A new book from a respected writer who has written about each of the presidents since Nixon.
Probably will start a massive Twitter storm.
Some excerpts are available online.
Maybe Trump will make it classified.

Saw some of the quotes on the CNN news feed from Kelly, those alone will make Trump crazy, like the reported quote from Kelly saying they are living in crazy town.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Mattis stealing papers off Trump's desk so he couldn't sign them in the name of national security :hihi:

Mattis- “explaining things to trump is like taking to a 6th grader”.

But he’s making Murika great again !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Supporters will dismiss it, claiming it is clearly someone trying to sell a book using fake news and until Kelly and others are out of this administration; they won’t comment. When you read some of the quotes and stories, it explains the crazy juvenile rhetoric we have heard from Trump. As an independent, I never liked either choice, but I never expected it to get this crazy and frankly a bit scary when you read some of those stories.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He has shared in two Pulitzer Prizes, But But But he's lying to sell a book at 75 years old Ok sure he is

This is funny. What counts is not that the country is doing very well, not that stupid trade and international agreements are being renegotiated, not that NATO countries are going to contribute more money for their own protection, not that strong constitutional federal judges are being appointed, not that immigration is being more aggressively dealt with than before . . . but what counts is that another negative book about Trump has been published. And that some will not choose to discuss it.

Of course, some will cheer and revel in another revelation that Trump is a bad man.

This is funny.
It's sad.

What counts is not that the country is doing very well,
Country was already doing very well.

not that stupid trade and international agreements are being renegotiated,
Even the WSJ blasted the MX plan as political and lacking in any economic thought. If the trade agreements were so bad before how did the country end up doing very well today?

not that NATO countries are going to contribute more money for their own protection,
This just isn't true. NATO members reaffirmed their existing commitments. Fail...

not that strong constitutional federal judges are being appointed,
Legislation from the bench.

not that immigration is being more aggressively dealt with than before . . .
Actually we're wasting money to deport immigrants that are contributing to our country and damaging kids and families just to look tough for the base. It's revolting.

but what counts is that another negative book about Trump has been published. And that some will not choose to discuss it.

Of course, some will cheer and revel in another revelation that Trump is a bad man.
It's another marker that this is a deeply flawed administration and the lack of Congressional oversight is evidence our government isn't working very well right now.

It's sad.

It's funny that some are giddy over this sad book.

Country was already doing very well.

It's doing better now.

Even the WSJ blasted the MX plan as political and lacking in any economic thought. If the trade agreements were so bad before how did the country end up doing very well today?

Tax cuts and cuts in regulations made it better, and it will be even better with new trade agreements. Wall Street Journal blasted the sluggish previous economy. WSJ blasts a lot of things. Then it changes its mind. And goes back the other way. Depends on the spin factor, the mood, whose ox is being gored, and who the writer is. But it's always right . . . when you agree with it.

This just isn't true. NATO members reaffirmed their existing commitments. Fail...

Well they could renege (not unusual)--Stoltenberg (Secretary General of NATO) said that NATO "made conclusions at this summit which confirms our support for NATO, the importance of investing more and all our allies agreed that we need to deliver on our commitments. There is a new sense of urgency. And all allies agreed to redouble their efforts.”

Stoltenberg noted a change from previous commitments “Initiated by President Trump, last year, we agreed to develop national plans. We have clearly stated this year that we need credible national plans, and I expect all allies to follow up on their national plans. And the national plans are a very valuable tool to make sure that we deliver, and that we increase defense spending substantially.”

From CNN: "While other US Presidents have complained that other NATO members have not paid their fair share, Trump has made boosting allied defense spending a central plank of his engagement with the transatlantic alliance.

But now for the first time in years, a sixth country, Romania, has joined the ranks of NATO members who spend 2% of their country's GDP on defense. Romania now joins the US, Greece, the UK, Estonia and Poland in meeting that NATO defense spending target.

Canada pledges big boost to defense spending amid criticism
Several other countries have also made major jumps in defense spending, with Latvia and Lithuania now projected to increase what they spend from about 1.4% of GDP in 2016 to over 1.7% in 2017. Both Baltic nations are expected to reach the 2% target by 2018 . . .

