...

https://media2.giphy.com/media/pB27flArJ6u3e/giphy.gif

It all makes sense now, time4fun is just angry that an old white man is in charge of her again.

[beldannon5]

Why must this stuff always fill up my activity stream :( :( :( lol

[Tgo01]

Why must this stuff always fill up my activity stream :( :( :( lol

Zero self respect!

[Astray]

Go! Let the obsessing be born anew!

[~Rocktar~]

That is nowhere near the zone of "treason" in any sense.

Dear gods you are sincerely fucked in the head. I will give you this, you may be right that Treason doesn't apply though depending on who is supposedly undermining the President's authority is associated with it may be Treason. It is clearly and unequivocally sedition in it's purist sense.

I can't wait for 4 more years with the chance of even more Conservative SCOTUS picks!

[Astray]

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

This anonymous person sounds very petty for someone that can work directly with the President to revise what may seem problematic. I mean, he's a salesman and if you can pitch it well enough he'd see what you meant.


But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

Which would be noticed immediately by the American public the moment someone broke the story. Hell, we're no longer in a World where we're limited to face to face and printed paper.


That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.


Saying something on impulse in a powerful position can be checked upon via the democratic institutions. Put people that are smarter than you in charge of more important things so when you say impulsive things they can look at you and go "We're gonna talk later." Which is what Trump has done.


Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

Could someone give me a citation? I'm genuinely curious on this matter.

This is turning into a wall of text but the entirety of this can be summed up by this sounds like the rantings of a petty person that jumped aboard a bandwagon to appeal to more people so when they are eventually weeded out as the detriments (like Trump has done before) and not the constructive. Why should I take this person seriously?

[cwolff]

This anonymous person sounds very petty for someone that can work directly with the President to revise what may seem problematic. I mean, he's a salesman and if you can pitch it well enough he'd see what you meant.



Which would be noticed immediately by the American public the moment someone broke the story. Hell, we're no longer in a World where we're limited to face to face and printed paper.



Saying something on impulse in a powerful position can be checked upon via the democratic institutions. Put people that are smarter than you in charge of more important things so when you say impulsive things they can look at you and go "We're gonna talk later." Which is what Trump has done.



Could someone give me a citation? I'm genuinely curious on this matter.

This is turning into a wall of text but the entirety of this can be summed up by this sounds like the rantings of a petty person that jumped aboard a bandwagon to appeal to more people so when they are eventually weeded out as the detriments (like Trump has done before) and not the constructive. Why should I take this person seriously?

You're rationalizing again.

[Astray]

You're rationalizing again.

Why does his Afro look like it has downs?

[Parkbandit]

That's not quite accurate is it. The American people wanted Hillary. Trump was elected through the quirk that is the electoral college, third party candidates and collusion with Russia and Gulf States. I get that he won. He got the electors. It's dishonest to say that we decided to elect him. Shit happens, and this time it was a big dump.

THIS is why you are a liberal... you will literally do and believe anything you are being told by the left all the while ignoring facts.

The "quirk" that is the Electoral College did precisely what it was designed to do. It's not a "quirk", it was exactly designed for this purpose.

[Wrathbringer]

We've been in one for some time now.

Fundamentally, the question isn't about whether or not Trump is cancer on the Presidency.

The question is- how did we let this happen? How was it SO easy to get so many people in this country to completely throw away their democratic ideals in favor of authoritarianism and demagoguery?

The system didn't fail us. We, as a country, failed the system.

No, you failed, and continue to fail. Due to retardation.

[Astray]

The "quirk" that is the Electoral College did precisely what it was designed to do.

Thank you. I always get a kick out of how people who are blaming the EC are only doing so when their preferred candidate didn't win.

[Some Rogue]

Speaking of believing anything your party tells you....


Revealed: Trump inauguration crowd photos were edited after he intervened (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/revealed-trump-inauguration-crowd-photos-were-edited-after-he-intervened/ar-BBMWxOE?li=BBnb7Kz)



It started on day one. YUUUGE

[Astray]

Speaking of believing anything your party tells you....


Revealed: Trump inauguration crowd photos were edited after he intervened (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/revealed-trump-inauguration-crowd-photos-were-edited-after-he-intervened/ar-BBMWxOE?li=BBnb7Kz)



It started on day one. YUUUGE

This broke like... the day of/after, I thought.

[SHAFT]

Speaking of believing anything your party tells you....


Revealed: Trump inauguration crowd photos were edited after he intervened (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/revealed-trump-inauguration-crowd-photos-were-edited-after-he-intervened/ar-BBMWxOE?li=BBnb7Kz)



It started on day one. YUUUGE

You had Spicer coming out and yelling at the press, pushing what was an obvious lie.

[Stumplicker]

That's not quite accurate is it. The American people wanted Hillary. Trump was elected through the quirk that is the electoral college, third party candidates and collusion with Russia and Gulf States. I get that he won. He got the electors. It's dishonest to say that we decided to elect him. Shit happens, and this time it was a big dump.

I'm about to be pedantic, so fair warning if you want to tune it out before this sentence ends. I just want to be clear that I don't think the American people wanted Hillary. I'm sure what you're referencing is the popular vote, and yeah, fair point, by a very small margin. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that the majority of those voters wanted Hillary Clinton to be the president.

I doubt there's a way to accurately tell, but I'd be willing to put money on the fact that the Hillary vote was about evenly split between three things:

1. "I want Hillary Clinton as president"
2. "Oh sweet merciful Jesus anybody but Trump."
3. "I prefer (insert minor party candidate here) but the vote would be wasted, so this is the lesser of two evils."

And since somehow it always matters on here, I'll just spell out: My vote went to Donald Trump. It likely would have gone to Bernie Sanders were he the democratic candidate, and I don't think Hillary is evil or would have been terrible.

But I don't think a majority of people who voted for her actually wanted her.

[IorakeWarhammer]

I support God Emperor Trump 110% and believe this story is pure fiction.

[Candor]

I'm about to be pedantic, so fair warning if you want to tune it out before this sentence ends. I just want to be clear that I don't think the American people wanted Hillary. I'm sure what you're referencing is the popular vote, and yeah, fair point, by a very small margin. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that the majority of those voters wanted Hillary Clinton to be the president.

I doubt there's a way to accurately tell, but I'd be willing to put money on the fact that the Hillary vote was about evenly split between three things:

1. "I want Hillary Clinton as president"
2. "Oh sweet merciful Jesus anybody but Trump."
3. "I prefer (insert minor party candidate here) but the vote would be wasted, so this is the lesser of two evils."

And since somehow it always matters on here, I'll just spell out: My vote went to Donald Trump. It likely would have gone to Bernie Sanders were he the democratic candidate, and I don't think Hillary is evil or would have been terrible.

But I don't think a majority of people who voted for her actually wanted her.

I believe that if Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic party candidate, he would now be President. The Democrat party leadership handed the election to Donald Trump.

[Fortybox]

It all makes sense now, time4fun is just angry that an old white man is in charge of her again.

That’s the hypocrisy of the left. They decry racism but racism is in everything they do. It’s how they think and control others.

[Stumplicker]

I believe that if Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic party candidate, he would now be President. The Democrat party leadership handed the election to Donald Trump.

I don't necessarily disagree, but it's hard to say. It's possible he could've gone off the rails just like John McCain did. In the primaries, McCain was eloquent, on point, intelligent, and spoke like a human. During the election he went all in on Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. I still think he would've been a great President and I regret not voting for him as a result of his spiral, but when you get those people around you who need to manipulate your every word to bolster how you're polling from one day to the next, some weird shit can go down.

[Wrathbringer]

I believe that if Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic party candidate, he would now be President. The Democrat party leadership handed the election to Donald Trump.

You're retarded.

[Astray]

You're retarded.

I can see where he's coming from. If you had replaced much of what Sanders was saying and shine a Democratic spin on it, you would have appealed to two crowds instead of one. You'd have democratic households probably wielding a bit more influence on a younger tide of voters but you'd still have to put those fuckers in a booth.

[Fortybox]

I believe that if Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic party candidate, he would now be President. The Democrat party leadership handed the election to Donald Trump.

No way that would have happened. Support for socialism is still primarily rejected by the American people.

[Stumplicker]

As an aside since I used McCain as an example, he died of a brain tumor. Hypothetically, had he been elected then won a second term, he'd have been there til 2016. Nobody really knows what causes brain cancer for certain, but stress and environment are suspected as factors.

There's a very real chance that if McCain had been elected, the stress of being POTUS could've exacerbated and expedited his condition, making Sarah fucking Palin the first female President. In my mind, that's worse for the history books than "unhinged reality TV star rises to the highest position in the land". Trump can and probably will easily blend into history after the generation that lived with him passes away as just another rich white guy that was probably not the greatest choice. The first female president is going to be a name remembered for a much longer time, same as Obama's will be.

[Wrathbringer]

I can see where he's coming from. If you had replaced much of what Sanders was saying and shine a Democratic spin on it, you would have appealed to two crowds instead of one. You'd have democratic households probably wielding a bit more influence on a younger tide of voters but you'd still have to put those fuckers in a booth.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing. I was just saying that I think he's retarded.

