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 anti-Trumps keep saying that he lies, but then the "news" you cite to support your own positions is not based on verifiable facts but on anonymous sources.
So at best, it's a case of you -- the pot -- calling the kettle black.
How pathetic. How ridiculous. What a joke your side is -- demanding honesty when your own side is dishonest.
If something can't be verified, then there is no reason to believe it.
That's true in science, and it's equally true in everything else.
If you want to accept B.S., fine.
People are over it, and journalism is no longer respected -- with good reason.
I am basing my claims about Trump's words on...would you believe it? Trump's words. He has made a lot of accusations, and proven none of them. There is no reason for anyone to give him information anonymously, particularly not anyone working for the government. Such a person would not be in danger of losing their job, or of any other kind of retaliation. Far from it - they would stand to be rewarded by the most powerful man in the country.
As I suspected, you have no idea what you are talking about. I have no doubt that there are reporters out there who make things up, or who print things they cannot verify, but there is a difference between an anonymous tip, from a reliable, known source, and simple fabrication. Ideally, the anonymous source will lead to other sources who are willing to be named, but not always. Sometimes many people will tell the same story, but all request not to be identified out of fear.
I agree that journalism - true, in-depth investigative journalism - is not as respected as it once was, but I attribute that largely to the fact that few people are willing to read any more. Most people want quick sound bites, preferably of the variety that support their existing opinions.
Since you clearly dislike the press, I ask you: would you do away with it entirely? If so, with what would you replace it as a source of information?
I am basing my claims about Trump's words on...would you believe it? Trump's words. He has made a lot of accusations, and proven none of them. There is no reason for anyone to give him information anonymously, particularly not anyone working for the government. Such a person would not be in danger of losing their job, or of any other kind of retaliation. Far from it - they would stand to be rewarded by the most powerful man in the country.
As I suspected, you have no idea what you are talking about. I have no doubt that there are reporters out there who make things up, or who print things they cannot verify, but there is a difference between an anonymous tip, from a reliable, known source, and simple fabrication. Ideally, the anonymous source will lead to other sources who are willing to be named, but not always. Sometimes many people will tell the same story, but all request not to be identified out of fear.
I agree that journalism - true, in-depth investigative journalism - is not as respected as it once was, but I attribute that largely to the fact that few people are willing to read any more. Most people want quick sound bites, preferably of the variety that support their existing opinions.
Since you clearly dislike the press, I ask you: would you do away with it entirely? If so, with what would you replace it as a source of information?
I don't know how I can make it any more clear to you.
An anonymous source cannot be verified.
There is no reason to believe that the journalist didn't make that source up.
There is no reason to believe that that source -- if it exists -- is credible, because we don't even know who the source is.
Get it now????
If you made a scientific claim and, when asked for proof, simply cited an anonymous source, you would not be taken seriously -- and rightfully so.
If you testified in court and made a claim that was based only on an anonymous source, you would not be taken seriously -- and rightfully so.
Journalists got away with using anonymous sources for years, but those days are over.
They have lied too many times.
They have no credibility unless they can prove what they say.
And you can't prove anything with anonymous sources.
What facts are there to support anything Trump has said?
And anonymous sources are used by every journalist -- they have to. Either that or we would have thousands of Eric Snowdens or no information.
Fox uses anonymous sources.
When they say a 'source' -- it is anonymous......sigh.
The subject of this thread is a news story, not Trump, and not a news story by Fox News.
"They did it, too" is a childish and irrelevant defense.
Your "concern" about Trump telling or not telling the truth, when you don't have the same concern about the news story that is the subject of this thread, only shows that you are a hypocrite -- along with the rest of the people here criticizing Trump.
Who is the somebody who told Trump that he won in a landslide, most EC votes ever?
What ever happened to Gregg Phillips? Remember the wandering hustler whose voter-fraud reporting app was Trump's source for his claim of 3 - 5 million illegal votes cast?
Where are his sources for this "Obama wiretapped me" 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.
