"Fear: Trump in the White House"

[Foxx]

15 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

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? 

 

for one thing, they stand to gain more by having it not recognized. once the struggle is done.... then what?

[gatorbait]

Woodward has chronicled every presidency since the early 70’s and has written 18 books. To say he is a partisan hack or is out to get Trump is ridiculous. After dozens and dozens of interviews he wrote what he found and calls it like he sees it. I swear, if Trump and his followers would stop whining all the time and focused more on furthering his agenda and accomplishments, everyone would be better off. Trump’s insecurity and Twitter diarrhea is tarnishing his surprisingly successful presidency. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

24 minutes ago, gatorbait said:

Woodward has chronicled every presidency since the early 70’s and has written 18 books. To say he is a partisan hack or is out to get Trump is ridiculous. After dozens and dozens of interviews he wrote what he found and calls it like he sees it. I swear, if Trump and his followers would stop whining all the time and focused more on furthering his agenda and accomplishments, everyone would be better off. Trump’s insecurity and Twitter diarrhea is tarnishing his surprisingly successful presidency. 

 

Woodward started as an investigative journalist, but has become little more than a court historian in an environment where direct access to the powerful (and all the trimming it affords) has replaced actual digging for hard stories in order to speak truth to power.

 

Woodward has, over time, become absorbed into the machine that he once fought against; and the President has attacked that machine.

 

Woodward is being deployed against the President, as such, because he is a useful tool to propagandize those who haven't yet come to realize that this isn't about party affiliation.

 

It is about a President, the first of your lifetime and mine, who isn't a Washington insider, but rather is hostile towards them; and is attempting to tear down the corruption, and in some cases abject evil, which runs rampant amongst the government elite and to those they have given access as members of their royal court.

 

 

[4merper4mer]

33 minutes ago, gatorbait said:

Woodward has chronicled every presidency since the early 70’s and has written 18 books. To say he is a partisan hack or is out to get Trump is ridiculous. After dozens and dozens of interviews he wrote what he found and calls it like he sees it. I swear, if Trump and his followers would stop whining all the time and focused more on furthering his agenda and accomplishments, everyone would be better off. Trump’s insecurity and Twitter diarrhea is tarnishing his surprisingly successful presidency. 

He is a hippy.

[gatorbait]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Woodward started as an investigative journalist, but has become little more than a court historian in an environment where direct access to the powerful (and all the trimming it affords) has replaced actual digging for hard stories in order to speak truth to power.

 

Woodward has, over time, become absorbed into the machine that he once fought against; and the President has attacked that machine.

 

Woodward is being deployed against the President, as such, because he is a useful tool to propagandize those who haven't yet come to realize that this isn't about party affiliation.

 

It is about a President, the first of your lifetime and mine, who isn't a Washington insider, but rather is hostile towards them; and is attempting to tear down the corruption, and in some cases abject evil, which runs rampant amongst the government elite and to those they have given access as members of their royal court.

 

 

With all due respect I think you are exaggerating things. No one deployed him because he does this for a living. He interviewed people and wrote about what they said. Does it really need to be any more complicated than that? Was he conspiring with the Deep State when he wrote damaging things about other presidents?

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, gatorbait said:

With all due respect I think you are exaggerating things. No one deployed him because he does this for a living. He interviewed people and wrote about what they said. Does it really need to be any more complicated than that? Was he conspiring with the Deep State when he wrote damaging things about other presidents?

 

Look at the timing of the release, coordinated with the NY Times piece, against the backdrop of the Kavanaugh hearings and the upcoming midterm elections.

 

High level politics, conducted by the people who enrich themselves by setting global policy generation after generation, is not a coincidence.

 

Combine that with the fact that none of his sources are first hand, but rather are second and third hand; atypical of hard hitting investigative journalism and... well...

[DC Tom]

7 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Look at the timing of the release, coordinated with the NY Times piece, against the backdrop of the Kavanaugh hearings and the upcoming midterm elections.

 

High level politics, conducted by the people who enrich themselves by setting global policy generation after generation, is not a coincidence.

 

Combine that with the fact that none of his sources are first hand, but rather are second and third hand; atypical of hard hitting investigative journalism and... well...

 

And look at how the White House wasn't provided an advance copy.  Which I think is nearly unheard of.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

And look at how the White House wasn't provided an advance copy.  Which I think is nearly unheard of.

 

Correct.

[gatorbait]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Look at the timing of the release, coordinated with the NY Times piece, against the backdrop of the Kavanaugh hearings and the upcoming midterm elections.

 

High level politics, conducted by the people who enrich themselves by setting global policy generation after generation, is not a coincidence.

 

Combine that with the fact that none of his sources are first hand, but rather are second and third hand; atypical of hard hitting investigative journalism and... well...

You’re connecting things without direct evidence they are related. Actually, he did interview people directly (first hand), with the agreement he wouldn’t name names. Those same people deny it publicly and admit it privately, which is the smart thing to do with a petty and vindictive boss. His journalism has never been questioned until now, by Trump and his supporters. Go figure.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, gatorbait said:

You’re connecting things without direct evidence they are related. Actually, he did interview people directly (first hand), with the agreement he wouldn’t name names. Those same people deny it publicly and admit it privately, which is the smart thing to do with a petty and vindictive boss. His journalism has never been questioned until now, by Trump and his supporters. Go figure.

 

When using anonymous sources, what is it customary for truth seeking journalists to do in order to validate their work?

 

And, as Tom has pointed out, why did Woodward buck the norms of getting an advance copy to the White House?

Edited September 12, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[gatorbait]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

When using anonymous sources, what is it customary for truth seeking journalists to do in order to validate their work?

 

And, as Tom has pointed out, why did Woodward buck the norms of getting an advance copy to the White House?

 Surely you understand if a reporter outs his source by name he loses that source, right? I wish every article had to list names but that isn’t how journalism works. People lose and gain credibility over time by the accuracy of what they write. Woodward gained cred over four decades of political writing and it’s disingenuous to cast his writing aside because he shines a light on the craziness in the White House. The generals look past Trump’s deficiencies for the greater good of this country, but don’t think for a second they aren’t critical of the way he conducts himself both publicly and privately. And are we really worried about norms and customs all of a sudden? This administration does not follow that mantra, and norms and customs went out the window in 2016. I don’t know why they didn’t send a copy to the White House and neither does anyone here. You’re telling me the most powerful person in the world couldn’t obtain a copy of a book if he wanted it?

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

And, as Tom has pointed out, why did Woodward buck the norms of getting an advance copy to the White House?

 

Note that "Because Trump can't read" is not an acceptable answer, since somebody in the White House must be able to...

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Note that "Because Trump can't read" is not an acceptable answer, since somebody in the White House must be able to...

 

LOL

 

In this instance it doesn't matter.

 

The person, a poster whom I have found in the past to be able to see past his biases, isn't ready to see past his biases on this issue.

 

Im hopeful he'll get there though.

[BeginnersMind]

17 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Woodward started as an investigative journalist, but has become little more than a court historian in an environment where direct access to the powerful (and all the trimming it affords) has replaced actual digging for hard stories in order to speak truth to power.

 

Woodward has, over time, become absorbed into the machine that he once fought against; and the President has attacked that machine.

 

Woodward is being deployed against the President, as such, because he is a useful tool to propagandize those who haven't yet come to realize that this isn't about party affiliation.

 

It is about a President, the first of your lifetime and mine, who isn't a Washington insider, but rather is hostile towards them; and is attempting to tear down the corruption, and in some cases abject evil, which runs rampant amongst the government elite and to those they have given access as members of their royal court.

 

 

 

What did you think of his books attacking Obama?