[time4fun]

Dear gods you are sincerely fucked in the head. I will give you this, you may be right that Treason doesn't apply though depending on who is supposedly undermining the President's authority is associated with it may be Treason. It is clearly and unequivocally sedition in it's purist sense.

I can't wait for 4 more years with the chance of even more Conservative SCOTUS picks!

"You're so messed up... But yeah you were right".

It's just a privilege to watch your mind at work.

[time4fun]

Sorry, but it's a really odd argument to make- "Yes Clinton had millions more votes, but that's not really what the American people wanted". Particularly because she did even better in general polls than in likely voter polls. (This is virtually always the case with Democratic candidates. They have more popular support, but the current Republican coalition is more likely to vote).

And 3 million votes isn't a small amount.

So you can make a lot of arguments here, but the argument that Clinton isn't the one people wanted is directly contradicted by the evidence.

[Wrathbringer]

Sorry, but it's a really odd argument to make- "Yes Clinton had millions more votes, but that's not really what the American people wanted". Particularly because she did even better in general polls than in likely voter polls. (This is virtually always the case with Democratic candidates. They have more popular support, but the current Republican coalition is more likely to vote).

And 3 million votes isn't a small amount.

So you can make a lot of arguments here, but the argument that Clinton isn't the one people wanted is directly contradicted by the evidence.

damn you're retarded. Also:

9153

[RichardCranium]

And 3 million votes isn't a small amount.

It's less than one percent of the population.

[Stumplicker]

Sorry, but it's a really odd argument to make- "Yes Clinton had millions more votes, but that's not really what the American people wanted". Particularly because she did even better in general polls than in likely voter polls. (This is virtually always the case with Democratic candidates. They have more popular support, but the current Republican coalition is more likely to vote).

And 3 million votes isn't a small amount.

So you can make a lot of arguments here, but the argument that Clinton isn't the one people wanted is directly contradicted by the evidence.

It is absolutely an argument that can be made that America is shoehorned in all practical ways into a binary system. It's not inconvievable or in any way incorrect to say that a lot of votes for Hillary Clinton were not made for any reason beyond "Holy shit not Trump!".

And yes, in a total count of major candidate votes of 135 million, 3 million is what I would call a small margin, or in mathematical terms, 2.2%. And furthermore, let's say Gary Johnson drops out. How many of those 4.5 million Libertarian votes you think would've gone Hillary's way? That margin was tiny.

Donald J. Trump Republican 62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton Democratic 65,845,063
Gary Johnson Libertarian 4,488,931
Jill Stein Green 1,457,050

[Methais]

What possible reason would NYT have to puts all of its credibility on the line over something like that? As though just accurately reporting on his behaviors doesn't make him look bad enough.

Look- the people in his administration are trying to tell you that there's a problem here. That's why they're sitting down with authors and telling them what's going on. That's why they leak when Trump tries to do things like fire Mueller. And that's why they're posting this op-ed here.

https://i.imgflip.com/2hd758.jpg


This is a senior, Republican Trump administration official who is waving a red flag and begging you to rise above petty partisan bickering and to acknowledge the reality- the man in the White House right now is dangerous.

Other than your Trump Derangement Syndrome and endless butthurt, what specific reasons make you think this anonymous source is credible?

[Methais]

These quotes right here hit at the heart of the problem:







We are watching this man threaten to take away media licenses because he doesn't like the (accurate) coverage of his actions. We're watching a President call for the jailing of private citizens. He has not only threatened to force social media companies to show more favorable coverage of him, but they're apparently actually taking action. He has suggested that protests should be illegal. He has directed the DoJ to go after his political rivals. He's publicly shamed the DoJ for not giving people breaks in the administration of justice based solely on their party affiliation. He has disparaged our allies, he's started trade wars. He's venerated dictators. He allowed Russia to attack our elections and continues to cast doubt on that fact. He took the word of Vladimir Putin over our own US Intelligence Agencies. He lies, threatens, and bullies on a daily basis.

This is UN-American. This is not what our country is supposed to be. And at some point we have to stop being Democrats and Republicans and just stand up for the fundamental tenants of democracy.

We can disagree on taxes, on healthcare, and even on civil rights.

But are we really going to force ourselves to disagree over whether or not we should have a free press? Whether or not our Justice system should be used for Presidential revenge and should start handing out favors for party loyalty? Are we actually going to disagree over whether or not it's okay for a US President- who is supposed to be the leader of the free world- to cozy up to and repeatedly praise some of the most corrupt and amoral dictators in the world?

If so- WHY? What happened in the last few years to suddenly make these things unimportant? What happened that suddenly made it okay to attack the foundations of a free society?

Good god shut the fuck with your hysteria you emotionally unstable train wreck.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ohL-Z8CNNkE/Tn1XAdoMfdI/AAAAAAAAACs/PuKX25Ul4D0/s400/4b6df69b3d25c-shut_up_MUPPETS.jpg


You can't possibly be serious right now.. can you?

She is serious.

And do call her Shirley.

[Methais]

Also he apparently doesn't understand what an Op-Ed is.

And I hate to break it to you little Tgo, but the stories broken by the NYT about Trump have been true.

So it's not that the NYT is anti-Trump.

It's that the facts are.

Know what facts aren't though? Opinions.

[RichardCranium]

Combo breaker, in case Methais was about to go apeshit with four in a row.

[Some Rogue]

She is serious.

And do call her Shirley.

https://i.imgflip.com/zel8j.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Sorry, but it's a really odd argument to make- "Yes Clinton had millions more votes, but that's not really what the American people wanted". Particularly because she did even better in general polls than in likely voter polls. (This is virtually always the case with Democratic candidates. They have more popular support, but the current Republican coalition is more likely to vote).

And 3 million votes isn't a small amount.

So you can make a lot of arguments here, but the argument that Clinton isn't the one people wanted is directly contradicted by the evidence.

Please. Please take a low level Civics class at your local high school.. hell, see if you can sit in a middle school class.

You would learn how the electoral system we use in this country works.

It would make you look less stupid after almost 2 years of trotting out that tired "B-B-B-b-but she got 3 million more votes!" excuse.

It's as dumb as your reasoning that people who voted for Jill Stein was the cause of Hillary's defeat.

Just stop.

[Parkbandit]

Other than your Trump Derangement Syndrome and endless butthurt, what specific reasons make you think this anonymous source is credible?

I don't doubt there is someone, somewhere that has these opinions of President Trump.

I don't doubt that there are people at the NYT that parrot these opinions and give this "anonymous" source a platform.

What I DO doubt is that this person is a "senior" official in the Trump Administration.

It's not like the NYT has ever, ever used an entry level employee or intern and inflated their stature to make a more "credible" point.

[Candor]

I don't doubt there is someone, somewhere that has these opinions of President Trump.

I don't doubt that there are people at the NYT that parrot these opinions and give this "anonymous" source a platform.

What I DO doubt is that this person is a "senior" official in the Trump Administration.

It's not like the NYT has ever, ever used an entry level employee or intern and inflated their stature to make a more "credible" point.

Well...I guess it depends on how you want to define the word "senior". I expect the NYT might define the word differently than you would :).

[Parkbandit]

Well...I guess it depends on how you want to define the word "senior". I expect the NYT might define the word differently than you would :).

wut?

[RichardCranium]

He's calling you old, grandpa.

[Some Rogue]

wut?

SHUT UP AND GET BACK IN THE MINIVAN GRANDPA.

[Some Rogue]

He's calling you old, grandpa.

Dammit

[Fortybox]

It is absolutely an argument that can be made that America is shoehorned in all practical ways into a binary system. It's not inconvievable or in any way incorrect to say that a lot of votes for Hillary Clinton were not made for any reason beyond "Holy shit not Trump!".

And yes, in a total count of major candidate votes of 135 million, 3 million is what I would call a small margin, or in mathematical terms, 2.2%. And furthermore, let's say Gary Johnson drops out. How many of those 4.5 million Libertarian votes you think would've gone Hillary's way? That margin was tiny.

Donald J. Trump Republican 62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton Democratic 65,845,063
Gary Johnson Libertarian 4,488,931
Jill Stein Green 1,457,050

Hey - it’s the monk formerly know as Flimbo gone cray cray via discord. What anonymous player are you now in game? Might want to let the New York Times know!!

[Parkbandit]

Hey - it’s the monk formerly know as Flimbo gone cray cray via discord. What anonymous player are you now in game? Might want to let the New York Times know!!

Naamit deserved what she got because she asked for it.. but Stumplicker would never say that!

I think we have a new contender for the 4th Horseman of the RetardApocalypse!

[cwolff]

I'm about to be pedantic, so fair warning if you want to tune it out before this sentence ends. I just want to be clear that I don't think the American people wanted Hillary. I'm sure what you're referencing is the popular vote, and yeah, fair point, by a very small margin. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that the majority of those voters wanted Hillary Clinton to be the president.

I doubt there's a way to accurately tell, but I'd be willing to put money on the fact that the Hillary vote was about evenly split between three things:

1. "I want Hillary Clinton as president"
2. "Oh sweet merciful Jesus anybody but Trump."
3. "I prefer (insert minor party candidate here) but the vote would be wasted, so this is the lesser of two evils."

