The surrealism continues folks as a corroborating account of Bob Woodward's takes on the Trump administration is revealed in an anonymous op-ed from a senior administrative official.

"We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous," he wrote, only to add that "these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."


And the deeper surrealism. I found this article and quote on Fox.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09 ... ctive.html

It seems to be a confirmation of what I and others have long known, but is the right finally waking up to the damage he is wreaking to the Safety and Prosperity of this nation?

casinterest wrote:

but is the right finally waking up to the damage he is wreaking to the Safety and Prosperity of this nation?

No. Because at great detriment to Amerikuh, somehow, at some time, and with great secrecy, immeasurable corruption of public sewers, and a massive cover up of the most odoriferous crimes, Hillary took a dump somewhere.

casinterest wrote:

The surrealism continues folks as a corroborating account of Bob Woodward's takes on the Trump administration is revealed in an anonymous op-ed from a senior administrative official.

"We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous," he wrote, only to add that "these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."


And the deeper surrealism. I found this article and quote on Fox.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09 ... ctive.html

It seems to be a confirmation of what I and others have long known, but is the right finally waking up to the damage he is wreaking to the Safety and Prosperity of this nation?

Let us hope so, I agree he is a danger to our Democratic system. He is now demanding that the name and the person be turned over to the government. I predicted that earlier when talking to my wife about this. The mark of a Despot, arrests for personal reasons.

Elect a clown, expect a circus

Commentary from an article in the Washington Post about how they're scrambling to figure out who it is:

“It’s like the horror movies when everyone realizes the call is coming from inside the house,” said one former White House official in close contact with former co-workers.

The stark and anonymous warning was a breathtaking event without precedent in modern presidential history.

“For somebody within the belly of the White House to be saying there are a group of us running a resistance, making sure the president of the United States doesn’t do irrational and dangerous things, it is a mind-boggling moment,” historian Douglas Brinkley said.

Welp, since there's not a damn thing any of us can do about it other than maybe not vote for somebody with a Cluster B personality disorder again, let's just enjoy the lulz while we await the coming nuclear inferno

I am inclined to agree that Trump is being undermined from within his administration. Its a good thing IMO. Perhaps there is hope for America after all!

That said, it is disappointing to see a media outlet like NYT running anonymous op-ed's. This is not the standard of journalism people expect from you NYT! There were other ways to cover this story. Sad to see this decline in journalism standards.

I’m willing to bet that the anonymous official is Melania!

From the NY Times Op-Ed:

"To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous. But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic."

Any objective person would first ask - Is this real, or is it just another made up story by the anti-Trump left? After the last 2 years of constant attacks, lies, and vitriol form the left, including the press, there is just no way that anyone can take this seriously.

Here are some observations:
1) The author does not provide any background as to how he or she came to be a member of the Trump administration. Was this person already in the government or was this person appointed? Was this person a Trump supporter who has now changed his or her mind? Was this person a never-Trumper with an anti-Trump agenda? Or was this person against Trump from the beginning and joined the administration with the goal to subvert it. This is important because it would help us understand the agenda that this person started with. The absence of this background makes this article suspect.

2) The statement "We want the administration to succeed" is counter to the entirety of the article. If this is a genuine Op-Ed, the author would have to understand the damage that it would do to the Trump administration and its agenda. A person who was truly wanting it to succeed would never go public with this sort of Op-Ed until after the administration was out of office. This person clearly wants to damage the Trump agenda.

So, until the author provides more details, like his/her name, then I'm treating this as just another fake NYT BS anti-Trump hit piece.

BTW - remember when Michael Wolfe published "Fire and Fury" and the left thought that this was the end of the Trump presidency. Until he admitted that he made up a bunch of the stories in the book.....#fail.

Prognosis: #FAIL!

Mike Drop

More rumors and gossip of the 'inside' of Trump's mal-administration won't get him out. Real criminal evidence, as with Nixon and the tapes, may do so. We need his and his corporate entities US and State tax returns as well as his real financial records for decades put out in public, to show his criminal connections with the Russian oligarchs and his trying to undermine USA policy with Russia to get out of his debts. That is what should force him to resign or Impeached with removal.

