Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

SDHornet wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:46 am

Ibanez wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:04 am

There will always be anonymous sources. Most people have chosen a corner so they'll ignore, dispute anything that comes out against their side.

I'm really enjoying the White House and Trump spin what he has said on record. The gymnastics here are incredible.

Trump - " I downplayed the virus."
White House - " President Trump has not downplayed the virus."

So which is it? He has or he's lying to a man who is interviewing him for the express purpose of writing a book?

I was talking about the Atlantic article.

Regarding the Woodward stuff, meh. Trump says stupid stuff, this is nothing new. Would people rather Trump said "We have a virus with no cure that is spreadable through the air, but everyone remain calm". Yeah, that would have went well. There would have been mass panic far greater than what we did see. Obviously Trump (and every other level of government) could have handled the China Virus a lot better, but it could have been far worse.

Yeah...there’s nothing in between.

kalm wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:10 pm

SDHornet wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:46 am

I was talking about the Atlantic article.

Regarding the Woodward stuff, meh. Trump says stupid stuff, this is nothing new. Would people rather Trump said "We have a virus with no cure that is spreadable through the air, but everyone remain calm". Yeah, that would have went well. There would have been mass panic far greater than what we did see. Obviously Trump (and every other level of government) could have handled the China Virus a lot better, but it could have been far worse.

Yeah...there’s nothing in between.

https://trumpdeathclock.com/

Ibanez wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:41 am

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:12 am
That was in regard to the Atlantic story. Years old allegations + Anonymous sources + close to an election = Fake News.

That is the dumbest logic I've seen in a while, especially from you. You're telling me that if A decades long rumor is confirmed close to an election, that it's false? Get the fuck out of here with that, BDK.

-If it was ‘confirmed’ it would be more than ‘anonymous sources’
-It could have come out anytime time during the past decade (esp 2015-2016) but just ‘happened’ to come out right before an election.
Get the f out of here with than Oct surprise BS..

houndawg wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:57 am

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 8:31 am

Fox news admitted months ago they were moving more towards the center. They gain more viewers and retain their current ones, as they really are the only right of center media.

Smart move to increase viewership.

Smart move to distance themselves from the most revolting excuse for a President ever produced by a western civilization.

You sound passionate houndjeff.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:08 pm

Ibanez wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:41 am
That is the dumbest logic I've seen in a while, especially from you. You're telling me that if A decades long rumor is confirmed close to an election, that it's false? Get the fuck out of here with that, BDK.

-If it was ‘confirmed’ it would be more than ‘anonymous sources’
-It could have come out anytime time during the past decade (esp 2015-2016) but just ‘happened’ to come out right before an election.
Get the f out of here with than Oct surprise BS..

It's September and if it happened to Biden you'd be licking it up off of the floor and telling everyone how true it was.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:33 pm

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:08 pm
-If it was ‘confirmed’ it would be more than ‘anonymous sources’
-It could have come out anytime time during the past decade (esp 2015-2016) but just ‘happened’ to come out right before an election.
Get the f out of here with than Oct surprise BS..

It's September and if it happened to Biden you'd be licking it up off of the floor and telling everyone how true it was.

No shit its Sept. The ‘Oct Surprise’ is an expression that has been around for a long time. If it happened the 1st week Nov before the election (elections can be as late as Nov 7 depending on the calender), it would still be called by many an ‘Oct surprise’. It really should apply to Sept-early Nov period after the conventions, before the election.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:51 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:33 pm
It's September and if it happened to Biden you'd be licking it up off of the floor and telling everyone how true it was.

No shit its Sept. The ‘Oct Surprise’ is an expression that has been around for a long time. If it happened the 1st week Nov before the election (elections can be as late as Nov 7 depending on the calender), it would still be called by many an ‘Oct surprise’. It really should apply to Sept-early Nov period after the conventions, before the election.

Ha, got your hackles up. You didn't dispute the last part so that must be true.

* calendar

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:43 pm

houndawg wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:57 am

Smart move to distance themselves from the most revolting excuse for a President ever produced by a western civilization.

You sound passionate houndjeff.