And since somehow it always matters on here, I'll just spell out: My vote went to Donald Trump. It likely would have gone to Bernie Sanders were he the democratic candidate, and I don't think Hillary is evil or would have been terrible.

But I don't think a majority of people who voted for her actually wanted her.


Sorry, but it's a really odd argument to make- "Yes Clinton had millions more votes, but that's not really what the American people wanted". Particularly because she did even better in general polls than in likely voter polls. (This is virtually always the case with Democratic candidates. They have more popular support, but the current Republican coalition is more likely to vote).

And 3 million votes isn't a small amount.

So you can make a lot of arguments here, but the argument that Clinton isn't the one people wanted is directly contradicted by the evidence.

Didn't HRC get more votes than anyone but Obama? How's trumps total stack up historically?

[time4fun]

Well...I guess it depends on how you want to define the word "senior". I expect the NYT might define the word differently than you would :).

NYT definitely wouldn't publish this if it weren't really senior. They don't do anonymous op-eds, and they know there's a good chance this person's name will eventually be leaked/shared

Also, they wouldn't be guarding the name in the way they are for anyone who wasnt very senior.

Contrary to the rantings of people like PB, the Times has zero incentive to make this up or to inflate the author's title.

[time4fun]

It's less than one percent of the population.

It was 3% of the voters, and last I checked that makes it the majority. I know conservatives are used to Democrats needing an 8% advantage to break even these days, but 3 million is still a majority

[cwolff]

3% is a lot when you consider that 94% of the votes are already locked up between the two parties from the start.

[Parkbandit]

NYT definitely wouldn't publish this if it weren't really senior. They don't do anonymous op-eds, and they know there's a good chance this person's name will eventually be leaked/shared

Also, they wouldn't be guarding the name in the way they are for anyone who wasnt very senior.

So, it is your contention that the New York Times has never inflated anyone's OpEd position to push their narrative?

You might want to check that and just skip answering it.. because it'll make you look foolish.


Contrary to the rantings of people like PB, the Times has zero incentive to make this up or to inflate the author's title.

What? They came out with this ground breaking OpEd that said exactly what they've been saying all along.. that Trump is a meanie head and shouldn't be President because It's not fair.. and you don't think they have an incentive? Why else have they been running stories exactly like this for 2+ years then?

Stop being naive and dumb in every. single. post. you. make.

[Parkbandit]

It was 3% of the voters, and last I checked that makes it the majority. I know conservatives are used to Democrats needing an 8% advantage to break even these days, but 3 million is still a majority

And if elections for President were based solely on popular vote, we would have had President Gore and President Hillary Clinton.

We should thank the wisdom of the Founding Fathers for that.

SPOILER: It's the way the elections have been done in this country for 200+ years.

[Stumplicker]

Didn't HRC get more votes than anyone but Obama? How's trumps total stack up historically?

I'm sure she did if you're using it as a point. I'm not going to bother to look it up. Assuming it's true, it doesn't negate, comment on, or argue a single one of the points I made...so...congratulations? I accept that your statement is probably true.

[time4fun]

3% is a lot when you consider that 94% of the votes are already locked up between the two parties from the start.

It also means we can drop the conceit that Trump is there because of the will of the people.

[Tgo01]

It also means we can drop the conceit that Trump is there because of the will of the people.

So why is Trump president? Didn't you say before the election that the electoral college works against Republicans? So Trump overcame a system that worked against him because...why now?

[time4fun]

It is absolutely an argument that can be made that America is shoehorned in all practical ways into a binary system. It's not inconvievable or in any way incorrect to say that a lot of votes for Hillary Clinton were not made for any reason beyond "Holy shit not Trump!".

And yes, in a total count of major candidate votes of 135 million, 3 million is what I would call a small margin, or in mathematical terms, 2.2%. And furthermore, let's say Gary Johnson drops out. How many of those 4.5 million Libertarian votes you think would've gone Hillary's way? That margin was tiny.

Donald J. Trump Republican 62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton Democratic 65,845,063
Gary Johnson Libertarian 4,488,931
Jill Stein Green 1,457,050

It's not that you're wrong about the binary system, but it's still misleading to suggest that she isn't the President most people wanted.

There's a difference between the choices that determines the candidates and the ultimate choice between the candidates.

It can simultaneously be true that most people didn't want her to be the Dem canddiate (that's literally true of almost every Presidential candidate, btw, and is even more true of Trump than it is of Clinton), AND that most people wanted her to be President on Nov 8th.

And, as you pointed out, there were four major candidates on the ballot. People had three ways to vote "not Trump"- they chose Clinton.

[cwolff]

I'm sure she did if you're using it as a point. I'm not going to bother to look it up. Assuming it's true, it doesn't negate, comment on, or argue a single one of the points I made...so...congratulations? I accept that your statement is probably true.

All I'm saying is to take a step back and look at it from a different angle. Sure, Hillary was boring af and she has no charisma. Its hard to want to vote for a person like that especially compared to some others. Also consider that its common for people to toss around phrases like "lesser of two evils" and in other ways act disinterested or disgusted by politics.

Being objective means looking at the numbers and the numbers say a lot of people wanted her to be POTUS

[time4fun]

All I'm saying is to take a step back and look at it from a different angle. Sure, Hillary was boring af and she has no charisma. Its hard to want to vote for a person like that especially compared to some others. Also consider that its common for people to toss around phrases like "lesser of two evils" and in other ways act disinterested or disgusted by politics.

Being objective means looking at the numbers and the numbers say a lot of people wanted her to be POTUS

Ironically, everything the right accused her of doing... Is what they got out of Trump.

Used private foundation for self-dealing and as a slush fund? Check.

Engaged in criminal activity? Check.

Dangerous foreign policy? Check.

Pathological lying? Check.

No respect for Democracy? Check.

Corrupt/Swampy Administration? Check.

Too friendly towards Russia? (Ahahahahahahahaha) Check.

Plus the whole treason thing on top of it

Good job Republicans! Between Trump and Bush Jr, you've really shown the world that you're dangerous, hypocritical, and unfit to govern.

[Stumplicker]

All I'm saying is to take a step back and look at it from a different angle. Sure, Hillary was boring af and she has no charisma. Its hard to want to vote for a person like that especially compared to some others. Also consider that its common for people to toss around phrases like "lesser of two evils" and in other ways act disinterested or disgusted by politics.

Being objective means looking at the numbers and the numbers say a lot of people wanted her to be POTUS

Thank you for the insinuation that I base my vote on whether a candidate is boring or lacks charisma, but that is not the case. And I'm sure that the "Giant Meteor 2016" meme that got passed around by millions of people suggested that what they REALLY thought was that Hillary Clinton was the best choice for America. It's much easier to make a vote for "Anybody but Trump" than it was to make a "Not Hillary Clinton" vote, because the primary proponent of the "Crooked Hillary is an evil criminal" line of thinking was Donald Trump himself. You had to be listening to him in the first place to be influenced by it.

I'm not saying that Trump legitimately is beloved by a majority of people who voted for him. I voted for him and I hated his fucking guts then and now. Just about the entire Republican establishment hated his fucking guts then and now, and they voted for him too.

All I said was that Hillary Clinton got a lot of "Anybody but Trump" votes. I'm sure you heard a thousand people say it during the primaries and/or elections, and don't even pretend you didn't. And if you really want to analyze the numbers, I'm sure you realize that the 4.5 million votes that went Libertarian, minus a Libertarian candidate, would have heavily gone to Trump, and the 1.5 million Green party largely would've gone to Hillary, and you're looking at a virtual tie between the two of them. That's hardly a "Majority of Americans thought Hillary Clinton should be the President.". Hell, even leave them in, and 66 million votes out of 135 million cast for those four candidates is 49% of American voters. I don't know what your definition of majority is, but 49% isn't it.

[Parkbandit]

All I'm saying is to take a step back and look at it from a different angle. Sure, Hillary was boring af and she has no charisma. Its hard to want to vote for a person like that especially compared to some others. Also consider that its common for people to toss around phrases like "lesser of two evils" and in other ways act disinterested or disgusted by politics.

Being objective means looking at the numbers and the numbers say a lot of people wanted her to be POTUS

Trump is LITERALLY the lesser of two evils.

Let that sink in for a bit.

Had you nominated just about anyone other than Hillary, you might have won. But you nominated one of the worst candidates in history and you got beaten.

[Tgo01]

Ironically, everything the right accused her of doing... Is what they got out of Trump.

That's strange, could have sworn Hillary wanted a war with Russia.

[Neveragain]

Ironically, everything the right accused her of doing... Is what they got out of Trump.

Used private foundation for self-dealing and as a slush fund? Check.

Engaged in criminal activity? Check.

Dangerous foreign policy? Check.

Pathological lying? Check.

No respect for Democracy? Check.

Corrupt/Swampy Administration? Check.

Too friendly towards Russia? (Ahahahahahahahaha) Check.

Plus the whole treason thing on top of it

Good job Republicans! Between Trump and Bush Jr, you've really shown the world that you're dangerous, hypocritical, and unfit to govern.

I would take Bush Jr. back in a heartbeat and I didn't vote for him. Bush was handed one of the worst moments in American history before he was even half way through his 1st term. I'm no Bush fan at all but I don't question that he is a good man, not for a moment. Bush should be given consideration as one of our better presidents this country has had, much better handled than Pearl harbor ever was.