I bet by Friday a bunch of WH staffers will be fired, a 'night of the long knives' to remove any possible 'disloyal' person or persons who may be behind this op-ed. Trump is like a caged wild animal, he is violently angry, and I am very afraid of a 'wag the dog' bombing in Iran or someplace in the Islamic world to shift attention.

We really cant be sure there is an "anonymous source". It could be more #fakenews from the liberal media. The media keeps attacking Trump for no valid reason. Trumps approval rating is above 60%, unemployment is around 3%, and the economy is going gangbusters. Compared to when Obama left office where unemployment was close to 50%, and the economy was a disaster.
An anonymous source is not credible, an carries no validity. Trump will still be re-elected in 2020, Pence in 2024.

ltbewr wrote:

More rumors and gossip of the 'inside' of Trump's mal-administration won't get him out.

They might ...

ANGER, NEGATIVE EMOTIONS MAY TRIGGER STROKE

https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/239

AA747123 wrote:

We really cant be sure there is an "anonymous source". It could be more #fakenews from the liberal media. The media keeps attacking Trump for no valid reason. Trumps approval rating is above 60%, unemployment is around 3%, and the economy is going gangbusters. Compared to when Obama left office where unemployment was close to 50%, and the economy was a disaster.
An anonymous source is not credible, an carries no validity. Trump will still be re-elected in 2020, Pence in 2024.

What the hell are you talking about? When Obama left office unemployment was at 4.7%. And if it wasn't for Obama this country would of gone into a depression!

AA747123 wrote:

We really cant be sure there is an "anonymous source". It could be more #fakenews from the liberal media. The media keeps attacking Trump for no valid reason. Trumps approval rating is above 60%, unemployment is around 3%, and the economy is going gangbusters. Compared to when Obama left office where unemployment was close to 50%, and the economy was a disaster.
An anonymous source is not credible, an carries no validity. Trump will still be re-elected in 2020, Pence in 2024.

Just checking if this is a figment of my imagination or did this post actually happen?

Will any righty Trump supporter call this shit out?

If my posting history is any indication i have zero tolerance for someone talking so thoroughly out of their ass regardless of side. Lets see!

This one is interesting. It hits in the middle of Kavanaugh's first day of answering questions and a week before Bob Woodward's book "Fear" is released to the public. There have been a lot of comments about the Opinion writer remaining anonymous is a coward, but they do that with little or no memory of Deep Throat, who did this country a huge service.

In In general, most of the hard public hits on Trump were common knowledge to those close to the Administration, with the exception that some in the cabinet discussed the 25th Amendment. Today's opinion piece was just putting it in the face of the public.

Now we just wait for Woodward's book next week.

ltbewr wrote:

I bet by Friday a bunch of WH staffers will be fired, a 'night of the long knives' to remove any possible 'disloyal' person or persons who may be behind this op-ed. Trump is like a caged wild animal, he is violently angry, and I am very afraid of a 'wag the dog' bombing in Iran or someplace in the Islamic world to shift attention.

How do you know the tail isn't wagging the Washington Post? It's part of Trump's legendary 4D chess, and how he's gonna finally vanquish the enemies of the people and pave the way for the Fourth Rei-- *ahem* Making America Great Again!!!

Seriously tho, the op-ed could genuinely be from within the Trump administration, but there's no guarantee they're not staging it

There are now speculations that it is actually the Vice President Mike Pence that is the anonomys writer. Apparently the word LOADSTAR is used in the oped, wich is a word that not many officials use, but that Mike Pence has used often:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgAJIPUaMu4

Time to bring out the popcorn ...

BawliBooch wrote:

That said, it is disappointing to see a media outlet like NYT running anonymous op-ed's. This is not the standard of journalism people expect from you NYT! There were other ways to cover this story. Sad to see this decline in journalism standards.

AA747123 wrote:

We really cant be sure there is an "anonymous source".

As I understand it, the source is verified and known to the New York Times and the source has requested anonymity.



Tugg

Tugger wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

That said, it is disappointing to see a media outlet like NYT running anonymous op-ed's. This is not the standard of journalism people expect from you NYT! There were other ways to cover this story. Sad to see this decline in journalism standards.

AA747123 wrote:

We really cant be sure there is an "anonymous source".

As I understand it, the source is verified and known to the New York Times and the source has requested anonymity.



Tugg

Common practice. Why shouldn't be an anonymous source? If it is verified information and the source is checked?

The conservative right starts protecting the nation and the party.

I think Trump is not representing either adequately & is on the way out.

Well if you take the op-ed at face value then these people are helping Trump. The alternative would be to let him do the stupidest of things until there is really nothing going right.

I’m with those who say those words and phrases like lodestar are basically there to throw people off the trail. That’s too esoteric a word to use and not have it remembered from prior speeches, I.e. Pence.

Lawrence O’Donnell from MSNBC surmises that it’s Dan Coats, but others have said he would likely use his name as a big FU to Trump since he was such a good friend of McCain.

I still wouldn’t put it past KellyAnne Conway to write something like this, since she’s basically been accused of being a major WH leaker for quite awhile AND her husband despises Trump. And she needs to do something to distance herself from this shitshow.

Irony...when someone writes an op-ed indicating unelected people in the government are undermining an elected President while calling said President un-democratic.

You can’t make this shit up.

The funny thing is people like this person don’t get it. Trump was the lesser of two evils. No one on the right, save for a few nut bags, would give two shits if he were removed from office. Hillary was kept out, so he did his job.

DL717 wrote:

Irony...when someone writes an op-ed indicating unelected people in the government are undermining an elected President while calling said President un-democratic.
.

Why i generally agree with your assessment, you wouldn´t need an oath of office for federal employees if they are not entitled to make judgement calls, and face consequences if any arise from that, instead of just taking orders. You guys tossed the Nuremberg defense out after all. It does however in no way stipulate that "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" means only by stepping down or informing law enforcement.

The 2nd Amendment implicitly means you can shoot a sitting president if you think they crossed a line justifying it. Otherwise you could unmend that right away.

And to make that perfectly clear, i don´t think Trump has done anything justifying going outside the legal system and orderly processes.

best regards
Thomas

[code][/code]

DL717 wrote:

Irony...when someone writes an op-ed indicating unelected people in the government are undermining an elected President while calling said President un-democratic.

You can’t make this shit up.

The funny thing is people like this person don’t get it. Trump was the lesser of two evils. No one on the right, save for a few nut bags, would give two shits if he were removed from office. Hillary was kept out, so he did his job.

And this is where you really have to wonder. Is the issue with the "Deep State" or with the Ultra Right wing Christian Conservative psychopaths that chose to ride the coat tails of a lying,racist, bigoted, misogynistic, traitor, just so they could impose their own warped view on the rest of the country. If I had to guess, that is where you look for your internal undermining. I wouldn't think Pence would be a part of it, as he is the end goal of this insurgency. I think you need to look to the people that pushed out others that were once close to the President.

Dutchy wrote:

Common practice. Why shouldn't be an anonymous source? If it is verified information and the source is checked?

Incorrect- it is common for real journalists to use anonymous sources in articles. It is also considered a best practice for real journalists to verify the claims made by anonymous sources with one or more other sources.

Op-ed pieces are totally different. The title says it all "Opinion/Editorial". It is extraordinary for the NYT to publish an anonymous Op-Ed piece.

It is by definition opinion, unverified, and not news.

There is no reason to believe that the authors opinions are based on facts.

If the NYT could have verified any of this they would have published it differently, as news. With GIANT headlines.

But since they are only interested in damage to this presidency they repackaged a bunch of unverified tripe into a hard hitting Op-Ed. This is very poor journalism.

Mike Drop

What's the point of ANOTHER Op-Ed piece about what's going on at the Trump White House. I think we all pretty much know already.
Just go to Loudmouth Central (aka Twitter) and read for yourself.

MikeDrop wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Common practice. Why shouldn't be an anonymous source? If it is verified information and the source is checked?

Incorrect- it is common for real journalists to use anonymous sources in articles. It is also considered a best practice for real journalists to verify the claims made by anonymous sources with one or more other sources.

Op-ed pieces are totally different. The title says it all "Opinion/Editorial". It is extraordinary for the NYT to publish an anonymous Op-Ed piece.