Experts see concerns about Russia as the principle driving factor behind increasing defense budgets. The allies unanimously pledged to meet the 2% target by 2024 at the NATO summit in Wales in 2014 shortly after Russia's military invasion of Crimea.

But NATO officials have also credited Trump with drawing attention to the issue. "I welcome the focus of the President on increased defense spending" Stollenberg said at a news conference."


Legislation from the bench.

There will be less of that now.

Actually we're wasting money to deport immigrants that are contributing to our country and damaging kids and families just to look tough for the base. It's revolting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=JcZfjIS9HgI

It's another marker that this is a deeply flawed administration and the lack of Congressional oversight is evidence our government isn't working very well right now.

Spin, spin, spin . . .

Pete
Why don’t you read Tucker Carlson’s book Ship of Fools instead. It might open your eyes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch,
With all due respect from someone who voted against HRC; this President does or says something every day that gives me pause..... His administration has been a revolving door, with many heading into federal indictments. Those standing by are doing so for sake of country so as to not leave the station unmanned. I don't know that many foreign leaders are willing to align with him, nevermind sign a coerced trade agreement with him. His assessment of Korean military mass is based on nothing more than dollars he wants to move around to support his pet project of the moment. I seriously doubt you would find a senior military official willing to give him his full vote of confidence. I personally have no confidence in his international relations and believe he is being played for a fool by both Putin and Kim. His narcissism does not sit well with me.


So in my view, without even addressing so many issues within our borders, the country is not doing as well as you make it out to be. The stock market is not a true barometer, unless you are a one percenter. No one is perfect. I hope that you can attempt to consider some of the questioning put forward by some who are not politically motivated to anything other than what is good for Americans...

detbuch,
With all due respect from someone who voted against HRC; this President does or says something every day that gives me pause..... His administration has been a revolving door, with many heading into federal indictments. Those standing by are doing so for sake of country so as to not leave the station unmanned. I don't know that many foreign leaders are willing to align with him, nevermind sign a coerced trade agreement with him. His assessment of Korean military mass is based on nothing more than dollars he wants to move around to support his pet project of the moment. I seriously doubt you would find a senior military official willing to give him his full vote of confidence. I personally have no confidence in his international relations and believe he is being played for a fool by both Putin and Kim. His narcissism does not sit well with me.


So in my view, without even addressing so many issues within our borders, the country is not doing as well as you make it out to be. The stock market is not a true barometer, unless you are a one percenter. No one is perfect. I hope that you can attempt to consider some of the questioning put forward by some who are not politically motivated to anything other than what is good for Americans...

I just can't get stirred to fearing what Trump says. I don't particularly care about most of the things he says. And the constant framing by leftist and establishment types of what he says as being racist, sexist, etc., etc. annoys me even more than Trump's tweets. What little sense I can make of most of what he says is that, in his own ineloquent way, he is doing what other Presidents, or politicians, have done. Albeit they did it with elegant political speech (well worded, correct, persuasive, bullchit), or propaganda, used to move public opinion in their direction.

He doesn't seem to be a war hawk. His policies, economic and strategic, are more detrimental to Putin than were the policies of his predecessor. But, like the dealer he thinks he is, he is trying to persuade China, Russia, and NK to be partners in world prosperity rather than enemies. Who knows if he can succeed? It's a tall order. It takes a big ego to believe and try.

He is less intrusive into the personal lives of Americans than those who oppose him. He is nominating the kind of judges that this Republic needs if it is to survive as a Republic.

You have expressed, very well, a lot of opinions. But, like most objections to Trump, they are just opinions. If we are to believe what some other military leaders have stated, they are willing to give him more of a vote of confidence than they would have given to Obama, or to Bush. And I am not an admirer of the socialist West European leaders. They have aligned with Americans who believe in free trade without US tariffs while Europeans impose tariffs and make it harder to sell American manufactured goods in their countries at the same time they have open access to the American market. And they align with American leaders who will spend billions more to defend them than they do. In my opinion, they don't give a rats azz about America except as a cash cow and a bully protector. They respect our power, but not our people and our culture (lack of it according the them). Many of the average West Europeans, on the other hand, feel differently, more affectionately toward us, than their leaders do. I am more aligned with East European leaders who look to America and its traditional values rather than to their West European neighbors with their Progressive lack of historic or national values. There is a rise throughout Europe, even in Western Europe, of "conservatism." And those impelling this rise favor Trump more than the mainstream media will tell you.