Trump was still a better choice than Hillary or Bernie. Sadly you won't listen to Michael Moore, who is from your own think tank, I have posted this 3 or 4 times now over the years. Trump represents an "idea" to these people, one that I support, that you have a right to blow up the system with your vote. It makes me sad that you don't respect this and ignore (or don't understand?) why that right exists.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeYbEOSqYc

[cwolff]

I get what you're saying though I'm on a bus and didn't read it all because it bounces like crazy.

If I get the jist of what you're saying then its like being offered two flavors of ice cream. You may not love either but you picked the one you wanted

[time4fun]

I would take Bush Jr. back in a heartbeat and I didn't vote for him. Bush was handed one of the worst moments in American history before he was even half way through his 1st term. I'm no Bush fan at all but I don't question that he is a good man, not for a moment. Bush should be given consideration as one of our better presidents this country has had, much better handled than Pearl harbor ever was.

Trump was still a better choice than Hillary or Bernie. Sadly you won't listen to Michael Moore, who is from your own think tank, I have posted this 3 or 4 times now over the years. Trump represents an "idea" to these people, one that I support, that you have a right to blow up the system with your vote. It makes me sad that you don't respect this and ignore (or don't understand?) why that right exists.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeYbEOSqYc

He blew up the deficit at a time when there was no reason to, he got us into two wars, and one of those wars set into motion a Cascade of increasingly violent reactions that led to global chaos and instability. Oh, and he let the economic downturn happen because he and his fellow Republican lawmakers don't understand how economies work.

[Jeril]

Good stuff, glad to see some of those in the Republican party are putting country before party, as they should.

What politician is putting the country before themselves?

[Tgo01]

He blew up the deficit

But Obama...


at a time when there was no reason to

Oh you so sneaky!

So I gotta hear why Bush doubling the debt was bad, but when Obama doubled it again "there was a need to."

Come on, time4fun! Don't do what you usually do and make a dumbass comment then don't explain yourself! I NEED to hear this one!

[Wrathbringer]

He blew up the deficit at a time when there was no reason to, he got us into two wars, and one of those wars set into motion a Cascade of increasingly violent reactions that led to global chaos and instability. Oh, and he let the economic downturn happen because he and his fellow Republican lawmakers don't understand how economies work.

You're really dumb.

[Astray]

What politician is putting the country before themselves?

The ones that live out in vans down by the river.

[cwolff]

What politician is putting the country before themselves?

Al Franken, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, John McCain who just passed and others.

[Tgo01]

Al Franken, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, John McCain who just passed and others.

Al Franken? What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Jeril]

Al Franken, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, John McCain who just passed and others.

Let's play a game and say that these listed are actually squeaky clean and are corruption free, partly because I'm too lazy to do any digging into it and because it very likely matters little.

We can all agree that the people who believed that the earth was flat were wrong because this idea was rooted in belief and not in any real fact. If you look at these people did they put their own beliefs aside and look at\for what was best for the country objectively or did they base their actions on what they believed was right for the country? Because if it's the later they weren't really putting the country first, they were putting their own beliefs first, thus themselves, and the country second.

[Fortybox]

He blew up the deficit at a time when there was no reason to, he got us into two wars, and one of those wars set into motion a Cascade of increasingly violent reactions that led to global chaos and instability. Oh, and he let the economic downturn happen because he and his fellow Republican lawmakers don't understand how economies work.

time4spartacus - you're such a brave soul.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/A5F11Cbo7b8cw/giphy.gif

[Parkbandit]

He blew up the deficit at a time when there was no reason to, he got us into two wars, and one of those wars set into motion a Cascade of increasingly violent reactions that led to global chaos and instability. Oh, and he let the economic downturn happen because he and his fellow Republican lawmakers don't understand how economies work.

It's posts like this that honestly makes you a bigger threat for cwolff's belt than even Backlash could ever muster.

Well done. You deserve the title shot.

[Parkbandit]

Al Franken, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, John McCain who just passed and others.

Can you point to anything specific that the first 3 people did that put their country before themselves?

Spoiler: Hating President Trump isn't the answer.

[Fortybox]

It's posts like this that honestly makes you a bigger threat for cwolff's belt than even Backlash could ever muster.

Well done. You deserve the title shot.

Don't ruin her Spartacus moment

https://media2.giphy.com/media/3CcfnGS1BqNdS/200.webp

[cwolff]

Let's play a game and say that these listed are actually squeaky clean and are corruption free, partly because I'm too lazy to do any digging into it and because it very likely matters little.

We can all agree that the people who believed that the earth was flat were wrong because this idea was rooted in belief and not in any real fact. If you look at these people did they put their own beliefs aside and look at\for what was best for the country objectively or did they base their actions on what they believed was right for the country? Because if it's the later they weren't really putting the country first, they were putting their own beliefs first, thus themselves, and the country second.

You're asking a philosophical question that won't ever be answered but has value in it's contemplation. Those politicians put the needs of the country first. Maybe it made them feel smug or maybe they just like being outliers but they did it and that's worth something. We need more politicians like that.

[Stumplicker]

What politician is putting the country before themselves?

Olympia Snowe!

[Astray]

Don't ruin her Spartacus moment

It really is a Rocky moment, y'know if Rocky got beat to death and they find out he RP'd a man with an illusionary vagina in an MUD and shitposted on an unaffiliated forum.

The reasonable end to Rocky, really. Very modern.

[Neveragain]

He blew up the deficit at a time when there was no reason to, he got us into two wars, and one of those wars set into motion a Cascade of increasingly violent reactions that led to global chaos and instability. Oh, and he let the economic downturn happen because he and his fellow Republican lawmakers don't understand how economies work.

After 9/11 everyone expected a huge economic crash, everything that could be done was, they delayed the inevitable longer than most expected.

9/11 got us into two wars, that's it and that is all. Sorry your Muslim extremist friends flew jet airliners into skyscrapers in NY city killing 1000's. Don't want none, don't bring none.

[Fortybox]

It really is a Rocky moment, y'know if Rocky got beat to death and they find out he RP'd a man with an illusionary vagina in an MUD and shitposted on an unaffiliated forum.

The reasonable end to Rocky, really. Very modern.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/SA06iWSNeHYpq/200w.webp

[time4fun]

After 9/11 everyone expected a huge economic crash, everything that could be done was, they delayed the inevitable longer than most expected.

9/11 got us into two wars, that's it and that is all. Sorry your Muslim extremist friends flew jet airliners into skyscrapers in NY city killing 1000's. Don't want none, don't bring none.

The economic crash wasn't caused by 9/11. It was caused by decisions made before and after 9/11.

And 9/11 didn't get us into two wars. I hate to break it to you, but the secular Iraqi government had nothing to do with the religious fundamentalists of Al Quaeda. In fact, the Iraqi government was part of what was keeping a lot of fundamentalist groups contained. The war in Iraq created two new generations of terrorists who were- shockingly enough- pissed off that a foreign country killed their families, bombed their schools and places of employment, and illegally occupied the nation with very little consideration for the well-being of the people who lived there. That and the war in Afghanistan were unforced errors. No one made us respond that way, and the entire world has been paying a price for it ever since. So not only did we remove the lid that was keeping those groups contained, but we fed them with and endless supply of recruits.

Your ignorance of economics is apparently matched only by your ignorance of political history.

[Tgo01]

The economic crash wasn't caused by 9/11. It was caused by decisions made before and after 9/11.

And 9/11 didn't get us into two wars. I hate to break it to you, but the secular Iraqi government had nothing to do with the religious fundamentalists of Al Quaeda. In fact, the Iraqi government was part of what was keeping a lot of fundamentalist groups contained. The war in Iraq created two new generations of terrorists who were- shockingly enough- pissed off that a foreign country killed their families, bombed their schools and places of employment, and illegally occupied the nation with very little consideration for the well-being of the people who lived there. That and the war in Afghanistan were unforced errors. No one made us respond that way, and the entire world has been paying a price for it ever since. So not only did we remove the lid that was keeping those groups contained, but we fed them with and endless supply of recruits.

Your ignorance of economics is apparently matched only by your ignorance of political history.


But Obama...



Oh you so sneaky!

So I gotta hear why Bush doubling the debt was bad, but when Obama doubled it again "there was a need to."

Come on, time4fun! Don't do what you usually do and make a dumbass comment then don't explain yourself! I NEED to hear this one!

ONE thing I ask of you. Just one thing and you can't deliver :(

[Tgo01]

Wikileaks tweeted something earlier saying their statistical analysis of the words used in this op-ed points to the author being older, male, and conservative. Most people in the replies are saying shit like "No shit considering the people in the White House."

I'll admit I laughed.

[Neveragain]

No one made us respond that way

You're right, it's everybody else's fault but these guys.

https://i2.wp.com/neonnettle.com/news/images/911.jpg

Fucking sympathizer.

[Candor]

He's calling you old, grandpa.

Actually what I meant was...wait...scratch that...

Right. I was calling Parkbandit a gheezer.

[Candor]

Actually what I meant was...wait...scratch that...

Right. I was calling Parkbandit a gheezer.