Your grandchildren will speak Mandarin as their first language

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:51 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:33 pm

It's September and if it happened to Biden you'd be licking it up off of the floor and telling everyone how true it was.

No shit its Sept. The ‘Oct Surprise’ is an expression that has been around for a long time. If it happened the 1st week Nov before the election (elections can be as late as Nov 7 depending on the calender), it would still be called by many an ‘Oct surprise’. It really should apply to Sept-early Nov period after the conventions, before the election.

There's more to come in October, just for you no-hope-bitter-end cunts.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:08 pm

Ibanez wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:41 am

That is the dumbest logic I've seen in a while, especially from you. You're telling me that if A decades long rumor is confirmed close to an election, that it's false? Get the fuck out of here with that, BDK.

-If it was ‘confirmed’ it would be more than ‘anonymous sources’
-It could have come out anytime time during the past decade (esp 2015-2016) but just ‘happened’ to come out right before an election.
Get the f out of here with than Oct surprise BS..

You don't get it. Someone confirmed a fact but has remained anonymous due to their position within the government or administration. It is possible to confirm something and not want your name associated with it.

Again - you seem to forgetting that this is politics. Timing is important.

What are you more upset about - the veracity of it all or that it might hurt Dear Leader in the election?

Ibanez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:35 am What are you more upset about - the veracity of it all or that it might hurt Dear Leader in the election?

Isn't it fair to be equally upset about both Sticky? I think that's kind of the point.

Ibanez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:35 am

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:08 pm
-If it was ‘confirmed’ it would be more than ‘anonymous sources’
-It could have come out anytime time during the past decade (esp 2015-2016) but just ‘happened’ to come out right before an election.
Get the f out of here with than Oct surprise BS..

You don't get it. Someone confirmed a fact but has remained anonymous due to their position within the government or administration. It is possible to confirm something and not want your name associated with it.

Again - you seem to forgetting that this is politics. Timing is important.

What are you more upset about - the veracity of it all or that it might hurt Dear Leader in the election?

How should you view anonymous sources when there are people that are publicly stating the opposite - that the information is not true?

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:51 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:33 pm

It's September and if it happened to Biden you'd be licking it up off of the floor and telling everyone how true it was.

No shit its Sept. The ‘Oct Surprise’ is an expression that has been around for a long time. If it happened the 1st week Nov before the election (elections can be as late as Nov 7 depending on the calender), it would still be called by many an ‘Oct surprise’. It really should apply to Sept-early Nov period after the conventions, before the election.

So you think that there should be a time frame, before an election, where important information should NOT be released b/c it might influence the election? What horseshit it that!?

It seems to me, the only people that bring up the October Surprise and complain about it are those that it goes against (or their candidate).


Information should come out and be released regardless of it's proximity to an election. But i'll be sure to keep this in mind the next time you start ragging on any Democrat or Republican that you don't like. We gotta help you stay consistent.

HI54UNI wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:40 am

Ibanez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:35 am

You don't get it. Someone confirmed a fact but has remained anonymous due to their position within the government or administration. It is possible to confirm something and not want your name associated with it.

Again - you seem to forgetting that this is politics. Timing is important.

What are you more upset about - the veracity of it all or that it might hurt Dear Leader in the election?

How should you view anonymous sources when there are people that are publicly stating the opposite - that the information is not true?

Let's look at the situation as a whole. I'm not going to easily believe someone that is a known liar. That's why in a post above I said I wish we knew who the source was. Let's look at the credibility of the people and confirm. I know journalists have a bias, as we all do, however a LOT of rigor and confirmation goes into stories like these before they get published. I'm more likely to believe that than a known liar telling me it's false. Are stories ever wrong? Sure - and they get retracted when they aren't held up to scrutiny.

89Hen wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:39 am

Ibanez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:35 am What are you more upset about - the veracity of it all or that it might hurt Dear Leader in the election?

Isn't it fair to be equally upset about both Sticky? I think that's kind of the point.

It is fair - but knowing BDK and his previous post, he's saying that the information is "fake" because the sources are unnamed. That's illogical. Identity of the source doesn't necessarily mean the information is wrong.

Was Deep Throat wrong about Watergate solely b/c his identity was masked?

SDHornet wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:47 am

Ibanez wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:41 am

That is the dumbest logic I've seen in a while, especially from you. You're telling me that if A decades long rumor is confirmed close to an election, that it's false? Get the fuck out of here with that, BDK.

I heard Woodward had these tapes for over 2 years.

Trump's a complete idiot and this Woodward thing is just another reason.

First of all, Woodward came out with a book in 2018 (Fear) that put the Presidency in an awful light. After the fact, Trump still let Woodward - the man who took down Nixon - to follow him around for two years.

Second, he give him permission to record everything. BTW, only 3 of the 19 interviews was in an official capacity and WH staff are supposedly sweating about what's in the rest. This brings up the third act of stupidity: Trump called Woodward for sixteen impromptu interviews. He's basically giving Woodward ammo to work with.

I'm sure Woodward stroked Trump's ego a little bit and Trump couldn't resist the temptation to brag; resisting this temptation is pretty difficult for narcissists and all it takes is a willing listener to give affirmative feedback. They are by far the easiest to manipulate into anything you want, which is also why Trump is the biggest national security threat the Presidency has ever faced.

Ibanez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:46 am a LOT of rigor and confirmation goes into stories like these before they get published

In what fantasy world do you live?

89Hen wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:13 am

Ibanez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:46 am a LOT of rigor and confirmation goes into stories like these before they get published

In what fantasy world do you live?

Indeed. I think Ibanez is living in the past world of journalism where that may have been true. Too many examples these days of "rigor" just ain't what it used to be.

HI54UNI wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:40 am

Ibanez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:35 am

You don't get it. Someone confirmed a fact but has remained anonymous due to their position within the government or administration. It is possible to confirm something and not want your name associated with it.

Again - you seem to forgetting that this is politics. Timing is important.

What are you more upset about - the veracity of it all or that it might hurt Dear Leader in the election?

How should you view anonymous sources when there are people that are publicly stating the opposite - that the information is not true?

And what about the people publicly confirming the stories are true? And the President's past words? And the President's past actions? And the fact the President is a pathological liar? Why should I believe the person who always lies only cares for himself instead of the Americans trying to warn us without losing their livelihoods, or become instantly demonized and threatened by a fascist and his cult.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:16 am

89Hen wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:13 am

In what fantasy world do you live?

Indeed. I think Ibanez is living in the past world of journalism where that may have been true. Too many examples these days of "rigor" just ain't what it used to be.

So how little rigor was put into it?

∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:20 am

HI54UNI wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:40 am

How should you view anonymous sources when there are people that are publicly stating the opposite - that the information is not true?

And what about the people publicly confirming the stories are true? And the President's past words? And the President's past actions? And the fact the President is a pathological liar? Why should I believe the person who always lies and cares only cares for himself instead of Americans trying to warn us without losing their livelihoods, or become instantly demonized and threatened by a fascist and his cult.

Reason >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Window

89Hen wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:39 am

Ibanez wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:35 am What are you more upset about - the veracity of it all or that it might hurt Dear Leader in the election?

Isn't it fair to be equally upset about both Sticky? I think that's kind of the point.

Yes, if you're consistent. Would BDKKK be upset if something similar was done to Biden? No, would lick it up and sing it from the rooftops.

Trump is a liar and a bullsh!tter. He lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. I don't know for sure that this is true but it is definitely believable.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:41 am I don't know for sure that this is true but it is definitely believable.

So you fit in with a lot of people.

89Hen wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:23 am

∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:20 am
And what about the people publicly confirming the stories are true? And the President's past words? And the President's past actions? And the fact the President is a pathological liar? Why should I believe the person who always lies and cares only cares for himself instead of Americans trying to warn us without losing their livelihoods, or become instantly demonized and threatened by a fascist and his cult.

Reason >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Window

You honestly don’t think it’s reasonable to think Trump said these things?

kalm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:02 am

89Hen wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:23 am

Reason >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Window

You honestly don’t think it’s reasonable to think Trump said these things?

Try again