The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[tjg_marantz]

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/10370 ... 13472?s=09

Thread

[hepcat]

This quote from the upcoming Woodward book may very well be my favorite so far.

"Rudy, you're a baby," Trump told the man who is now his attorney. "I've never seen a worse defense of me in my life. They took your diaper off right there. You're like a little baby that needed to be changed. When are you going to be a man?"

[LawBeefaroni]

This quote from the upcoming Woodward book may very well be my favorite so far.

"Rudy, you're a baby," Trump told the man who is now his attorney. "I've never seen a worse defense of me in my life. They took your diaper off right there. You're like a little baby that needed to be changed. When are you going to be a man?"

Wait, was that a prelude to hot diaper-fetish sex?

[Freyland]

This quote from the upcoming Woodward book may very well be my favorite so far.

"Rudy, you're a baby," Trump told the man who is now his attorney. "I've never seen a worse defense of me in my life. They took your diaper off right there. You're like a little baby that needed to be changed. When are you going to be a man?"

So then all the gibberish coming out of Rudy's mouth has just been his toddler-on-benadryl growing stage? That explains a lot.

[Alefroth]

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/10370 ... 13472?s=09

Thread

Holy shit!

[RunningMn9]

Am I the only one that doesn't find the Woodward book believable? Like...I cannot believe on *any* level that these stories are true. They cannot be. As bad as I think things are in the WH, I cannot fathom a world in which it's THIS bad. Color me *exceptionally* skeptical.

[El Guapo]

Am I the only one that doesn't find the Woodward book believable? Like...I cannot believe on *any* level that these stories are true. They cannot be. As bad as I think things are in the WH, I cannot fathom a world in which it's THIS bad. Color me *exceptionally* skeptical.

What part of this makes you skeptical - is it our President's calm, sophisticated, and level-headed demeanor in public, or is it Bob Woodward's thin reporting credentials?

[Skinypupy]

Just putting this out there in advance of the upcoming twitter tantrum directed at Woodward.

There is always a tweet.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 6196188160

Only the Obama WH can get away with attacking Bob Woodward.

[LawBeefaroni]

Am I the only one that doesn't find the Woodward book believable? Like...I cannot believe on *any* level that these stories are true. They cannot be. As bad as I think things are in the WH, I cannot fathom a world in which it's THIS bad. Color me *exceptionally* skeptical.

What part of this makes you skeptical - is it our President's calm, sophisticated, and level-headed demeanor in public, or is it Bob Woodward's thin reporting credentials?

[hepcat]

Am I the only one that doesn't find the Woodward book believable? Like...I cannot believe on *any* level that these stories are true. They cannot be. As bad as I think things are in the WH, I cannot fathom a world in which it's THIS bad. Color me *exceptionally* skeptical.

What part of this makes you skeptical - is it our President's calm, sophisticated, and level-headed demeanor in public, or is it Bob Woodward's thin reporting credentials?

Everyone up to Woodward I've been skeptical of. Woodward is another matter altogether though. I'm betting every quote is either on tape or backed up by meticulous and copious notes.

As for being as bad as Woodward portrays him to be? There's quite literally decades of Trump being an absolute awful human being and a narcissist in the public domain. I'm not surprised by anything I've read so far.

Which is depressing in its own way.

[Smoove_B]

Am I the only one that doesn't find the Woodward book believable? Like...I cannot believe on *any* level that these stories are true. They cannot be. As bad as I think things are in the WH, I cannot fathom a world in which it's THIS bad. Color me *exceptionally* skeptical.

Psychologically, you need to be skeptical. Because to accept Woodward's account as presented so far means it's a miracle America still exists after almost 2 years of this nonsense.

I don't think it's coincidence his book is coming out on 9/11.

[GreenGoo]

Am I the only one that doesn't find the Woodward book believable? Like...I cannot believe on *any* level that these stories are true. They cannot be. As bad as I think things are in the WH, I cannot fathom a world in which it's THIS bad. Color me *exceptionally* skeptical.

What part of this makes you skeptical - is it our President's calm, sophisticated, and level-headed demeanor in public, or is it Bob Woodward's thin reporting credentials?

I don't want to pick on Rmn9 since we recently butted heads and I'd like to continue to defuse that as much as possible, but this is not the first time someone has said "I experienced this and what I'm saying is true" and Rmn9's response was "No it isn't".

I'm obviously rabidly anti-drumpf so I'm not even sure what would make me skeptical about any claims made against him, but as pointed out Woodward has a bit of of reputation and what *I'm* exceptionally skeptical about is that he had all this access to the WH and then lied about what he saw, when there are witnesses that were with him at the time.

