Reply With Quote
How can you prove a negative? Burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim.Bolton flat out says in the video “I can’t prove the negative that he never said those things”
Yes I agree with my president
Hell no I don't agree with that bullshit
smhAccording to John Bolton, the following things are true:
- Trump asked China for help with his reelection campaign
- Trump encouraged China to build detainment camps for ethnic minorities
- Trump offered help to Erdogan in a US investigation into a Turkish company over potential violations of Iranian sanctions.
- The Democrats missed several impeachable violations by the President because they were too focused on Ukraine.
- Trump thought Finland was part of Russia
- Trump didn't know the UK has nukes
- Putin plays Trump "like a fiddle"
- Trump defended Saudi Arabia's assassination of Jamal Khashoggi as a way to distract from news about Ivanka using her personal email for government business.
Response from MAGA s:
"John Bolton is full of ."
But now he basically says he can't confirm the allegations from the Atlantic's source and suddenly he's a MAGA hero again.
You ing moron cultists can't tell reality from unreality.
How can you prove a negative? Burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim.
Oh sorry, I forgot to add this ..
Agreed, goes with what I’ve said all along that I don’t see these claims having much of an impact if it’s just unnamed sources. IMO Trump make this story worse by continuing to talk about it.
He scores really high with the internet youtube whacko demographic.
And the case was laid out in the Atlantic article. Now, it’s on you to weigh all off the competing information and make a determination as to whether or not you think Donald said the article claimed.
Let me guess, you don’t think trump called dead soldiers losers and suckers.
I personally don’t know whether he said those things. I definitely wouldn’t put it past him, but it sounds like the reason he didn’t visit the cemetery was weather related.
Quote was confirmed by multiple sources, and is fully consistent with other publicly expressed views, i.e. "I like people that dont' get captured" and his public snits with the elder Bush, for having been shot down.
Seems more than enough evidence to tentative acceptance.
He likes the troops only as far as he thinks it gets him votes.
I don't know either. I can assess it as more likely than not. Given his draft dodging and general pre-politics views expressed, I would bump that "more likely than not" into "probable", especially the way he has handled the fallout.
Doesn't matter what I think. My opinion of the veracity of claims made by people I never met vs lack of corroborating evidence means burden of proof still exists.
Why do people like you need to gauge the veracity of unproven claims and use confirmation bias as if it's a calibrated standard? Then you challenge others to do so as well, to help fill that void of rationality in your thought process. It doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe about what he said. All that matters is the evidence. You had your mind made up about him before this and nothing about this event changed or could change that.
i get that you at least have enough self awareness to know what defending trump makes you, in terms of quality of person so you try to hide it ( at least you think you do).
but trying so hard to semantic your way out of having to take personal responsibility for being nothing more than a higher functioning chris, really damages your projected persona, and potentially shows the limits of your self awareness.
but I’m pretty sure you know you’re just a piece of trumper. Why the pretense? You’re not an intellectual presence in the world.
but I guess if that’s what you need to project to overcome your raging insecurities and self loathing, you do you
No one gives a what you think.
obviously, I mean you responded within seconds to tell me how little you care about my opinion.
but, seriously, why lie about who and what you are?
Multiple journalists, including one at Fox News, have confirmed the quote with multiple sources.
Do you have specific reason to doubt these journalists? What is your evidence about their credibility? Be specific.
All of Donald Trump’s Lies
The New York Times has printed every lie Donald Trump has told since taking office. The effort deserves the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.
BY BILL MOYERS | JUNE 26, 2017
https://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trumps-lies/
From 3 years ago. It was obvious from the get-go that Donald Trump lies about everything, all the time.
He lies so much that even friendly networks have to cut away from him.
He lies so much that he requires real-time fact checking for just about any speech.
So, if you want to evaluate sources, you can generally assign a very low amount of credibility to anything he says, especially when what he is saying is contradicted by just about anyone else.
Step one of critical thinking. Evaluate sources of claims to determine credibility.
Trump has none.
Do you have an opinion of Donald and did only verified facts inform that opinion?
facts? Trumpers don’t need facts. the entirety of foundational core of this incarnation of party of trump
republican is to own the libs.
they will vote to intentionally damage their own cir stance, and to irrevocably damage their children, because they’re so weak and worthless, a critical thinking intelligent person who wants to improve everyone’s life, even black and brown and gay people, is worse
again, morons like chris and spurtacular and the rest, would eat a plate of to make you and I have to smell it.
i admire your effort. But you seem to forget you’re talking to someone that can actually be shown video with Trump saying something, or screen shot a tweet he put out in his own words, and he won’t believe it. Or, he will deflect or ignore it with some false equivalence.
Do you have an opinion of Donald and did only verified facts inform that opinion?
these are intellectually and morally bankrupt people who hate themselves for being afraid. Trump punishes the people they hate themselves for fearing.
i just don’t understand why they create some fake online persona to try to pretend they aren’t what they are
So we have anonymous sources making claims on one side, and Trump and former aides (including Bolton, now a harsh Trump critic) insisting that the story is inaccurate. Beyond deciding whether or not to believe Goldberg’s story based on what best advances one’s political interests, how can one resolve the factual dispute? If other media outlets could confirm the original claims from Goldberg, that would obviously be a significant advancement of the story.
Other media outlets — including Associated Press and Fox News — now claim that they did exactly that: “confirmed” the Atlantic story. But if one looks at what they actually did, at what this “confirmation” consists of, it is the opposite of what that word would mean, or should mean, in any minimally responsible sense. AP, for instance, merely claims that “a senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press,” while Fox merely said “a former senior Trump administration official who was in France traveling with the president in November 2018 did confirm other details surrounding that trip.”
In other words, all that likely happened is that the same sources who claimed to Jeffrey Goldberg, with no evidence, that Trump said this went to other outlets and repeated the same claims — the same tactic that enabled MSNBC and CBS to claim they had “confirmed” the fundamentally false CNN story about Trump Jr. receiving advanced access to the WikiLeaks archive. Or perhaps it was different sources aligned with those original sources and sharing their agenda who repeated these claims. Given that none of the sources making these claims have the courage to identify themselves, due to their fear of mean tweets, it is impossible to know.
But whatever happened, neither AP nor Fox obtained anything resembling “confirmation.” They just heard the same assertions that Goldberg heard, likely from the same circles if not the same people, and are now abusing the term “confirmation” to mean “unproven assertions” or “unverifiable claims” (indeed, Fox now says that “two sources who were on the trip in question with Trump refuted the main thesis of The Atlantic’s reporting”).
It should go without saying that none of this means that Trump did not utter these remarks or ones similar to them. He has made public statements in the past that are at least in the same universe as the ones reported by the Atlantic, and it is quite believable that he would have said something like this (though the absolute last person who should be trusted with anything, particularly interpreting claims from anonymous sources, is Jeffrey Goldberg, who has risen to one of the most important perches in journalism despite — or, more accurately because of — one of the most disgraceful and damaging records of spreading disinformation in service of the Pentagon and intelligence community’s agenda).
But journalism is not supposed to be grounded in whether something is “believable” or “seems like it could be true.” Its core purpose, the only thing that really makes it matter or have worth, is reporting what is true, or at least what evidence reveals. And that function is completely subverted when news outlets claim that they “confirmed” a previous report when they did nothing more than just talked to the same people who anonymously whispered the same things to them as were whispered to the original outlet.
Quite aside from this specific story about whether Trump loves The Troops, conflating the crucial journalistic concept of “confirmation” with “hearing the same idle gossip” or “unproven assertions” is a huge disservice. It is an instrument of propaganda, not reporting. And its use has repeatedly deceived rather than informed the public. Anyone who doubts that should review how it is that MSNBC and CBS both claimed to have “confirmed” a CNN report which turned out to be ludicrously and laughably false. Clearly, the term “confirmation” has lost its meaning in journalism.
https://theintercept.com/2020/09/05/...-its-opposite/
He’s a ing clown. We all experience confirmation bias. The goal is to acknowledge that reality and try to accommodate for it when forming an opinion.
