• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump still privately questions Obama's birth certificate: report

20 years ago...nope....wouldnt have even questioned it

back then, there were editors that had the guts to know when to run, and when not to run crap stories

but times have changed....the twitter universe has forever changed the journalistic world

now they cant be the first....so they need the headlines to sell....and FAKE NEWS is one way to sell newspapers

is is all fake? absolutely not....but yes, where we never questioned the integrity of the journalists of past, that is the norm today

name me someone like edward murrow or cronkite that works today....that when they speak, they are believed 100%

i cant think of one person in the news....not one....too much bias one both sides of the aisle, and they no longer just report the news

they become part of the story

And what, other than your idea of Twitter (which only really repeats the news that other outlets have delivered), has changed?

Millions of people standing up screaming "Fake News!" That's what has changed. We never heard about claims of fake news until Herr Trump got into office. I'd almost bet the ranch that if Obama were still in office, the majority of the people complaining about unnamed sources would be curiously silent right about now.
 
Did you even read the quote of mine you just posted? Please point out any place that I even hinted that I thought he abandoned his attacks on Obama's birth status. IN FACT I said: "it's verifiable in print and video records, he said such....." I made it bold so as you might not miss it this time. Read the very last line of my statement you quoted - then quit trying to put words in my mouth!

Perhaps you did not understand the implication of your own comment in claiming that it is not newsworthy that President Trump continues to insist on long-ago-debunked lies even when there is no possible self-aggrandizing or political motive whatsoever to do so.

You seem to be confusing relevance with believability. You can make a claim that what the president says and thinks is irrelevant, but virtually everybody else on Earth is very likely to disagree with you. You can make a claim that it is not believable that the president would repeat his own claim, but there's an overwhelming abundance of evidence to the contrary.
 
You are so focused on hating Trump you totally missed the point of my statement..... My comment was not about excusing or clearing Trump in any fashion from having said such things, it's verifiable in print and video records, he said such.....

But the point is "an un-named person said" - that's not real news because anyone can say anything, but being anonymous means it is only by word of mouth and you can not verify that a senator actually said it.
Could or would a Senator say it, sure, could I believe one would - again, sure. But if I say I was told by a person who works that publication - but wishes to be unnamed - that the story was made up, you could not prove or disprove my statement because there is no source that can be found. (unnamed you see)

Again, the comment is aimed at the media making news out of an unverifiable statement..... not about if Trump ever said such.

Except Trump's cult is the one which has been pushing this nonsense the most, so it is completely valid to bring up the fact that his supporters scream "fake!" every time they hear news they don't like.

Except some of the most important information reported in the news comes from unnamed sources, and in the day and age where people are viciously attacked for opposing the cult of Trump it makes sense that people would be hesitant to expose their relatives to the frothing rage of millions of idiots.

Being anonymous means a lot of things, but "that its not real" is not among them.
 
And what, other than your idea of Twitter (which only really repeats the news that other outlets have delivered), has changed?

Millions of people standing up screaming "Fake News!" That's what has changed. We never heard about claims of fake news until Herr Trump got into office. I'd almost bet the ranch that if Obama were still in office, the majority of the people complaining about unnamed sources would be curiously silent right about now.

Twitter has changed the world of news forever

And you cant name one name that is 100% trusted can you?

If you dont think that FAST has changed the reliability of news stories, you are kidding yourself

Plus the fact that most newspapers have slashed their editor desk personnel and you get today's journalism

is it all fake news? of course not....but when i asked a few pertinent questions....that of course were left out of the story, it begs the question

WHY? when was the conversation? who else was in the room? is the senator a D or an R...and is he/she a known enemy of Trump?

Is the conversation verifiable? any journalist worth their salt would have had those facts in the story....

but it is no longer about facts....it is about headlines...and making Trump look bad for some people

at least that is how it looks to me....a guy that started his career in journalism....and wanted to be a reporter for a long time
 
Perhaps you did not understand the implication of your own comment in claiming that it is not newsworthy that President Trump continues to insist on long-ago-debunked lies even when there is no possible self-aggrandizing or political motive whatsoever to do so.

You seem to be confusing relevance with believability. You can make a claim that what the president says and thinks is irrelevant, but virtually everybody else on Earth is very likely to disagree with you. You can make a claim that it is not believable that the president would repeat his own claim, but there's an overwhelming abundance of evidence to the contrary.

You lefties sure have thick skulls, perhaps if I typed it more slowly. Take Trump out of the equation, I know that will be hard because if a fish farts, Trump did it, but try.
How to say this?, if they wrote an article about you, from an anonymous source who refuses to be identified, then I would still say the same thing about that article. Now try to wrap your mind around this ... Trump did in the past attack the birth certificate, fact, is it possible Trump is still harping about that, yes.

Now try to understand, I was raised in a time when news was not innuendo or presented by hear-say and if a source could not be identified it was not news, it was opinion or speculation and it was presented as that, not as news.

Now as I told you before, do not try to put words in my mouth - my whole focus has been on the news media, not Trump. I never inferred what he thinks is irrelevant or not believable, that is an erroneous creation of your own mind. I can see that I am wasting time here, pounding my head against a wall as they say, trying to make myopic minds see that, so I will let it go with this post.
 
Last edited:
You lefties sure have thick skulls, perhaps if I typed it more slowly. Take Trump out of the equation, I know that will be hard because if a fish farts, Trump did it, but try.
How to say this?, if they wrote an article about you, from an anonymous source who refuses to be identified, then I would still say the same thing about that article. Now try to wrap your mind around this ... Trump did in the past attack the birth certificate, fact, is it possible Trump is still harping about that, yes.

Now try to understand, I was raised in a time when news was not innuendo or presented by hear-say and if a source could not be identified it was not news, it was opinion or speculation and it was presented as that, not as news.

Now as I told you before, do not try to put words in my mouth - my whole focus has been on the news media, not Trump. I never inferred what he thinks is irrelevant or not believable, that is an erroneous creation of your own mind. I can see that I am wasting time here, pounding my head against a wall as they say, trying to make myopic minds see that, so I will let it go with this post.

You're free to choose to believe whatever you want. However, it is trivially obvious that there has been no such "time" in recent history when an anonymous source was given zero credibility. Whistleblowers have leveraged anonymity for over a century. So i can claim with near complete certainty that you were not raised in a time where unidentified sources had never been used to generate news, not that it's relevant anyway.

I realize that you are attacking the "news media" and it's clear that if President Trump farted on camera you would sooner attack the media than hold him accountable for what he has shown himself to have done. That's also not relevant.

What is relevant is that the concept of President Trump continuing to try to convince people of a long-ago-debunked lie is both relevant and believable, considering the depth and scale of delusion he has attempted to hoist onto the American public.
 
Im still waiting for that crack team of private investigators to return from Hawaii with a bombshell on Obamas BC. The man is a moron.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...-gains-gop-presidential-primary-poll.amp.html

Yes and it also now five years since Donald Trump tweeted that "An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud." So maybee it's time for Donald Trump to disclose who the source was. Escpecially since he and his supporters now seems to dislike anonymous sources.
 
Back
Top Bottom