Rudy has a good commentary on Niki Haley’s reaction to that stab in the back News York Times OpEd. This is the Op-ed written by someone who is supposedly a Trump administration insider.
Doug’s comments, which follow immediately after Rudy’s post, make that post even more interesting. We wonder. Why would anyone defend that stab-in-the-back New York Times Op-ed?
When we sin, we have three options.
1. We can repent. We can admit our guilt. That requires humility and faith in God.
2. We can defend our behavior. The more shamelessly we can do this the more believable we will be. This option requires faith in Man, especially our self.
3. We can pretend sin, treachery in this case, does not matter. When we say “everyone does it”, our defense is that it does not matter because everyone does it. Here we count upon the “fact” that no one will hold us accountable.Democrats are defending their behavior. That is because destroying Trump and crushing his agenda matters so very much to them. Therefore, they have lied and deceived shamelessly. The writer of that New York Times Op-ed serves as just one small example.
As a nation we should be highly concerned. When supposedly respected and responsible newspapers enthusiastically provide a platform for shameless liars, that’s a sign that we too have become shameless.
Is Nikki Haley’s advice to the anonymous OpEd wise or foolish?
The Chicago Tribune Perspective titled, A rebuke to anonymous when I challenge the President, I do it directly, reports her advice to the anonymous White House intriguer.
This same wisdom advice was given 3000 years ago by King Solomon in Proverbs along with a warning of what will happen to him or her when their identity is revealed.
King Solomon
Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself; and discover not a secret to another: (Proverb 25:9)
Excerpt
Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself,…. Between thee and him alone; lay the matter before him, and hear what he has to say for himself, by which you will better judge of the nature of the cause; try to compromise things, and make up the difference between you,
Lest he that heareth it put thee to shame, and thine infamy turn not away. …
View original post 200 more words
DOUG,
Stuborn animals like donkeys are honest. They honk and honk when they are do not what to be led…….to reality……
Why did donkeys become the symbol……..
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I like about Doug is just fierce honesty and loyalty to side with everyone who is a Trump hater.
According to their logic is that Trump cannot do anything right.
I relate that kind of logic to be bias or even hateful emotions rather than logic.
For example, he won the election and is fulfilling his campaign promises to the people who voted for him.
What is so hateful about That? How about saying that for a change instead of everything else about their emotions rather than his accomplishments.
Better yet, how about telling us their plans so we can vote on something more logical other than his personal style of communicating that resulted in him being elected.
Regards and good will blogging
LikeLiked by 1 person
@scatterwisdom
Doug is honest, I suppose. Still, he has to be willfully ignorant to detest Trump as much as he does.
Democrats have a plan.
1. Buy our votes with “other people’s money.”
2. Bring in poor illegal aliens so that they can buy their votes.
3. Buy the votes of big donors with taxpayer money.
4. Divide us into identity groups and pit us against each other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I presume even those alleged ignorant can reflect a level of honesty.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just a thought. Granted, I haven’t followed the story since it originally came to light. But how do we know the “anonymous” person that wrote the op-ed isn’t an “anonymous” staff writer at the NY Times? I’m skeptical of everything these days. I’m not wanting to debate, I’m just throwing it out there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I may, Lisa… Trump supporters in general pretty much assign all Trump-hating opinion to “obsession” or what they perceive as some Trump-hating syndrome that somehow feeds on itself as pure hatred or dislike at any cost. Unfortunately, “disliking” Trump, or “hating” Trump can be for many reasons… and is not simply a singular dumping grown of blind hatred. For example, Trump supporters presume to assign Trump-hating rage to the media, presumed to be of liberal bias. Hardly.
The media.. liberal or conservative, exists ONLY to make money for it’s owners/investors. It’s called capitalism. Will certain media outlets intentionally favor a particular news reporting bias reflecting their owners? Of course…. but only so far as this follows the ability to get a wide exposure to the public. The ONLY reason Fox does well in the ratings game is that their owners opt to report conservative-biased news subjects, like only good news about Trump.. because they have captured the media base that prefers only good things about Trump. Those numbers establish the rate at which Fox can sell advertising for operating revenue. The other mainstream media has their own approach.. liberal-biased if that what you prefer to believe… but nonetheless for the same reason… they capture a large audience for their particular niche.
Now.. in all news reporting, TV or print, the valuable commodity is the ability to report accurately, which then gains credibility, thus committed viewers/readers. Pretty much this idea of “fake” news is a misnomer… Fox presents a “good” news bias about the President, the rest, including CNN, presents a “bad” news bias about the President. Both can easily be reporting factual news, not necessarily fake. Both can hold a measure of factual accuracy.
