MAGA idiots on parade

Sat

Sep 5 2020

08:01 pm

By: bizgrrl

Several boats sank Saturday during an event billed as a "Trump Boat Parade" on Lake Travis near Austin, Texas, authorities said.
...
Photographs showed boats with Trump flags sinking or navigating large wakes on the nearly 19,000-acre lake northwest of Austin.
...

I believe there are a lot of inexperienced boaters on the waterways these days. The MAGA idiots are taking it to a new level.

Topics:

National

bizgrrl's blog
Login or register to post comments

Trump supporters on boats

Submitted by jbr on Sat, 2020/09/05 - 10:23pm.

Trump supporters on boats flood the Jersey Shore

A Saturday boat parade on

Submitted by R. Neal on Sun, 2020/09/06 - 7:01am.

A Saturday boat parade on Fort Loudoun Lake drew hundreds of vessels filled with supporters of President Donald Trump.

All Trump supporters should

Submitted by Mike Daugherty on Sun, 2020/09/06 - 10:06am.

All Trump supporters should be thinking of abandoning ship after learning about Trump's disgraceful comments calling American soldiers and heroes losers and suckers. Trump is an embarrassment to our country and needs to be locked up for his corrupt and illegal actions.

Why?

Submitted by fischbobber on Sun, 2020/09/06 - 10:32am.
(in reply to Mike Daugherty)

Most of Trumps hardcore supporters think vets are losers and suckers too. Look how they treat the homeless veterans. PTSD? They're faking, don't need treatment. Traumatic brain injury? Just a headache, isn't serious. Wounded in the field? Leave them, it's their fault for getting shot. Disability? Don't need it. Defund it. Anyone voting for Burchett because of lip service he pays to vets needs to take a hard look at his votes and policies and ask yourself, " If Tim's Okay with active duty servicemen having to be on food stamps to feed their families, and continually votes against the interests of wounded and disabled veterans, can he really be trusted to look out after my interests?"

Burchett should be ashamed.

Submitted by Mike Daugherty on Sun, 2020/09/06 - 11:09am.

Burchett should be ashamed. He has given lip service and pretended to support our veterans. He has not stood up for vets. He has been gutless in not criticizing Trump's disgraceful comments about our soldiers that have served our country and many that have given their lives or been wounded. After Trump's comments about war hero John McCain, Burchett said nothing and stood with draft Dodger Donald. The real losers and suckers are Burchett and Trump and their cronies. Let's hope and pray for a miracle in November and by getting rid of two pathetic losers our government can begin to treat our veterans with the respect they deserve.

It would be interesting to

Submitted by Mike Daugherty on Sun, 2020/09/06 - 11:42am.

It would be interesting to hear if Burchett agrees with Trump's comment that George H.W. Bush was a loser for being shot down down by the Japanese during WWII. Trump is a worthless loser that needs to be in prison.Burchett is a spineless loser that does not have the guts to stand up for our veterans. Bush was a war hero that should be honored for his service to our country. On the other hand, the wannabe dictator Trump that trashes our veterans and his boy Burchett that supports him, are
pathetic excuses for leaders.

Lake Travis tragedy. #neverforget

Submitted by fischbobber on Sun, 2020/09/06 - 12:40pm.

(link...)

Another "bombshell" with,

Submitted by Knoxoasis on Mon, 2020/09/07 - 8:38am.

Another "bombshell" with, interestingly, no one willing to go on the record. But that's ok, because the Atlantic says it has "sources", and its not like the media would ever lie to us about Trump.

Funny that John Bolton wrote a whole book savaging Trump and forgot to mention this.

If

Submitted by Roger Fleenor on Mon, 2020/09/07 - 9:39am.
(in reply to Knoxoasis)

a source steps forward, what will your line be then?

If a source steps forward

Submitted by Knoxoasis on Mon, 2020/09/07 - 12:53pm.
(in reply to Roger Fleenor)

If a source steps forward I’ll do what anyone does: assess their credibility. As it is now, I can only asses the credibility of Mr. Goldberg who, as I understand it, was not in the room.

