What happens if everyone's worst case scenario happens?

A foreign policy expert who is in the business of advising presidential candidates to bring them up to speed on foreign policy is not going to allow his name to be used if he has any stories which show his former client in a bad light. If reporters instituted a rule that all their sources be named when they write or broadcast a story, journalism will be severely handicapped.

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Only if tRump is a zombie.

I don't think that Trump would be very successful zombie. He hasn't worked a single day of hard labor in his life. I don't think he'd know how to get any live victims to eat their brains. He'd wander into one of his gold plated bathrooms and never come out. Staring at his own image until his brain dead body completely rotted out....

Oh, I don't know snood, he is pretty good at inciting violence, he could delegate other zombies to terrorize the populace while sitting on a zombie throne high up in a city built by the sweat and oppression of the countries' citizens.

There is no evidence that this incident really occurred. It's hearsay. Someone said that someone told him. Someone might just as well claim that Mrs. Clinton told an acquaintance that she worships the devil. It's worthless if it rests solely on an unnamed source, although it's clear that you are happy to repeat it.

Quote Brandon:

Quote:

There is no evidence that this incident really occurred. It's hearsay. Someone said that someone told him. Someone might just as well claim that Mrs. Clinton told an acquaintance that she worships the devil. It's worthless if it rests solely on an unnamed source, although it's clear that you are happy to repeat it.

A newspaper article is not a trial, so going into "hearsay" a legal term, is not even appropriate.. Many, many great exposés have been written based on sources that dare not give their name. To say that such journalistic efforts, which have yielded so much in the way of truth, are to be disregarded is the kind of thing a child would say.

I said he is good at inciting violence, not that his supporters have been committing violence. How quickly you have forgotten the violence against the protestors who had shown up at his rallies and he said he would pay for their legal bills. Not to mention his hint to gun enthusiast to do in Hillary before she gets elected president so she won't elect judges who will take their guns away. Go ahead and tell me how the guy who tells it like it is didn't mean that.

There have been dozens of violent protests outside of Trump rallies including one in Chicago in March so severe that Trump cancelled the rally out of concern that violence might occur.

The fact that there have been good exposés doesn't imply that everything you read is true. Anyone can claim anything. Provide a scrap of evidence that the incident really occurred.

nick picking over the details of Trump's rhetoric

Quote:

There have been dozens of violent protests outside of Trump rallies including one in Chicago in March so severe that Trump cancelled the rally out of concern that violence might occur.

The protest was so violent that people were concerned that violence might actually occur? WTF?

Quote Brandon:

Quote:

The fact that there have been good exposés doesn't imply that everything you read is true. Anyone can claim anything. Provide a scrap of evidence that the incident really occurred.

Well, Brandon, the evidence for discussion is whether the source is generally regarded as reliable, such as the Washington Post or the New York Times. Reporters' job is to bring people the news, and they frequently must promise to the source that they will not reveal their name. Reporters have gone to jail because a trial came up and they quoted a source as saying they saw something illegal, and the judge had the reporter locked up until he revealed the source or until the trial was over.

Of course, such evidence is not enough to send someone to jail at a trial, but for public knowledge, it counts as evidence. To do what you suggest-maintain that for discussion or public knowledge purposes, the level of evidence must be that of a criminal trial and reports from reputable news sources are to be discounted as "hearsay" not fit to bring up in discussion-is to seriously hamstring any rational discussion of any topic.

I don't see any reason to change the rules of discussion to suit your purposes. Frankly, it sounds like you have drunk deep at the fountain of talk radio, where all knowledge must first go through the filter of right wing news sources before they are ready to be distributed to the masses.

Give me a scrap of evidence that the event occurred.

Quote Brandon:

Quote:

Give me a scrap of evidence that the event occurred.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSffjlttTys[/youtube]

Look at the two minute mark approximately. The man being interviewed is former CIA director Hayden.