 

I read the book, as I noted. Nothing in it seemed revelatory. It's a fun read and does a good job showing off Trump as a sometimes pretty effective, if wildly chaotic, leader.  His portrayals of Obama were of a thin skinned and ineffective leader. 

 

Out of curiousity, did you read the book?

Edited September 13, 2018 by BeginnersMind

[4merper4mer]

12 hours ago, gatorbait said:

With all due respect I think you are exaggerating things. No one deployed him because he does this for a living. He interviewed people and wrote about what they said. Does it really need to be any more complicated than that? Was he conspiring with the Deep State when he wrote damaging things about other presidents?

He spins everything he writes towards Flower Power maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.  Because he is a hippy.

[Nanker]

Woodward is a pigeon that frequents Upper Senate Park and others in the area. He is gratuitously fed popcorn and millet by men in trench coats that frequent those places. He’s been doing that for decades. It’s why he’s so fat. He spreads their messages with every poop.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1040226880450973697

[Thurmal34]

Don Trump or Bob Woodward - Who’s track record speaks for itself? Who has a history of lying? Who has a history of solid reporting on now eight presidents? 

 

I guess Woodward said “!@#$ it” and decided to straight up lie only about this guy. Makes sense. 

 

The rush to discredit one of the most thorough and complete journalists of our time speaks volumes by the people doing the rushing. Trip over yourselves. 

 

History is a cruel mistress. 

 

 

 

[4merper4mer]

34 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said:

Don Trump or Bob Woodward - Who’s track record speaks for itself? Who has a history of lying? Who has a history of solid reporting on now eight presidents? 

 

I guess Woodward said “!@#$ it” and decided to straight up lie only about this guy. Makes sense. 

 

The rush to discredit one of the most thorough and complete journalists of our time speaks volumes by the people doing the rushing. Trip over yourselves. 

 

History is a cruel mistress. 

 

 

 

He's a hippy.

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Thurmal34 said:

Don Trump or Bob Woodward - Who’s track record speaks for itself? Who has a history of lying? Who has a history of solid reporting on now eight presidents? 

 

I guess Woodward said “!@#$ it” and decided to straight up lie only about this guy. Makes sense. 

 

The rush to discredit one of the most thorough and complete journalists of our time speaks volumes by the people doing the rushing. Trip over yourselves. 

 

History is a cruel mistress. 

 

 

 

Did he "source" any of stories or was it just more "he said that he said"?

[/dev/null]

24 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Did he "source" any of stories or was it just more "he said that he said"?

 

Somebody that Woodward may or may not know may or may not have passed a note from a source that may or may not be reliable in regards to an incident that may or may not have happened.

 

The only responsible action would be to publish that information which may or may not be credible

Edited September 15, 2018 by /dev/null

[B-Man]

12 hours ago, Thurmal34 said:

Don Trump or Bob Woodward - Who’s track record speaks for itself? Who has a history of lying? Who has a history of solid reporting on now eight presidents? 

 

I guess Woodward said “!@#$ it” and decided to straight up lie only about this guy. Makes sense. 

 

The rush to discredit one of the most thorough and complete journalists of our time speaks volumes by the people doing the rushing. Trip over yourselves. 

 

History is a cruel mistress. 

 

 

OKAY, THEN

 

Woodward: No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion, I Searched For Two Years  by Ian Schwartz

Original Article

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Friday, Bob Woodward said that in his two years of investigating for his new book, ´Fear,´ he found no evidence of collusion or espionage between Trump and Russia. Woodward said he looked for it "hard" and yet turned up nothing.

[3rdnlng]

8 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

OKAY, THEN

 

Woodward: No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion, I Searched For Two Years  by Ian Schwartz

Original Article

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Friday, Bob Woodward said that in his two years of investigating for his new book, ´Fear,´ he found no evidence of collusion or espionage between Trump and Russia. Woodward said he looked for it "hard" and yet turned up nothing.

That's just further proof that there was collusion. They found nothing. It's like when fingerprints are wiped clean it is a cause for suspicion.