Nobody's seriously contesting this report

Submitted by Factchecker on Mon, 2020/09/07 - 2:35pm.
(in reply to Knoxoasis)

Many journalists and news organizations including Fox News have corroborated the context and quotes in the piece. But why would anyone need to? You and other defenders are just distracting and reacting, offering lame responses and hoping some of this will not stick. Too late. We have Trump himself who has proudly said much of this over the years, including attacks on Gold Star Families and repeated attacks on the character of John McCain.

It's particularly rich to hear demand for sources coming from the promoters of QAnon, the "Deep State," birtherism, and all the other unsourced conspiracy smears that burnished Trump as such a hero to people like you. There are too many examples of Trump and others on the far right fabricating smears on phrases like "many people are saying."

Fish in a barrel

Submitted by Factchecker on Mon, 2020/09/07 - 3:05pm.
(in reply to Knoxoasis)

As it is now, I can only asses the credibility of Mr. Goldberg who, as I understand it, was not in the room.

Do you have sources that he wasn't? (See how that works?)

Sure. Jeffery Goldberg, who

Submitted by Knoxoasis on Mon, 2020/09/07 - 3:26pm.
(in reply to Factchecker)

Sure. Jeffery Goldberg, who makes no claim to having been there or to having witnessed any of the events.

Try harder.

Dude, Trump is

Submitted by Factchecker on Wed, 2020/09/09 - 9:17am.
(in reply to Knoxoasis)

Dude, Trump is well-established as the biggest liar in the history of American politics and has a history of making disparaging comments about the military and those who served honorably. A reputable journalist has numerous sources that have been verified by many other reputable journalists and also Fox News. The pathological liar says "believe me now and not all those reputable people whose accounts are consist with one another." You choose to believe the pathological liar. You need to be checked into a deprogramming facility for your cult worship.

You also don't understand, or pretend not to, how journalism works. It doesn't require sources be named publicly. Sources just need to be verified and duplicated, as was honored here.

And again, sources never matter for Trump. Virtually all of his popularity was built on the most baldfaced and libelous of them. Do you believe Obama was born in Kenya, there's a plane of Antifa thugs that fly around to attend protests, that Trump has saved 10's or hundreds of millions of lives due to his response to COVID-19, that Obama's COVID tests (impossible to exist) were defective, etc.? There are too many examples of his sourceless absurdity to catalog.

You got any problem at all with Trump's lack of sources? What does this say about you? You think it matters only when it's "journalism"? The whole Trump model is to destroy trust in institutions, to confuse people and allow his lies to be as valid as any expert's. Too bad it's worked on so many rubes like you. It's taken our democracy down to the brink of existence.

What I love is how my

Submitted by Knoxoasis on Wed, 2020/09/09 - 11:11am.
(in reply to Factchecker)

What I love is how my comments about the veracity of a "news" story immediately prompt attacks on me personally. But whatever. Wouldnt be an argument with liberals unless insults were involved.

How do you explain John Bolton (on the record! I guess he's not afraid of mean tweets like the paragons of courage who are whispering in Goldberg's ear) denying the story? He's already burned all his Trumpian bridges; what does he have to gain by lying about this? Why didn't he write about it in his book?

See, whatever your answer, the cool thing is you can explain it away because you know the source. You can make a judgement about Bolton, look at his past, and make an informed decision about whether to believe him or not. THAT'S how journalism works. What Goldberg is doing isn't journalism. Its rumormongering.

The silence is deafening

Submitted by Treehouse on Wed, 2020/09/09 - 1:20pm.
(in reply to Knoxoasis)

From Heather Cox Richardson who is a daily respite from lies:

"Yesterday, in The Atlantic, conservative columnist David Frum published a story titled “Everyone Knows It’s True.” Frum noted that while the First Lady, Cabinet secretaries, and Fox News Channel personalities have all insisted the story is false, the people who worked closely with Trump on military matters have remained resolutely silent.

Frum wrote, “Where are the senior officers of the United States armed forces, serving and retired—the men and women who worked most closely on military affairs with President Trump? Has any one of them stepped forward to say, ‘That’s not the man I know’? How many wounded warriors have stepped forward to attest to Trump’s care and concern for them? How many Gold Star families have stepped forward on Trump’s behalf? How many service families? The silence is resounding.”