Like you, I don't think the stock market is a true barometer. It has become too disconnected from the actual market to mean much anymore. The notion of selling stocks in a nascent business in order to supply it start up cash has been transformed into those stocks becoming actual commodities themselves. They can be bought and sold separately for profit rather than for investment in a company. Hence the huge disconnect with the extravagant rise in stock prices during an essentially stagnant business market in the previous decade. I cringe whenever Trump takes credit for rising stock prices. But that's what politicians do. Take credit for the ups and blame others for the downs. Making Trump out to be singularly guilty of that syndrome is denying that he is now a politician. In some sense, that is the idea. He is different. He is not rightly suited for the job. Sort of like Reagan was just an actor, a kind of stupid one. Trump is just a sleazy Real estate mogul loaded with all the corruptions that such folks are full of.

I don't care about all that stuff. I care about restoring our constitutional system of federated government. About reinvigorating the energy and power of the states and of the American people. Trump is just a stepping stone in that direction. All I deeply cared about in the 2016 election was getting a Congress that appointed the kind of judges that would reverse Progressive "interpretation" of the Constitution. Still some work to be done there. But there is, obviously, a frantic attempt by the Progressive left to derail that train.

It is the essence of that battle that is not being paid attention. It is not an advantage for the left to focus on that. It would either be a destruction of the Progressive agenda to have a vigorous, in depth, argument about that, or if the left won, it would be the fundamental transformation Progressives have worked for these past several decades--switching the American ideal of individual freedom into the Marxist ideal of collective power.

So, what must be given constant, impelling and persuasive attention, by the Progressive left, is Donald Trump. His reputed corruptive and dangerous personality, even though a constitutional President would not have the power to destroy a country by force of personal character. But Progressives think a President with an administrative state should have that power. And their attempt to bring this President down gives credence to the notion that a President somehow does have the power they want a President to have.

First you make the idea acceptable, believable, de facto true, then you codify it into law.

Supporters will dismiss it, claiming it is clearly someone trying to sell a book using fake news and until Kelly and others are out of this administration; they won’t comment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


they aren't waiting to comment....



The book quotes Kelly as having doubts about Trump’s mental faculties, declaring during one meeting, “We’re in Crazytown.” It also says he called Trump an “idiot,” an account Kelly denied Tuesday.


“Don’t testify. It’s either that or an orange jumpsuit,” Dowd is quoted telling the president.

Dowd, in a statement Tuesday, said “no so-called ‘practice session’ or ‘re-enactment’” took place and denied saying Trump was likely to end up in an orange jumpsuit.

Mattis is quoted explaining to Trump why the U.S. maintains troops on the Korean Peninsula to monitor North Korea’s missile activities. “We’re doing this in order to prevent World War III,” Mattis said, according to the book.

The book recounts that Mattis told “close associates that the president acted like — and had the understanding of — ‘a fifth- or sixth-grader.’”

Mattis said in a statement, “The contemptuous words about the President attributed to me in Woodward’s book were never uttered by me or in my presence.”

A Pentagon spokesman, Col. Rob Manning, said Mattis was never interviewed by Woodward.

“Mr. Woodward never discussed or verified the alleged quotes included in his book with Secretary Mattis” or anyone within the Defense Department, Manning said.

Woodward reported that after Syria’s Bashar Assad launched a chemical weapons attack on civilians in April 2017, Trump called Mattis and said he wanted the Syrian leader taken out, saying: “Kill him! Let’s go in.” Mattis assured Trump he would get right on it but then told a senior aide they’d do nothing of the kind, Woodward wrote. National security advisers instead developed options for the airstrike that Trump ultimately ordered.

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley denied Tuesday that Trump had ever planned to assassinate Assad. She told reporters at U.N. headquarters that she had been privy to conversations about the Syrian chemical weapons attacks, “and I have not once ever heard the president talk about assassinating Assad.”

She said people should take what is written in books about the president with “a grain of salt.”

This is funny. What counts is not that the country is doing very well, not that stupid trade and international agreements are being renegotiated, not that NATO countries are going to contribute more money for their own protection, not that strong constitutional federal judges are being appointed, not that immigration is being more aggressively dealt with than before . . . but what counts is that another negative book about Trump has been published. And that some will not choose to discuss it.

Of course, some will cheer and revel in another revelation that Trump is a bad man.

most successful sixth grader ever....

.....:faga::faga::faga::faga::faga::faga::faga:

.....:faga::faga::faga::faga::faga::faga::faga:

wasn't he saying that the media so adored obama that he/his white house could "get away" with attacking woodward?....anyone else would be pillaried by the media for attacking such an esteemed member...as trump and his whitehouse will be if they attack woodward and his credibility

Interesting events - have not decided whether or not to get it.

That Mattis and Kelly state they did not say those things. I'd tend to believe them. We do have a Narcissistic in the WH, though. Seems to becoming a trend.


The bits on the "Nervous Breakdown" might be true? Sure as hell will sell books to the unhinged.

Interesting events - have not decided whether or not to get it.

That Mattis and Kelly state they did not say those things. I'd tend to believe them. We do have a Narcissistic in the WH, though. Seems to becoming a trend.


The bits on the "Nervous Breakdown" might be true? Sure as hell will sell books to the unhinged.

When you have Rex tillerson saying trump is a “#^&#^&#^&#^&ing mooron” in front of multiple people and then denying it, I believe this book a hell of a lot more than these guys back tracking and denying it...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That Mattis and Kelly state they did not say those things. I'd tend to believe them.
If they don't deny the remarks they pretty much are resigned to quitting so I could easily see two men with integrity doing what they think is in the interest of the country.

What's so disturbing about the book is the reoccurring theme of good people around the president working to protect the USA from Trump's leadership.

We already know Kelly lies so why should he be believed here?

What's so disturbing about the book is the reoccurring theme of good people around the president working to protect the USA from Trump's leadership.

like John said...should sell well to the whacko left

like John said...should sell well to the whacko left
I thought John was thinking of picking up a copy?

If they don't deny the remarks they pretty much are resigned to quitting so I could easily see two men with integrity doing what they think is in the interest of the country.

What's so disturbing about the book is the reoccurring theme of good people around the president working to protect the USA from Trump's leadership.

Shocking, that you decided to conclude that their denials are fake. We're all stunned.

catchy book title....

Shocking, that you decided to conclude that their denials are fake. We're all stunned.
If your news source is Fox, it has to all be make believe or just ask John Barron. The media is all involved in a plot to dethrone Trump.
"But what's truly worrisome for President Trump and his administration is that the portrait Woodward paints of a chaotic, dysfunctional, ill-prepared White House is all strangely familiar. It's the same vision of the White House that Michael Wolff wrote way back in January in "Fire and Fury." It's the same picture that Omarosa Manigault-Newman constructed in her memoir of her year in the White House. It's the same story that White House reporters at CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and virtually every other mainstream media outlet have told of the Trump White House.
Sure, Omarosa could be a disgruntled former aide trying to make money while exacting revenge on her enemies. Sure, Michael Wolff could have been misled by a few sources with scores to settle with Trump. Sure, reporters could get a detail or two wrong. Sure, Woodward could have cast a scene or two in ways that are less than favorable to Trump.
But how could all -- and I mean all -- of the reporting on this White House reach a striking similar conclusion? The portraits of Trump drawn by Wolff, Omarosa and Woodward are all eerily similar to one another -- a man hopelessly out of his depth in the job, but entirely incapable of understanding how desperately out of depth he actually is. A man motivated almost entirely by personal grievance. A man willing to humiliate people who work for him, to play staffers against one another, to scapegoat underlings to keep blame off of himself. Someone who has so much self-belief that he rarely adequately prepares for situations involving international diplomacy and national security. Top aides who view that their jobs are primarily keeping Trump from causing serious harm, and grousing every step of the way about the man.
The consistency in those storylines is virtually impossible to explain in any other way than this: It's true. To believe otherwise, you have to convince yourself that not only the entire daily media but also the likes of Wolff and Woodward all got together and agreed on how to portray Trump across tweets, stories and books. Which is, of course, beyond ridiculous."

If your news source is Fox,




YAWN....

YAWN....
Documented lies of Donald Trump: since in office 4720 and counting
Documented lies of Bob Woodward since his career began: zero

You choose who to believe.
:1poke:

Shocking, that you decided to conclude that their denials are fake. We're all stunned.
It’s logical
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch,
With all due respect from someone who voted against HRC; this President does or says something every day that gives me pause..... His administration has been a revolving door, with many heading into federal indictments. Those standing by are doing so for sake of country so as to not leave the station unmanned. I don't know that many foreign leaders are willing to align with him, nevermind sign a coerced trade agreement with him. His assessment of Korean military mass is based on nothing more than dollars he wants to move around to support his pet project of the moment. I seriously doubt you would find a senior military official willing to give him his full vote of confidence. I personally have no confidence in his international relations and believe he is being played for a fool by both Putin and Kim. His narcissism does not sit well with me.


So in my view, without even addressing so many issues within our borders, the country is not doing as well as you make it out to be. The stock market is not a true barometer, unless you are a one percenter. No one is perfect. I hope that you can attempt to consider some of the questioning put forward by some who are not politically motivated to anything other than what is good for Americans...
A voice of reason, what he said!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Worth a read :rotfl:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

I thought John was thinking of picking up a copy?


I might pick up a copy. Though I will not swim thru the unwashed RESISTANCE to get a copy. When Bush was Pres I purchased books that were critical of him.

Like most things a la "resist!" I do not accept their premise. It is the boy that cried wolf, and all those times we were gonna die, finally there was a wolf and DILLIDGAF.

So because I chose not to VIVA LA RESISTANCE I am therefor ever a Nazi.

Tom Nichols (IMO a good guy & Never Trumper) says the people on the right should vote all Dem so we can get rid of Trump. I then look at the Democrats and Progressives and say NFW am I going to give up my rights and be over legislated by Dems by voting for these people. I will still vote for a moderate Dem but I can't find any right now worth voting for.

Tom Nichols (IMO a good guy & Never Trumper) says the people on the right should vote all Dem so we can get rid of Trump. I then look at the Democrats and Progressives and say NFW am I going to give up my rights and be over legislated by Dems by voting for these people. I will still vote for a moderate Dem but I can't find any right now worth voting for.
I haven't bought any anti-Trump books but this one could be interesting. The best thing right now to save the GOP is to vote dem if you ask me. The Republican party needs a reset.

Nebe - Not believable because A it is from The New York Times and B it is from an anonymous source. If he loved his country he would resign and state all that publicly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I haven't bought any anti-Trump books but this one could be interesting. The best thing right now to save the GOP is to vote dem if you ask me. The Republican party needs a reset.


For me, not happening. I will vote conservative/moderate Dems if there are any, and they are not reaching further and further left.

Add the Od Ed peace to the puzzle and Donald will need many buckets of chicken to calm him down.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe - Not believable because A it is from The New York Times and B it is from an anonymous source. If he loved his country he would resign and state all that publicly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unless it is Kelly... or maybe Ivanka.... I don’t think the NYT would hang this on anyone below an assist deputy, who interacts closely with potus....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Worth a read :rotfl:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Hmmmmm
Someday when the truth is told we may find interesting things
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How low can this administration go?

A government photographer edited official pictures of Donald Trump’s inauguration to make the crowd appear bigger following a personal intervention from the president, according to newly released documents.

The photographer cropped out empty space “where the crowd ended” for a new set of pictures requested by Trump on the first morning of his presidency, after he was angered by images showing his audience was smaller than Barack Obama’s in 2009.

Loading...


The detail was revealed in investigative reports released to the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act by the inspector general of the US interior department. They shed new light on the first self-inflicted crisis of Trump’s presidency, when his White House falsely claimed he had attracted the biggest ever inauguration audience.

The records detail a scramble within the National Park Service (NPS) on 21 January 2017 after an early-morning phone call between Trump and the acting NPS director, Michael Reynolds. They also state that Sean Spicer, then White House press secretary, called NPS officials repeatedly that day in pursuit of the more flattering photographs.

Related: Trump's inauguration crowd: Sean Spicer's claims versus the evidence

It was not clear from the records which photographs were edited and whether they were released publicly.

