Real World Event Discussions
Bob Woodward’s New Book, ‘Fear’
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 03:33
VIEWED: 15571
PAGE 8 of 17
Monday, September 10, 2018 9:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, it's not Woodward and his "source" it's Woodward and his (mostly) anonymous sources. So first of all, I don't trust anonymous sources.
And his NAMED sources all deny that they ever said anything like what's in his book. How do you account for that? What good does it do to print someone's statement, only to have it denied by the very person who supposedly said it?
I agree with SIX: Ever since Trump got elected, it's been nonstop bullshit from the M$M. (Oh, and from you too.) And it's no surprise that the criticism would ramp up two months before the mid-terms. This is not honest reporting. The RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!! narrative failed; this obviously just a different tack, timed to drive Trump from office. .
Don't mistake my criticism of the M$M as a defense of Trump, because there's a lot to criticize on their side, mostly their dishonesty.
You have now become the funniest poster on this forum - really - the sh*t you post is hilarious. What we see from you on a daily basis is you saying something is true without any proof or even any honest attempts at basic logic. You just say something is true and that's it.
For instance:
"As I posted, the Trump administration is cloaked in unpredictability; and I think this is deliberate."
Really? All of this deliberate? The resignations as well? The guilty pleas all right on schedule? What a strategy!
I know you have your agenda and won't believe anything that doesn't support or come from Fux Nooz pov, but just to keep the fun going:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump_administration_dismissals_
and_resignations
"Many political appointees of Donald Trump, the 45th and current President of the United States, have resigned or been dismissed. The record-setting turnover rate in the Trump Administration has been noted in various publications.
Several Trump appointees, including National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price have the shortest-service tenures in the history of their respective offices."
Another example:
How has the Russia narrative failed exactly? No proof just your saying so?
Another example:
"Ever since Trump got elected, it's been nonstop bullshit from the M$M." What exactly do you mean by that? Coverage? He's been getting more coverage than any other candidate since he began to run for the office. He craves it, he was probably elected in part because of it. Or do you mean something else by BS?
Another example:
"And it's no surprise that the criticism would ramp up two months before the mid-terms." You just said it was non-stop BS, so it's always been this way according to you. So according to you, you're full of it.
Like I've said, you don't have to make sense or even make simple, logical arguments. You're entire Trump schtick makes sense when you see it from an old Soviet's perspective.
As for sources:
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, September 10, 2018 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And his NAMED sources all deny that they ever said anything like what's in his book. How do you account for that? What good does it do to print someone's statement, only to have it denied by the very person who supposedly said it?
OMG! *gasp* *sputter* I forgot that one!
Because Mattis is going to say, "Yep, I said he had the understanding of a 6th grader."
Kelly: "Yes, I called him an idiot."
You're too funny.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, September 10, 2018 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
As for sources:
He should have just come out and admitted it was Hillary Clinton back in 2012 that was his source and saved us all a lot of trouble.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, September 10, 2018 11:41 PM
Quote:Then why be sourced at all? Or why have your name attached? And if the author knew that his sources would disavow anything that they said, why include it in a book? All that does is discredit the author, the statements, and/or the sources.
OMG! *gasp* *sputter* I forgot that one!
Because Mattis is going to say, "Yep, I said he had the understanding of a 6th grader."
Kelly: "Yes, I called him an idiot."
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, September 10, 2018 11:52 PM
Quote:I'll get to this later.
SECOND, it's not Woodward and his "source" it's Woodward and his (mostly) anonymous sources. So first of all, I don't trust anonymous sources.
And his NAMED sources all deny that they ever said anything like what's in his book. How do you account for that? What good does it do to print someone's statement, only to have it denied by the very person who supposedly said it?
I agree with SIX: Ever since Trump got elected, it's been nonstop bullshit from the M$M. (Oh, and from you too.) And it's no surprise that the criticism would ramp up two months before the mid-terms. This is not honest reporting. The RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!! narrative failed; this obviously just a different tack, timed to drive Trump from office. .
Don't mistake my criticism of the M$M as a defense of Trump, because there's a lot to criticize on their side, mostly their dishonesty. SIGNY
You have now become the funniest poster on this forum - really - the sh*t you post is hilarious. What we see from you on a daily basis is you saying something is true without any proof or even any honest attempts at basic logic. You just say something is true and that's it.
For instance:
"As I posted, the Trump administration is cloaked in unpredictability; and I think this is deliberate."
Really? All of this deliberate? The resignations as well? The guilty pleas all right on schedule? What a strategy!
Quote:I have no idea what's on Fox News, and you probably don't either.
I know you have your agenda and won't believe anything that doesn't support or come from Fux Nooz pov
Quote:At the same time, a record number of FBI and DOJ officials have been fired, demoted, or resigned. That's not an accident.
but just to keep the fun going:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump_administration_dismissals_
and_resignations
"Many political appointees of Donald Trump, the 45th and current President of the United States, have resigned or been dismissed. The record-setting turnover rate in the Trump Administration has been noted in various publications.
Several Trump appointees, including National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price have the shortest-service tenures in the history of their respective offices."
Quote:A wide swath of recent polls indicate that most people don't give a crap about so-called "Russian collusion".
Another example:
How has the Russia narrative failed exactly? No proof just your saying so?
Poll: Voters grow weary of Russia probes (Harvard -Harris poll)
By Jonathan Easley - 06/23/17 11:10 AM EDT
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/339146-poll-voters-grow-wea
ry-of-russia-probes
Poll: Americans Don’t Give A Hoot About So-Called Russian Collusion (Gallup poll)
July 20, 2018 By Bre Payton
https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/20/poll-americans-dont-give-hoot-cal
led-russian-collusion/
Who Colluded With Russia: Trump or Clinton? (Rasmussen)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politi
cs/may_2018/who_colluded_with_russia_trump_or_clinton
Quote:ANOTHER example of your ignorant partisanship?? Hookaaay ...
Another example
Quote:Obviously I mean something else.
"Ever since Trump got elected, it's been nonstop bullshit from the M$M." What exactly do you mean by that? Coverage? He's been getting more coverage than any other candidate since he began to run for the office. He craves it, he was probably elected in part because of it. Or do you mean something else by BS?
Quote:
Another example:
"And it's no surprise that the criticism would ramp up two months before the mid-terms." You just said it was non-stop BS, so it's always been this way according to you. So accoNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, September 11, 2018 1:09 AM
Quote:Signym, you have gone full Kellyanne Conway, defending Trump as best you can by tearing down the opposition as untruthful. Getting away from your and Kellyanne's alternative facts, there is an article "Trump keeps making outlandish claims about GDP". This stuff can actually be checked for truth and accuracy, T&A for short, the two things Trump does not keep around the White House. T&A does not depend on what his staff will say anonymously to Woodward and other reporters versus what they say using their real names, risking their jobs.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, it's not Woodward and his "source" it's Woodward and his (mostly) anonymous sources. So first of all, I don't trust anonymous sources.
And his NAMED sources all deny that they ever said anything like what's in his book. How do you account for that? What good does it do to print someone's statement, only to have it denied by the very person who supposedly said it?
I agree with SIX: Ever since Trump got elected, it's been nonstop bullshit from the M$M. And it's no surprise that the criticism would ramp up two months before the mid-terms. This is not honest reporting. The RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!! narrative failed; this is obviously just a different tack timed to drive Trump from office. If this had TRULY been a problem, you'd think that it would have been "reported" first, BEFORE the pointless exercise in Russophobia was attempted.
When I see so many DIFFERENT approaches all aimed at the same goal (9-11, yellowcake! mushroom could! biological weapons! tyranny!) and I see these attempts accelerating on a schedule I know I'm looking at propaganda; and you should too.
Don't mistake my criticism of the M$M as a defense of Trump, there's a lot to criticize about the M$M, mostly their dishonesty.
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
www.businessinsider.com/trump-gdp-if-hillary-clinton-democrats-won-201
8-9
Here is another story that doesn't depend on deciding to believe either Mister Anonymous-But-Remains-Employed or Mister Real-Name-But-Was-Fired-from-White-House: "Trump’s lie about US GDP growth, debunked" at https://qz.com/1384543/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, September 11, 2018 1:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Then why be sourced at all? Or why have your name attached? And if the author knew that his sources would disavow anything that they said, why include it in a book? All that does is discredit the author, the statements, and/or the sources.
OMG! *gasp* *sputter* I forgot that one!
Because Mattis is going to say, "Yep, I said he had the understanding of a 6th grader."
Kelly: "Yes, I called him an idiot."
Professional Journalists - not internet web site hacks looking for clicks - are trained to find viable sources and multiple verifications for the information they provide. There actually are things called Journalism Schools. So they get info (quotes) and they verify from other protected/anonymous sources, and they publish. They author can guess someone will deny, but how would they know? Deep Throat denied being a source on Nixon/Watergate for years afterwards.
But you know all this right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, September 11, 2018 1:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:I'll get to this later.
SECOND, it's not Woodward and his "source" it's Woodward and his (mostly) anonymous sources. So first of all, I don't trust anonymous sources.
And his NAMED sources all deny that they ever said anything like what's in his book. How do you account for that? What good does it do to print someone's statement, only to have it denied by the very person who supposedly said it?