Don't "whatabout" us, bro

Submitted by Factchecker on Wed, 2020/09/09 - 3:55pm.
(in reply to Knoxoasis)

How do you explain John Bolton (on the record! I guess he's not afraid of mean tweets like the paragons of courage who are whispering in Goldberg's ear) denying the story? He's already burned all his Trumpian bridges; what does he have to gain by lying about this? Why didn't he write about it in his book?

Far-right neocon: "Trump is guilty of a host of crimes, conflicts, and corruption."

Trumpers: "He has an axe to grind and is just selling his book, so none of it can possibly be true."

New act of outrage reported by real journalist, fact-checked and corroborated: (Another damning story about Trump.)

Same Trumpers: "How could it be true if the far-right neocon didn't put it in his book?"

You're doing exactly what the fossil fuel industry does. Raising doubts by throwing up irrelevant points. Bolton's not a journalist. There's an almost infinite number of things he didn't write about. You can't seriously be saying that anything not in Bolton's book can't be true! Especially after you've already tried to shred his credibility.

You can make a judgement (sic--that's misspelled) about Bolton, look at his past, and make an informed decision about whether to believe him or not. THAT'S how journalism works.

Nope, not even close and you know it. You're suggesting that media need only collect an arbitrary group of people to make comments and then viewers decide who's right and wrong. That may be Fox News, but it ain't journalism.

I'd say nice try, but it wasn't.

Far right neocon who hates

Submitted by Knoxoasis on Wed, 2020/09/09 - 4:06pm.
(in reply to Factchecker)

Far right neocon who hates Trump and is looking to sell an anti-Trump book somehow forgets the story that's going to take him down?

Whatever dude. If Goldberg said Trump was a Martian you'd be demanding we nuke Mars. See you in November.

You're ridiculous

Submitted by Factchecker on Wed, 2020/09/09 - 4:13pm.
(in reply to Knoxoasis)

Really? This story is taking Trump down? Promise? And the rest of his book wasn't damning enough?

Also from the comments I have

Submitted by Knoxoasis on Wed, 2020/09/09 - 11:10am.
(in reply to Factchecker)

Also from the comments above I have to assume you haven't read the Intercept piece I linked. Here's the money bit, in case you can't be bothered:

But journalism is not supposed to be grounded in whether something is “believable” or “seems like it could be true.” Its core purpose, the only thing that really makes it matter or have worth, is reporting what is true, or at least what evidence reveals. And that function is completely subverted when news outlets claim that they “confirmed” a previous report when they did nothing more than just talked to the same people who anonymously whispered the same things to them as were whispered to the original outlet.

Quite aside from this specific story about whether Trump loves The Troops, conflating the crucial journalistic concept of “confirmation” with “hearing the same idle gossip” or “unproven assertions” is a huge disservice. It is an instrument of propaganda, not reporting. And its use has repeatedly deceived rather than informed the public. Anyone who doubts that should review how it is that MSNBC and CBS both claimed to have “confirmed” a CNN report which turned out to be ludicrously and laughably false. Clearly, the term “confirmation” has lost its meaning in journalism.

conflating the crucial journalistic concept

Submitted by Roger Fleenor on Thu, 2020/09/10 - 7:33pm.
(in reply to Knoxoasis)

That's just ...like,,,opinion, man......can you offer proof that this has taken place in this reportage? Your quip that "Goldberg wasn't in the room" is hardly worth bringing up since anyone who has "been around journalists" would know that as an editor he would simply have been evaluating and editing reporters work.

Anonymous sources

Submitted by fischbobber on Mon, 2020/09/07 - 11:34am.
(in reply to Knoxoasis)

Yeah, it's like those losers and suckers that wrote the federalist papers. If they were really telling it like it was they'd have identified themselves.

Don't know much about how a free press works, do you?