The newly disclosed details were not included in the inspector general’s office’s final report on its inquiry into the saga, which was published in June last year and gave a different account of the NPS photographer’s actions.

By the time Trump spoke on the telephone with Reynolds on the morning after the inauguration, then-and-now pictures of the national mall were circulating online showing that Trump’s crowd fell short of Obama’s. A reporter’s tweet containing one such pair of images was retweeted by the official NPS Twitter account.

An NPS communications official, whose name was redacted in the released files, told investigators that Reynolds called her after speaking with the president and said Trump wanted pictures from the inauguration. She said “she got the impression that President Trump wanted to see pictures that appeared to depict more spectators in the crowd”, and that the images released so far showed “a lot of empty areas”.


a man standing in front of a building: Sean Spicer delivers a statement on 21 January 2017 while a television screen shows a picture of Trump’s inauguration.© Provided by Guardian News Sean Spicer delivers a statement on 21 January 2017 while a television screen shows a picture of Trump’s inauguration.
The communications official said she “assumed” the photographs Trump was requesting “needed to be cropped”, but that Reynolds did not ask for this specifically. She then contacted the NPS photographer who had covered the event the day before.

A second official, from the NPS public affairs department, told investigators that Spicer called her office on the morning of 21 January and asked for pictures that “accurately represented the inauguration crowd size”.

In this official’s view, Spicer’s request amounted to “a request for NPS to provide photographs in which it appeared the inauguration crowd filled the majority of the space in the photograph”. She told investigators that she, too, contacted the NPS photographer to ask for additional shots.

The NPS photographer, whose name was also redacted, told investigators he was contacted by an unidentified official who asked for “any photographs that showed the inauguration crowd sizes”. Having filed 25 photographs on inauguration day, he was asked to go back to his office and “edit a few more” for a second submission.

“He said he edited the inauguration photographs to make them look more symmetrical by cropping out the sky and cropping out the bottom where the crowd ended,” the investigators reported, adding: “He said he did so to show that there had been more of a crowd.”

The investigators said the photographer believed the cropping was what the official “had wanted him to do”, but that the official “had not specifically asked him to crop the photographs to show more of a crowd”.

A summary in the inspector general’s final report said the photographer told investigators “he selected a number of photos, based on his professional judgment, that concentrated on the area of the national mall where most of the crowd was standing”.

Asked to account for the discrepancy, Nancy DiPaolo, a spokeswoman for the inspector general, said the cropping was not mentioned in the final report because the photographer told investigators this was his “standard artistic practice”. But investigators did not note this in the write-up of their interview.
Trump press secretary Sean Spicer slams ‘dishonest’ media for inaugural coverage
The newly released files said Spicer was closely involved in the effort to obtain more favourable photographs. He called Reynolds immediately after the acting director spoke with Trump and then again at 3pm shortly before the new set of photographs was sent to the White House, investigators heard. Another official reported being called by Spicer.

At about 5.40pm that day, Spicer began a now notorious press briefing at the White House in which he falsely stated: “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period.” A spokeswoman for Spicer did not respond to a request for comment.

The inspector general’s inquiry was prompted by a February 2017 complaint through the office’s website, alleging NPS officials tried to undermine Trump and leaked details of Trump’s call with Reynolds to the Washington Post, where it was first reported. The inspector general found no evidence to substantiate the allegations.

The Guardian asked in its June 2017 freedom of information request for the identity of the complainant who sparked the inspector general’s inquiry. But this, and the entire complaint, was redacted in the released documents.

the oped could be a False flag operation from Trumps people to motivate his base prior to the mid terms

It fits his narrative like a glove he has been selling since day 1 (their the dems and all but his base are out to get the Dear leader )

I don’t think the NYT would hang this on anyone below an assist deputy, who interacts closely with potus....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You don't? Because the NYT is just brimming with credibility?

No sane person denies that Trump is...I don't even know how to say it...a morally bankrupt, vindictive, thin skinned, philandering, egomaniacal jerk? Does that cover it?

That said, listening to the NYT is like listening to Sean Hannity.

Liberal=good, conservative=bad, no exceptions, not ever.