It is by definition opinion, unverified, and not news.

There is no reason to believe that the authors opinions are based on facts.

If the NYT could have verified any of this they would have published it differently, as news. With GIANT headlines.

But since they are only interested in damage to this presidency they repackaged a bunch of unverified tripe into a hard hitting Op-Ed. This is very poor journalism.

Mike Drop

I have to laugh. You will believe anything a lying coward that sits in the white house says, but an OP-ED gets posted and you immediately discount it.

You also do not understand the definition of an OP-ED when you are worrying about facts.

AA747123 wrote:

We really cant be sure there is an "anonymous source". It could be more #fakenews from the liberal media. The media keeps attacking Trump for no valid reason. Trumps approval rating is above 60%, unemployment is around 3%, and the economy is going gangbusters. Compared to when Obama left office where unemployment was close to 50%, and the economy was a disaster.
An anonymous source is not credible, an carries no validity. Trump will still be re-elected in 2020, Pence in 2024.

LOL...even Rasmussen only has the golfer's approval rating at 46%:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... rack_sep06

I guess you have to post more since those rubles you get pay in keep falling in value

P.S. And 50% unemployment...I guess if you count all the youths in school and all those people that are retired, then yes, it would be 50%. You know, even sub-Saharan Africa only has ~30% unemployement.

casinterest wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Common practice. Why shouldn't be an anonymous source? If it is verified information and the source is checked?

Incorrect- it is common for real journalists to use anonymous sources in articles. It is also considered a best practice for real journalists to verify the claims made by anonymous sources with one or more other sources.

Op-ed pieces are totally different. The title says it all "Opinion/Editorial". It is extraordinary for the NYT to publish an anonymous Op-Ed piece.

It is by definition opinion, unverified, and not news.

There is no reason to believe that the authors opinions are based on facts.

If the NYT could have verified any of this they would have published it differently, as news. With GIANT headlines.

But since they are only interested in damage to this presidency they repackaged a bunch of unverified tripe into a hard hitting Op-Ed. This is very poor journalism.

Mike Drop

I have to laugh. You will believe anything a lying coward that sits in the white house says, but an OP-ED gets posted and you immediately discount it.

You also do not understand the definition of an OP-ED when you are worrying about facts.

And if course he is being inconsistent. If it is old news, than it doesn't need additional conformation.
And seems to be pretty much in line with that new book coming out....

Also, it could so obviously be a trap ("see, they don't check anything") that I am pretty sure the NYT did a fair degree of confirming everything they could.

Best regards
Thomas

DL717 wrote:

The funny thing is people like this person don’t get it. Trump was the lesser of two evils. No one on the right, save for a few nut bags, would give two shits if he were removed from office. Hillary was kept out, so he did his job.

Trump is doing so much damage to the GOP brand right now you are going to be getting thousands of Hillary's voted into various offices including the presidency over the next decade or two before the GOP can convince intelligent independent voters it's gotten its sanity back.

casinterest wrote:

I have to laugh. You will believe anything a lying coward that sits in the white house says, but an OP-ED gets posted and you immediately discount it.

You also do not understand the definition of an OP-ED when you are worrying about facts.

The joke is a on you. You lefties will Drop major cash on anyone that you think is finally going to "get Trump"

Cases in point:
The book Fire and Fury - claimed to be an inside and hard hitting record of the Trump White House. You lefties slopped it up by the truckload. Best seller all around. After something like two weeks the author admitted that he made up many parts of the book for dramatic effect. He walked away with millions.

Michael Cohen - Trumps former lawyer and his lawyer Lanny Davis - after taking a plea deal Lanny Davis opens up a go fund me account. Then he goes on MSNBC and says that Cohen has proof that Trump colluded with the Russians, and asks for donations to Cohens go fund me. Boom! At least $250k is given by the patsies on the left. One week later Lanny Davis admits he made it up.

Hil-fricken-arious.

Anyone looking at this objectively has to question the veracity of any article or book that is using anonymous sources. The potential for profit for a willing liar is just too high to ignore.

Mike Drop

MikeDrop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I have to laugh. You will believe anything a lying coward that sits in the white house says, but an OP-ED gets posted and you immediately discount it.