Oh I do. Been around

Submitted by Knoxoasis on Mon, 2020/09/07 - 12:51pm.
(in reply to fischbobber)

Oh I do. Been around reporters for a long time. But if they are going to use “unnamed sources” then what they are really saying is “trust me.” And at that point each person has to make a judgment, not whether they can trust the source, because we don’t know the source and what their credibility and motivations might be, but whether we trust the reporter. I totally get source confidentiality. I also know it can be abused and there’s really no way for the reader to check.

Also the Federalist Papers were opinion pieces, not eyewitness statements. As such, the authors were irrelevant to the opinions, which stand or fall on their own merits. You need a better analogy. I’d suggest the Steele Dossier.

Or of course,

Submitted by fischbobber on Mon, 2020/09/07 - 9:04pm.
(in reply to Knoxoasis)

You could point to Deep Throat. But that doesn’t really fit the narrative of a gaslighter, does it?

Really???

Submitted by Roger Fleenor on Mon, 2020/09/07 - 4:15pm.
(in reply to Knoxoasis)

I suspect everyone who reads or comments here is allready aware or the risks in forming opinions based on the use or unnamed sources.
Dick Tater Trump himself furnished the ability to believe such accusations with his own statements,"
"whether they can trust the source, because we don’t know the source and what their credibility and motivations might be"" could easily applied to you and your use of a pseudonym instead of your real name.
I would love to know what the reporters you were around think of you today,

P.S. on The Atlantic piece

Submitted by Factchecker on Mon, 2020/09/07 - 3:01pm.

Trump’s comments are a genuine window into his soul, a glimpse of the bottomless pit of egoistic striving that makes him who he is.
...
(his) personality is well-known to both supporters and opponents.

No one is surprised, but this too reflects on supporters like Knoxoasis. Why do they hate our military?

(link...)

Finally, WaPo has a story out today (assuming behind paywall) titled "Trump, under fire for alleged comments about veterans, has a long history of disparaging military service."

What else is new?

Only a complete idiot would

Submitted by Mike Daugherty on Mon, 2020/09/07 - 5:11pm.
(in reply to Factchecker)

Only a complete idiot would believe Trump.

If Trump is the source you

Submitted by R. Neal on Mon, 2020/09/07 - 6:39pm.

If Trump is the source you can be assured it is a lie. That's all you need to know.

Poynter Institute: Here’s why

Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2020/09/09 - 11:22am.

Poynter Institute: Here’s why you should be willing to believe anonymous sources

While I cannot speak for every news organization out there, I can tell you that, in my experience, the threshold for using anonymous sources is very high. It’s a last resort and, typically, the information provided by an anonymous source is confirmed by at least one other source.

Is it possible for news organizations to make up an anonymous source? Sure, anything is possible. But it’s highly unlikely. Nothing is more crucial to a news organization than its trustworthiness, and that could be ruined forever if it was ever caught making up sources. News outlets know that and would be loath to risk such a thing. And because of the editing and vetting process, and the number of people involved in that process, it’s nearly impossible to make up sources or quotes or to run a story that the news outlet doesn’t believe to be true.

While media cynics might not want to believe this, those who work for reputable news organizations do take their code of ethics seriously and should be given the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. (The key words there are “reputable news organizations.”)

Still, news organizations need to realize that as long as they use anonymous sources, there will be a segment of the population that simply will not trust the information in the story. That is the price to be paid when quoting someone anonymously.

I'm actually not arguing

Submitted by Knoxoasis on Wed, 2020/09/09 - 3:13pm.
(in reply to R. Neal)

I'm actually not arguing whether the story is true or untrue. What I'm saying is that the fact that no one is going on the record makes me suspicious, especially given the lengths to which "the resistance" has gone to over the past four years to get Trump.

Think about it a minute. Hardly anyone who supports Trump is going to believe a story, published without attribution, in a demonstrably anti-Trump publication anyway. And if it turns out that Goldberg just made it up, or published it even though he knew his sources were people who hated Trump and were motivated to lie, AND publication of the story helped to defeat Trump, would your reaction be "I'm never going to believe anything Goldberg says again" or "good job!"?

I suspect for most anti-Trump people the answer would be the latter. and since those people are probably the overwhelming majority of The Atlantic's office, it might be that the needs of "the resistance" outweigh the morays of the Poynter Institute.

