There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig our election.
- Thread starter WVU82_rivals
- Start date
It was hacked, no one wants to change the results or even says that is why dumbass won. But we can't Just overlook it because the country is now run by Trump and his stupid base enablers. You elected an idiot and it is biting your party in the ***, see the news about Tillerson today, only a matter of time before chump implodes.
Obviously that is fake news. You should know by now that anything negative about Trumplethinskin is fake news. They are all out to get him.
That's the most flexible and will be the longest running "matter of time" in history. It's going on 2 years now.
The right says "not a single vote was changed"
I think Tillerson is old school. State department and WH always has some issues with appointments. He's just a no bs type of guy. Tillerson (although I fear his big oil ties) is kind of winning me over.
Who leaked it? What was their motivation? Was it confirmed by more than one anonymous source?
One anon source = fake news
I think Tillerson would be OK if Trump would let him ... but I have no confidence that that will be the case. Trump promised him full authority to fill positions, but everything has to be vetted by Trump? Yep, it's all about Trump, not what's best for the country.
Jesus Hubert Christ. How much confirmation do you need besides the Secretary's own spokesman? There's nobody left in the White House from the Obama administration.
The heated conversation occurred in chief of staff Reince Priebus's office, where President Trump's son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, and Margaret Peterlin, Tillerson's chief of staff, were also present. Politico said Tillerson became so incensed, that Kushner spoke with Peterlin afterwards to say that the secretary of state had acted unprofessionally.
In a statement to Politico, the State Department did not deny the exchange happened.
Peterlin didn't confirm this. Someone was leaking third person: "according to a person familiar with the meeting". No official statement was made by anyone.
I guess this is what you run with when Russia is drying up.
I'll say this. I was skeptical about Tillerson when he was announced, but I think he's doing pretty well so far. I do think he's a no BS guy, and that's probably why I like him now. I wouldn't be surprised if this story is true. He's used to having control over who he gets to hire, so I could see him having a pretty significant level of frustration about being second guessed on these appointments.
That's what you run with when you don't want to admit that Trump's pick for Secretary of State is fed up with BS from him and his staff.
Or if you want to inflate controversy and spin a narrative with little evidence to back it up.
If you believe it didn't happen: that's one thing. If you believe it's not a news story: that's just wrong, a Sec of State becoming angry at the administration for anything is legitimate news. Although it might be something you roll your eyes at, like I do on this particular story, or if it's something you think is more telling of a serious issue. I understand that most news orgs have committed to "team beat Trump", and that muddies the waters, but WH reporting is expected to report these types of interactions for the voting public.
Guess you've never had a passionate disagreement with someone and then once it's solved march forward like nothing ever happened? You just carry it on for eternity never to forget and develop an estranged relationship with that individual?
I have them all of the time at work. I find it a very helpful thing. A. Yes men are useless. B. Spirited debate to me indicates passion for the overall initiative.
Now tell me in your opinion which way the piece was trying to portray this event.
The piece I read went into detail about disagreements between State and the WH being a common thing....even referring to Clinton and Obama going round about Blumenthal. I'm not totally sure which way Politico "leans"....but they are on my daily screen of news sources.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/28/tillerson-blows-up-at-white-house-aide-240075
News stories are written in pyramid form, information expands as the piece goes on.....journalists still have to "capture" the attention of the reader with the headline, and engage the reader with the lead of the story. It's been common practice since before the days of Trump hating. Didn't mean to be condescending there.
As I said, was the article meant to paint the situation as more of a disagreement or a giant chasm developing which might cause sexy Rexy to step aside further lending credence to Trump's inability to manage the Gov't?
I asked you, between those two, which do you think the article was intending to do?
I think the article I read was intending to indicate that Tillerson is frustrated with the WH over appointments and lack of autonomy.