I agree with SIX: Ever since Trump got elected, it's been nonstop bullshit from the M$M. (Oh, and from you too.) And it's no surprise that the criticism would ramp up two months before the mid-terms. This is not honest reporting. The RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!! narrative failed; this obviously just a different tack, timed to drive Trump from office. .
Don't mistake my criticism of the M$M as a defense of Trump, because there's a lot to criticize on their side, mostly their dishonesty. SIGNY
You have now become the funniest poster on this forum - really - the sh*t you post is hilarious. What we see from you on a daily basis is you saying something is true without any proof or even any honest attempts at basic logic. You just say something is true and that's it.
For instance:
"As I posted, the Trump administration is cloaked in unpredictability; and I think this is deliberate."
Really? All of this deliberate? The resignations as well? The guilty pleas all right on schedule? What a strategy!
Sure you will. So right now though you don't know if all the resignations and firings and guilty pleas and cooperation with Mueller was planned or not, is that correct?
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I have no idea what's on Fox News, and you probably don't either.
You're not lying but you are wrong. I check it out to see what horse sh*t they're peddling as News. Tucker Carlson has gone so far over the edge of Trump suck up that's it's like watching a bad movie for fun - he's so bad it's amusing.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
At the same time, a record number of FBI and DOJ officials have been fired, demoted, or resigned. That's not an accident.
Riiight - Comey was fired because of that Russia thing. In fact, were any of them convicted of doing anything illegal?Pretty obvious it's pure vindictiveness - anyone associated with Trump's Russia business is a target. Strzck and Page should sue for wrongful termination - they did nothing illegal. Right?
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
A wide swath of recent polls indicate that most people don't give a crap about so-called "Russian collusion".
Really? Are those polls from inside the Kremlin? Maybe the White House?
BTW - "Weary" does not mean "don't give a crap." Either you English or your attempt to mislead, sucks.
Poll: Voters grow weary of Russia probes (Harvard -Harris poll)
By Jonathan Easley - 06/23/17 11:10 AM EDT
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/339146-poll-voters-grow-wea
ry-of-russia-probes
Poll: Americans Don’t Give A Hoot About So-Called Russian Collusion (Gallup poll)
July 20, 2018 By Bre Payton
https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/20/poll-americans-dont-give-hoot-cal
led-russian-collusion/
Who Colluded With Russia: Trump or Clinton? (Rasmussen)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politi
cs/may_2018/who_colluded_with_russia_trump_or_clinton
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Obviously I mean something else.
"Ever since Trump got elected, it's been nonstop bullshit from the M$M." What exactly do you mean by that? Coverage? He's been getting more coverage than any other candidate since he began to run for the office. He craves it, he was probably elected in part because of it. Or do you mean something else by BS?
Obviously only to y
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, September 11, 2018 1:56 AM
Bob Woodward Stands By Reporting In Trump Book, Saying 'These Things Happened':
"You crank out the great Washington denial machine," he says. "I've seen this over the years, going back to the Nixon case."
"Time and time again people will deny things," Woodward says. "I understand people have to protect their positions. But I've done hundreds of hours of interviews with people. ... These things happened."
Woodward's book is based on "deep background" interviews, which he defines in his book as interviews where "all the information could be used but I would not say who provided it."
"The people are not anonymous to me," he says of his sources.
Once one person had described an episode to him, Woodward says, "I would go to other people and say, 'Did this happen? Who else was there?' "
"You can, in an almost microscopic way, establish what occurred — and that's what I've done in this book."
www.npr.org/2018/09/10/646247472/woodward-great-washington-denial-mach
ine-driven-by-politics-not-truth
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, September 11, 2018 2:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Bob Woodward Stands By Reporting In Trump Book, Saying 'These Things Happened':
"You crank out the great Washington denial machine," he says. "I've seen this over the years, going back to the Nixon case."
"Time and time again people will deny things," Woodward says. "I understand people have to protect their positions. But I've done hundreds of hours of interviews with people. ... These things happened."
Woodward's book is based on "deep background" interviews, which he defines in his book as interviews where "all the information could be used but I would not say who provided it."
"The people are not anonymous to me," he says of his sources.
Once one person had described an episode to him, Woodward says, "I would go to other people and say, 'Did this happen? Who else was there?' "
"You can, in an almost microscopic way, establish what occurred — and that's what I've done in this book."
In other words, we have a book written by a man in an echo chamber that is stuffed to the gills with confirmation bias.
No doubt in my mind this is going to be a bestseller that's quoted verbatim on the internet for the next 6 years.
Hell, the MSM can all just phone it in until 2024 now.
Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman don't seem to have anything on their schedule.
I think it's time for All the President's Men II: The New Batch.
EDIT: I think I like "All the President's Men 2: The Second One" even better.
EDIT: All the President's Men Too: Geriatric Boogaloo?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME