|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 5, 2018 15:16:45 GMT -5
I’m sure you’ve already heard a lot about the book. I hadn’t really considered getting the book since it’s all over the news and I’m pretty sure I’m hearing all the good stuff. But then yesterday Trump's lawyers issued a cease and desist and the publisher responded by moving the release date up to today. Finding that part irresistible, last night I preordered it on Audible. I’m about two hours into it and I’m glad I got it. If it was less expensive (like 99 cents) I’d order a copy for all the Trump supporters I know. Not that any of them know how to read, but still.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jan 5, 2018 15:48:47 GMT -5
Okay, the last phrase was unnecessary and just make you look small.
Here's hoping this stuff gets the Trumpster impeached or step down.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 5, 2018 15:52:46 GMT -5
Impeachment is a political process. If the Rs lose the House, proceedings will start. If the Rs retain the house, they never will.
That part has less to do with competency than it does with the political divisiveness in our country.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 5, 2018 15:55:42 GMT -5
Impeachment is a political process. If the Rs lose the House, proceedings will start. If the Rs retain the house, they never will. That part has less to do with competency than it does with the political divisiveness in our country. PS - and "Yes" your last statement was unnecessary. It does take away from the effectiveness of your original thread's commentary, by dipping in the bad stuff. Nice to see you back.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 5, 2018 16:06:12 GMT -5
Ok, I’ll take your word for it. I think you’re wrong, both of you. I don’t think the comment makes me look small, I think it’s just that my comments are next to a very big picture.
Then again, I trust your judgement. So I shrank it & put line through it. I didn’t want to erase it altogether or nobody would know what we were talking about. But it’d probably be better if it hadn’t been there in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Jan 5, 2018 16:14:21 GMT -5
I saw a mainsteam media - like MSN home page - announcement about that book go by yestereday. Included were screen shots of the author basically writing " some of this is true and some of this is made up and what I think happened" etc. Thought that was weird.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 5, 2018 16:37:36 GMT -5
Nothing like a little prior-restraint legal threat to demonstrate the president's regard for the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Jan 5, 2018 16:42:32 GMT -5
So the resident is claiming that Bannon is both lying and violating his non-disclosure agreement, apparently not realizing that it's impossible to do both.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 5, 2018 16:46:47 GMT -5
I’m not sure what you saw, but it sounds like you came across some news fakery.
I’ve never heard of Michael Wolff before his new book hit the news. I thought it kind of odd that CNN & MSNBC were prefacing reports with statements like “If true, ...” and “If only 70% or even 30% of this is true, ...” They were definitely being cautious with how they handled the book. I’d add FOX to the list, but I couldn’t seem to catch them reporting on it. When I googled Wolff I found that he has a reputation of conflating second hand accounts with direct quotes and with taking quotes out of context. He doesn’t sound like the kind of guy I’d put a lot of faith in without confirming the info elsewhere, and I’m assuming CNN & MSNBC were taking a similar approach.
On the other hand, Wolff has said he stands behind everything in the book and he has tapes of a lot of the interviews. Also note that Bannon, Ivanka and others are not contesting the quotes attributed to them. And Wolff had libel lawyers ready, anticipating Trump’s threat of a lawsuit.
Trump & the Whitehouse knew there was a book coming. Wolff was given free access because they liked the treatment Wolff had given to Rupert Murdoch. They must’ve thought Wolff was writing a book of real news (supporting Trump), not fake news (anything that doesn’t support Trump).
There’s stuff in this book that is mostly opinion and gossip like Ivanka’s comedic description of her dad’s hair routine, Trump being an idiot, a moron, childlike and unfit for office, as well as the widespread assumption that Trump never expected or wanted to win the election. And then there’s the meatier stuff that Mueller is going to want to talk to Wolff about for legal ramifications like treason, money laundering and obstruction of justice.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Jan 5, 2018 16:53:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 5, 2018 17:18:02 GMT -5
I do love this cartoon:
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jan 5, 2018 17:33:24 GMT -5
I read the author’s bio, he is no Walter Cronkite. Biggest looser looks like Bannon.
I am more interested in Trump’s physical report from Walter Reed this month. I want to know how “the healthiest person to ever hold the office” does it.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jan 5, 2018 17:50:39 GMT -5
I read the author’s bio, he is no Walter Cronkite. Biggest looser looks like Bannon. I am more interested in Trump’s physical report from Walter Reed this month. I want to know how “the healthiest person to ever hold the office” does it. Agreed. Mike
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jan 5, 2018 17:53:44 GMT -5
All I know about the book is what I hear on the news, and the thing that I found most "interesting" is that it was researched, written, edited, and printed in a year and a half. I've done my share of interviews, and I have an idea of how much time and effort goes into an accurate piece based on that kind of material. So even if Wolff has recordings to back up every quotation, report, impression, assertion, and interpretation, there's plenty of room for error, misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and failure-to-think-through in the text.
Which is not to say that the negative impressions of Trump and his crew are wrong--just that Wolff could be making his case with shoddy work.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 5, 2018 19:43:26 GMT -5
From what I read about him he didn't seem like it was something that mattered. Sounds more like a hit piece paid for by someone. And with Trump that someone could be anybody.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 5, 2018 20:07:57 GMT -5
From what I read about him he didn't seem like it was something that mattered. Sounds more like a hit piece paid for by someone. And with Trump that someone could be anybody. You’re on the wrong track.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jan 5, 2018 21:44:23 GMT -5
Though Wolff's journalistic credentials are pretty impressive, I agree that anyone who comes forward with such eye-popping reportage deserves scrutiny as to his methods and predilections going into the project.
Having said that, what he's come up with has a lot of credibility with me for the obvious reason: because it explains so plausibly a lot of the behavior we've seen in Trump ever since his election. And that behavior, and Wolff's book about it, is pretty unnerving. Who knows what such a person who finds himself unexpectedly elected president, with all its powers, is capable of? I honestly doubt he would start a nuclear war just on one of his momentary allegedly childish whims, but, really, who knows?
Of course, Marshall is right about impeachment being a political process. If Democrats take over the House, they will surely impeach Trump. If they come to control the Senate, they might get a conviction.
And then there's the 25th Amendment. Resort to that seemed so far-fetched just a week or two ago. But more and more people, now including those quoted in this book (both by name and others under protection of non-attribution), have come right out and said he is mentally unfit to hold the office.
It still seems unlikely; and nobody can predict the future; but if it happens, we'll all be looking at all this talk about Trump's unfitness as essentially preparing the public for the first coup d'tat in American history - albeit a legal one.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jan 5, 2018 23:22:06 GMT -5
For comparison, this brief mention appeared on page 19 of today's paper. It reads right to left, ends midway in the second row. More of a blurb--not a story or an article:
|
|
|
Post by david on Jan 5, 2018 23:59:12 GMT -5
I do not like Trumpet, his brash, irritating, self-aggrandizing, conceited, self-serving, egotistical manner and his view that if it is good for rich Americans or if it makes money, it is good for the country. I believe him to be shallow, short-sighted and perhaps, mad. If ever there was a stereotypic view of the ugly American, it culminates in Donald Trump.
But there is something lacking here without Aqua to give the opposing viewpoint. Despite Peter's antagonistic manner, I welcome his return to give me insights to matters I have not considered.
Peter, I hope you are well, that you are watching, and that you will return when your suspension is over.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 6, 2018 7:43:50 GMT -5
I don't like Trump but he has one BIG thing going for him. Everyone in DC hates him. The more he screws up DC the better for the country.
|
|