You also do not understand the definition of an OP-ED when you are worrying about facts.

The joke is a on you. You lefties will Drop major cash on anyone that you think is finally going to "get Trump"

Cases in point:
The book Fire and Fury - claimed to be an inside and hard hitting record of the Trump White House. You lefties slopped it up by the truckload. Best seller all around. After something like two weeks the author admitted that he made up many parts of the book for dramatic effect. He walked away with millions.

Michael Cohen - Trumps former lawyer and his lawyer Lanny Davis - after taking a plea deal Lanny Davis opens up a go fund me account. Then he goes on MSNBC and says that Cohen has proof that Trump colluded with the Russians, and asks for donations to Cohens go fund me. Boom! At least $250k is given by the patsies on the left. One week later Lanny Davis admits he made it up.

Hil-fricken-arious.

Anyone looking at this objectively has to question the veracity of any article or book that is using anonymous sources. The potential for profit for a willing liar is just too high to ignore.

Mike Drop

Anyone that posts with the vitrol that you have, is not capable of disseminating valid sources. Anyone that donates more than petty change money to any elected official is part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

MikeDrop wrote:

[it is common for real journalists to use anonymous sources in articles. It is also considered a best practice for real journalists to verify the claims made by anonymous sources with one or more other sources.

So the Bob Woodward book-----Woodward says that each claim has been verified by 6 sources....so, that's OK, right?

MikeDrop wrote:

You lefties

You keep making this mistake. There is a strong number of "righties" as well that find Trump to be a poor president and not reflective of actual Republican values. So you should change your wording to address those on the left and the right that find this current situation less them ideal.

Then there are the MAGA's that seem to think everything is OK if not better with him. That is not the case.

I say this for others by the way, so don't worry I'm not trying to change your mind (which I suspect is locked against any such thing).

Tugg

MikeDrop wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Common practice. Why shouldn't be an anonymous source? If it is verified information and the source is checked?

Incorrect- it is common for real journalists to use anonymous sources in articles. It is also considered a best practice for real journalists to verify the claims made by anonymous sources with one or more other sources.

Op-ed pieces are totally different. The title says it all "Opinion/Editorial". It is extraordinary for the NYT to publish an anonymous Op-Ed piece.

It is by definition opinion, unverified, and not news.

There is no reason to believe that the authors opinions are based on facts.

If the NYT could have verified any of this they would have published it differently, as news. With GIANT headlines.

But since they are only interested in damage to this presidency they repackaged a bunch of unverified tripe into a hard hitting Op-Ed. This is very poor journalism.

Mike Drop

Come on Mike, say it with me:

OP-ED is not journalism.

You keep saying how smart you are, prove it. Go look up what "OP-ED" means. You think you know, but, really. Just go look it up.

This also says a lot that you and the MAGA crew believe the 3AM ramblings of the golfer who lives in the White House but go nuts seeing an OP-ED piece.

AA747123 wrote:

Trumps approval rating is above 60%.

Are you bloody daft? You cannot poll just the GOP voters and claim that's his approval rating.... with a straight face. His actual approval rating is 40.0% and his disapproval rating is 53.7%.

seb146 wrote:

Come on Mike, say it with me:

OP-ED is not journalism.

Thank you for making my point. This Op/Ed is meaningless.

Mike Drop

This reminds me of when they printed an Op-Ed from a Goldman Sachs "vice president" making grand pronouncements as an "executive" of the finance industry. While in reality, a VP at Goldman Sachs is an absolute peon, a tiny underling whose work probably has no significance. Certainly that person's grand philosophy would be insignificant. So you are a peon with ideas -- who cares? But that won't stop NYT.

I thought this op ed was in poor taste and did not make a compelling argument. Someone else wrote, the American people knew exactly what they were getting when they elected Trump. No one is particularly surprised - instead, some are mad that he was elected. Imagine if an Obama staff member said "Obviously I must stop the Obama agenda, and I have; and I will keep doing thing as I see fit, destroying documents or even altering presidential orders, while I pretend to work for him. My orders are being carried out as we speak." I think that would be troubling.

MikeDrop wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Come on Mike, say it with me:

OP-ED is not journalism.

Thank you for making my point. This Op/Ed is meaningless.

Mike Drop

Haha. Now the op-ed is ridiculous because its not journalism. From the guy who does nothing but talk shit about journalism.


Just a reminder. 0 aviation posts. Any posts not Trump related?

Do not consider a legitimate good faith contributor to forum. It's not.

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Come on Mike, say it with me:

OP-ED is not journalism.

Thank you for making my point. This Op/Ed is meaningless.

Mike Drop

Haha. Now the op-ed is ridiculous because its not journalism. From the guy who does nothing but talk shit about journalism.


Just a reminder. 0 aviation posts. Any posts not Trump related?

Do not consider a legitimate good faith contributor to forum. It's not.

Come on, MikeDrop has to feed his family after all. With ruble keep falling in value, he has to write more pro-Dennison post just so he can afford to buy some beets or cabbages.

If MikeDrop is the best PSYOPS agent the Russians can muster, I'm not too worried about waking up to borscht as the national breakfast any time soon

Dieuwer wrote:

What's the point of ANOTHER Op-Ed piece about what's going on at the Trump White House. I think we all pretty much know already.
Just go to Loudmouth Central (aka Twitter) and read for yourself.

I dunno, since Trump can still very easily set in motion events which would lead to the death of many on this forum and anywhere else around the world and none of us can do anything about it, I personally read 'em every now and then to have a laff at what the rubes hath wrought. Until Trump is consigned to a few dry pages in high skule history books, what else? I'm not interested in going into politics, and I only have the resources to help myself and maybe a friend or three who need moral support from time to time. It's comic relief at this point.

2122M wrote:

Trump is doing so much damage to the GOP brand right now you are going to be getting thousands of Hillary's voted into various offices including the presidency over the next decade or two before the GOP can convince intelligent independent voters it's gotten its sanity back.

Though it's not so much Hillary clones as it is women of color who took Bernie's platform and expanded it so it appeals to more than just white millennials and intellectuals. Sounds like an absolute unmitigated horror show for the redneck set

casinterest wrote:

Anyone that posts with the vitrol that you have, is not capable of disseminating valid sources. Anyone that donates more than petty change money to any elected official is part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

vit·ri·ol
ˈvitrēəl,ˈvitrēˌôl/
1. cruel and bitter criticism.

dis·sem·i·nate
dəˈseməˌnāt/
gerund or present participle: disseminating
1. spread or disperse (something, especially information) widely.


Wow, I guess I touched a nerve. Seriously, how would being cruel or bitter prevent one from being capable of spreading or dispersing valid sources widely?

Or do these words not mean what you think they mean?

Inconceivable!


Mike Drop

Now be careful! You can get a time out for pointing out the fact that a screen name will appear, post non-stop for a bit then disappears to be followed by a different screen name that appears and posts non-stop. Lather, rinse and repeat. And they all seem to post in nothing but Drumpf threads. Wonder why that is?

treetreeseven wrote:

If MikeDrop is the best PSYOPS agent the Russians can muster, I'm not too worried about waking up to borscht as the national breakfast any time soon

On the off chance he's not getting paid he’s not convincing anyone of anything except for how much of a pathetic loser he is having nothing better to do with his life but argue with random strangers on the internet all day. Sad!

727LOVER wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

[it is common for real journalists to use anonymous sources in articles. It is also considered a best practice for real journalists to verify the claims made by anonymous sources with one or more other sources.

So the Bob Woodward book-----Woodward says that each claim has been verified by 6 sources....so, that's OK, right?

I haven't seen the Woodward book yet. It hasn't been released. If he has in fact done what you say, then yes it would be following good journalistic standards, as I understand them. It takes me back to the movie All the Presidents Men where Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman work tirelessly to get the story right and make sure that any loose ends are investigated before going to press with any story. One would hope that this is what is happening in every newsroom in the US these days. I don't believe that this is the case.

His statements and actions in the past 3 years would indicate that his writing will focus on painting Trump in a negative light. We shall see if the content of the book matches the hype. So far I haven't seen any indication that it will reveal any illegal activities or actual impeachable offenses. It will most likely provide good fodder for those partisans who dislike Trump. In the end, I expect that it will add nothing new - a big nothing burger.