Also...if the NYT anonymous source is revealed and not what many people would consider to be a "senior official", possible excuses might be:

1. Person has been a WH or administration staffer for awhile
2. Person is a longterm government employee
3. Person filled in for an actual senior official who was sick/on vacation/in court/etc
4. The Assistant Deputy of the Director of Office Supply Procurement counts

You get the idea. The point is that the NYT didn't define what they meant by "senior official" (at least that I know of) and pardon me for being skeptical.

[rolfard]

Also...if the NYT anonymous source is revealed and not what many people would consider to be a "senior official", possible excuses might be:

1. Person has been a WH or administration staffer for awhile
2. Person is a longterm government employee
3. Person filled in for an actual senior official who was sick/on vacation/in court/etc
4. The Assistant Deputy of the Director of Office Supply Procurement counts

You get the idea. The point is that the NYT didn't define what they meant by "senior official" (at least that I know of) and pardon me for being skeptical.

It must be John Barron

[Parkbandit]

Your ignorance of economics is apparently matched only by your ignorance of political history.

Jesus.....

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41C%2B3Y3Nl9L._SX311_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

[time4fun]

Also...if the NYT anonymous source is revealed and not what many people would consider to be a "senior official", possible excuses might be:

1. Person has been a WH or administration staffer for awhile
2. Person is a longterm government employee
3. Person filled in for an actual senior official who was sick/on vacation/in court/etc
4. The Assistant Deputy of the Director of Office Supply Procurement counts

You get the idea. The point is that the NYT didn't define what they meant by "senior official" (at least that I know of) and pardon me for being skeptical.

You seem to be running under the impression that NYT has anything to gain from inflating someone's status.

Only a small number of people at NYT were allowed to know who this person was. That's how seriously they're taking this.

I know there's a fantasy on the right that NYT is some unethical political hack job in the form of a publication, but we're talking about one of the most respected publications in the US.

Just because they dared to investigate Trump- as they do with all politicians of import in this country- doesn't mean they have a partisan agenda.

They have one agenda: to be the most respected voice in journalism and to hold important people- in government and otherwise- accountable.

Your skepticism is not well-earned here, and it flies in the face of the reality of NYT's reporting practices.

[cwolff]

You seem to be running under the impression that NYT has anything to gain from inflating someone's status.

Only a small number of people at NYT were allowed to know who this person was. That's how seriously they're taking this.

I know there's a fantasy on the right that NYT is some unethical political hack job in the form of a publication, but we're talking about one of the most respected publications in the US.

Just because they dared to investigate Trump- as they do with all politicians of import in this country- doesn't mean they have a partisan agenda.

They have one agenda: to be the most respected voice in journalism and to hold important people- in government and otherwise- accountable.

Your skepticism is not well-earned here, and it flies in the face of the reality of NYT's reporting practices.

We're witnessing cognitive dissonance coupled to a well oiled propoganda machine. Notice how they focus on the author and avoid the content of the message. I don't mean to single out Candor here. He could just be spitballing ideas. I'm speaking about the right wing in general. I think its in their psychology which is why we see more religious folks, more "law and order" messaging etc...from the right.

[Parkbandit]

You seem to be running under the impression that NYT has anything to gain from inflating someone's status.

Only a small number of people at NYT were allowed to know who this person was. That's how seriously they're taking this.

I know there's a fantasy on the right that NYT is some unethical political hack job in the form of a publication, but we're talking about one of the most respected publications in the US.

Just because they dared to investigate Trump- as they do with all politicians of import in this country- doesn't mean they have a partisan agenda.

They have one agenda: to be the most respected voice in journalism and to hold important people- in government and otherwise- accountable.

Your skepticism is not well-earned here, and it flies in the face of the reality of NYT's reporting practices.

You are as deluded as you are naive. The NYTimes is nothing more than a DNC mouthpiece. It's one of the most bias newspapers in the US.

[time4fun]

We're witnessing cognitive dissonance coupled to a well oiled propoganda machine. Notice how they focus on the author and avoid the content of the message. I don't mean to single out Candor here. He could just be spitballing ideas. I'm speaking about the right wing in general. I think its in their psychology which is why we see more religious folks, more "law and order" messaging etc...from the right.

Right let's be clear- Candor and I don't often see eye-to-eye, but he's extremely reasonable.

And yeah- one of the things that tends to fly under the radar when these books and articles come out is that the Trump administration actually rarely disputes the accuracy of the reports. For the Woodward book, in particular, they know that's a bad idea because the interviews are all taped. (Also Woodward has a reputation for honest journalism, and Trump has a reputation for being a pathological liar)

The reality of the situation is that everyone here fundamentally understands that what these people in his administration are saying about him is true. His supporters simply don't care.

It IS a fascinating psychology. They're happily abandoning principles that were were- presumably- some of their most deeply-held beliefs about governance.

Prior to Trump, if you had asked these people if it was okay for a President to use the Department of Justice to go after political rivals (and rivals who were already cleared of wrongdoing, in some cases) and to do favors for important members of the majority party in power- they'd have said absolutely not. If you had asked them if it was okay for the Federal government to try to force companies to show more favorable press about the sitting US President- they'd have been ready to take up arms. If you had asked them if it was okay for the government to threaten to take away media licenses because they didn't find the coverage flattering- they'd have said absolutely not. And if you had asked them if it was okay for a sitting US President to talk about jailing private citizens and to advocate for making protests they didn't like illegal- they'd have said it was unAmerican. If you had asked them if it was okay for a Presidential candidate to work with a hostile foreign government to accept illegal campaign contributions that included illegally hacking the servers of private citizens, they'd have said of course not.

But they're willing to suddenly advocate for policies that are antithetical to the notion of a free society for someone who has lied to them daily, who can't take responsibility for his own actions, and who has very clearly engaged in decades of criminal activity.

And they call it democracy.

[Methais]

That's not quite accurate is it. The Mexican people wanted Hillary.

Fixed.


Trump was elected through the quirk that is the electoral college, third party candidates and collusion with Russia and Gulf States. I get that he won. He got the electors. It's dishonest to say that we decided to elect him. Shit happens, and this time it was a big dump.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7F7eRM1oiU

[Methais]

god damn you're stupid.

This is correct.

[Methais]

Here again Rocktar you can not defend what you're saying so you do a whataboutism. I do not believe I'm involved with occupy democrats anyway and without googling it I wouldn't know what it is. Turns out it's a facebook page. Weaksauce dude.

Yeah right. I'd almost bet money that you have them on "see first" in your feed and take their posts as gospel. You and them think exactly alike and probably grind your assholes together.

[Methais]

When you're outmatched by someone's argument, instead create an imaginary argument and pretend like they're the one who made it. Then quote a fake news article and make some insane claim about Marxism and rapists.

I do it all the time. So much that now I believe even my own bullshit.

.

[Methais]

https://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/298/881/e3c.jpg

Reported for attempted Jedi Mind Meld.

[cwolff]

Right let's be clear- Candor and I don't often see eye-to-eye, but he's extremely reasonable.

And yeah- one of the things that tends to fly under the radar when these books and articles come out is that the Trump administration actually rarely disputes the accuracy of the reports. For the Woodward book, in particular, they know that's a bad idea because the interviews are all taped. (Also Woodward has a reputation for honest journalism, and Trump has a reputation for being a pathological liar)

The reality of the situation is that everyone here fundamentally understands that what these people in his administration are saying about him is true. His supporters simply don't care.

It IS a fascinating psychology. They're happily abandoning principles that were were- presumably- some of their most deeply-held beliefs about governance.

Prior to Trump, if you had asked these people if it was okay for a President to use the Department of Justice to go after political rivals (and rivals who were already cleared of wrongdoing, in some cases) and to do favors for important members of the majority party in power- they'd have said absolutely not. If you had asked them if it was okay for the Federal government to try to force companies to show more favorable press about the sitting US President- they'd have been ready to take up arms. If you had asked them if it was okay for the government to threaten to take away media licenses because they didn't find the coverage flattering- they'd have said absolutely not. And if you had asked them if it was okay for a sitting US President to talk about jailing private citizens and to advocate for making protests they didn't like illegal- they'd have said it was unAmerican. If you had asked them if it was okay for a Presidential candidate to work with a hostile foreign government to accept illegal campaign contributions that included illegally hacking the servers of private citizens, they'd have said of course not.

But they're willing to suddenly advocate for policies that are antithetical to the notion of a free society for someone who has lied to them daily, who can't take responsibility for his own actions, and who has very clearly engaged in decades of criminal activity.

And they call it democracy.

Ain't that the truth

[Androidpk]

Trump wants Sessions to investigate who is behind this.. :lol:

[time4fun]

Trump wants Sessions to investigate who is behind this.. :lol:

And Sarah Sanders used an official WH channel to harass NYTs by giving out one of their phone numbers and encouraging millions of people to call.

These people have no regard for the 1st Amendment.

[Wrathbringer]

Right let's be clear- Candor and I don't often see eye-to-eye, but he's extremely reasonable.

And yeah- one of the things that tends to fly under the radar when these books and articles come out is that the Trump administration actually rarely disputes the accuracy of the reports. For the Woodward book, in particular, they know that's a bad idea because the interviews are all taped. (Also Woodward has a reputation for honest journalism, and Trump has a reputation for being a pathological liar)

The reality of the situation is that everyone here fundamentally understands that what these people in his administration are saying about him is true. His supporters simply don't care.

