What's new
By:

Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Trump's lawyers just sent a cease and desist letter to the publisher of Bannon's book. lmfao
 
I did not know anything about Michael Wolff prior to excerpts (in the case of the New York Magazine, an entire chapter) of his book "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump Whitehouse" exploded all over the airways yesterday. Wed. night the pundits on MSNBC were absolutely giddy about the news.

But it's always good to step back and not be giddy when news serves one's own confirmation bias. And there is a whole lot to recommend in the article @franklin posted suggesting folks tune out the news altogether. I gotta say, as dismayed as I am by Trump, I'm every bit the news junkie he is. I just never imagined I'd be spending this phase of my life so singularly focused.

But, I hope I have not flushed objectivity down the drain completel. Here are two Washington Post articles pointing out why we need to keep things in perspective where Michael Wolff is concerned:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...career-of-controversy/?utm_term=.6672825a5a72

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-trump-administration/?utm_term=.54d89a645cdd

And for those who have @DutchJazzer on ignore, I think he pointed something out that is worth repeating, in so many words:

On the one hand, the claim has been out there forever, and is a focus of the Mueller investigation: the Trump campaign colluded with Russia's efforts to help Trump win. We know, at least I don't doubt, that Putin did want to help Trump, and he did so via social media, email dumps, etc. Since those Russian "active measures" alone represented an attack on our national sovereignty, by interfering with the democratic institution of free elections, understanding that and preventing a repeat has always been primary to me petsonally. I think feeling that way is my responsibility as a citizen of this country. But the degree to which the Trump campaign did, or did not, collude with Putin is still unknown. Maybe Mueller will provide an answer. Maybe he will not.

But on the other hand, Wolff's book claims Trump never wanted to win the 2016 election at all. And there's likely good reasons to suspect that might have been the case.

I can't reconcile those two claims. One possibility is Trump did not expect to win, but did try to win, that Wolff is mistaken, Trump did want to win. Another is that there was never any real collusion. But things like Donald Jr's meeting suggest otherwise.

Trump wants the book yanked, not published at all. That's an extraordinary move for a President. The publisher's response is to move the date up. The book is being released today.
 
Donald Trump helped usher in the Post Truth era. All the baldface lies. Did Trump care if millions of Americans would believe 3 million illegal aliens in California cost him the popular vote? Does Trump care for Truth? Some of the information in Wolff's book might reside in that world of alternative fact. Not much though, I'll bet.

But this is the Post Truth era in large part because Trump helped usher it in and nurture it, something that is an existential threat to a basic need of a democracy: that the people get to make decisions about their leaders by understanding the facts of the matter, being able to agree on a consensus reality.

And here we are in that world. Wolff defending his book to the hilt. Trump trying to yank it from the shelves before it hits the shelfs.

Trump is no guardian of truth. Let him live in the Post Truth world he has been hiding in as a refuge all along....
 
Red said:
Donald Trump helped usher in the Post Truth era. All the baldface lies. Did Trump care if millions of Americans would believe 3 million illegal aliens in California cost him the popular vote? Does Trump care for Truth? Some of the information in Wolff's book might reside in that world of alternative fact. Not much though, I'll bet.

But this is the Post Truth era in large part because Trump helped usher it in and nurture it, something that is an existential threat to a basic need of a democracy: that the people get to make decisions about their leaders by understanding the facts of the matter, being able to agree on a consensus reality.

And here we are in that world. Wolff defending his book to the hilt. Trump trying to yank it from the shelves before it hits the shelfs.

Trump is no guardian of truth. Let him live in the Post Truth world he has been hiding in as a refuge all along....
Click to expand...
i think obummer and bush usherred in the post truth era. so far whether you agree with trump or not he seems to keep his promises. as far as congress or activist judges allows.
jeruzlame embessay, tax cuts, supreme court nomination, he tried his darnest to undo obama care.

but i think bush and obama lied more in 1 month than trump leid in his whole presidency! and to me it seems when trump lies it seems exaggeration or figure of speech
 
franklin said:
Just as annoying as the conservatives doing the exact same thing when the dems were in power. The only difference to the populace in general is their upbringing and world view. I tend to get way more annoyed by liberal whining than I do the anarchist right wingers. I can at least respect someone who I disagree with but who has the self respect of self reliance. So their obnoxious asses don't annoy me to the same degree that they would a more left-leaning moderate.