I may be wrong and this book will be the final ingredient that the anti-Trumpers need to remove him from office. Don't get your hopes up.

Mike Drop

BawliBooch wrote:

I am inclined to agree that Trump is being undermined from within his administration. Its a good thing IMO. Perhaps there is hope for America after all!

That said, it is disappointing to see a media outlet like NYT running anonymous op-ed's. This is not the standard of journalism people expect from you NYT! There were other ways to cover this story. Sad to see this decline in journalism standards.

It is the standard of modern journalism though and it is worrisome. My money was on Bannon but since he is out of the picture this has gotten interesting though if a person really does exist that gave this info to the NYT he or she won't come out for at least 10 years.

NIKV69 wrote:

It is the standard of modern journalism though and it is worrisome. My money was on Bannon but since he is out of the picture this has gotten interesting though if a person really does exist that gave this info to the NYT he or she won't come out for at least 10 years.

Ask Joe Klein how long it took to be exposed.

MikeDrop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Anyone that posts with the vitrol that you have, is not capable of disseminating valid sources. Anyone that donates more than petty change money to any elected official is part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

vit·ri·ol
ˈvitrēəl,ˈvitrēˌôl/
1. cruel and bitter criticism.

dis·sem·i·nate
dəˈseməˌnāt/
gerund or present participle: disseminating
1. spread or disperse (something, especially information) widely.


Wow, I guess I touched a nerve. Seriously, how would being cruel or bitter prevent one from being capable of spreading or dispersing valid sources widely?

Or do these words not mean what you think they mean?

Inconceivable!


Mike Drop

Please note that I said "Valid"

EstherLouise wrote:

AA747123 wrote:

Trumps approval rating is above 60%.

Are you bloody daft? You cannot poll just the GOP voters and claim that's his approval rating.... with a straight face. His actual approval rating is 40.0% and his disapproval rating is 53.7%.

Latest has him around 36%, it won't go much lower than that as that is roughly the percentage who would vote for a Republican or Democrat if the second coming of Adolf Hitler ran for either party, just a fact, nearly 80% of this country doesn't care about the person running for office, they care about the (D) or (R) after their name.

MikeDrop wrote:

I haven't seen the Woodward book yet. It hasn't been released. If he has in fact done what you say, then yes it would be following good journalistic standards, as I understand them. It takes me back to the movie All the Presidents Men where Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman work tirelessly to get the story right and make sure that any loose ends are investigated before going to press with any story. One would hope that this is what is happening in every newsroom in the US these days. I don't believe that this is the case.

Mike Drop

You do understand that this is the same Bob Woodward who Robert Redford portrayed in All the President's Men right ? The same Bob Woodward who broke the Watergate story ?

The same Bob Woodward who to quote Trump : "You know I'm very open to you. I think you've always been fair."


As someone who can step back and look at the big picture, it really is amazing what is happening to our country, I do have to wonder how this will all end, my hope is of course that once again the United States of America proves to be stronger than the issues it faces.

[quote="jetwet1"]
You do understand that this is the same Bob Woodward who Robert Redford portrayed in All the President's Men right ? The same Bob Woodward who broke the Watergate story ?

The same Bob Woodward who to quote Trump : "You know I'm very open to you. I think you've always been fair." [quote]

Lol - of course I do - that is the point of my post.

Mike Drop

casinterest wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Anyone that posts with the vitrol that you have, is not capable of disseminating valid sources. Anyone that donates more than petty change money to any elected official is part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

vit·ri·ol
ˈvitrēəl,ˈvitrēˌôl/
1. cruel and bitter criticism.

dis·sem·i·nate
dəˈseməˌnāt/
gerund or present participle: disseminating
1. spread or disperse (something, especially information) widely.


Wow, I guess I touched a nerve. Seriously, how would being cruel or bitter prevent one from being capable of spreading or dispersing valid sources widely?

Or do these words not mean what you think they mean?

Inconceivable!


Mike Drop

Please note that I said "Valid"

Please note that I also said "valid". My question still stands. How does vitriol and bitterness prevent one from providing valid sources?

Additionally, perhaps you can identify a source that I have provided that is not valid.

Mike Drop