It IS a fascinating psychology. They're happily abandoning principles that were were- presumably- some of their most deeply-held beliefs about governance.

Prior to Trump, if you had asked these people if it was okay for a President to use the Department of Justice to go after political rivals (and rivals who were already cleared of wrongdoing, in some cases) and to do favors for important members of the majority party in power- they'd have said absolutely not. If you had asked them if it was okay for the Federal government to try to force companies to show more favorable press about the sitting US President- they'd have been ready to take up arms. If you had asked them if it was okay for the government to threaten to take away media licenses because they didn't find the coverage flattering- they'd have said absolutely not. And if you had asked them if it was okay for a sitting US President to talk about jailing private citizens and to advocate for making protests they didn't like illegal- they'd have said it was unAmerican. If you had asked them if it was okay for a Presidential candidate to work with a hostile foreign government to accept illegal campaign contributions that included illegally hacking the servers of private citizens, they'd have said of course not.

But they're willing to suddenly advocate for policies that are antithetical to the notion of a free society for someone who has lied to them daily, who can't take responsibility for his own actions, and who has very clearly engaged in decades of criminal activity.

And they call it democracy.

TR;DR

[Methais]

Ironically, everything the right accused her of doing... Is what they got out of Trump.

Used private foundation for self-dealing and as a slush fund? Check.

Engaged in criminal activity? Check.

Dangerous foreign policy? Check.

Pathological lying? Check.

No respect for Democracy? Check.

Corrupt/Swampy Administration? Check.

Too friendly towards Russia? (Ahahahahahahahaha) Check.

Plus the whole treason thing on top of it

Good job Republicans! Between Trump and Bush Jr, you've really shown the world that you're dangerous, hypocritical, and unfit to govern.

Literally every post you and soywolff make, in gif form:

https://i.imgur.com/mM6S3i6.mp4

https://i.imgur.com/mM6S3i6.gif

[Tgo01]

Trump wants Sessions to investigate who is behind this.. :lol:

Clearly an impeachable offense.

[time4fun]

Soooo I was kidding when I suggested the Op-Ed was written by Pence. But BBC just did a linguistic analysis that suggests it actually WAS Pence.

I can see the argument, but I'm still struggling to wrap my head around it. I mean, hypothetically if he thinks Trump is on his way out, this would be the way to make sure he doesn't go down with the ship....but still.

[Tgo01]

Soooo I was kidding when I suggested the Op-Ed was written by Pence. But BBC just did a linguistic analysis that suggests it actually WAS Pence.

I can see the argument, but I'm still struggling to wrap my head around it. I mean, hypothetically if he thinks Trump is on his way out, this would be the way to make sure he doesn't go down with the ship....but still.

NYT provides an account from an anonymous source claiming to be a senior official within the Trump administration and BBC does a linguistic analysis that determines said anonymous source is Pence.

And you sit there with a straight face and call this journalism.

[Androidpk]

Soooo I was kidding when I suggested the Op-Ed was written by Pence. But BBC just did a linguistic analysis that suggests it actually WAS Pence.

I can see the argument, but I'm still struggling to wrap my head around it. I mean, hypothetically if he thinks Trump is on his way out, this would be the way to make sure he doesn't go down with the ship....but still.


:lol:

[Androidpk]

NYT provides an account from an anonymous source claiming to be a senior official within the Trump administration and BBC does a linguistic analysis that determines said anonymous source is Pence.

And you sit there with a straight face and call this journalism.

Uhh yeah, that's journalism.

[Parkbandit]

Soooo I was kidding when I suggested the Op-Ed was written by Pence. But BBC just did a linguistic analysis that suggests it actually WAS Pence.

I can see the argument, but I'm still struggling to wrap my head around it. I mean, hypothetically if he thinks Trump is on his way out, this would be the way to make sure he doesn't go down with the ship....but still.

You couldn't wrap your mind around the period at the end of this sentence.

[Tgo01]

Uhh yeah, that's journalism.

Oh okay. I just wrote up a linguistic analysis that suggests the anonymous source isn't someone who works in the Trump administration.

I just became a journalist.

[cwolff]

"To cover my tracks, I usually pay attention to other staffers' idioms and use that in my background quotes. That throws the scent off me," a White House official told Axios in May.
Pence also has a reputation for being deferential when it comes to Trump, rarely challenging him on major issues, which makes it seem unlikely he'd have written the op-ed.

Pence keeps coming up. It's an interesting riddle trying to figure out which one of trumps employees turned on him like this and pretty f'en incredible that there's so many people who feel this way it's hard to identify the person. LOL

The facts are that trumps WH leaks like a sieve because his people don't respect him. That we elected the wrong person becomes more obvious everyday and people are jumping ship. I wish they'd do it faster.

https://www.businessinsider.com/lodestar-trump-resistance-op-ed-new-york-times-who-wrote-2018-9

[Fortybox]

Pence keeps coming up. It's an interesting riddle trying to figure out which one of trumps employees turned on him like this and pretty f'en incredible that there's so many people who feel this way it's hard to identify the person. LOL

The facts are that trumps WH leaks like a sieve because his people don't respect him. That we elected the wrong person becomes more obvious everyday and people are jumping ship. I wish they'd do it faster.

https://www.businessinsider.com/lodestar-trump-resistance-op-ed-new-york-times-who-wrote-2018-9

This just in: an anonymous source says soywolff uses soy enemas.

[Tgo01]

This just in: an anonymous source says soywolff uses soy enemas.

According to Androidpk you are now classified as a journalist. Congrats!

[Fortybox]

According to Androidpk you are now classified as a journalist. Congrats!

Of course I am a journalist.

Anonymous sources are also reporting, anonymously, that an anonymous shart was heard at the hearing on the hill today. However, further analysis from BBC, anonymously of course, shows that the shart began with "Oh honey...". Speculation says that time4fun was present at the hearings today and was indeed the anonymous source...thereby proving it to be fact.

[Wrathbringer]

Pence keeps coming up. It's an interesting riddle trying to figure out which one of trumps employees turned on him like this and pretty f'en incredible that there's so many people who feel this way it's hard to identify the person. LOL

The facts are that trumps WH leaks like a sieve because his people don't respect him. That we elected the wrong person becomes more obvious everyday and people are jumping ship. I wish they'd do it faster.

https://www.businessinsider.com/lodestar-trump-resistance-op-ed-new-york-times-who-wrote-2018-9

9156

[cwolff]

Of course I am a journalist.

Anonymous sources are also reporting, anonymously, that an anonymous shart was heard at the hearing on the hill today. However, further analysis from BBC, anonymously of course, shows that the shart began with "Oh honey...". Speculation says that time4fun was present at the hearings today and was indeed the anonymous source...thereby proving it to be fact.

Gonna ignore you too. I don't know why you act out in this manner or waste space with gibberish but I'm sick of seeing it.

[Wrathbringer]

Gonna ignore you too. I don't know why you act out in this manner or waste space with gibberish but I'm sick of seeing it.

:lol: you butthurt snowflake tard you

[SHAFT]

:lol: you butthurt snowflake tard you

You’re on ignore too.

[Wrathbringer]

You’re on ignore too.

:(

[Fortybox]

Gonna ignore you too. I don't know why you act out in this manner or waste space with gibberish but I'm sick of seeing it.

#soytoo

https://media.giphy.com/media/3otPom1Hs2yhT7cbPa/giphy.gif

[Candor]

Soooo I was kidding when I suggested the Op-Ed was written by Pence. But BBC just did a linguistic analysis that suggests it actually WAS Pence.

I can see the argument, but I'm still struggling to wrap my head around it. I mean, hypothetically if he thinks Trump is on his way out, this would be the way to make sure he doesn't go down with the ship....but still.

If it's Pence then Candor is a cute Eleven barmaid :)

[Fortybox]

If it's Pence then Candor is a cute Eleven barmaid :)

It's not Pence. The media want to stir up doubt. Lodestar and other phrases were most likely planted to make it appear that way. The op-ed even admits to attempting to thwart the President's agenda. What better way than to instill doubt about the second in command.

[Androidpk]

If it's Pence then Candor is a cute Eleven barmaid :)

:lol:

[SHAFT]

It's not Pence. The media want to stir up doubt. Lodestar and other phrases were most likely planted to make it appear that way. The op-ed even admits to attempting to thwart the President's agenda. What better way than to instill doubt about the second in command.

#MAGA

[Fortybox]

#MAGA

https://media.giphy.com/media/9x4QCe9oBNlJuhbEE7/giphy.gif

[SHAFT]

https://media.giphy.com/media/9x4QCe9oBNlJuhbEE7/giphy.gif

I didn't have the grace, or the brains...

It probably matters...

[~Rocktar~]

Or it could be a hoax perpetrated on the gullible NYT by a college student. According to one theory


Was The Times Duped By A USC Student To Run Hoax Op-Ed?
According to a Twitter user and a plagiarism website, the New York Times may have been tricked by a USC student into running an article that dominated the news cycle.

Since the article first came out on September 5, the media has been abuzz about the New York Times opinion piece, allegedly written by an anonymous member of the Donald Trump administration, titled ‘I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.’ It seems like this weekends’ favorite pastime in the media and in political conversations will be trying to discern who, within the Trump White House, if anyone, wrote the piece.

However, what if, as some on the right suggested, it wasn’t written by a member of the administration at all? What if this strange article, which claimed ‘resistance’ within the White House was constantly undermining the president, was written by, say, a college student? That’s the theory posed by @MightyCassandra on Twitter.

She used evidence to argue that when the NYT made the unusual decision to run an op-ed essay by an ‘anonymous’ person, they were actually running a piece written, and submitted, by a student that day at USC. Evidence shows a match between the two articles on TurnItIn, a plagiarism and citation checking site, showed the assignment was submitted and archived by a student minutes before the article was published in the Times.


https://conservativedailypost.com/was-the-times-duped-by-a-usc-student-to-run-hoax-op-ed/

So much for that highly rated NYT credibility and respect.

[Androidpk]

A vast left wing conspiracy, written by gay frogs with help from a quantum supercomputer on Mars.

[Tgo01]

A vast left wing conspiracy, written by gay frogs with help from a quantum supercomputer on Mars.

Androidpk's logic:

NYT ran an anonymous op-ed claiming to be a senior official within the Trump campaign? Journalism!

Some other website claims the op-ed is a hoax? Fake news!

When exactly did you decide to throw away whatever morals you had left and sell your dignity to the "resistance"? time4fun's couch can't be that comfortable.

[Androidpk]

Look at the neo nazi talking about morals and dignity..

[Jeril]

You're asking a philosophical question that won't ever be answered but has value in it's contemplation. Those politicians put the needs of the country first. Maybe it made them feel smug or maybe they just like being outliers but they did it and that's worth something. We need more politicians like that.

If I told you I was going to bake the best cake in the world for you and I came back with a shit sandwich, would you eat it and tell me how wonderful of a job I did?

[cwolff]

If I told you I was going to bake the best cake in the world for you and I came back with a shit sandwich, would you eat it and tell me how wonderful of a job I did?

What are you bitching about?

[Tgo01]

Look at the neo nazi talking about morals and dignity..

Well shit you got me there :(

[Candor]

Or it could be a hoax perpetrated on the gullible NYT by a college student. According to one theory




https://conservativedailypost.com/was-the-times-duped-by-a-usc-student-to-run-hoax-op-ed/

So much for that highly rated NYT credibility and respect.

I don't think the NYT has been duped or that the whole letter was made up. As I said before if the letter isn't real, the reputation of the NYT would go down the toilet forever. I doubt many liberals would rush to defend the NYT in such an event. I do have some moderate skepticism as to how senior the author is, but I could be wrong.

The issue IMHO is not whether the letter is real, but whether the letter paints an accurate picture.

[Androidpk]

I'd wager they did their due diligence to determine the authenticity of the author. To think otherwise is foolish.

[cwolff]

I'd wager they did their due diligence to determine the authenticity of the author. To think otherwise is foolish.

Ya, why not. One fake op-ed doesnt pay the bills. Why the hell would they risk the whole paper for it. But...conspiracy theorists need theories.

[Jeril]

What are you bitching about?

What? It's not like I made the sandwich on purpose. I'm just that horrible of a cook! But I did try really hard!

[Neveragain]

Ya, why not. One fake op-ed doesnt pay the bills. Why the hell would they risk the whole paper for it. But...conspiracy theorists need theories.

To be honest there's not much left to lose in the newspaper business these days.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/NYT%20revenue.jpg

[Neveragain]

To be honest there's not much left to lose in the newspaper business these days.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/NYT%20revenue.jpg

How much is dignity worth, $500 million?

[Jeril]

How much is dignity worth, $500 million?

Reported for double posting.

[Methais]

Gonna ignore you too. I don't know why you act out in this manner or waste space with gibberish but I'm sick of seeing it.

but muh echo chamber!

https://i.imgur.com/57nFCTy.mp4
https://i.imgur.com/57nFCTy.gif

[Methais]

You’re on ignore too.

soygnore*

[Methais]

Androidpk's logic:

NYT ran an anonymous op-ed claiming to be a senior official within the Trump campaign? Journalism!

Some other website claims the op-ed is a hoax? Fake news!

When exactly did you decide to throw away whatever morals you had left and sell your dignity to the "resistance"? time4fun's couch can't be that comfortable.

Maybe he enjoys listening to her soyfriend boyfriend fap.

[time4fun]

Or it could be a hoax perpetrated on the gullible NYT by a college student. According to one theory




https://conservativedailypost.com/was-the-times-duped-by-a-usc-student-to-run-hoax-op-ed/

So much for that highly rated NYT credibility and respect.

How are you THIS stupid?

Every time you try to prove a reputable publication is "fake news" you end up citing an article from an ACTUAL fake news site. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_websites_in_the_United_States)

[time4fun]

I don't think the NYT has been duped or that the whole letter was made up. As I said before if the letter isn't real, the reputation of the NYT would go down the toilet forever. I doubt many liberals would rush to defend the NYT in such an event. I do have some moderate skepticism as to how senior the author is, but I could be wrong.

The issue IMHO is not whether the letter is real, but whether the letter paints an accurate picture.

It's consistent with basically every account we have of the inner workings of the Trump administration. Woodward's book really sealed the deal on this. He's arguably the most famous US Presidential biographer alive today, and he used only primary sources.

Honestly, the sheer number of accounts that have come out of this White House (Fire and Fury, a Higher Loyalty, Unhinged, and multiple on-air comments from members of Congress and former Trump administration officials) all point to the same thing. And it's all perfectly consistent with what we see with our own eyes.

We're just so very far beyond the point where there's any merit to reasoned skepticism of the notion that Trump is amoral, dangerously impulsive, and wildly ignorant of political issues.

[time4fun]

How much is dignity worth, $500 million?

The entire written publishing industry has been facing the exact same trends. That's not specific to NYT.

Also, you conveniently left out that they're back up to close to 2010 levels now (https://www.statista.com/statistics/203786/quarterly-revenue-of-the-new-york-times-company-since-2009/). You'll notice your chart is 5 years out of date.

[Parkbandit]

When exactly did you decide to throw away whatever morals you had left and sell your dignity to the "resistance"? time4fun's couch can't be that comfortable.

Anything is better than that stack of cardboard in the alley.

[Parkbandit]

I don't think the NYT has been duped or that the whole letter was made up. As I said before if the letter isn't real, the reputation of the NYT would go down the toilet forever. I doubt many liberals would rush to defend the NYT in such an event. I do have some moderate skepticism as to how senior the author is, but I could be wrong.

The issue IMHO is not whether the letter is real, but whether the letter paints an accurate picture.

People keep saying that.. but worse things have happened at the NYT and they are still regarded by the alt-left as a pillar of journalism.

[Astray]

Didn't the NYT just get in trouble for defending a white genocide advocate?

[Methais]

Didn't the NYT just get in trouble for defending a white genocide advocate?

Yes but leftists are ok with racism as long as it comes from someone who thinks like they do.

Right crywolff?

[Astray]

Genocide advocates... boy, the media sure is our friend.

[Parkbandit]

Didn't the NYT just get in trouble for defending a white genocide advocate?

"Get in trouble"? No.

Killing white people is ok.

[time4fun]

Genocide advocates... boy, the media sure is our friend.

A citation would be great here

[Astray]

A citation would be great here

Sarah Jeong happened. I seent it with my eye peepers.

[~Rocktar~]

How are you THIS stupid?

Every time you try to prove a reputable publication is "fake news" you end up citing an article from an ACTUAL fake news site. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_websites_in_the_United_States)

I suggested a theory. In case you didn't know, here is the definition of a theory according to dictionary.com:

theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

See more synonyms for theory on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural the·o·ries.

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:


The definition that I find most relevant in this situation is highlighted in bold. But you keep going with your psychic cunt spweage and keep telling me what I am saying and thinking. That seems to be working for you. Oh. Wait. . .

And I am the one that makes straw man arguments you say . . .

[Fortybox]

but muh echo chamber!

https://i.imgur.com/57nFCTy.mp4
https://i.imgur.com/57nFCTy.gif

Kek*40

[Androidpk]

A citation would be great here

He's talking about the writer recently hired.

[time4fun]

I suggested a theory. In case you didn't know, here is the definition of a theory according to dictionary.com:

theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

See more synonyms for theory on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural the·o·ries.

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:


The definition that I find most relevant in this situation is highlighted in bold. But you keep going with your psychic cunt spweage and keep telling me what I am saying and thinking. That seems to be working for you. Oh. Wait. . .

And I am the one that makes straw man arguments you say . . .

ROFL

You just quoted yet ANOTHER fake news article from a fake news site to argue that an actual news outlet was fake.

You should be under a rock right now re-evaluating your life choices

[Androidpk]

Why do all these conservative sites seemingly have adds for erectile dysfunction and shoddy supplements?

[time4fun]

He's talking about the writer recently hired.

Yeah, I know he's talking about Sarah Jeong. But there's no actual evidence of her seriously advocating genocide.

She was a favorite alt-right target for mocking them by ironically co-opting their own language to make fun of them.

[Astray]

Why do all these conservative sites seemingly have adds for erectile dysfunction and shoddy supplements?

