"Fear: Trump in the White House"

[donbb]

2 hours ago, njbuff said:

Who ISN’T writing a book these days?

 

And I might be the only person on this forum who doesn’t read books anyways.

 

 

 

You don't read? No shock there.

[donbb]

 

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, donbb said:

 

 

That neither the publisher, Woodward, nor the Post provided advanced copies to the White House tells you all you need to know about that book's purpose.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That neither the publisher, Woodward, nor the Post provided advanced copies to the White House tells you all you need to know about that book's purpose.

 

Exactly correct.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[outsidethebox]

19 hours ago, donbb said:

 

Of course he doesn't actually believe it. He's a troll.

 

 

Dan Rather????

Ya'll gotta do better than that.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, westside said:

Dan Rather????

Ya'll gotta do better than that.

 

He can't. 

[outsidethebox]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

He can't. 

I wish there was a way to find out who's paying these trolls to post crap.

[Paulus]

On 9/4/2018 at 8:52 AM, ALF said:

Woodward's 448-page book,

 

 Bob Woodward: Trump's aides stole his papers 'to protect the country'

President Donald Trump's closest aides have taken extraordinary measures in the White House to try to stop what they saw as his most dangerous impulses, going so far as to swipe and hide papers from his desk so he wouldn't sign them, according to a new book from legendary journalist Bob Woodward.

 Woodward offers a devastating portrait of a dysfunctional Trump White House, detailing how senior aides — both current and former Trump administration officials — grew exasperated with the President and increasingly worried about his erratic behavior, ignorance and penchant for lying.

 

Chief of staff John Kelly describes Trump as an "idiot" and "unhinged," Woodward reports. Defense Secretary James Mattis describes Trump as having the understanding of "a fifth or sixth grader." And Trump's former personal lawyer John Dowd describes the President as "a !@#$ing liar," telling Trump he would end up in an "orange jump suit" if he testified to special counsel Robert Mueller.

 

"He's an idiot. It's pointless to try to convince him of anything. He's gone off the rails. We're in crazytown," Kelly is quoted as saying at a staff meeting in his office. "I don't even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I've ever had."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/bob-woodward-book-donald-trump-fear/index.html?adkey=bn

How many of these books are out there?

 

Have they effectuated anything? 

 

Most people are happy with the economy, jobs, North Korea, immigration enforcement, and the decimation of ISIS. 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

That neither the publisher, Woodward, nor the Post provided advanced copies to the White House tells you all you need to know about that book's purpose.

Oh yes, I'm sure. 

24 minutes ago, westside said:

Dan Rather????

Ya'll gotta do better than that.

More truthful that Trump, but, who isn't? Maybe John Gotti? 

[njbuff]

5 hours ago, donbb said:

 

You don't read? No shock there.

 

No shock you would say something.

[donbb]

1 hour ago, njbuff said:

 

No shock you would say something.

 

Start with Mother Goose and see if you're at that level yet. If you can handle that book, you might be ready for Humpty Dumpty.

[Deranged Rhino]

Gary: A man with no arguments. Just feels. 

[ALF]

Furious Trump trapped by hundreds of Woodward tapes

 

President Trump is livid at the betrayal and stunning allegations in Bob Woodward’s forthcoming "Fear," but limited in his ability to fight back because most of the interviews were caught on hundreds of hours of tape, officials tell Axios.

 

The big picture: The book, out Tuesday from Simon & Schuster, re-creates — verbatim — page after page of private conversations with him. The 420-page portrait is all the more damaging because many of the scenes concern foreign policy and national security — truly heavy stuff.

 

One reason that few passages are being disputed: Woodward based the book on hundreds of hours of tapes of his interviews with current and former West Wing aides and other top administration officials.

 

Nevertheless, several top officials issued denials:

 

White House chief of staff John Kelly: "The idea I ever called the President an idiot is not true, in fact it's exactly the opposite."

Defense Secretary James Mattis: "The contemptuous words about the President attributed to me in Woodward's book were never uttered by me or in my presence."

 

https://www.axios.com/bob-woodward-fear-book-excerpts-donald-trump-9f7fa27f-7c8b-4f28-bcc1-99fcb22be315.html

[The_Dude]

On 9/4/2018 at 1:07 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

Again, you've been pushing a baseless conspiracy theory for over two years now, so I understand why you confuse fiction with fact. 

 

 

Dude, you’re like the !@#$ing Alex Jones of this board. 

 

 

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

Oh look, yet another example of the President lying about things he's said when there is tape of him saying it.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-mentally-retarded-sessions-1106074

 

Yes, clearly the Pulitzer prize winning journalist who had one of the biggest scoops in the last 100 years of American politics is the one making things up.