You clearly don't understand Keynesian economic theory (or whatever the modern version is termed), or my stance on counter cyclical policy. I would think that you, of all people, would support paying down our massive government debt in a time of full employment, record corporate profits, and possible re-inflation of the last property bubble. Now is the time to save, not spend like mad men. That's what Keynes taught, not whatever rantings you've listened to and now use as some expletive like people do with "commie" and "nazi".


FIFY. You are welcome to your opinion. You do not understand simple economics and how big a role the US government deficit spending has played in your very own prosperity. People of your opinion want to cut off their nose to spite their face. Is it wasteful spending a lot of the time? That's measurable. What is the add on effect? What is the increase in velocity of money? How much does Babe and other farmers and ranchers benefit from food stamps and all the various agricultural welfare programs? How much does the public benefit from USDA regulations that cost money in the form of jobs? What is the add-on effect of to the economy of a USDA beef inspector's salary, or that of the lab workers, or that of the very expensive sample testing equipment?

"people know what they need or want. govt knows nothing. cares less." No, babe, your ideology blinds you from rational use of government for the benefit of the people. If you want what you and I have preached about for several years - clean water projects, infrastructure, etc. - then making these ill-minded claims do nothing but block your own cause.
Click to expand...

obviously.....

yes, in Keynesian theory govt deficit spending in recessions was supposed to be made up by paying down the debt in the better times.

I see the inflationary increments of increased money/velocity as a sort of tax on real assets.

I don't know much about the government, really. I've spent my life evading it. Built a business that is only viable because of it, though. If govt regulations were abandoned en masse, I wouldn't have a profitable business.

I'm not a serious farmer. A little this, a little that. Nothing that ever takes me in looking for a loan or signing up for some program that's supposed to benefit. I also don't hire illegals.... well, anyone for that matter.

I would favor a govt. with the idea of improving the physical circumstances of people in terms of water, power, roads, rails, canals..... fundamental research. Projects of that sort put people to work, hopefully gainfully.... in terms of higher technologies, more efficient commerce.....
 
franklin said:
Just as annoying as the conservatives doing the exact same thing when the dems were in power. The only difference to the populace in general is their upbringing and world view. I tend to get way more annoyed by liberal whining than I do the anarchist right wingers. I can at least respect someone who I disagree with but who has the self respect of self reliance. So their obnoxious asses don't annoy me to the same degree that they would a more left-leaning moderate.



You clearly don't understand Keynesian economic theory (or whatever the modern version is termed), or my stance on counter cyclical policy. I would think that you, of all people, would support paying down our massive government debt in a time of full employment, record corporate profits, and possible re-inflation of the last property bubble. Now is the time to save, not spend like mad men. That's what Keynes taught, not whatever rantings you've listened to and now use as some expletive like people do with "commie" and "nazi".


FIFY. You are welcome to your opinion. You do not understand simple economics and how big a role the US government deficit spending has played in your very own prosperity. People of your opinion want to cut off their nose to spite their face. Is it wasteful spending a lot of the time? That's measurable. What is the add on effect? What is the increase in velocity of money? How much does Babe and other farmers and ranchers benefit from food stamps and all the various agricultural welfare programs? How much does the public benefit from USDA regulations that cost money in the form of jobs? What is the add-on effect of to the economy of a USDA beef inspector's salary, or that of the lab workers, or that of the very expensive sample testing equipment?

"people know what they need or want. govt knows nothing. cares less." No, babe, your ideology blinds you from rational use of government for the benefit of the people. If you want what you and I have preached about for several years - clean water projects, infrastructure, etc. - then making these ill-minded claims do nothing but block your own cause.
Click to expand...

obviously.....

yes, in Keynesian theory govt deficit spending in recessions was supposed to be made up by paying down the debt in the better times.