All of these things are what you have to weigh when you have a story based on sources you're not allowed to examine. So is it possibly true? Sure. Trump is a guy who says a lot of pernicious stuff. Am I going to assume its true when its published in an anti-Trump magazine by an anti-Trump editor and attributed to sources who won't be named because they are afraid of mean tweets? No. And if it was an anti Biden piece published in the National Review quoting unnamed sources, neither would you.

What I'm saying is that the

Submitted by Factchecker on Wed, 2020/09/09 - 4:11pm.
(in reply to Knoxoasis)

What I'm saying is that the fact that no one is going on the record makes me suspicious, especially given the lengths to which "the resistance" has gone to over the past four years to get Trump.

You're a Trumper. And you're "suspicious." Sweet. "The resistance" hasn't had to go to any lengths. Trump has admitted his crimes, over and over. The firing of Comey to Lester Holt, the call to Putin to meddle in an American election, denigration of the military, the Bolton book (if he's "resistance," I'm a Cheney fan- heh), the berating of women and minorities, calling racists "good people," urging people to vote twice, urging people to take dangerous drugs and chemicals... The list is endless.

You don't seem to understand the reason unnamed sources are in the bedrock of journalistic tools. It's uncorroborated rogue rumors you're trying to conflate here, which this is not about. You could start with Watergate. There's a fun movie about it that makes it easy.

if it turns out that Goldberg

Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2020/09/09 - 6:25pm.
(in reply to Knoxoasis)

if it turns out that Goldberg just made it up, or published it even though he knew his sources were people who hated Trump and were motivated to lie, AND publication of the story helped to defeat Trump, would your reaction be "I'm never going to believe anything Goldberg says again" or "good job!"?

I suspect for most anti-Trump people the answer would be the latter.

For this anti-Trump person, the answer is the former. I have a long list of "left-leaning" traditional and social media outlets that I no longer follow because of lesser lapses in judgment and veracity or just tone. Hell, about the only person I watch on MSNBC any more is Nicole Wallace. And she's a Republican!

Anyway, I guess when our president, his family, his staff, his cabinet, his attorney general, and his approved "news" outlets like Fox, OANN, Brietbart, and his Congressional GOP enablers, etc., etc. verifiably lie out their asses all day long every day, gosh, it's hard to know who to believe. C'mon, man.

Also, what if the source is the principal, and the reporter has tapes? Is that still fabricated fake news?

You mean....

Submitted by fischbobber on Thu, 2020/09/10 - 2:45am.
(in reply to R. Neal)

You don't watch Rachel Maddow?

Another day, another two new bombshell scandals

Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 2020/09/10 - 11:06am.

We passed Watergate way back around the Mueller Report. And then there was the impeachment, where people like Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman went on record and testified, along with many others. Of course Trump fired Vindman, whose had served honorably. Senate Republicans pretended they had witnesses who could testify for Trump, but refused to allow them because... do we really have to ask?

Maybe a good time to review what the Mueller Report really contained. Spoiler: It was chock full of corruption and other wrongdoing. But Republicans controlling the Senate gave him a mulligan, just one in a string of many.

With an administration like this, what does it mean to keep trying to blame the media for Trump's problems?

(link...)

Discussing:

Dolly Parton - we miss you already (1 reply)
NW Indiana residents on 10th day without power (1 reply)
Only Republicans moving to Florida? (1 reply)
ballrooms, bankruptcy, and bulls-- (1 reply)
SoKno what have you done? (2 replies)
Vote! Thursday is election day. (4 replies)
The Odyssey (3 replies)
AI backlash - Justin Pearson (1 reply)
U.S. Commerce Dept. Going Socialist? (2 replies)
Publix Greenwise Organic Berry Recall (4 replies)
Clayton partners Townsend properties with national company (1 reply)
Open AI escapes, hacks competitor (2 replies)

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Local Media

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Comment viewing options

Discussing:

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Local Media

Lost Medicaid Funding

Search and Archives

TN Progressive

Nearby:

Beyond:

At large:

Government

About