• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Book Exposed Trump for Who He Is

volsrock said:
Book Exposed Obama for Who He Is

Obama’s America, lays out Obama’s plans through the end of his second administration and warns us how he will harm the country.

America as we know it—wealthy, powerful, assertive—is not what Obama wants. He wants a smaller America, a poorer America, an America unable to exert its will, an America happy to be one power among many, an America in decline so that other nations might rise—all in the name of global fairness. To Obama, the hated “1 percent” isn’t just wealthy Americas; it is America itself. In Obama’s view, America needs to be taken down a notch.

https://www.amazon.com/Obamas-America-Unmaking-American-Dream/dp/1476773351
Click to expand...

Are you still here? :(
 
Soopairik said:
He almost always does.
Click to expand...

He has had quite a few Tweets that have advanced the agenda, so not sure if 'almost always' is accurate, however, I will admit that I've not counted and evaluate his Tweets. To that point, it could be pretty difficult and subjective which Tweets of his would be considered in which category.
 
eohrnberger said:
He has had quite a few Tweets that have advanced the agenda, so not sure if 'almost always' is accurate, however, I will admit that I've not counted and evaluate his Tweets. To that point, it could be pretty difficult and subjective which Tweets of his would be considered in which category.
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends then, on your own political views.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
You keep trying to make this about Dems. Trump ran as a Republican. Republican gave him the nomination and put him in office. That's on them.
Click to expand...

Only Republicans voted for Trump?

Do you have any statistics to back that up?
 
radcen said:
You're pretty solid on the Trump side, and that's cool, but you don't blindly defend absolutely everything, and for whatever it's worth I respect that and enjoy conversing with you.
Click to expand...

Back atcha. It has been enjoyable going back and forth with you.



There's good Trump. And there's bad Trump.

When Trump advances the agenda, or stays on message, or advances policies that support the agenda, that's good Trump.

Bad Trump detracts from the above or misses opportunities to advance the above.

Ultimately, Trump doesn't matter all that much, but the agenda does.

I dunno. Does this make me a 'Trumpster' ? I kinda don't think so. What I do think is that it makes me a conservative.
 
calamity said:
Is there anyone who is not a Trump sycophant and totally in a deep state of incredible denial not seeing this?



And, for those sycophants...here's your boi.



I hope you're proud of your five-year old.
Click to expand...

Most American knew that trump was a BS Artist and A-hole before the slow of whit elected him. The saving grace is that the odds are the Dems will take back the House and trump will be a one term President, if he even makes it that far. All we can do is hope is that he does not do so much damage to the Nation that we cannot recover.
 
Mason66 said:
Only Republicans voted for Trump?

Do you have any statistics to back that up?
Click to expand...

You better hope so, because since he did not even get half of the half of those voters that bothered to vote that would mean that many Repubs did not support trump, and I doubt that has changed. What will change is half of the voters not voting, and when that changes so will the balance of power.
 
Casper said:
Most American knew that trump was a BS Artist and A-hole before the slow of whit elected him. The saving grace is that the odds are the Dems will take back the House and trump will be a one term President, if he even makes it that far. All we can do is hope is that he does not do so much damage to the Nation that we cannot recover.
Click to expand...

Other than starting a war, which is not out of the question, the damage I see will mostly be self-inflicted on the Right. The country is pretty resilient. Thank the gods. But, this guy is doing significant damage to the Republican brand. I wonder if they will wrestle it back before they take serious hits in the next two elections.

If losing Alabama wasn't sign enough that much is wrong with the GOP, nothing will wake them up short of losing the House, Senate and Presidency. But, these things happen.

You still have to wonder though how much the infusion of "big money" will prevent the pending disaster. I read that the Wisconsin race is flooded with it. So, I would not bet that the D retains her seat there. But, she certainly has a better chance now than she would have had if Trump was not president.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The fact that a "five year old" has defeated the demorat's POTUS candidate should be a wake up call.
Click to expand...

And the fact that a "five year old" is systematically and steadily dismantling the crap Obama and the Democrats have saddled our country with over the last 10 years should be something the Trump haters should be aware of and talking about.

Instead, they are off to Amazon to buy that ridiculous book that reinforces their mindset.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, the (brilliant?) strategy of calling folks that did not vote for Hillary last time deplorable, uneducated, misogynist, racist bigots just might not work to win them over next time. We will see how it goes in 2018 and 2020.
Click to expand...

If only Hillary had been nicer to them. Then they would have voted Dem! :roll:

But it is revealing that they would vote for an admitted pedophile-supporting sex criminal simply because he did not insult them
 
Yes that is Trumps only policy to undue the entire Obama Presidency. Can't wait for the Dem to get in to the White House and on day one they will resined every Trump executive order on day one. So if that is a Presidents policy then all we have is a country one step forward two steps back. Does anybody think that the Dem ain't gonna wrote executive orders out their arse now that the Right thinks it is great. I get you thought Obama's exec orders were unconstitutional. But now that argument is out the window and Katy barre the Door
 
sangha said:
If only Hillary had been nicer to them. Then they would have voted Dem! :roll:

But it is revealing that they would vote for an admitted pedophile-supporting sex criminal simply because he did not insult them
Click to expand...

Both Trump and Hillary were far from perfect character role models so it came down to *gasp* policy (campaign promises?) differences. Lower taxes, better immigration law enforcement and reduced red tape leading to a better economy won out over I'm like Obama 3.0 but have a vagina and will give you more "free" stuff.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Both Trump and Hillary were far from perfect character role models so it came down to *gasp* policy (campaign promises?) differences. Lower taxes, better immigration law enforcement and reduced red tape leading to a better economy won out over I'm like Obama 3.0 but have a vagina and will give you more "free" stuff.
Click to expand...

