Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean the guy who falsely claimed thousands of Muslims were celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, started the blatantly racist birther movement, called Mexican immigrants rapists, and STILL believes the Central Park Five are guilty is a bigly racist in private? NO WAY!
Why did the “anonymous sources” wait six months? This allegedly happened in June. No corroboration, just anonymous sources again, despite General Kelly, General McMaster, Secretary Tillerson, Secretary Nielsen and other senior staff who were present denying these claims.
The Mexican owned blog called the NY Times does another yet fakenews hit job on Trump.
MSM parrots it as fact.
Most of American doesn't listen to them anymore.
Nothing more too it than that.
Carlos Slim owns a minority of shares and has no controlling interest in the company, which is mostly owned and controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family. It's also the most circulated newspaper in the country (and one of the highest circulated in the world), so people are listening and reading it.
And since the majority of the news outlets are liberal, they will continue with their ranting and bashing until a dem is placed in the oval office. . . .plus their immature and irresponsible actions/words only fuel those who are still crying because Hillary didn't win.
Sure, they addressed it. It still comes down to who you believe is telling the truth.
Here is what you missed:
Quote:
While the White House did not deny the overall description of the meeting, officials strenuously insisted that Mr. Trump never used the words “AIDS” or “huts” to describe people from any country. Several participants in the meeting told Times reporters that they did not recall the president using those words and did not think he had, but the two officials who described the comments found them so noteworthy that they related them to others at the time.
The article directly addressed the issue of its sources and rebuttals.
Obviously not one con poster had bothered to actually read the article. If he had, the article went into it depth about the WH reaction and addressed the anonymous sources.
My advice to Cons is that it may help your credibility if you actually read the story before commenting on it.
You probably didn't see or don't care about these sentences:
"According to six officials who attended or were briefed about the meeting, Mr. Trump then began reading aloud from the document ... Haiti had sent 15,000 people. They “all have AIDS,” he grumbled, according to one person who attended the meeting and another person who was briefed about it by a different person who was there."
Of six officials who attended or were briefed about the meeting, a whopping one who was there and one who was briefed confirmed the AIDS comment.
As for 'huts,':
"Several participants in the meeting told Times reporters that they did not recall the president using those words and did not think he had, but the two officials who described the comments found them so noteworthy that they related them to others at the time."
Again, a whopping two remember, the others say No.
Sure, they addressed it. It still comes down to who you believe is telling the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
You probably didn't see or don't care about these sentences:
"According to six officials who attended or were briefed about the meeting, Mr. Trump then began reading aloud from the document ... Haiti had sent 15,000 people. They “all have AIDS,” he grumbled, according to one person who attended the meeting and another person who was briefed about it by a different person who was there."
Of six officials who attended or were briefed about the meeting, a whopping one who was there and one who was briefed confirmed the AIDS comment.
As for 'huts,':
"Several participants in the meeting told Times reporters that they did not recall the president using those words and did not think he had, but the two officials who described the comments found them so noteworthy that they related them to others at the time."
Again, a whopping two remember, the others say No.
The point is that NYTs relayed that information. I believe the two were there. You do not. The WH of ourse will deny it, it is what they do when inconvenient truths are revealed.
The point is that NYTs relayed that information. I believe the two were there. You do not. The WH of ourse will deny it, it is what they do when inconvenient truths are revealed.
Didn’t you bother reading the article? Only one was there. Another person who wasn’t even in the room claims he/she/it was told about it. Truths are based on facts. At this point it is rumor, one anonymous source vs. multiple Generals who were present who deny the claim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
