IF Trump’s staff has indeed been acting as described by “Anonymous”, then either
1) he wasn’t aware of it
or
2) he knew it was happening, but failed — through either inability or lack of will — to stop them.
It doesn’t matter which of those is the case; the fact (if it is indeed a fact) that they were/are able to do it should frighten all Americans… even — and maybe especially — those who have been taking comfort in the “fact” that Trump is their President.
Back in high school, I was taught how to read a newspaper. One of the things we were told to pay attention to was sources. Did the article rely on a single source. Was the source anonymous? “Military sources in Saigon” could be the PFC on the bar stool next to the reporter who is buying him drinks.
I place little credibility on anonymous sources. I place even less credibility on Government sources. I do not know the motivation of anonymous sources, but I do know that the government is out to deliberately deceive us.
There is a difference between “anonymous” and “name withheld.” Anonymous means a person (or persons) unknown. But someone might not want the byline or their name known for fear of reprisals, intimidation, violence, or the like. The op-ed piece, as I understand it, falls under the “name(s) withheld.”
‘The latest active resistance is the op-ed published in the failing New York Times by an anonymous, really, an anonymous, gutless coward,’ Trump said at the rally on Thursday, September 6.
But as the president attempted to say anonymous the word came out sounding more like ‘anon-mous’ on both occasions.
The mishap quickly provoked a huge reaction on social media, with some mistaking him for saying the word ‘enormous’ or ‘ominous’.
gammaguy over 5 years ago
IF Trump’s staff has indeed been acting as described by “Anonymous”, then either
1) he wasn’t aware of it
or
2) he knew it was happening, but failed — through either inability or lack of will — to stop them.
It doesn’t matter which of those is the case; the fact (if it is indeed a fact) that they were/are able to do it should frighten all Americans… even — and maybe especially — those who have been taking comfort in the “fact” that Trump is their President.
DanFlak over 5 years ago
Back in high school, I was taught how to read a newspaper. One of the things we were told to pay attention to was sources. Did the article rely on a single source. Was the source anonymous? “Military sources in Saigon” could be the PFC on the bar stool next to the reporter who is buying him drinks.
I place little credibility on anonymous sources. I place even less credibility on Government sources. I do not know the motivation of anonymous sources, but I do know that the government is out to deliberately deceive us.
Zen-of-Zinfandel over 5 years ago
Reminds me of Trump’s “John Miller” incident.
Masterskrain Premium Member over 5 years ago
“Dear Anonymous: Keep up the good work! Keep writhing the truth, and maybe fatso will have ANOTHER stroke!” Signed: AMERICA!!
ForALaugh Premium Member over 5 years ago
VM left: Leave now! The last rats out don’t always do too well. Book deals are great for the first ones out.
Bookworm over 5 years ago
There is a difference between “anonymous” and “name withheld.” Anonymous means a person (or persons) unknown. But someone might not want the byline or their name known for fear of reprisals, intimidation, violence, or the like. The op-ed piece, as I understand it, falls under the “name(s) withheld.”
Radish the wordsmith over 5 years ago
‘The latest active resistance is the op-ed published in the failing New York Times by an anonymous, really, an anonymous, gutless coward,’ Trump said at the rally on Thursday, September 6.
But as the president attempted to say anonymous the word came out sounding more like ‘anon-mous’ on both occasions.
The mishap quickly provoked a huge reaction on social media, with some mistaking him for saying the word ‘enormous’ or ‘ominous’.
wiatr over 5 years ago
Apparently that wasn’t “Amonymous’” phone.