He's decided to flush his reputation down the toilet just to make drumpf look bad? Really?

[GreenGoo]

Am I the only one that doesn't find the Woodward book believable? Like...I cannot believe on *any* level that these stories are true. They cannot be. As bad as I think things are in the WH, I cannot fathom a world in which it's THIS bad. Color me *exceptionally* skeptical.

What part of this makes you skeptical - is it our President's calm, sophisticated, and level-headed demeanor in public, or is it Bob Woodward's thin reporting credentials?

Everyone up to Woodward I've been skeptical of. Woodward is another matter altogether though. I'm betting every quote is either on tape or backed up by meticulous and copious notes.

As for being as bad as Woodward portrays him to be? There's quite literally decades of Trump being an absolute awful human being and a narcissist in the public domain. I'm not surprised by anything I've read so far.

Which is depressing in its own way.

It's nice to agree with you about something. Even if the topic is a shitgoblin (tm by lawbeef).

[Holman]

When the full story is known, it will probably be much worse than anything we've been able to see directly so far.

The best-case scenario is a president governing completely by whim and constrained only by his own minimal attention span and lack of interest in the job. It only gets more malevolent and destructive from there.

[El Guapo]

Am I the only one that doesn't find the Woodward book believable? Like...I cannot believe on *any* level that these stories are true. They cannot be. As bad as I think things are in the WH, I cannot fathom a world in which it's THIS bad. Color me *exceptionally* skeptical.

What part of this makes you skeptical - is it our President's calm, sophisticated, and level-headed demeanor in public, or is it Bob Woodward's thin reporting credentials?

I don't want to pick on Rmn9 since we recently butted heads and I'd like to continue to defuse that as much as possible, but this is not the first time someone has said "I experienced this and what I'm saying is true" and Rmn9's response was "No it isn't".

I'm obviously rabidly anti-drumpf so I'm not even sure what would make me skeptical about any claims made against him, but as pointed out Woodward has a bit of of reputation and what *I'm* exceptionally skeptical about is that he had all this access to the WH and then lied about what he saw, when there are witnesses that were with him at the time.

He's decided to flush his reputation down the toilet just to make drumpf look bad? Really?

Is every word of Woodward's book accurate? Intuitively that seems unlikely - people make mistakes, sources have their own incentives to spin, etc. Some skepticism of specific instances is perfectly reasonable.

Is the bulk of the book accurate? Given Woodward's pedigree, and that it's broadly consistent with what we already know, almost certainly.

[Pyperkub]

Am I the only one that doesn't find the Woodward book believable? Like...I cannot believe on *any* level that these stories are true. They cannot be. As bad as I think things are in the WH, I cannot fathom a world in which it's THIS bad. Color me *exceptionally* skeptical.

The Tillerson quote was rather widely reported, and the circumstances somewhat known. That portion appears to be pretty well documented and the word is that he (Woodward) has tapes of his interviews.

Unfortunately, I tend to believe all of it. The only thing Trump is good at is driving outrage!, and his primary way of doing it is with lies. You can fool some of the people all of the time, after all.

[GreenGoo]

Is every word of Woodward's book accurate? Intuitively that seems unlikely - people make mistakes, sources have their own incentives to spin, etc. Some skepticism of specific instances is perfectly reasonable.

Is the bulk of the book accurate? Given Woodward's pedigree, and that it's broadly consistent with what we already know, almost certainly.

More like "is every quote/behaviour witnessed by Woodward and attributed to the president" accurate?

What's your feeling on that, El Guapo? Still lots of room for skepticism?

[Pyperkub]

Am I the only one that doesn't find the Woodward book believable? Like...I cannot believe on *any* level that these stories are true. They cannot be. As bad as I think things are in the WH, I cannot fathom a world in which it's THIS bad. Color me *exceptionally* skeptical.

What part of this makes you skeptical - is it our President's calm, sophisticated, and level-headed demeanor in public, or is it Bob Woodward's thin reporting credentials?

I don't want to pick on Rmn9 since we recently butted heads and I'd like to continue to defuse that as much as possible, but this is not the first time someone has said "I experienced this and what I'm saying is true" and Rmn9's response was "No it isn't".

I'm obviously rabidly anti-drumpf so I'm not even sure what would make me skeptical about any claims made against him, but as pointed out Woodward has a bit of of reputation and what *I'm* exceptionally skeptical about is that he had all this access to the WH and then lied about what he saw, when there are witnesses that were with him at the time.

He's decided to flush his reputation down the toilet just to make drumpf look bad? Really?

