09.04.2020 05:52 PM

Let’s see you call Fox “fake news,” Trumpkins



  1. Remember when Fox was referred to by himself as We? Not anymore and for quite a while. Sure, the usual apologists are still in place but they’re widely recognized for their habitual bias. Same thing at other 24 hour news networks. Kudos to those who at least try not to be by nature reflexively biased.

  2. Shane says:

    I’m no “Trumpkin”, but this reeks of a Democratic hit job. Not saying it didn’t happen, certainly not trying to excuse Trump’s many transgressions, and he certainly has himself to blame for making these claims seem plausible given his terrible comments about John McCain. But “unnamed sources”? Really? For all the insiders who have left Trump’s inner circle with axes to grind, and written tell-alls, this is the first time this has been mentioned. Bolton, Huckabee-Sanders both claim they were there and they didn’t hear him say these things. If someone like John Kelly, for example, is willing to go on the record and stand behind the claims, I’ll happily accept them as fact. Until then I’m applying Carl Sagan’s old maxim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.


    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      Well, remember when Trump didn’t call McCain a loser but he did — remember when he didn’t mock that disabled reporter but he did?

      I suggest that both Bolton and H-S get fitted with hearing aids.

  3. Max says:

    “I’m no “Trumpkin”, but this reeks of a Democratic hit job. Not saying it didn’t happen, certainly not trying to excuse Trump’s many transgressions…. But, BUT, BUT!!!!” Yep, we got it Shane. You go, you!

    “Hit job.” There’s yer tell. Props to Shane though for not deploying “hoax” and “fake”.

  4. Gary says:

    Wow. Democratic hit job? Are you serious? You Trump worshippers give him more off ramps than the California freeway system. Maybe just admit what has been obvious to anybody who has been paying attention for the last few years. This guy is a crook and traitor as well as a shameless liar and huckster.

    • Shane says:

      Max, Gary, a few points:

      I think people have the right to defend themselves against their accusers, and even when dealing with Trump “unnamed sources” doesn’t cut it. Someone, anyone, come forward.

      Part of it is I’m disappointed. Not with Trump – because its clear to see what he is – but with the democrats. I like Joe Biden, I think he’s a good man, and an exemplar of what it means to be a public servant. I think Harris is an incredible candidate, and an extremely talented individual. My disappointed comes from the tactics. Recycle Trump’s Greatest Hits? No one is surprised by these allegations. We’ll likely see more similar stuff in the coming weeks, months.

      I’d like to see more from Biden other than “I’m not Trump”, a more clearly laid out vision. Harris, giver her background is possibly the best candidate to speak to, and take a leadership role in navigating the US through the current unrest coming from issues related to race and law and order. But, it seems she’s being gagged tighter than Sarah Palin? I think Michael Mo0re made some valid points about mistakes of 2016 being repeated, and that would be a shame.

      • the real Sean says:

        Biden has made some clear proposals that are different than Trump. Harris is giving interviews and isn’t gagged. Its not their fault if the endless disasters of their opponent is getting more TV coverage. Its not their fault if people like Shane aren’t paying attention.

      • William says:

        ude, it all fits a pattern. He called McCain a loser for being captured. He dissed Bush senior for crashing his plane, he dissed all the Generals and he’s a friggin draft dodger. Also these sources may be anonymous but the reporters aren’t and they are from a number of reputable outlets including Fox News. These anonymous sources would face significant upheaval in their lives and possible violence to them and their families if they come out. And by the way, it wasn’t Biden who brought this up but he’d be a fool not to run with it.

        • Shane says:

          So William, if an “unnamed source” publicly accused you of a heinous act in the press, you’d be OK with the public assuming your guilt, and the accuser being allowed to remain anonymous to protect their safety?

          • William says:

            If I was guilty of the heinous act and it was reported by an anonymous source through a reputable source there would be fuck all I could say about it. You seem a bit obtuse about this story. You don’t seem to understand that everything we know about Trump along with very credible reporting points to the truth of the matter.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:


            It worked out great for Mark Felt. This is no Watergate but if past is prologue…I have no problem with anonymous sources in politics. It happens all the time. But I have a big problem with it when it comes to private citizens. That’s my red line. In the Canadian context, that’s precisely why I will move heaven and earth to defeat a Trudeau led government. He must pay the political price for what his PMO quite deliberately and enthusiastically did to a private citizen’s work life and marriage.

          • Shane says:

            William, when it comes to Trump, believe me,I get it. But when this hits the press 2 years after the fact, with 2 months to go in the election, and nobody standing behind the claims, it’s a hit piece. Period. One designed to put the public focus on Trump’s previous comments. We’ll see how long it stays in the news cycle. If a named source came forward it would carry a hell of a lot more weight.

          • The Doctor says:

            The fact that John Kelly is remaining conspicuously silent speaks volumes.

          • Yeah, after all Trump is such a good and considerate boss. All he does all day is praise his underlings and count how many times the buck actually stops at The Resolute Desk…oh, wait.

            No animosity, in that there West Wing.

        • Yet Another Calgarian says:

          From November 11th 2018.


          Those four anonymous sources could have said something then and there but they didn’t.

          Was that still during Russiagate? Or wait was it impeachment? No it was the Ukraine right? No can’t do that because Hunter Biden… i’m sure they had something else to fling at that point. Which has since died and been abandonded on the side of the road but something.

          So 20 people who were there saying publically under their own name that this never happened… including those who parted on poor terms with Trump… or four anonymous sources who are afraid of mean tweets and the journalist that was ass deep in peddling the Iraqi WMD story using anonymous sources.

          At this stage anyone who believes anything either side’s media puts out is a fool.

          • The Doctor says:

            You don’t need anonymous sources. Trump has already stated publicly that McCain is not a war hero, he’s publicly slagged 4 star families and he just accused the entire top brass of the US military of being war profiteers.

            Smell the coffee FFS.

          • Yet Another Calgarian says:

            You need to go back and read everything I’ve written on the last couple of our host’s posts.

            Everything I have said about this story is that I no longer trust the media to report anything in an unbiased and accurate way. In general. Nor will it change if Biden is elected.

            Is this within Trump’s character to say? Definitely?

            Is there any particular reason for me to believe the national media on anything anymore? Nope none at all.

            The media has shit that bed entirely over the last twenty years and there is a reason why my opopinion s shared by something like 80 percent of the US populace. Admitedly the people who believe both sides of the media are lying are probably a smaller group within that stat but still.

            As for the war profiteers bit all you really need to do to confirm that is look at the list of who goes where after leaving the military to conclude there is actual truth in that statement.

            Funny I seem to recall that even being a left wing talking point too prior to about a month ago. No need for consitent reasoning though because is Trump says it you have to be against it right Doc?

          • The Doctor says:

            Yes YAC, obviously Infowars and the New York Times are equally credible and reliable sources of information.

          • Yet Another Calgarian says:

            Actually they have pretty much devolved into the same politicized illucid bullshit peddling type of beast Doc so yes you are correct even if its unintentional.

  5. Joseph says:

    So I guess the riots have ended then?

  6. Max says:

    “He must pay the political price for what his PMO quite deliberately and enthusiastically did to a private citizen’s work life and marriage.” Ronald, I may not be alone in missing that bit of malfeasance by Justin? What are the facts of record. Details, if you will.

  7. Gilbert says:

    Why are the riots continuing? Democrats want us to blame President Trump, but I think the Democrats are not interested in stopping them for political reasons.

    • You think the people on the streets care even the slightest what Biden and the Democratic leadership think they should do or not do.

      • Darwin,

        Your point is well taken but both sides of the aisle should be ferociously denouncing, at every opportunity, the violence, looting and other property offences committed. Instead, Republicans are getting to play the bait and switch card, falsely and disingenuously dumping all of the above right in the lap of BLM. Doesn’t say much for the quality of Democratic strategists and war roomers. It’s Mook-Time all over again…Jesus Christ, please help them out and fast.

        • Yet Another Calgarian says:

          I would recommend bypassing anything the media decides to filter out Ronald and just going straight to the source (themselves) to see what they have to say.

          Here are some deep thoughts from Yusra K Ali, the “BLM Toronto Founder”.

          If I heard a white person talking like this I’d have a hard time deciding between crazy or racist, and probably settle on both.

          Black Lives Matter the statement is an entirely different thing than BLM the movement which does deserve a tad closer scrutiny as that screenshot is actually typical.

          BLM March in LA a couple of days ago had them chanting “fuck the jews, kill the cops”. Yeah, no thanks.

          • Yet Another Calgarian says:


            now featuring actual screenshot!

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:


            I take your point and no doubt footage across America will confirm your points and more. But what I hope is true is that most BLM reps and supporters are not of that character. If I’m wrong, all these Black people died in vain because the true problem of subtle and not so subtle racism can never be adequately addressed under such widespread circumstances, if that is indeed the case across the United States and Canada.

          • Yet Another Calgarian says:

            Strangely I still have significant hope that meaningful policing reforms can be accomplished. I believe that there was and remains significant bipartisan support for reforms at the municipal and state level. I don’t think we need BLM the organisation to support BLM the statement.

            The media has enabled the extremists on both sides to hijack the discussion because that makes the media money. I don’t believe those extremes represent any significant portion of the populace’s opinion but they can still make everyone elses life miserable.

            Really not sure what to do with / about the media though. Perhaps bus in some violent rioters to their neighborhoods and let them burn down some upper class stuff. I would expect that would change the tone of the disucssions rather quickly.

            The part that particularly concerns me about the glib defenses of the violence though is that you have a bipartisan congress that couldn’t be bothered to renew anyone’s pandemic benefits before they broke for summer vacation.

            Such massive contempt for a huge section of the populace that the various levels of government threw out of work and now apparently can’t work up the effort to care about. Come next spring its may be more than just the extremists rioting and what then now that you’ve given violence legitimacy?

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:


            Can’t call the presidency but it’s definitely a throw the bums out mentality with regard to Congress: in my book that means a Democratic Senate and a Republican House.

          • Yet Another Calgarian says:

            The built in duopoly for parties really needs to be overthrown. I think the Americans may actually be grown enough to handle three or four real parties.

            Your comments about the House and Senate though may be the best hope for the moment.

      • Yet Another Calgarian says:

        They do not.

        Which makes it even weirder that the Dems spend so much time spinning them as a good thing.

        Looking forward to all the leftovers from the 1960s leaving politics and taking their inability to cope with it being 50 years later with them. Biden is going to bethe last gasp of that crowd in the Democrats.

      • The Doctor says:

        Also, I note that anti-Biden people can’t seem to get their story straight on this. Gilbert and his ilk seem to think that the Democrats control the rioters and can turn them on and off like a light switch. Meanwhile, a whole bunch of Trumpland seems to think that Biden is the hapless stooge and tool of Antifa, in which case I presume the rioters control the Democrats.

        Will you please pick a story and stick with it?

    • Max says:

      What are those “political reasons” Gilbert? How do “the riots” benefit the Democrats, as you believe?

  8. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    I hope Biden’s personal political instincts are right on this but I worry that he has a tin ear just like Hillary. Good God, when Hillary came up with the deplorables, she blew her damned campaign right out of the water…what the hell was she thinking?

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      And while I’m at it, attacking all of Bill’s women didn’t exactly get her any gold stars either. Instead, she should have considered cutting off the short and curlies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.