• 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

"Fake News", to Trumpsters, is just defined as anything they don't like.

But pull something, anything, out of your behind that they want to hear, and it's gotta be real: Obama has a Kenyan birth certificate, Muslims were celebrating on rooftops on 9/11, etc...

Fake news is something made up and unverifiable as in "someone said", it has absolutely nothing to do with not being what you want to hear. The highlighted text is for your benefit because it totally fits with anything you hear if it's about Trump.
 
"A senator, who asked not to be named, told The Times"

And people wonder where the term "fake news" comes from.

He spent years saying Obama wasn't born here and never retracted it. Why is that hard to believe? Because you don't like it?

Fake news is something made up and unverifiable as in "someone said", it has absolutely nothing to do with not being what you want to hear. The highlighted text is for your benefit because it totally fits with anything you hear if it's about Trump.

Except Trump has said it publicly hundreds of times. Are you delusional or just willfully forgetful?
 
What messenger? The "un-named" one, hard to shoot if you don't know the target. But obliviously you are willing to believe any charge by anyone if it fits your preconceived ideas - thanks for your opinion too.

Crazy Don peddled that Birther crap for years. How come Trump dislikes brown folks so much?
 
"A senator, who asked not to be named, told The Times"

And people wonder where the term "fake news" comes from.

It comes from Trump supporters who, unable to handle news they don't like, have regressed mentally to the age of eight year olds and declared that it's all fake.
 
Trump still privately questions Obama's birth certificate: report | TheHill



I see a lot of Trump supporters claiming people on the left can't get past HRC losing. Look who's having trouble getting past the humiliation of having to follow a successful president. Trump just won't let it go.
#Sick #Sad #GravyCrockett

You know of course that all depends on ones view of what a successful president is. Need I say more?

PS
I don't think Trump is a successful president either.
 
"3 million people voted illegally for Hillary Clinton". "I saw thousands of Muslims cheering the fall of the twin towers on 9-11". "I have investigators in Hawaii digging up dirt on Obama and you won't believe what their finding". "Barack Obama tapped my phones at Trump Tower".

Get a grip on reality? That's excellent advice, albeit misdirected. Tell it to our president!

One of my favorite Trump lies was the one about the 3000 Massachusetts residents that Hillary Clinton's people bussed here into New Hampshire on Election Day to throw the state for her. Trump said it, his loyal believers repeated it as Gospel, and his alt-right troll Steve Miller was laughed off the Sunday shows for claiming it.

Flash forward almost 13 months, and we here in New Hampshire are still waiting for Trump's evidence of this malfeasance occurring. Our former GOP Chairman, Fergus Cullen, even offered a bounty for proof. Nothing.....
 
Re: Probably since some turn out to be false. The media did it to themselves.

I have never trusted unnamed sources. Anything said by such should not be taken too seriously, unless it's confirmed. On anything or anybody. Period.

in some cases, yes

in this specific case....

You have an unnamed senator who claims that Trump cant get over the birth certificate. So when was this conversation had? Last week? Last month? 3 years ago? What was said? Who else was in the room? Is it a D or an R senator? Is it someone who is already an acclaimed enemy of Trump?

Do i know if it is a true story? no
Do i want more information? absolutely

Inquiring minds would....instead of just eating up what was given to them like a cat lapping up milk

I don't bother reading news outlets who are not credible. I do not read "If You Only News" or "Liberal Society" or "The Palmer Report." Unless I recognize the outlet as a credible outlet, I don't bother. How I consider them credible is the fact that they have been around for years, they are by and large very accurate in their reporting (by their own investigations as well as unnamed sources) and when they are wrong, they retract or correct.

When The Washington Post, or the New York Times or any other reputable outlet, provides a source that chooses to remain unnamed, I trust them, because they are giants in the industry because of their honesty and integrity, AND their willingness to admit when they are wrong. They will not report on stories using unnamed sources unless the story can be verified six ways to Sunday. Their credibility relies on it, and news outlets live and die by their credibility.

Now, all of a sudden, certain factions wants to wage war against unnamed sources. I have to question whether it's the unnamed sources that these people have a problem with, or that what the sources are saying does not fit the narrative that they choose to believe.
 
I don't bother reading news outlets who are not credible. I do not read "If You Only News" or "Liberal Society" or "The Palmer Report." Unless I recognize the outlet as a credible outlet, I don't bother. How I consider them credible is the fact that they have been around for years, they are by and large very accurate in their reporting (by their own investigations as well as unnamed sources) and when they are wrong, they retract or correct.