Is every word of Woodward's book accurate? Intuitively that seems unlikely - people make mistakes, sources have their own incentives to spin, etc. Some skepticism of specific instances is perfectly reasonable.

Is the bulk of the book accurate? Given Woodward's pedigree, and that it's broadly consistent with what we already know, almost certainly.

IMHO, Woodward lost a LOT of his pedigree during the Bush 2 Administration. He spins it the other way, and says that in his later books about that Administration, he corrected it, but he was still very much part of the media's blindness to the lies which got us into Iraq (and away from AQ/Afghanistan - part of the reason we're still there).

[El Guapo]

Is every word of Woodward's book accurate? Intuitively that seems unlikely - people make mistakes, sources have their own incentives to spin, etc. Some skepticism of specific instances is perfectly reasonable.

Is the bulk of the book accurate? Given Woodward's pedigree, and that it's broadly consistent with what we already know, almost certainly.

More like "is every quote/behaviour witnessed by Woodward and attributed to the president" accurate?

What's your feeling on that, El Guapo? Still lots of room for skepticism?

It's going to vary by specific quote / behavior (and, obviously, I haven't read the book). But I think the bulk of the reporting is likely to be accurate.

[malchior]

Woodward's account seems wrong because it has the problem of squaring up with the reality of what we know but didn't want to face. More many of these revelations were known but the narrative wasn't entirely right. It sounds like Woodward manages to pull them together and had enough access to get the whole picture. An impressive assemblage but nonetheless he had plenty of material to find out there. He probably only managed to plumb the tip of this shitberg.

[GreenGoo]

It's going to vary by specific quote / behavior (and, obviously, I haven't read the book). But I think the bulk of the reporting is likely to be accurate.

Sure, but you're saying that you're not going to believe some of the quote/behaviour because of the specifics of the quote/behaviour. That's exactly what Rmn9 is saying. Which is like saying that anything beyond my ability to ken is not true. I'm apt to disbelieve things that simply can't be true because they are literally impossible. i.e. "Drumpf turned into a vampire bat and sucked the blood out of the visiting school children until nothing but dry husks remained" is something that I'm likely to consider being slightly skeptical about.

Drumpf acting like a baby in ways that I couldn't possibly imagine a grown man behaving isn't going to make me bat an eye. He's done it IN PUBLIC enough times that it seems unreasonable to be skeptical (which of course brings us to this discussion). Just because I can't imagine it doesn't make it unlikely to be true. I have a pretty good imagination but it's not infinite and there are bound to be scenarios that I would never have thought possible, yet they occurred.

[El Guapo]

It's going to vary by specific quote / behavior (and, obviously, I haven't read the book). But I think the bulk of the reporting is likely to be accurate.

Sure, but you're saying that you're not going to believe some of the quote/behaviour because of what the quote/behaviour is. That's exactly what Rmn9 is saying. I'm apt to disbelieve things that simply can't be true because they are literally impossible. i.e. "Drumpf turned into a vampire bat and sucked the blood out of the visiting school children until nothing but dry husks remained" is something that I'm likely to consider being slightly skeptical about.

Drumpf acting like a baby in ways that I couldn't possibly imagine a grown man behaving isn't going to make me bat an eye. He's done it IN PUBLIC enough times that it seems unreasonable to be skeptical (which of course brings us to this discussion). Just because I can't imagine it doesn't make it unlikely to be true. I have a pretty good imagination but it's not infinite and there are bound to be scenarios that I would never have thought possible, yet they occurred.

No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that it's fine to be skeptical of any one story / account / behavior, depending on the facts or circumstances around that story. Woodward's not perfect, he's necessarily relying on sources with motives, pobody's nerfect, etc. It has nothing to do with the behavior being reported. I'm saying that it's probably not ALL correct, just because of the nature of reporting.

However, I don't see much reason to be broadly skeptical of the accuracy of Woodward's book. Like I said, given Woodward's credentials, and how this matches fine with everything we know and see about Trump, suggests that it's broadly accurate.

[gbasden]

However, I don't see much reason to be broadly skeptical of the accuracy of Woodward's book. Like I said, given Woodward's credentials, and how this matches fine with everything we know and see about Trump, suggests that it's broadly accurate.

If the transcript of his call with Trump is accurate, he's got it all on tape. It's certainly possible he was lied to by some sources, but I'm certain he can back up any quote that gets questioned.

[msteelers]

However, I don't see much reason to be broadly skeptical of the accuracy of Woodward's book. Like I said, given Woodward's credentials, and how this matches fine with everything we know and see about Trump, suggests that it's broadly accurate.

If the transcript of his call with Trump is accurate, he's got it all on tape. It's certainly possible he was lied to by some sources, but I'm certain he can back up any quote that gets questioned.

Yup. He said it's all firsthand accounts of what happened, and he has tapes from all of his interviews.

So at the very least, the book should be an accurate representation of what he is being told.

[RunningMn9]

Psychologically, you need to be skeptical. Because to accept Woodward's account as presented so far means it's a miracle America still exists after almost 2 years of this nonsense.

This. I’m skeptical because I have to be. Because the alternative is *insane*.

[Zaxxon]

Psychologically, you need to be skeptical. Because to accept Woodward's account as presented so far means it's a miracle America still exists after almost 2 years of this nonsense.

This. I’m skeptical because I have to be. Because the alternative is *insane*.

I don't mean to alarm you, but America has been officially insane for the better part of two years now.

[GreenGoo]

However, I don't see much reason to be broadly skeptical of the accuracy of Woodward's book. Like I said, given Woodward's credentials, and how this matches fine with everything we know and see about Trump, suggests that it's broadly accurate.

If the transcript of his call with Trump is accurate, he's got it all on tape. It's certainly possible he was lied to by some sources, but I'm certain he can back up any quote that gets questioned.

If the story is that woodward heard from bob who is close pals with phil, and phil was in the meeting where Drumpf sacrificed children the dark gods, then ok. Be skeptical. No problem.

If Woodward says I saw him eat the still beating heart of a child, well then I'm pretty sure we have a cannibal who eats children on our hands.

[GreenGoo]

Psychologically, you need to be skeptical. Because to accept Woodward's account as presented so far means it's a miracle America still exists after almost 2 years of this nonsense.

This. I’m skeptical because I have to be. Because the alternative is *insane*.

Ok, I get that, no problem.

From my perspective there is ZERO reason to believe anything he does is a clever facade and that he's a normal human being behind close doors. People, in general, tend to get crazier behind closed doors, not more sane.

I say that in an age of internet personas, trolls and other areas where acting like a jackass in public is good for business, but still.

When he acts insane in public and people (hell, enemies AND allies of his) say that he's even crazier behind doors, well...I'm pretty sure he's a servant of chaos.

[Pyperkub]

However, I don't see much reason to be broadly skeptical of the accuracy of Woodward's book. Like I said, given Woodward's credentials, and how this matches fine with everything we know and see about Trump, suggests that it's broadly accurate.

If the transcript of his call with Trump is accurate, he's got it all on tape. It's certainly possible he was lied to by some sources, but I'm certain he can back up any quote that gets questioned.

Yup. He said it's all firsthand accounts of what happened, and he has tapes from all of his interviews.

So at the very least, the book should be an accurate representation of what he is being told.

And even if what he was told was all "fake news" (though, as I said, the Tillerson portion sounds very, very accurate), then one has to wonder at the quality of people Woodward is talking to. If they really work in the Administration, what does that say about our country?

No matter which way you cut it, it's insane, the only question is as to how many people are batshit insane there?

Is it mostly isolated, or is it contagious?

[GungHo]

However, I don't see much reason to be broadly skeptical of the accuracy of Woodward's book. Like I said, given Woodward's credentials, and how this matches fine with everything we know and see about Trump, suggests that it's broadly accurate.

If the transcript of his call with Trump is accurate, he's got it all on tape. It's certainly possible he was lied to by some sources, but I'm certain he can back up any quote that gets questioned.

Yup. He said it's all firsthand accounts of what happened, and he has tapes from all of his interviews.

So at the very least, the book should be an accurate representation of what he is being told.

And even if what he was told was all "fake news" (though, as I said, the Tillerson portion sounds very, very accurate), then one has to wonder at the quality of people Woodward is talking to. If they really work in the Administration, what does that say about our country?

No matter which way you cut it, it's insane, the only question is as to how many people are batshit insane there?

Is it mostly isolated, or is it contagious?

I don't have Twitter but I read it fairly often and there was a tweet from Brit Hume of Fox who says (paraphrasing) 'And the never trumpers think there shouldn't be 'good people' working in the Administration. Good thing there are(RE: them stopping trump from doing epically stupid shit).'

The mental gymnastics required to arrive at that conclusion based on the facts (as reported by Woodward) is pretty much insane.
Instead of trying to score political points for 'the base' wouldn't it be much better, not to mention less convoluted, to simply say, 'sounds like we have a guy who isn't fit to be prez'?

i.e. It's contagious.



EDIT:

https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1037027289224146945

He says it better (worse?) than I could...

[Kurth]

There is one significant reason to be skeptical: Who are the sources? I love the quote by Priebus:

"When you put a snake and a rat and a falcon and a rabbit and a shark and a seal in a zoo without walls," Priebus is quoted as saying, "things start getting nasty and bloody."

As someone already noted, I have no reason to doubt that Woodward is going to accurately report what he's being told or that he is relying on dozens of first-hand sources. But, again, who are these sources: They're "sources in Trump's inner circle." We're talking about the Rob Porters of the world, not to mention the Scaramuccis, Conways, Stephen Millers, Priebuses, Bannons, Spicers, Kushners etc, etc.

I may trust Woodward, but I sure don't trust these people.

Just because we're predisposed (for good and demonstrated reasons) to be inclined to believe the worst about Trump and his evil clown posse of an administration, it doesn't mean we shouldn't approach a book like Woodward's with reasonable and intelligent skepticism.

[RunningMn9]

I’m not suggesting that Woodward is lying or making things up out of thin air. I’m skeptical that what he was told was the truth. For instance, the Mattis quotes didn’t come from Mattis. Mattis has said the quotes attributed to him are complete bullshit.

So Mattis is lying, or someone lied to Woodward. How can I believe “someone” when I don’t know who they are? I know who Mattis is.

[malchior]

A benefit of being the most dishonest administration in American history is that you can say with absolute authority that one shouldn't believe anything that comes out of this White House.

[GreenGoo]

I’m not suggesting that Woodward is lying or making things up out of thin air. I’m skeptical that what he was told was the truth. For instance, the Mattis quotes didn’t come from Mattis. Mattis has said the quotes attributed to him are complete bullshit.

So Mattis is lying, or someone lied to Woodward. How can I believe “someone” when I don’t know who they are? I know who Mattis is.

Completely fair. In that case it's dude (Woodward) said that dude (source) said that dude (Mattis) said this.

That's not something I'm betting on. Why would he even put it in the book, except as pure hearsay.

[Kurth]

I’m not suggesting that Woodward is lying or making things up out of thin air. I’m skeptical that what he was told was the truth. For instance, the Mattis quotes didn’t come from Mattis. Mattis has said the quotes attributed to him are complete bullshit.

So Mattis is lying, or someone lied to Woodward. How can I believe “someone” when I don’t know who they are? I know who Mattis is.

Completely fair. In that case it's dude (Woodward) said that dude (source) said that dude (Mattis) said this.

That's not something I'm betting on. Why would he even put it in the book, except as pure hearsay.

Even short of that level of heresay, why should we believe what these sources tell Woodward they witnessed first hand? They’re a bunch of vipers.

[Zaxxon]

Could we maybe read the book before whipping out the jump to conclusions mats?

I imagine, as is Woodward's MO, a bunch of stuff is not 'person X said that person Y said Z' but rather 'through interviews with several people present at meeting Q, here is what likely happened,' followed by a reconstruction of the meeting.

I get that the administration is a den of shameless vipers, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to credibly report the goings-on within. Like, much of serious reporting is done despite those interviewed, rather than assuming their open cooperation.

Also, we get the genuinely adorable transcript of Woodward's call directly with Trump, which is all the confirmation I need that this book's existence is worthwhile.

[$iljanus]

You know, it's not like we haven't heard and seen many examples of Trump's behavior before. His fragile ego, short attention span, lack of intellectual curiosity, childish mocking, and so on along with the fear of the Orange wrath that seems to go along with working in the White House these days. I don't really see Woodward's book as much of a stretch at all.

And if Trump doesn't like the portrayal he could always act above it all and be Presidential. But that ain't really in him and we don't need a book to tell us that.

[RunningMn9]

I can only act on what they’ve released so far. And so far, I cannot believe that the White House is operating with friggin’ advisors stealing documents to stop him from signing them, the Secretary of Defense simply disregarding orders from the Commander in Chief, Kelly shit talking on a level where it’s almost impossible to believe he would still be in this job if half of the quotes are true.

I’m almost inclined to believe that there was deliberate deception of Woodward to make him look like a horse’s ass and the poster child for Fake News. Almost.

But the only reason I feel like that is because my brain refuses to operate in a world where this utter and complete nonsense is actually happening.

[hepcat]

I would be inclined to agree with you if there wasn’t mounds of evidence in Trump’s past that that kind of thing is normal in his world.

[Zaxxon]

I’m almost inclined to believe that there was deliberate deception of Woodward to make him look like a horse’s ass and the poster child for Fake News. Almost.

Good point. If there one thing we know about Trump's administration, it's that they're really good at coordinating communication so as to achieve unity in messaging.