President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

At least cis didn't try to claim there was no report just a page or two after referring to it as a report. (Hi YF!)

 

Yes. I was outraged and horrified, but certainly felt far safer than now.

 

Agreed. All we need to do to make this even more circular is to have someone ask Curley to raise his right hand ...

 

Probably waiting on Trump's troops on the ground:

 

Really? Seems like I said that in Post One on the subject. As I said, that doesn't mean it was sourced well.

There were all sorts of times when one source said something. Still had to get confirmation.

The people lecturing YF on journalism standards seem to have forgotten a thing or two.

 

You are backing the guy who tried arguing that there was no report at all in his desperation to avoid admitting he was wrong. This about a page after he referred to the report himself.

 

It's a war zone. With missiles flying. Stuff going BOOM. Maybe it was a really good source.

You know: proven, trusted ... battle-tested. I'm guessing Reuters knows its source better than us spitballers.

Think it's OK to go with one source in that scenario?

 

Not backing him. Not supporting going with things that haven't been confirmed.

 

Maybe. I know that in the good, old days, we would have waited for confirmation unless time was up.

 

I assume you have the answer. Clue us in.

 

Could some of this weekend's headlines get better for Starman?

http://nypost.com/2017/04/08/ivanka-may-have-convinced-her-dad-to-bomb-syria/

 

"Giggle-giggle ... Daddyyyy ... would you do something for your little girrrl ... Giggle-giggle...ohhh this darn bra strap keeps unsnapping ... Pleeeassse Daddy...??"