I'm pretty sure that's not the website.


Yeah, I know he's talking about Sarah Jeong. But there's no actual evidence of her seriously advocating genocide

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/398/038/fd4.png

Mostly racism but fairly alarming.

[Tgo01]

Yeah, I know he's talking about Sarah Jeong. But there's no actual evidence of her seriously advocating genocide.

The Master Spin Doctor is IN!

You people will twist any little thing Trump says to make it look like he's a racist, white supremacist Nazi.

But this Asian chick literally says, with her own little words, no twisting needed: "#Cancelwhitepeople", "kill more men", and that white people should live underground like groveling goblins.

time4fun's take? "Well there's no actual evidence she meant those things...now believe every single thing this newspaper prints!"

[time4fun]

I'm pretty sure that's not the website.



https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/398/038/fd4.png

Mostly racism but fairly alarming.

1) That's not genocide. So either it's time for you to re-evaluate your sources, or it's time to check your hyperbole.

2) You don't have to be okay with this fact, but she was intentionally mirroring the racist language she had been facing for years on on social media- by the same groups who expressed shock at her parody. Again you don't have to accept that as a legitimate form of critique- I certainly don't- but at least look at the context and represent it as it was.

And if it didn't bother you that people used it on her, but it bothers you that she parodied them with the same language... That's suspect.

[Tgo01]

2) You don't have to be okay with this fact, but she was intentionally mirroring the racist language she had been facing for years on on social media-

You actually bought that bullshit line? Where she showed like two tweets that had no likes or retweets to prove her point? You really will believe anything a left leaning newspaper shoves down your gullible throat.

Also I guess you can stop calling Neveragain a white supremacist and a racist, after all he was just saying those things to prove a point because of all of the racist and sexist shit you said. Good job, time4fun. You've been playing yourself hard these past couple of days, maybe you should go back to your tried and true tactic of just ignoring people when they call you out on your shit.

[Astray]

1) That's not genocide. So either it's time for you to re-evaluate your sources, or it's time to check your hyperbole.

2) You don't have to be okay with this fact, but she was intentionally mirroring the racist language she had been facing for years on on social media- by the same groups who expressed shock at her parody. Again you don't have to accept that as a legitimate form of critique- I certainly don't- but at least look at the context and represent it as it was.

And if it didn't bother you that people used it on her, but it bothers you that she parodied them with the same language... That's suspect.

Advocating, I'm pretty sure I specified that and if I didn't, my bad.

That's delusional but sure. Even with context it's fucking awful. Why not be better than those morons and let their ignorance speak for itself? You can have a discussion without calling someone a name. Oh. I forgot.

Why is it okay to you to have anything said on either side? Why is it fine to you one way but not the other? Because they started it? You're a child.

[Fortybox]

You actually bought that bullshit line? Where she showed like two tweets that had no likes or retweets to prove her point? You really will believe anything a left leaning newspaper shoves down your gullible throat.

Also I guess you can stop calling Neveragain a white supremacist and a racist, after all he was just saying those things to prove a point because of all of the racist and sexist shit you said. Good job, time4fun. You've been playing yourself hard these past couple of days, maybe you should go back to your tried and true tactic of just ignoring people when they call you out on your shit.

Look up Candace Owens. Twitter banned her account when she replaced white people with Jewish in Sarah’s tweets. She even said this is what she was doing in the tweet and Twitter still did it.

Yet twitter took no action against Sarah at the time. Double standard.

I’m no fan of Alex Jones but the ACLU would be all over this if this was happening to someone on the left or a minority. We have entered the territory where the left is no longer hiding behind smoke and mirrors. It’s blatantly visible.

[Tgo01]

Look up Candace Owens. Twitter banned her account when she replaced white people with Jewish in Sarah’s tweets. She even said this is what she was doing in the tweet and Twitter still did it.

Yet twitter took no action against Sarah at the time. Double standard.

I’m no fan of Alex Jones but the ACLU would be all over this if this was happening to someone on the left or a minority. We have entered the territory where the left is no longer hiding behind smoke and mirrors. It’s blatantly visible.

I'm just trying to sit here and picture time4fun defending an old white man who made even 1/10th of those exact same tweets but replaced "white" with "POC."

I'm sure she would be sitting here saying "There's no evidence he actually meant those things. He totally deserves to be hired by the NYT. Now get back to buying all of their papers and don't you even think of saying they are anything less than honest in their reporting!"

[Fortybox]

I'm just trying to sit here and picture time4fun defending an old white man who made even 1/10th of those exact same tweets but replaced "white" with "POC."

I'm sure she would be sitting here saying "There's no evidence he actually meant those things. He totally deserves to be hired by the NYT. Now get back to buying all of their papers and don't you even think of saying they are anything less than honest in their reporting!"

That’s the progressive agenda though. It’s all about fundamentally transforming America. They hate our country and the values it stands for. So they will argue against it to bring about the change they feel America needs. Doesn’t matter if they are wrong or hypocritical in their commentary as long as they continue the erosion.

[Parkbandit]

1) That's not genocide. So either it's time for you to re-evaluate your sources, or it's time to check your hyperbole.

2) You don't have to be okay with this fact, but she was intentionally mirroring the racist language she had been facing for years on on social media- by the same groups who expressed shock at her parody. Again you don't have to accept that as a legitimate form of critique- I certainly don't- but at least look at the context and represent it as it was.

And if it didn't bother you that people used it on her, but it bothers you that she parodied them with the same language... That's suspect.

Oh honey... you already have been granted a title shot. There's no need to use your best moves yet. Wait until the match.

https://media.giphy.com/media/6Kih4g6m8I4xi/giphy.gif

[cwolff]

President Donald Trump believes that the author of an anonymous New York Times op-ed alleging turmoil and dysfunction in the White House works in national security.

The president made the claim speaking to reporters on board Air Force One Friday, and called for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to launch a Justice Department investigation to unmask the author of the piece.

Can we all now agree that its a real op-ed with a real author who works for trump in the WH?

[time4fun]

Can we all now agree that its a real op-ed with a real author who works for trump in the WH?

That would ruin the denial

[Tgo01]

Can we all now agree that its a real op-ed with a real author who works for trump in the WH?

I thought he was a senior official within the Trump administration? Now it's someone who "works in national security" who could very well be an Obama holdover? Yeah sure, I can buy that much.

Have we all given up on the Pence theory so soon? But the BBC did an analysis!

[Astray]

But the BBC did an analysis!

They should get their money back.

[Neveragain]

The entire written publishing industry has been facing the exact same trends. That's not specific to NYT.

Also, you conveniently left out that they're back up to close to 2010 levels now (https://www.statista.com/statistics/203786/quarterly-revenue-of-the-new-york-times-company-since-2009/). You'll notice your chart is 5 years out of date.

Of course sales are up, bashing Trump is big money.

[time4fun]

Sorry, are they failing, or are they doing well? It appears you would like both to be true.

Also, accurately reporting the truth isn't bashing, as much as I know you people like to pretend it is.

See when an elected official lies and breaks the law, pointing it out isn't bashing. It's patriotism. But I get that you've long forgotten what that is.

[Tgo01]

See when an elected official lies and breaks the law, pointing it out isn't bashing. It's patriotism. But I get that you've long forgotten what that is.

I always get a sensible chuckle when Democrats pretend to be patriotic. They think America is Satan when a Republican is in the White House, they hate America but just a tad less when a Democrat is in the White House, then when you call them out on their shit they pull the "You would agree with me if you were truly patriotic."

Hate America less and maybe I'll buy your patriotic schtick.

[Parkbandit]

Sorry, are they failing, or are they doing well? It appears you would like both to be true.

Also, accurately reporting the truth isn't bashing, as much as I know you people like to pretend it is.

See when an elected official lies and breaks the law, pointing it out isn't bashing. It's patriotism. But I get that you've long forgotten what that is.

It's not patriotism when you have an obvious double standard.

Hillary - "She's not breaking the law until she's convicted of a crime!!!"

Trump - "He's breaking the law! I read something on Facebook today about it! IMPEACH!"

Also, given your years of history of breaking the law.. seems to me you aren't being very patriotic...

[Neveragain]

Sorry, are they failing, or are they doing well? It appears you would like both to be true.

Also, accurately reporting the truth isn't bashing, as much as I know you people like to pretend it is.

See when an elected official lies and breaks the law, pointing it out isn't bashing. It's patriotism. But I get that you've long forgotten what that is.

I know numbers are hard and stuff but let us reevaluate this chart, shall we?

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/NYT%20revenue.jpg

As we can see 2010 is at about 450 million (the year you were all excited about) compared to the 900 million in '99. So yea, losing half your value in 10 years is failing. (Hell, it's 5 years, damn!)

Who was president in those falling off the cliff years?

https://gifer.com/i/aEe.gif

[Neveragain]

Reported for double posting.

I hadn't consumed the correct balance of coffee, nicotine and thc yet so I clicked reply with quote instead of edit post. Then I was too lazy to care.

[Fortybox]

I hadn't consumed the correct balance of coffee, nicotine and thc yet so I clicked reply with quote instead of edit post. Then I was too lazy to care.

https://media.giphy.com/media/CYkaO7FxmevZK/giphy.gif