Your first argument --blaming Clintons loss on her insulting people who are deplorable-- was so weak that even you wont defend it so why do you expect anyone other than the hyper-artisans to believe your 2nd string argument?

The majority opposes those policies you identify. They have little or nothing to do with why Trump won. You were closer with your first argument. It was about childish name-calling

But Trump did not win because he avoided childish name-calling. He won because right wingers eat that **** up
 
sangha said:
Your first argument --blaming Clintons loss on her insulting people who are deplorable-- was so weak that even you wont defend it so why do you expect anyone other than the hyper-artisans to believe your 2nd string argument?

The majority opposes those policies you identify. They have little or nothing to do with why Trump won. You were closer with your first argument. It was about childish name-calling

But Trump did not win because he avoided childish name-calling. He won because right wingers eat that **** up
Click to expand...

I'm not so much blaming her loss entirely on those stupid remarks as warning folks not to defend them and thus invite the same fate. There simply are not enough right or left wingers alone to elect a POTUS - the only way for one to become POTUS is to attract enough of the independents (moderates?).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I'm not so much blaming her loss entirely on those stupid remarks as warning folks not to defend them and thus invite the same fate. There simply are not enough right or left wingers alone to elect a POTUS - the only way for one to become POTUS is to attract enough of the independents (moderates?).
Click to expand...

Actually, there are many ways to win or lose an election. In 2016, the reasons have to do with the candidates. Hillary lacks appeal for many on the left , while Trumps various forms of hateful bigotry are seen as very appealing to his supporters
 
Mason66 said:
Only Republicans voted for Trump?

Do you have any statistics to back that up?
Click to expand...

Why is that conservatives never take personal responsibility for what they've done?
 
calamity said:
Is there anyone who is not a Trump sycophant and totally in a deep state of incredible denial not seeing this?



And, for those sycophants...here's your boi.



I hope you're proud of your five-year old.
Click to expand...

And then there is that minor detail of the author admitting parts of the book at untrue at worst and not the whole story at best.

But lets go ahead and run with it anyway.

Wolff‘s new book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, has set the media ablaze with a series of revelations about the inner-workings of President Donald Trump‘s administration, and attitudes that insiders have towards the 45th president. The White House has dismissed the book as “fantasy” that is full of factual inaccuracies, and Trump’s legal team has threatened to take action. According to Wolff’s own prologue in the book, they may be right.

The prologue reportedly includes the following:

Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true.

So Wolff flat out says that he believes that at least some of his sources were lying to him, and while he attributes some accounts to their sources, he acknowledges that this isn’t always the case.

This could be problematic for Wolff. He’s being accused of including fiction in what’s presented as a non-fiction book, and he admits that not all of his sources were trustworthy, but he doesn’t specify what’s fact true and what’s false. On its face, this sounds like a classic candidate for a defamation case.
 
BlackMatters said:
And then there is that minor detail of the author admitting parts of the book at untrue at worst and not the whole story at best.

But lets go ahead and run with it anyway.

Wolff‘s new book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, has set the media ablaze with a series of revelations about the inner-workings of President Donald Trump‘s administration, and attitudes that insiders have towards the 45th president. The White House has dismissed the book as “fantasy” that is full of factual inaccuracies, and Trump’s legal team has threatened to take action. According to Wolff’s own prologue in the book, they may be right.

The prologue reportedly includes the following:

Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true.

So Wolff flat out says that he believes that at least some of his sources were lying to him, and while he attributes some accounts to their sources, he acknowledges that this isn’t always the case.

This could be problematic for Wolff. He’s being accused of including fiction in what’s presented as a non-fiction book, and he admits that not all of his sources were trustworthy, but he doesn’t specify what’s fact true and what’s false. On its face, this sounds like a classic candidate for a defamation case.
Click to expand...

Here is an article that explains what you are referring to quite well.

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analy...-lies-in-his-book-puts-him-in-legal-jeopardy/
 
BlackMatters said:
And then there is that minor detail of the author admitting parts of the book at untrue at worst and not the whole story at best.

But lets go ahead and run with it anyway.

Wolff‘s new book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, has set the media ablaze with a series of revelations about the inner-workings of President Donald Trump‘s administration, and attitudes that insiders have towards the 45th president. The White House has dismissed the book as “fantasy” that is full of factual inaccuracies, and Trump’s legal team has threatened to take action. According to Wolff’s own prologue in the book, they may be right.

The prologue reportedly includes the following:

Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true.

So Wolff flat out says that he believes that at least some of his sources were lying to him, and while he attributes some accounts to their sources, he acknowledges that this isn’t always the case.

This could be problematic for Wolff. He’s being accused of including fiction in what’s presented as a non-fiction book, and he admits that not all of his sources were trustworthy, but he doesn’t specify what’s fact true and what’s false. On its face, this sounds like a classic candidate for a defamation case.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're whining. Fact is, he interviews were legit. He fully disclosed that he questions the veracity of some of those he interviewed--all were Trump people, btw. So, if anything, the book highlights how much Trump people lie.
 
calamity said:
Sounds like you're whining. Fact is, he interviews were legit. He fully disclosed that he questions the veracity of some of those he interviewed--all were Trump people, btw. So, if anything, the book highlights how much Trump people lie.
Click to expand...

Wow, did you see this one about Obama! It's in print, so it's true!
 

Attachments

  • B4917AE2-DBA7-4878-9C37-D372C72E43F9.jpg
    B4917AE2-DBA7-4878-9C37-D372C72E43F9.jpg
    27.8 KB · Views: 30
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom