6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

So what is this article trying to say?  That Miles Taylor's opinion is spot on and any other high ranking official taking an opposite view would not be?  Beware of articles which offer no facts to support the conclusions they wish to lead you to believe without question.

 

Edit:  Do take note that he's not a Democrat, which is supposed to somehow add credibility and accuracy to his "opinion" as "unbiased."  LOL

 

 

When somebody chooses to back a candidate based on their experience from high office, the ‘fact’ you are missing is that they have chosen to do so.

 

They are putting their name, reputation and experience on the ticket.

 

That is the point of an endorsement.

 

Your ‘missing facts’ is A straw man argument. 

 

There are no missing facts.

 

4 hours ago, kamahele said:

What makes it patently obvious other than you said so? The article is not as explicit as his video which offers up specifics.

Forgive him. Every 'dick-tater' has its followers.

Today's polls reporting Trump closing the gap in key states to minus 1%-2%. Going to be close come November...

4 hours ago, Berkshire said:

What makes this guy's opinion more credible than yours is that he was there.  Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should be outraged by some of these charges.  For example...

 

[...., Taylor said what he saw "after two and a half years in that administration was terrifying." He described how "we would go in and try to talk to [Trump] about pressing national security issues," but "he wasn't interested in those things." "The president wanted to exploit the Department of Homeland Security for his own political purposes and to fuel his own agenda," Taylor continued. For example, Trump tried to tell FEMA to stop sending aid to wildfire-stricken California because it didn't vote for him, and "wanted to restart zero tolerance" and "have a deliberate policy of ripping children away from their parents" at the border," Taylor said.]

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dhs-chief-staff-under-trump-212400135.html

Taylor has his version of events.  But remember, there are two sides to every story.  We haven't heard the other side.  So I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions so quickly and taking his version as gospel.  It's called being objective.

11 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Today's polls reporting Trump closing the gap in key states to minus 1%-2%. Going to be close come November...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-shows-biden-ahead-of-trump-by-11-points-among-registered-voters-his-largest-lead-yet-180802634.html

3 hours ago, 2 is 1 said:

So people can't have opinion, even personal one if say some negative about your dear potus? You Trump "lover" can in other hand say what ever from Biden! He is "too old, senile". And that not bother you! Seem's like Trump supportter's are made in same narcissist "mold"! 

 

Everyone is ignorant only on different subjects.       

Will Rogers

I'd never deny anyone their opinion and I'm not in this case.  But anything negative about Trump is usually immediately accepted as truth and fact by some folks here without the slightest consideration.  That's my point.

2 hours ago, bronzedude said:

It's amazing that Trump supporters like Tippaporn are still blind to the obvious. Trump is always the dumbest person in the room and his supporters are intellectual equals. The simple fact that this person was a top Trump administration official is proof enough that his opinion is a valid one. I guess that Colin Powell is also a person that only has an opinion. Remember, he is a Republican and a former top presidential administration official. I can't be bothered with those intellectual equals of this laughable president. 

LOL.  His position isn't a guarantor of anything.  Trump's position is that of President, a much loftier position than that held by Taylor.  By your flawed logic Trump should then be believed without question.  Correct?

1 hour ago, Dap said:

Chief of Staff at Dept. of Homeland Security does lend itself to more credibility than yourself sir. Not just any old "(one) official's opinion".

Same as I just posted.  Position doesn't guarantee anything.  Clinton was Secretary of State.  Is she credible?

36 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Today's polls reporting Trump closing the gap in key states to minus 1%-2%. Going to be close come November...

Link please.

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  His position isn't a guarantor of anything.  Trump's position is that of President, a much loftier position than that held by Taylor.  By your flawed logic Trump should then be believed without question.  Correct?

 

Trump's credibility (or rather, lack of) is public knowledge. The former official's credibility is not, as far as I'm aware, questioned (or was previously challenged) by anyone other than Trump supporters - and with nothing to back it up.

 

You're not "objective". You're not "open minded". You simply sling mud at anyone criticizing Trump. That's all.

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Same as I just posted.  Position doesn't guarantee anything.  Clinton was Secretary of State.  Is she credible?

 

When all else fails, but but but Hillary.

Edited August 18, 20205 yr by Morch

1 hour ago, Proboscis said:

I don't believe that Taylor's opinion is unbiased at all. Nor do I think that the writer or publisher of the article believes his opinion is unbiased either. But generally speaking, whether you are a Trumpeter or a Demagogue, don't you think that supporting Trump, not being in the opposition party and serving in Trump's administration in Homeland Security might indicate at some time a bias towards Trump?

 

No one is trying to "add credibility or accuracy" to his opinion - the point of the story is that here is an official who supported and worked for Trump and therefore knew him well and has now come out against him. And here are HIS reasons (not anyone else's reasons) for doing so.

 

That is all. In any administration, if an official turns against the administration in this way with this level of criticism, that is headline news. What is additionally unusual in the case of the current administration is that even though Trump has handpicked the individuals, a large number of them have left (fired or resigned) and some have talked about their experiences in very critical ways. No other administration has had that experience.

 

You have to ask the question - if they are all bad apples, as Trump says, why did he pick them? Does he select the wrong people? Or is it because going in nobody believes that a president could behave in the way that he does and that is why so many of them are so critical afterwards?

 

If you don't think that this is a worthy news story, then perhaps it is your idea of a free press that should be questioned!

I can excuse you for thinking that Trump hand picks all of his people but that is not the case.  Many are recommended to him.  You should be aware of the fact that Trump was a complete outsider when he became President.  He had never held another political post.  You should also be aware of the "le resistance," which included Kevin Clinesmith who famously texted "Viva le resistance" to an FBI colleague.  The government is ripe with these people.

 

Place yourself in Trump's position for a moment and ask yourself how you would go about picking out trustworthy people from all of the smiling faces, many of them hiding knives behind their backs.  Think it would be easy.

 

Now do you still feel shock that the turnover in his administration is so great, as the traitors get exposed and booted, and then write poison pen letters?  Use your common sense if nothing else.

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

So what is this article trying to say?  That Miles Taylor's opinion is spot on and any other high ranking official taking an opposite view would not be?  Beware of articles which offer no facts to support the conclusions they wish to lead you to believe without question.

 

Edit:  Do take note that he's not a Democrat, which is supposed to somehow add credibility and accuracy to his "opinion" as "unbiased."  LOL

 

 

 

The article doesn't say his opinion is spot on. And it doesn't say anything about "any other high ranking official taking an opposite view would not be". Both are misleading debate constructs of your own making, aka Straw Men. Don't recall you having much issue building mountains of interpretations based on way less credible, and partisan, opinion columns.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

When somebody chooses to back a candidate based on their experience from high office, the ‘fact’ you are missing is that they have chosen to do so.

 

They are putting their name, reputation and experience on the ticket.

 

That is the point of an endorsement.

 

Your ‘missing facts’ is A straw man argument. 

 

There are no missing facts.

 

I have no idea what you're on about, Chomper.

42 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Today's polls reporting Trump closing the gap in key states to minus 1%-2%. Going to be close come November...

Personally I don't think it's going to be close at all.

32 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-shows-biden-ahead-of-trump-by-11-points-among-registered-voters-his-largest-lead-yet-180802634.html

Yeah, we all remember what Hillary's lead was in 2016.  She lost, bigly.  It amazes me that anyone still puts stock into polling.  Up to the individual.

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I can excuse you for thinking that Trump hand picks all of his people but that is not the case.  Many are recommended to him.  You should be aware of the fact that Trump was a complete outsider when he became President.  He had never held another political post.  You should also be aware of the "le resistance," which included Kevin Clinesmith who famously texted "Viva le resistance" to an FBI colleague.  The government is ripe with these people.

 

Place yourself in Trump's position for a moment and ask yourself how you would go about picking out trustworthy people from all of the smiling faces, many of them hiding knives behind their backs.  Think it would be easy.

 

Now do you still feel shock that the turnover in his administration is so great, as the traitors get exposed and booted, and then write poison pen letters?  Use your common sense if nothing else.

 

More nonsense. Remember that "best people" bragging quote? Yeah, that one. Obviously won't be owned up and excuses would be made.

 

As for the outsider argument - many people even less involved with how the USA works would be aware that a new administration brings in a whole lot of new people. Most winners seem to be able to fill the posts within a reasonable time frame. Somehow, Trump's failure on this front is also made to be someone else's fault.

 

The "traitor" bit aptly conveys the frame of mind - it's not about the country, it's not about the people, it's all about Trump.

7 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

Only the beginning; this house of cards is falling fast!

 

Pretty much just the two Jokers left?

 

Not that the trump administration was "playing with a full deck".

 

 

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Yeah, we all remember what Hillary's lead was in 2016.  She lost, bigly.  It amazes me that anyone still puts stock into polling.  Up to the individual.

 

Clinton won the popular vote. Bigly.

Clinton lost the Electoral College vote. Not so bigly.

 

Facts - not up to you.

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Trump's credibility (or rather, lack of) is public knowledge. The former official's credibility is not, as far as I'm aware, questioned (or was previously challenged) by anyone other than Trump supporters - and with nothing to back it up.

 

You're not "objective". You're not "open minded". You simply sling mud at anyone criticizing Trump. That's all.

I never said a single bad word about Taylor.  Never judged him.  Never opined about him.  My entire point is that credibility shouldn't be automatically bestowed on someone.  I didn't post to support or counter his version of events.  Your whole post is a concoction of your imagination as there's no truth to any of it.

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Yeah, we all remember what Hillary's lead was in 2016.  She lost, bigly.  It amazes me that anyone still puts stock into polling.  Up to the individual.

Millions more individuals voted for Clinton than voted for Trump.

 

Trump was not handed the WH by ‘individuals’.

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

When all else fails, but but but Hillary.

Rather than reply with a meaningless, senseless but clever quip answer the question then, Morch.  If people should be believed solely on the loftiness of position they hold should Hillary be believed in total?

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I never said a single bad word about Taylor.  Never judged him.  Never opined about him.  My entire point is that credibility shouldn't be automatically bestowed on someone.  I didn't post to support or counter his version of events.  Your whole post is a concoction of your imagination as there's no truth to any of it.

All of a sudden ‘credibility’ is something that concerns you.

 

Because someone who undoubtedly does have credibility is critical of the serial liar you yourself support.

 

If ‘credibility’ were a matter that really concerns you, you’d have given up on the liar in Chief long before now.

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Rather than reply with a meaningless, senseless but clever quip answer the question then, Morch.  If people should be believed solely on the loftiness of position they hold should Hillary be believed in total?

Doubles down on the ‘but but Hillary’.

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I never said a single bad word about Taylor.  Never judged him.  Never opined about him.  <SNIP>

From your first post in this topic...

 

Do take note that he's not a Democrat, which is supposed to somehow add credibility and accuracy to his "opinion" as "unbiased."  LOL

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I never said a single bad word about Taylor.  Never judged him.  Never opined about him.  My entire point is that credibility shouldn't be automatically bestowed on someone.  I didn't post to support or counter his version of events.  Your whole post is a concoction of your imagination as there's no truth to any of it.

 

Your original post on this topic was certainly an attempt to cast doubt on his credibility, and version of events. Not my imagination, your words. Don't recall you much concerned about "credibility" as applied to Trump.

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Rather than reply with a meaningless, senseless but clever quip answer the question then, Morch.  If people should be believed solely on the loftiness of position they hold should Hillary be believed in total?

 

But but but Hillary.

Most of the world nations are now less secure due to the erratic and vindictive behaviour of the US regime and its dear leader and it's roving secretary of state.

Edited August 18, 20205 yr by userabcd

There will be a continuing barrage involving the release of details of bad/illegal behavior over the next 80 days.

 

I have no doubt that trumper's will be able to defend/deny/deflect every single one.

 

Dribs and drabs of financial dealings (taxes, loans, insurance) will be dropped.

 

Then the really juicy stuff: illegitimate off-spring (no, not eric), abortions paid for from "operating expenses and deducted", fiddling with teens, abuse of adderall.

 

There will be audio tapes, hopefully videotapes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 20205 yr by mtls2005

29 minutes ago, simple1 said:

From your first post in this topic...

 

Do take note that he's not a Democrat, which is supposed to somehow add credibility and accuracy to his "opinion" as "unbiased."  LOL

O.K., strike the "opine."