There was a NYT columnist on MSNBC 2 weeks ago, who confidently claimed that Trump wanted to round up large numbers of people, and slaughter them. She said that on TV, and the NYT pays her to say what she thinks.

the oped could be a False flag operation from Trumps people to motivate his base prior to the mid terms

It fits his narrative like a glove he has been selling since day 1 (their the dems and all but his base are out to get the Dear leader )


False Flag?

I can't write a letter to the editor of the NYT, without identifying myself. There is a valid reason for that.

You don't? Because the NYT is just brimming with credibility?

No sane person denies that Trump is...I don't even know how to say it...a morally bankrupt, vindictive, thin skinned, philandering, egomaniacal jerk? Does that cover it?

That said, listening to the NYT is like listening to Sean Hannity.

Liberal=good, conservative=bad, no exceptions, not ever.

There was a NYT columnist on MSNBC 2 weeks ago, who confidently claimed that Trump wanted to round up large numbers of people, and slaughter them. She said that on TV, and the NYT pays her to say what she thinks.

There was a politician that was elected by the Republican Party that said on TV and we pay him

"Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?"
“When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water."
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible."
"I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me... I would bomb the sh**t out of them."
"You know what I wanted to. I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard. I would have hit them. No, no. I was going to hit them, I was all set and then I got a call from a highly respected governor... I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy. I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn’t know what the hell happened... I was going to hit a number of those speakers so hard their heads would spin, they’d never recover. And that’s what I did with a lot – that’s why I still don’t have certain people endorsing me: they still haven’t recovered."
"I love the old days, you know? You know what I hate? There's a guy totally disruptive, throwing punches, we're not allowed punch back anymore. ... I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell ya."
"There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell -- I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees."
"I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe."

There was a politician that was elected by the Republican Party that said on TV and we pay him

"Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?"
“When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water."
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible."
"I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me... I would bomb the sh**t out of them."
"You know what I wanted to. I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard. I would have hit them. No, no. I was going to hit them, I was all set and then I got a call from a highly respected governor... I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy. I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn’t know what the hell happened... I was going to hit a number of those speakers so hard their heads would spin, they’d never recover. And that’s what I did with a lot – that’s why I still don’t have certain people endorsing me: they still haven’t recovered."
"I love the old days, you know? You know what I hate? There's a guy totally disruptive, throwing punches, we're not allowed punch back anymore. ... I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell ya."
"There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell -- I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees."
"I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe."

Here is the difference, and I will try to go very slowly...
'
Most people, even many on the right, speak out against Trump when he says these things, and when he acts this way. I didn't see anyone here, criticize the NYT for their historical willingness to abandon journalistic principles for political expediency.

I'm not saying Trump is better than the NYT. I'm saying unlike you, I can readily criticize Trump, or anyone on my side, when they deserve it.

That's the difference. Am I going too fast for you?

Here is the difference, and I will try to go very slowly...
'
Most people, even many on the right, speak out against Trump when he says these things, and when he acts this way. I didn't see anyone here, criticize the NYT for their historical willingness to abandon journalistic principles for political expediency.

I'm not saying Trump is better than the NYT. I'm saying unlike you, I can readily criticize Trump, or anyone on my side, when they deserve it.

That's the difference. Am I going too fast for you?

You need to not believe everything Faux says
You have been conned and you will find out later how bad, just keep believing Trumps gaslighting.
One unnamed reporter does not lead a newspaper.
While you claim that you are capable of criticizing Baby Donnie Bonespurs, you are willing to sacrifice your principles for what you think are gains.
I think if he actually shot Michael Cohen on Fifth Avenue you would accept it, thats just trump, you know what he's like, he said he was going to do it and now he's fulfilled another campaign promise.
I didn't hear a word about his Tweet about how it's unfair that the DOJ indicted two republicans, Republicans were the rule of Law party, Trumplicans certainly are not.

the oped could be a False flag operation from Trumps people to motivate his base prior to the mid terms

It fits his narrative like a glove he has been selling since day 1 (their the dems and all but his base are out to get the Dear leader )

Unlike some, I don't think the NYTs would fall for John Baron

You need to not believe everything Faux says
You have been conned and you will find out later how bad, just keep believing Trumps gaslighting.
One unnamed reporter does not lead a newspaper.
While you claim that you are capable of criticizing Baby Donnie Bonespurs, you are willing to sacrifice your principles for what you think are gains.
I think if he actually shot Michael Cohen on Fifth Avenue you would accept it, thats just trump, you know what he's like, he said he was gi ng to do it and now he's fulfilled another campaign promise.
I didn't hear a word about his Tweet about how it's unfair that the DOJ indicted two republicans, Republicans were the rule of Law party, Trumplicans certainly are not.