When The Washington Post, or the New York Times or any other reputable outlet, provides a source that chooses to remain unnamed, I trust them, because they are giants in the industry because of their honesty and integrity, AND their willingness to admit when they are wrong. They will not report on stories using unnamed sources unless the story can be verified six ways to Sunday. Their credibility relies on it, and news outlets live and die by their credibility.

Now, all of a sudden, certain factions wants to wage war against unnamed sources. I have to question whether it's the unnamed sources that these people have a problem with, or that what the sources are saying does not fit the narrative that they choose to believe.

headlines sell newpapers

Trump still talking birther crap is headlines

all i am asking for is more information....when did the conversation take place? who else heard the comment? can it be verified?

and no i dont trust the NYT or the WASHPO anymore....they have both become so biased in their reporting it isnt even funny

Katherine Graham would be ashamed of what the Post has become....
 
When you don't like the message, attack the messenger. It's exactly what Trump and his rabid supporters do.

If you choose not to believe it, that's your business. Knowing what I know about Trump, I do. Thanks for your opinion.

You are welcome!
 
One of my favorite Trump lies was the one about the 3000 Massachusetts residents that Hillary Clinton's people bussed here into New Hampshire on Election Day to throw the state for her. Trump said it, his loyal believers repeated it as Gospel, and his alt-right troll Steve Miller was laughed off the Sunday shows for claiming it.

Flash forward almost 13 months, and we here in New Hampshire are still waiting for Trump's evidence of this malfeasance occurring. Our former GOP Chairman, Fergus Cullen, even offered a bounty for proof. Nothing.....

I plays on the fear and hatred of Trump's supporters. It solidifies their myth that only a criminal would vote for a Clinton.
 
I don't bother reading news outlets who are not credible. I do not read "If You Only News" or "Liberal Society" or "The Palmer Report." Unless I recognize the outlet as a credible outlet, I don't bother. How I consider them credible is the fact that they have been around for years, they are by and large very accurate in their reporting (by their own investigations as well as unnamed sources) and when they are wrong, they retract or correct.

When The Washington Post, or the New York Times or any other reputable outlet, provides a source that chooses to remain unnamed, I trust them, because they are giants in the industry because of their honesty and integrity, AND their willingness to admit when they are wrong. They will not report on stories using unnamed sources unless the story can be verified six ways to Sunday. Their credibility relies on it, and news outlets live and die by their credibility.

Now, all of a sudden, certain factions wants to wage war against unnamed sources. I have to question whether it's the unnamed sources that these people have a problem with, or that what the sources are saying does not fit the narrative that they choose to believe.

Speaking for myself, it is and always has been the unnamed sources. The subject isn't even newsworthy.
 
headlines sell newpapers

Trump still talking birther crap is headlines

all i am asking for is more information....when did the conversation take place? who else heard the comment? can it be verified?

and no i dont trust the NYT or the WASHPO anymore....they have both become so biased in their reporting it isnt even funny

Katherine Graham would be ashamed of what the Post has become....

Lean: Slightly Conservative.

Shocker there.

Unnamed sources have to be able to be unnamed or we will lose valuable input. Reporters can't be everywhere. They can't know everything. In addition to their own investigations, they rely on others. If they give up their sources, they'll never have another. That's why so many reporters go to jail to protect their sources. Do you think they would risk their careers on information that is not credible?
 
What are Democrats now (aside from being anti-family and anti-working people), the Party of High School Girls?

Assuming it is true Trump still questions Obama's birth certificate... knowledge of that is nothing more than interesting gossip. How does that affect the financial lives of Black-Americans or help build up the infrastructure of black African countries or create a rightward shift on the economic graphs of the economies? How did Obama being born in Hawaii or in Africa (whichever one) help black Africa or help resolve the pressing dilemmas in mainland USA Black-America?

On a more objective note about journalism reporters and editors are always supposed to provide attribution. So, how important is that in journalism? It was repeated over and over again in my college journalism class, along with teaching that editors are reluctant to print news stories that lack attribution. It's like submitting a college paper that does not cite sources. There are exceptions to this we were taught, such as, if I recall correctly, the "Deepthroat" case example in the Watergate story. But there has to be some risk and substance, some urgency, to fail to name your source. Attribution is providing the name of your source.

Any news source that would publish tabloid gossip on Trump's pondering/questioning of the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate is printing a hit piece, a propaganda piece. Pure and simple.

I was taught this in a liberal, public college about propaganda, the art of propaganda: you repeatedly highlight the perceived faults (never their goods) of your enemy and keep doing that over and over and over again in the media.

It is easy to see that their is a propaganda machine against Trump (just as there is one against Putin).




Liberals or Democrats want to sucker Black-Americans by appealing purely to Black-American's emotions (never to the intellects of Black-Americans). So, forget improving Black-America by appealing to our intellects on matters like economics, the financial life of Black-America, the homicide rates, the incarceration rates and how that effects the financial progress of Black-American families and the overall stability of black families. Nor, have they or Obama made us aware of the modern day French colonial efforts in black West and Central Africa. I had no idea that since the end of official colonization in Africa the French have always maintained a legal, military, and economic colonial stranglehold on black French Zone Africa. Overthrowing a black leader by a mob the way they and the Americans (under Obama's watch) had Gaddafi overthrown and lynched. The banking and tax system raping most of black West and Central Africa of their national income (national profits of GDP) by the French goes a long way in explaining to me why black Africa is so damn far behind infrastructurally and economically. This is what in liberal academia, Afrocentric social sciences, is termed: institutional racism.

"I don't date black women" is not institutional racism but a personalized racism that holds no power over an entire race of people $$$ economically.

So, when I read up on the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade I noticed something. I noticed white voices, some white leaders speaking up and out against the slave trade of blacks, but few to none coming from black Africans. So, I asked, where was the black Wilberforce?

Now, I see a white Republican (on an old youtube video) in the USA standing in a hall of power, speaking up for black Africa like a Wilberforce of Great Britain. And where are Black-American liberals? Running around playing "he say, she say," because their white homo-feminist masters are tugging at their emotions. (I'm not promoting the Republican Party either, which is wicked itself.)





French Colonialism Must End

Senator Jim Inhofe
Published on Apr 12, 2011
Quotes:

"I am thankful that both the President and First Lady are still alive but brutally mutilated. I condemn, however, the use of so-called "peacekeeping" forces made up of UN and French forces in the attacks on Abidjan and the presidential palace. It is these forces that have caused countless deaths in this densely populated city of four million people."




The Richie Allen Show: African countries still paying colonial taxes to France
 
He spent years saying Obama wasn't born here and never retracted it. Why is that hard to believe? Because you don't like it?

Except Trump has said it publicly hundreds of times. Are you delusional or just willfully forgetful?

Crazy Don peddled that Birther crap for years. How come Trump dislikes brown folks so much?

It comes from Trump supporters who, unable to handle news they don't like, have regressed mentally to the age of eight year olds and declared that it's all fake.

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.
 
Lean: Slightly Conservative.

Shocker there.

Unnamed sources have to be able to be unnamed or we will lose valuable input. Reporters can't be everywhere. They can't know everything. In addition to their own investigations, they rely on others. If they give up their sources, they'll never have another. That's why so many reporters go to jail to protect their sources. Do you think they would risk their careers on information that is not credible?

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
 
Trump may have told numerous people in the White house that he doesn't believe Obama's birth certificate, including this unnamed source who might have requested not to be named because he doesn't want to be sacked.

Or it might be another example of FAKE NEWS. What better way to publish FAKE NEWS and not be outed? "unnamed sources".
 
"A senator, who asked not to be named, told The Times"

And people wonder where the term "fake news" comes from.

Yes, thank you, it comes, rather predictably, from republican cowards.
 
Or it might be another example of FAKE NEWS. What better way to publish FAKE NEWS and not be outed? "unnamed sources".

Problem being that reputable news outlets vet their sources, even if they decline to be named.
 
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.

You're free to believe that the coward in chief has abandoned his own lie in spite of evidence to the contrary, but nobody else is obligated to agree with you.
 
And we are just supposed to trust them? No thanks.

You aren't obligated to, but in this case, the allegation is consistent with how he has presented in the past, so i see little reason to question it.
 
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.

Nope, I did not miss the point. We all know Trump gave up his birther pusuit at the request of MANY aides. That was about the same time Trump settled for that con called Trump U. Trump will always be the Birther in Chief. He earned it !
 
You're free to believe that the coward in chief has abandoned his own lie in spite of evidence to the contrary, but nobody else is obligated to agree with you.

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!
 
Back
Top Bottom