His burden of proof shtick is total bull . This isn’t a court of law. There is nothing wrong with weighing incomplete information to form an opinion and even reforming that opinion as more information becomes available.
I have reason to doubt anyone in the news. The reasoning behind that is plentiful and I'm sure you are well aware of it.
Slight against the right? You believe it of course. Same against the left? You doubt it and need more proof. The same would be true for the right versus the left.
There's nothing interesting about your takes. You are very predictable, you will align with the left and assume everything the right does is evil. You are basically Chris wearing a different colored shirt.
Hey you are splitting hairs about confirmation. All that matters is that some people said some stuff and if you already believe what they said to be true before them saying it you should have no problem with it. What are you a Trump supporter?
So we have anonymous sources making claims on one side, and Trump and former aides (including Bolton, now a harsh Trump critic) insisting that the story is inaccurate. Beyond deciding whether or not to believe Goldberg’s story based on what best advances one’s political interests, how can one resolve the factual dispute? If other media outlets could confirm the original claims from Goldberg, that would obviously be a significant advancement of the story.
Other media outlets — including Associated Press and Fox News — now claim that they did exactly that: “confirmed” the Atlantic story. But if one looks at what they actually did, at what this “confirmation” consists of, it is the opposite of what that word would mean, or should mean, in any minimally responsible sense. AP, for instance, merely claims that “a senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press,” while Fox merely said “a former senior Trump administration official who was in France traveling with the president in November 2018 did confirm other details surrounding that trip.”
In other words, all that likely happened is that the same sources who claimed to Jeffrey Goldberg, with no evidence, that Trump said this went to other outlets and repeated the same claims — the same tactic that enabled MSNBC and CBS to claim they had “confirmed” the fundamentally false CNN story about Trump Jr. receiving advanced access to the WikiLeaks archive. Or perhaps it was different sources aligned with those original sources and sharing their agenda who repeated these claims. Given that none of the sources making these claims have the courage to identify themselves, due to their fear of mean tweets, it is impossible to know.
But whatever happened, neither AP nor Fox obtained anything resembling “confirmation.” They just heard the same assertions that Goldberg heard, likely from the same circles if not the same people, and are now abusing the term “confirmation” to mean “unproven assertions” or “unverifiable claims” (indeed, Fox now says that “two sources who were on the trip in question with Trump refuted the main thesis of The Atlantic’s reporting”).
It should go without saying that none of this means that Trump did not utter these remarks or ones similar to them. He has made public statements in the past that are at least in the same universe as the ones reported by the Atlantic, and it is quite believable that he would have said something like this (though the absolute last person who should be trusted with anything, particularly interpreting claims from anonymous sources, is Jeffrey Goldberg, who has risen to one of the most important perches in journalism despite — or, more accurately because of — one of the most disgraceful and damaging records of spreading disinformation in service of the Pentagon and intelligence community’s agenda).
But journalism is not supposed to be grounded in whether something is “believable” or “seems like it could be true.” Its core purpose, the only thing that really makes it matter or have worth, is reporting what is true, or at least what evidence reveals. And that function is completely subverted when news outlets claim that they “confirmed” a previous report when they did nothing more than just talked to the same people who anonymously whispered the same things to them as were whispered to the original outlet.
Quite aside from this specific story about whether Trump loves The Troops, conflating the crucial journalistic concept of “confirmation” with “hearing the same idle gossip” or “unproven assertions” is a huge disservice. It is an instrument of propaganda, not reporting. And its use has repeatedly deceived rather than informed the public. Anyone who doubts that should review how it is that MSNBC and CBS both claimed to have “confirmed” a CNN report which turned out to be ludicrously and laughably false. Clearly, the term “confirmation” has lost its meaning in journalism.
https://theintercept.com/2020/09/05/...-its-opposite/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions