Senior Trump Official Pens Op-Ed in the NYT calling President Amoral

[Anonymous]

So there is a deep state. I knew it.

There's no better way to break people apart, divide and cause consternation between groups of people than stuff like this.

I wonder if China or Russia or Iran is planting agitation propaganda like this?

I put no faith in NY Times journalists to vet their sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This sets up a dangerous precedent. What's to stop a right-leaning newspaper from printing an "anonymous" Op-ed from an Administrstion insider condemning the president when he is a Democrat? Or if the Dems take the House, an anonymous Hill staffer spilling the beans on Democratic shenanigans?

No anonymous articles should be published.

.....says an anonymous poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sets up a dangerous precedent. What's to stop a right-leaning newspaper from printing an "anonymous" Op-ed from an Administrstion insider condemning the president when he is a Democrat? Or if the Dems take the House, an anonymous Hill staffer spilling the beans on Democratic shenanigans?

No anonymous articles should be published.

Agreed. I *always* take anonymous sources/authors with a huge grain of salt. If I don't discount them entirely. There's simply no reason to believe anyone who won't put their name on something.

I’m discounting the above post following PP’s reasoning.

[Anonymous]

The article has been viewed online over 10,000,000 times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sets up a dangerous precedent. What's to stop a right-leaning newspaper from printing an "anonymous" Op-ed from an Administrstion insider condemning the president when he is a Democrat? Or if the Dems take the House, an anonymous Hill staffer spilling the beans on Democratic shenanigans?

No anonymous articles should be published.

They already make up stories on a daily basis so what’s new?

Are you a russbot?

Please, show me one article the NYT has published that was invented since the Orange Toddler took office?

And please post the proof that it’s entIrely false.

Just do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So there is a deep state. I knew it.

There's no better way to break people apart, divide and cause consternation between groups of people than stuff like this.

I wonder if China or Russia or Iran is planting agitation propaganda like this?

I put no faith in NY Times journalists to vet their sources.

There is a better way to break people apart, and that's by having a bullying, loudmouth, crass, ignorant president who openly insults people, not just politicians but the more than half of Americans who did not vote for him, and who uses loaded phrases with regard to black and Latinos to wink at his white nationalist supporters and who lies on a daily basis (did you see his recent vehement denial that he has ever used the word retarded to refer to people when there are tapes of him doing just that?) and his supporters don't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So there is a deep state. I knew it.

There's no better way to break people apart, divide and cause consternation between groups of people than stuff like this.

I wonder if China or Russia or Iran is planting agitation propaganda like this?

I put no faith in NY Times journalists to vet their sources.

You are just proving you,re an ignorant ass.

The NYT is not perfect, but I know several people who work there, and I can assure you they vet their sources completely and utterly. There is much they know about POTUS but do not publish because they could not confirm that information with three independent sources.

Sources do lie, but that’s not the fault of the NYT, which makes strenuous and diligent efforts to make certain their anonymous sources are telling the truth.

The POTUS lies on a daily basis. That is a fact, easily verified.

The NYT beats POTUS every day on veracity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is this a narrative from "within" someone on the editorial staff at the NYT posing as an insider. I would give that a better chance than anything else given their disdain for the man.

The fact that you believe that suggests there is little hope for this country.

Anyone working in the news business knows that the truth eventually comes out and an editorial board of the country's pre-eminent newspaper is not going to be risking destroying themselves by publishing such an explosive piece if it were a fake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So there is a deep state. I knew it.

There's no better way to break people apart, divide and cause consternation between groups of people than stuff like this.

I wonder if China or Russia or Iran is planting agitation propaganda like this?

I put no faith in NY Times journalists to vet their sources.

Oh so all this time, the talk of Deep State meant people in the man's own Administration?

Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So there is a deep state. I knew it.

There's no better way to break people apart, divide and cause consternation between groups of people than stuff like this.

I wonder if China or Russia or Iran is planting agitation propaganda like this?

I put no faith in NY Times journalists to vet their sources.

If you define deep state as 'people trump personally selected and got appointed via congress' then I sure hope there is one!

[Anonymous]

Let’s go back to the guessing game! That was more fun!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And by terrible indicator, I mean useless indicator.

Agree, that could be arbitrary.
Besides, I think the decline in absolute number of groups is moreso tied to the rise of the internet and social media. Not to blame it. But as a tool, social media has allowed a little more unity, a little more inactive but active viewers of the phenomenon, and less Joe Schmoe from Alabama making his OWN group but rather signing up with a larger one / viewing from a distance in his own home.

Therefore, to the pp somewhere above trying to put white supremacy connections “to rest,” please use another data point. # of groups doesn’t work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This sets up a dangerous precedent. What's to stop a right-leaning newspaper from printing an "anonymous" Op-ed from an Administrstion insider condemning the president when he is a Democrat? Or if the Dems take the House, an anonymous Hill staffer spilling the beans on Democratic shenanigans?

No anonymous articles should be published.

Unreliable publishers from the left and the right have been doing this for years already. Reliable ones, like the New York Times do vet their sources, political leanings notwithstanding. And Trump ought to know how this works because he has sometimes leaked things anonymously himself.

[Anonymous]

WaPo: Trump says Justice Department should investigate who wrote anonymous New York Times op-ed, citing national security, AP reports

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WaPo: Trump says Justice Department should investigate who wrote anonymous New York Times op-ed, citing national security, AP reports

That Authoritarian Mask falling straight off.