Now, based on all that, here’s my actual reply to your remark about the NYT possibly having written this Op-Ed just to throw people off because they (the NYT) is nothing but liberal Trump-haters. Like all other news sources… the NYT has found a preferred news reporting style/niche in which to stay loyal to, that generates the readership they need to stay in business. For them it’s based on a hundred years or so of relatively honest, credible, and accurate reporting. For them to go way out on a limb and fake an author for an Op-Ed would makes NO sense risking their credibility.. and possibly loosing readership, and revenue.
Now… I do NOT know everything in the world.. but I engage in critical thinking and using common sense. Is it possible that some reporter at the NYT faked the authorship? Of course. Maybe a maverick or renegade reporter with a personal agenda, or whatever. But then that would have to include a fair number of people over there inside the vetting process to have signed on to risking the entire reputation of the newspaper for something as benign like “Trump-hating”.
Honestly, Trump manages to feed his own behavior monster himself and provides the world with real stuff in which to give reason to “hate” him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I knew I shouldn’t have voiced my opinion. And I knew you’d be the first to jump down my throat. Again, perhaps you missed the “not wanting to debate” portion of my comment. Next time I’ll keep my opinion to myself because clearly I don’t know what I’m talking about. Have a blessed day. Thank you for enlightening the world.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I had no idea you were that fragile in your opinion. If I threatened your thought processes then I apologize. I will note your objections to me and I will keep my distance in the future.
LikeLike
Not “fragile” just “annoyed.” Your name pops up repeatedly on conservative websites, as if you’re targeting them, and people such as Citizen Tom have far more patience for debating you than I. I am a but lowly housewife who only voted for Trump because my husband did (just kidding), who has more to do than read long diatribes meant, not to “inform” me but to “put me in my place.” I’m sure Citizen Tom and others will agree when I tell you that I pray you find the peace you are looking for. Perhaps a better thing to do would be to agree to disagree and move on instead of hurling insults and calling people “fragile.” And your distance would be appreciated, thank you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As you wish, I will not reply to your remarks.
LikeLike
How are you so sure the Op-Ed person is lying?
LikeLike
@Doug
I have to prove the accuser is lying?
Trump has been in office for awhile now, and the news media and the
Democrats have rewarded us with a prolonged hissyfit, but no evidence of wrongdoing. That stupid question is the worst you can do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
????? The point is… you are saying the author is lying. This judgement is totally based only on your compassion for Trump being constantly dissed by the media, or do you have some factual inside information that would bring all of us to that same conclusion?
LikeLike
@Doug
Everyone in the Trump administration is lying except the anonymous sources?😱
LikeLiked by 1 person
Soooo… you’re going by the numbers of folks denying they are the author. Then let’s add, Woodward’s book accounts. That’s still two against.. I dunno, 20 or so? I agree… you should go with the numbers, Tom. The 20 saying no is greater than the two saying yes.
LikeLike
@Doug
The amazing thing is that you are serious. I learned in high school that anonymous sources are worthless. That’s why you and I have the right to insist that our accuser testify in a court of law. Yet you would happily deny that right to our president. That’s sad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Confronting your “accuser” in a legal setting is far different. The 6th states that’s only for criminal prosecution.. not civil or any other. My reasons that finding out the ID as being irrelevant are here, if you missed it.
https://findingpoliticalsanity.com/it-doesnt-matter-the-id-of-the-anonymous-op-ed-author/
LikeLike
@Doug
I don’t take the New York Times that seriously. I don’t take any news media organization seriously. When someone — anyone — publishes a story that cannot be independently verified, the story is not of much use.
Note, for example, that the story of Trump’s supposed collusion with the Russians began as a bunch of unsourced leaks. That’s turning out to be so wrong, so different from what the media originally portrayed it to be, that those who believed it have just embarrassed themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not aware that Mueller reached a final collusion conclusion.
Quite frankly, given the concept that a collusion by itself is not always illegal, there’s seems to be a variety of other impending “crimes” that could be assigned if the investigation reveals it. There’s been a bunch of close-in indictments moving up the White House lawn.
LikeLike
@Doug
Look up the word disingenuous. It is fairly obvious at this point that the leadership of of the DOJ and the FBI has more to hide than Trump, and that includes the sacred, most honorable and adored Robert Mueller.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s that conservative “it’s fairly obvious” again.
LikeLike
@Doug
I am glad you at least recognize that when I say it is fairly obvious I am being conservative.😀
LikeLike
You mean, as opposed to being an “obviously fair” liberal? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person