McParadigm wrote:Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) says the protesters who disrupted his Thursday town hall were "a paid attempt to bully and intimidate."
"You could see it online a couple days before, a concerted effort in part to just cause chaos," Chaffetz said Friday, according to KSL.com. "Democrats are in disbelief that they have nothing but flailing and screaming to deal with this."
Chaffetz offered no evidence that attendees were paid to be there.
Holy fucking shit.
They aren't paid, but you're kidding yourself if you think middle America is suddenly turning on getting rid of Obamacare. These are organized protests of democrats, not some groundswell of bipartisan anger.
McParadigm wrote:A high ranking unnamed source, who spoke with the Dispatch on the condition of anonymity, has confirmed that President Trump has denied the request on grounds that California, and the city of Sacramento in particular, have failed to enforce federal immigration laws and have threatened to succeed from the Union. The source is quoted as saying:
“The President has no incentive in helping the state of California. The state harbors more illegal immigrants than any other state and has multiple sanctuary cities that violate federal laws. The state very publicly supported Hillary Clinton throughout the election and the President views the state as being responsible for his loss in the popular vote, something he has had trouble with accepting."
Jesus Christ. How pathetic.
Snopes says this is fake news in no uncertain terms. But if we share it around enough, it becomes real!
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Birds in Hell wrote:I don't understand the sudden authority given to "unnamed sources", "sources say", "someone close to the administration", etc.
I'm certain most of it is garbage and just serves to reinforce whatever the reader wants to believe.
I can dig this. Typically when a reputable news source has to cite someone anonymously, there is at least a modicum of explanation as to why that person needs to remain anonymous. But all the recent stories seem to be painting in very broad strokes, and all seem to give a variation on "Someone in Trump's circle says he's totally incompetent." Which, don't get me wrong, I'm quite sure is true. But the reporting leaves something to be desired.
cutuphalfdead wrote:Isn't it normal for information coming directly from the top levels of the executive branch to be from unnamed sources, even pre-trump?
Sure, but the amount of stuff now is suspect, and could easily be viewed as lies from the DNC to undermine Trump. Every time there's a negative report from an unnamed source, it just lends to weight to his FAKE NEWS tweets.
Did some research the other day and apparently Bush Sr. and Carter are the only living presidents who could still run, since they both were one-termers.
cutuphalfdead wrote:Isn't it normal for information coming directly from the top levels of the executive branch to be from unnamed sources, even pre-trump?
Sure, but the amount of stuff now is suspect, and could easily be viewed as lies from the DNC to undermine Trump. Every time there's a negative report from an unnamed source, it just lends to weight to his FAKE NEWS tweets.
It was very normal in the USSR, Peoples Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea to name a few. Hmmm.
cutuphalfdead wrote:Isn't it normal for information coming directly from the top levels of the executive branch to be from unnamed sources, even pre-trump?
Sure, but the amount of stuff now is suspect, and could easily be viewed as lies from the DNC to undermine Trump. Every time there's a negative report from an unnamed source, it just lends to weight to his FAKE NEWS tweets.
It was very normal in the USSR, Peoples Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea to name a few. Hmmm.