3 hours ago, westside said:

I wish there was a way to find out who's paying these trolls to post crap.

Please. Alright people, let's investigate "This week in Astroturfing fantasies"

 

What was last week, crisis actors hired for another mass shooting?

[Deranged Rhino]

8 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Yes, clearly the Pulitzer prize winning journalist who had one of the biggest scoops in the last 100 years of American politics is the one making things up.

 

Yes, clearly two respected generals with decades of service of the highest caliber are not to be trusted when the words of a partisan are printed (without sources). 

 

You're a never ending series of poorly thought out positions, WWiP.  

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Yes, clearly two respected generals with decades of service of the highest caliber are not to be trusted when the words of a partisan are printed (without sources). 

 

You're a never ending series of poorly thought out positions, WWiP.  

Dude, I'm not the QAnon fanboy here. It would appear Irony has no bounds ?

 

My question is this: who am I more likely to believe? The well respected journalist who has hundreds of hours of taped conversations to use as transcripts, or former generals/politician aides who have their jobs at stake if they don't form some kind of denial? Especially when the political aides have seen ample evidence of their employer's base simply ignoring facts about things caught on tape.

 

Simply put, if it is really wrong, have them put their money where their mouth is: sue for libel. I highly doubt they will.

[IDBillzFan]

10 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Oh look, yet another example of the President lying about things he's said when there is tape of him saying it.

 

Okay, so now the new outrage is Trump lying about someone taping him again?

 

Help me out here. Where does this outrage fit with the Russia collusion outrage? Or is that not an outrage anymore?

 

Where does it fit with Stormy Daniels outrage? Or the Omarosa outrage? Or the draft dodger outrage? Or the LeBron outrage? Or the Kanye outrage?

 

Can't you nuts just pick an outrage already?  You're like a bunch of squirrels, for crying out loud.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Dude, I'm not the QAnon fanboy here. It would appear Irony has no bounds 

 

Yes. That's all I've brought to this board over the past two + years. Like I said, you're a never ending loop of poorly thought out positions. 

 

1 minute ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

My question is this: who am I more likely to believe?

 

You're a self described partisan. You've admitted that. So you'll believe whichever story runs closest to your political leanings. That's not being intellectually honest, that's falling for confirmation bias. And you do it over, and over, and over again. I don't think you're stupid, I just think you're sorely lacking in honest perspective. 

 

2 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

The well respected journalist who has hundreds of hours of taped conversations to use as transcripts, or former generals/politician aides who have their jobs at stake if they don't form some kind of denial?

 

You just proved my point above. Most people would trust the words of generals who have spent their careers not being partisan warriors, unlike Woodward who's a proud partisan with a byline. You are choosing to believe the story that best conforms to your preformed conclusions. You don't like Trump. That's fine, and your right. But let's not act as if you've ever demonstrated a lick of objectivity on any subject down here in the past two years... 

 

4 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Especially when the political aides have seen ample evidence of their employer's base simply ignoring facts about things caught on tape.

 

Tapes that no one has heard, have not been released, and may or may not even exist. 

 

Again, your desire to WANT the story to be true is showing through. You're driven by emotion, not reason or logic on this subject because you KNOW Trump is evil. 

 

5 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Simply put, if it is really wrong, have them put their money where their mouth is: sue for libel. I highly doubt they will.

 

Libel laws are different for politicians and political appointees. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/why-trump-won-t-sue-stop-wolff-bannon-or-tell-n834961

 

So you're now stating the only evidence that the book is wrong you'll accept is something that is beyond the realm of legal reality. Again, that's not objective. That's just silly. 

[Chimp]

On 9/4/2018 at 3:03 PM, DC Tom said:

 

And you're an idiot.  

I think you're my hero.

[DC Tom]

29 minutes ago, Chimp said:

I think you're my hero.

 

Am I the wind beneath your wings?

[Chimp]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Am I the wind beneath your wings?

That's still up in the air.

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

1 hour ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Okay, so now the new outrage is Trump lying about someone taping him again?

 

Help me out here. Where does this outrage fit with the Russia collusion outrage? Or is that not an outrage anymore?

 

Where does it fit with Stormy Daniels outrage? Or the Omarosa outrage? Or the draft dodger outrage? Or the LeBron outrage? Or the Kanye outrage?

 

Can't you nuts just pick an outrage already?  You're like a bunch of squirrels, for crying out loud.