I see the inflationary increments of increased money/velocity as a sort of tax on real assets.

I don't know much about the government, really. I've spent my life evading it. Built a business that is only viable because of it, though. If govt regulations were abandoned en masse, I wouldn't have a profitable business.

I'm not a serious farmer. A little this, a little that. Nothing that ever takes me in looking for a loan or signing up for some program that's supposed to benefit. I also don't hire illegals.... well, anyone for that matter.

I would favor a govt. with the idea of improving the physical circumstances of people in terms of water, power, roads, rails, canals..... fundamental research. Projects of that sort put people to work, hopefully gainfully.... in terms of higher technologies, more efficient commerce.....
 
Stoked said:
Trump's lawyers just sent a cease and desist letter to the publisher of Bannon's book. lmfao
Click to expand...

Why LMFDO? I'm not a lawyer but this seems to start the creation of a slander and libel case against the author, the publishing company, and the news outlets publishing this trash. I wouldn't touch this book with a ten foot pole if I were the publisher. They're begging for a very expensive long and drawn out lawsuit from Trump. Trump is doing LMFDO Trump with this move: he can't do anything but benefit either financially or politically or media mentions.

The book is clearly trash hearsay bull ****, and nobody should respect anything like this. It's typical snake oil salesman populist propaganda - hey Wolff, cool you took a page out of Trump's own campaign. Besides, all this does is further Trump's agenda of showing the trash media for the trash it is. So, go for it and get your *** sued off and career ruined.

I'm off to read Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Deepak Chopra, and some left-wing hysteria debunking articles like those found on Slate.
 
Red said:
Donald Trump helped usher in the Post Truth era. All the baldface lies. Did Trump care if millions of Americans would believe 3 million illegal aliens in California cost him the popular vote? Does Trump care for Truth? Some of the information in Wolff's book might reside in that world of alternative fact. Not much though, I'll bet.

But this is the Post Truth era in large part because Trump helped usher it in and nurture it, something that is an existential threat to a basic need of a democracy: that the people get to make decisions about their leaders by understanding the facts of the matter, being able to agree on a consensus reality.

And here we are in that world. Wolff defending his book to the hilt. Trump trying to yank it from the shelves before it hits the shelfs.

Trump is no guardian of truth. Let him live in the Post Truth world he has been hiding in as a refuge all along....
Click to expand...

I wouldn't hang my hat on the idea that Trump is any kind of truther. He believes nothing, considers strong beliefs inconsistent with good deals.

I think it is hilarious that you take him so seriously. Yah, he doesn't believe in anything the progressives have been hanging their little dedicated, sincere beliefs on.

But that is because those things you've believed are, obviously, lies. Globalist lies, progressive lies, socialist lies.... even "
science lies".

If there were any kind of fundamental truth to those beliefs, you could just relax. The truth will out soon enough, and the sooner the issue is taken out of politics, the sooner the truth will prevail.
 
babe said:
I wouldn't hang my hat on the idea that Trump is any kind of truther. He believes nothing, considers strong beliefs inconsistent with good deals.

I think it is hilarious that you take him so seriously. Yah, he doesn't believe in anything the progressives have been hanging their little dedicated, sincere beliefs on.

But that is because those things you've believed are, obviously, lies. Globalist lies, progressive lies, socialist lies.... even "
science lies".

If there were any kind of fundamental truth to those beliefs, you could just relax. The truth will out soon enough, and the sooner the issue is taken out of politics, the sooner the truth will prevail.
Click to expand...
I love how you project whatever you want Trump to be on Trump, as if you know anything about him in any sort of substantive way.
 
babe said:
obviously.....

yes, in Keynesian theory govt deficit spending in recessions was supposed to be made up by paying down the debt in the better times.

I see the inflationary increments of increased money/velocity as a sort of tax on real assets.

I don't know much about the government, really. I've spent my life evading it. Built a business that is only viable because of it, though. If govt regulations were abandoned en masse, I wouldn't have a profitable business.

I'm not a serious farmer. A little this, a little that. Nothing that ever takes me in looking for a loan or signing up for some program that's supposed to benefit. I also don't hire illegals.... well, anyone for that matter.

I would favor a govt. with the idea of improving the physical circumstances of people in terms of water, power, roads, rails, canals..... fundamental research. Projects of that sort put people to work, hopefully gainfully.... in terms of higher technologies, more efficient commerce.....
Click to expand...

Well, I have to take you to task when you get overboard with your world view, even if I know your stance in advance. You are incorrect about this, however:

babe said:
I see the inflationary increments of increased money/velocity as a sort of tax on real assets.
Click to expand...

Define "real assets". I would define it as cattle, land, homes, and any company that produces something or is a service. All of those "real" assets benefit from inflation, as do anyone with a home if they have half a brain. Since you like to quote old things, a couple follow.

Inflation is democratically beneficial, if managed reasonably. It can be a benefit or a curse (Dave Ramnsey nonsense). That's the reason the Federal Reserve Act was enacted. "You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold" - William Jennings Bryant, 1896. If you have assets on loan then you benefit from inflation. If you have "real assets" owned outright then you can easily benefit from inflation.

If you want to go Mo, here's Joseph Smith Jr.'s call for basically exactly what we have now as a Federal Reserve system, but 69 years earlier (dude was really either extremely forward thinking or divinely inspire):

For the accommodation of the people in every state and territory, let Congress shew their wisdom by granting a national bank, with branches in each state and territory, where the capital stock shall be held by the nation for the mother bank: and by the states and territories, for the branches: and whose officers and directors shall be elected yearly by the people with wages at the rate of two dollars per day for services: which several banks shall never issue any more bills than the amount of capital stock in her vaults and the interest. The net gain of the mother bank shall be applied to the national revenue, and that of the branches to the states and territories' revenues. And the bille shall be par throughout the nation, which will [sic] mercifully cure that fatal disorder known in cities, as brokerage and leave the people's money in their own pockets.
Click to expand...

-1844

Back then, the country had seen a whole lot of bankster shenanigans and decided enough was enough. There was plenty of debate, as would be the case in any developing and non-perfected system, but at the end of the day the democrats won by bringing in a system that would benefit the masses instead of the greedy bankers. It's worked pretty damn well outside of the Great Depression oof that we've learned our lesson from (just like we did with the Weimar war reparations).
 
Red said:
On the one hand, the claim has been out there forever, and is a focus of the Mueller investigation: the Trump campaign colluded with Russia's efforts to help Trump win. We know, at least I don't doubt, that Putin did want to help Trump, and he did so via social media, email dumps, etc. Since those Russian "active measures" alone represented an attack on our national sovereignty, by interfering with the democratic institution of free elections, understanding that and preventing a repeat has always been primary to me petsonally. I think feeling that way is my responsibility as a citizen of this country. But the degree to which the Trump campaign did, or did not, collude with Putin is still unknown. Maybe Mueller will provide an answer. Maybe he will not.

But on the other hand, Wolff's book claims Trump never wanted to win the 2016 election at all. And there's likely good reasons to suspect that might have been the case.

I can't reconcile those two claims. One possibility is Trump did not expect to win, but did try to win, that Wolff is mistaken, Trump did want to win. Another is that there was never any real collusion. But things like Donald Jr's meeting suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

I personally do not think that Trump wanted to be president up until the time he won and his ego took over. However, I do believe that the Russians wanted him to win and all of the people around Trump wanted him to win. That is how I reconcile both claims.

I doubt I will read it as I'm not typically a fan of gossipy books about celebrities. While there is likely to be a lot of truth in it, it will be impossible to tell where the truth ends. I do not believe that Trump has the right personality and intelligence to be president, but since he is, there isn't much I can do about it. All I can do is hope that he doesn't get people killed in his ineptitude. Anything else can likely be recovered in time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top