"One unnamed reporter does not lead a newspaper."

True. But all the liberals here, as far as I can see, have bought the story hook line and sinker. And it may well be true. But we don't know, and the paper has no credibility, and I don't say that because of one reporter or one story. The NYT is the exact mirror image of Sean Hannity. Both are equally useless.

"You need to not believe everything Faux says"

Haven't watched much since O-Reilly and Megyn Kelly left. If Brett Baier's show is consistently incorrect, show me the data, please, otherwise it's an empty accusation.

"you are willing to sacrifice your principles for what you think are gains."

I sacrificed nothing. I would never, ever have voted for Trump in the primary. In the general, it was him or Hilary, and that was an easy choice, consistent with my principles.

"for what you think are gains."

I see. So it's just in my head that the market is up, unemployment is down, GDP is up, black unemployment is at an all-time low, and now we see that layoffs are down. It's all in my head when I say those are positives.

Pete, regardless of who is POTUS, I give credit where it's due, and criticism where it's due. I do it with Trump, I did it with Obama. Try it sometime, you might enjoy how honesty actually feels.

" think if he actually shot Michael Cohen on Fifth Avenue you would accept it, thats just trump"

Did you hit your head? When have I ever been a Trump apologist? That's funny. I'm trying to talk with you Pete, but if you can't concede that I'm harshly critical of Trump when he deserves it, then you just aren't rational.

So the op ed isn't believable? Did it really say anything different than what was reported for the last 21 months?

So the op ed isn't believable? Did it really say anything different than what was reported for the last 21 months?

You make a great point, in that even I have accused Trump of most of what I assume is in the article. It's just interesting that you can't submit a simple letter to the editor if it's anonymous, but publishing this is OK. It's OK to quote anonymous sources, this is more than that.

Do you think the NYT would have done this in 2009, if an Obama advisor wrote the same thing anonymously?

Paul, much of the left, it seems (NOT you) have completely left their sanity at the door with this guy.

You make a great point, in that even I have accused Trump of most of what I assume is in the article. It's just interesting that you can't submit a simple letter to the editor if it's anonymous, but publishing this is OK. It's OK to quote anonymous sources, this is more than that.

Do you think the NYT would have done this in 2009, if an Obama advisor wrote the same thing anonymously?



The difference is that the NYT knows who wrote it and an anonymous letter coming in the door isn't going to be published by any newspaper. They have said that other op eds (I think 2 or 3) have been published in a similiar fashion.

I would hope they would do the same w/Obama but we haven't had a situation like this before - maybe Nixon?

False Flag?


false flag is a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility.

He said Attorney General Jeff Sessions "should be investigating who the author of that piece was because I really believe it's national security".

Mr Trump also said he was considering taking action against the newspaper, causing its share price to dip.



No authoritarianism like tendencies from Trump .... love using the national security catch all

false flag is a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility.




I know what a False Flag is, as well as numerous examples in recent and not so recent history where it was used.

I also know it is lead-in #1 in most conspiracies, I don't think you are a conspiracy guy .

I thought a false flag is the name of the pin Trump wears on his blazer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know what a False Flag is, as well as numerous examples in recent and not so recent history where it was used.

I also know it is lead-in #1 in most conspiracies, I don't think you are a conspiracy guy .

I'am not ... but this oped creates more answers then it provides .. and the biggest benefit would be to Trump and his supporters who all ready are convinced the deep state is out to get him.

Many on the left and and right running it up the flag pole as if its the 100% truth as well ... there is no skepticism in any of the reporting from either side it's crazy

I thought a false flag is the name of the pin Trump wears on his blazer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



That is bad, even for you.

That is bad, even for you.

Not as as his approval ratings.

Zing! :hidin:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device