It's over something so petty that it's not what I call outrage. It's more "sadly shaking head and laughing"

 

I mean, Trump long proved that he wasn't trustworthy enough to watch a bent nickel never mind the presidency. There was his consistent pattern of ripping off contractors, claiming Muslims in NJ danced over the Twin Towers falling and then doubling down on it when it was debunked. There was him mocking a reporter that he had known for years on a name basis, in front of a camera and then lying about knowing the guy and that he was mocking him. There was him admitting that he doesn't pay taxes in a debate. There has been is ever changing story about the meeting his son took in Trump tower, from it being about adoptions, to  a business opportunity until he finally admitted that his son went to the meeting to get foreign intel about his political opponent.

 

This just makes me laughingly ask "What kind of idiot believes a word out of his mouth? What moronic rube can actually try to defend the level of his lying, which seems to border on pathological? How gullible can a person be?"

 

And then I come on here and get my answer.

[Coach Tuesday]

Are the ostriches and lunatics still defending this President?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

1 minute ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

It's over something so petty that it's not what I call outrage. It's more "sadly shaking head and laughing"

 

I mean, Trump long proved that he wasn't trustworthy enough to watch a bent nickel never mind the presidency. There was his consistent pattern of ripping off contractors, claiming Muslims in NJ danced over the Twin Towers falling and then doubling down on it when it was debunked. There was him mocking a reporter that he had known for years on a name basis, in front of a camera and then lying about knowing the guy and that he was mocking him. There was him admitting that he doesn't pay taxes in a debate. There has been is ever changing story about the meeting his son took in Trump tower, from it being about adoptions, to  a business opportunity until he finally admitted that his son went to the meeting to get foreign intel about his political opponent.

 

This just makes me laughingly ask "What kind of idiot believes a word out of his mouth? What moronic rube can actually try to defend the level of his lying, which seems to border on pathological? How gullible can a person be?"

 

And then I come on here and get my answer.

 

The stupid lies Trump tells don't affect policy as far as I can tell. They're just stupid lies. I hate the stuff, but that bull isn't going back in the barn any time soon.

 

One could easily argue people stopped caring about presidents lying once it was used to pass Obamacare, and blow off the death of Marines and a UN Ambassador.

 

One could easily argue that after eight years of lies that found our health insurance options completely aborted and people dead at embassies, lying about whether you know a reporter or not is small potatoes.

 

And before you get crunchy, I'm not saying Obama did it, so it's okay for Trump to do. I'm saying if you're going to get to a point where you don't trust a lying president, you should have spoken up 10 years ago, when the lies were more harmful.

Just now, Coach Tuesday said:

Are the ostriches and lunatics still defending this President?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

 

 

 

Are you still running over to PPP because you saw something on Facebook  you had to share over here before you run away without discussing what you posted?

 

Even gator/tibs stays around, and they make you look like an intellectual.

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Are the ostriches and lunatics still defending this President?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

 

 

 

That is what "Deep State" refers to: the belief by the civil service that they are the true representatives of the will of the country.

[Deranged Rhino]

18 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Are the ostriches and lunatics still defending this President?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

 

 

 

Hi. Have you given this a read yet, like you said you would months ago? Are you ready to discuss it and the implications it has on the entire story? Or... nah? 

 

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

[Jauronimo]

16 hours ago, donbb said:

 

You don't read? No shock there.

Have you seen how long books are these days?  And its all text, no pictures.  Ain't nobody got time for that.

[LaDexter]

The WaPo.

 

The NYT

 

CNN

 

 

If anyone is still confused, here it is in simple English....

 

 

The ISRAEL LOBBY wants Trump OUT ASAP....

[njbuff]

1 hour ago, LaDexter said:

The WaPo.

 

The NYT

 

CNN

 

 

If anyone is still confused, here it is in simple English....

 

 

The ISRAEL LOBBY wants Trump OUT ASAP....

 

Only their braindead sheep followers listen to their garbage.

 

Unfortunately, it is way too many people that believe their useless, but harmful, rhetoric.

[LaDexter]

They do nothing but harm the US, whether it be lies about Global Warming, terror, or Obama's "family..."

[TheElectricCompany]

23 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

And then I come on here and get my answer.

 

It's amazing, isn't it?  

The clown show goes on! 

[ALF]

But the key question here, which it appears no one in the public knows the answer to yet, is with WHOM does Woodward have recordings?

 

Based on the Post’s description of Woodward’s sourcing, it seems very possible that large portions of his quotations come not from the source directly, but from someone else who supposedly witnessed the statement being made.

 

This is a distinction that is extremely critical to understanding the credibility of what is in the book. Getting quotes second-hand is inherently unreliable not just because humans are really bad at remembering exactly what people said

 

https://www.mediaite.com/print/unless-bob-woodward-releases-tapes-proving-his-book-is-real-fear-will-actually-help-trump/

[Nanker]

 

 

 

 

[TH3]

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 1:07 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

Not when the subject of the story, Kelly, denies its reality. 

 

Again, you've been pushing a baseless conspiracy theory for over two years now, so I understand why you confuse fiction with fact. 

Says the guy who was pushing the notion that Ellen DeGeneres was conspiring with the "Deep State"

LOL

[TakeYouToTasker]

48 minutes ago, ALF said:

But the key question here, which it appears no one in the public knows the answer to yet, is with WHOM does Woodward have recordings?

 

Based on the Post’s description of Woodward’s sourcing, it seems very possible that large portions of his quotations come not from the source directly, but from someone else who supposedly witnessed the statement being made.

 

This is a distinction that is extremely critical to understanding the credibility of what is in the book. Getting quotes second-hand is inherently unreliable not just because humans are really bad at remembering exactly what people said

 

https://www.mediaite.com/print/unless-bob-woodward-releases-tapes-proving-his-book-is-real-fear-will-actually-help-trump/

 

When left leaning outlets are coming to terms with this, it's not a good look for Woodward, and those advancing his fiction as justification for President Trump's removal, and speaks, once again, to the existence of a very real deep state.

[B-Man]

Now.....................we wouldn't want to doubt Bob, would we ?

 

 

REMINDER:

 

BOB WOODWARD: Bush Didn’t Lie About WMD, And Obama Sure Screwed Up Iraq In 2011.

[Y]ou certainly can make a persuasive argument it was a mistake. But there is a time that line going along that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. And lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD. And he was the one who was skeptical. And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two. And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months. And so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lying in this that I could find.

Plus:

Woodward was also asked if it was a mistake to withdraw in 2011. Wallace points out that Obama has said that he tried to negotiate a status of forces agreement but did not succeed, but “A lot of people think he really didn’t want to keep any troops there.” Woodward agrees that Obama didn’t want to keep troops there and elaborates:

Look, Obama does not like war. But as you look back on this, the argument from the military was, let’s keep 10,000, 15,000 troops there as an insurance policy. And we all know insurance policies make sense. We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still 65 years or so after the war. When you are a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies. And he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision, but clearly a factor.

[BeginnersMind]

About 50% of the way through the book. I doubt most here will read it, but I don't think it paints Trump in a particularly bad light. Working through it, I actually like the guy and he makes me laugh out loud a lot. Summarizing one anecdote between Trump, and I believe David Bossie (and others): 

 

Bossie: "One of the obstacles to you getting elected is that you don't vote in every election."

Trump: "I vote in every election."

Bossie: "You have voted in one primary election in your life, in 1988." 

Trump: "That's a lie."

Bossie: "There are records."

Trump: "Yeah, that was for Rudy. They keep records?"

Bossie: "Yes, just of your attendance to vote." 

Trump: "OK. We can overcome that." 

 

I imagine that's how Trump approaches the world. 

Step 1: My way is right.

Step 2: When Step 1 is incorrect, Step 1 is still correct.

Step 3: When Step 2 is incorrect and cannot be denied, punch someone, anyone.

 

Woodward paints Bannon in a flattering light (from my perspective). Woodward also continues to malign Obama's leadership, just like he did in the Obama books he wrote. 

 

There's nothing revelatory, but it is a fun read. The title of "Fear" was smart to draw the crazy left readers, but a more appropriate title might have been "Chaos." I don't see much evidence of "Fear" anywhere in the book. 

 

I am not afraid of Trump after reading it, not that I ever was. He is deeply invested in peace, oddly obsessed with dictators, a bit obsessed about the"look" of certain people, amoral, impulsive, funny in his bombastic way, is anti-free trade like a caveman despite almost everyone but Navarro trying to convince him otherwise, and clearly aware that his "team" walks his worst instincts back. He may not always know what is being walked back, but he knows it happens. He also believes that he can get anything he wants done. 

 

Enjoyable read.  

 

On 9/11/2018 at 10:54 AM, B-Man said:

Now.....................we wouldn't want to doubt Bob, would we ?

 

REMINDER:

 

BOB WOODWARD: Bush Didn’t Lie About WMD, And Obama Sure Screwed Up Iraq In 2011.

 

1

1

 

Woodward was not an Obama fan and seemed to prefer both Bushes. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by BeginnersMind

[The_Dude]

On 9/6/2018 at 2:56 PM, LaDexter said:

The WaPo.

 

The NYT

 

CNN

 

 

If anyone is still confused, here it is in simple English....

 

 

The ISRAEL LOBBY wants Trump OUT ASAP....

 

You are undoubtedly the WORST antisemite I’ve come across. Not in that you’re incorrigible, but in that you’re just bad at it. You suck at jew hating. 

 

Why would the Jews want Trump out of office when he had been all too happy to comply with recognizing Jerusalem as their capital?