Axios confirms what’s true in Wolff’s book

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I pay more attention to what he DOES than what he says. Actions are what matters.
I learned that during the Obama administration.

You might want to notice the treason and open flouting of every law and custom he can. You won't though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone with a triple-digit IQ and the ability to read knows the Wolff book is true.

Do you mean some aspects ring true and confirm individual’s biases? Is this what you mean? And you must mean very low triple digit IQ: the author’s own note - in the beginning of the book - claims he presents conflicting representations and printed accounts of people he trusted more.

This man trusted BANNON — a man who lead a revolution and slit his own wrist during the power grab of governing. Honestly, thisfact alone shocked me bc I have NEVER even read about a strategist doing this previously in history. Learning about it in real time is fascinating palace intrique but, gossip.

Precisely. I'm embarrassed for the liberals who are salivating over what amounts to no more than gossip. The author himself says it's for the reader to decide what's true. So essentially, he's written a novel.

Exactly.

Not exactly. The author said that there were places where there were differing accounts and he provided both to let the reader decide.

Trumpers having a really difficult time with this distinction. They also keep tipping their hand; I don't think there's a Democrat who's reading this book and not taking a jaundiced eye toward it all, using critical thinking, looking for themes.

But I sense that Trumpers, like their dear leader, don't have a lot of experience with books, non-fiction or otherwise.

Funny.... nonfiction is most of what I read. And, I am a Trump supporter.
I can assure you that Wolff’s book is fiction. Possibly in the fantasy realm.

And you haven’t noticed that half of what Trump says is fiction?

I pay more attention to what he DOES than what he says. Actions are what matters.
I learned that during the Obama administration.

It's simplistic to assert a divide betweend words and action. His tweets do things. They break down civil discourse. They degrade us as a country. They divide Americans against each other instead of making us feel united. They embolden racists. They rachet up the buried ugliness of the American soul. They rile up both our friends, who worry about the sanity of the supposed leader of the free world, and our enemies, who are angered by his careless taunts. They bring down our standing in the world, which turns to other countries for true leadership.

[Anonymous]

Yes!!

"I’m gonna begin this post with the same disclaimer that needs to come with every post about Michael Wolff, which is that Wolff is a fart-sniffer whose credibility is often suspect and who represents the absolute worst of New York media-cocktail-circuit inbreeding. But in a way, it’s fitting that our least reliable president could finally find himself undone at the hands of one of our least reliable journalists"

https://www.gq.com/story/michael-wolff-white-house-trump-access

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best part of all of this is that Trump sued to stop the publication and the published accelerated the publication.

They're clearly confident enough in the book is true...

It feels like he didn’t read the part of the Constitution dealing with prior restraint. He really, really needed to take Mr. Kahn up on his offer of that pocket Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot imagine that Henry Holt publisher legal group did not vet every word in this book and listened to the tapes. Now, it is possible some people lied to Wolff, but he still had tapes with them talking about t-rump.

The people claiming the book is full of lies have not read the book. DJT doesn't read, and he says the book is fiction. How would he know?

Oh, come on. The Donald is, like a smart person. And he reads the most books the fastest because his eyes are yuge, believe me. Bigly yuge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes!!

"I’m gonna begin this post with the same disclaimer that needs to come with every post about Michael Wolff, which is that Wolff is a fart-sniffer whose credibility is often suspect and who represents the absolute worst of New York media-cocktail-circuit inbreeding. But in a way, it’s fitting that our least reliable president could finally find himself undone at the hands of one of our least reliable journalists"

https://www.gq.com/story/michael-wolff-white-house-trump-access

Thanks for posting, what a great read. And yes, that's what it comes down to - Wolff tossed decorum aside and went straight for the throat. He infiltrated and got folks around Trump confiding in him and got his story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR Trump is ignorant, borderline illiterate and throws tantrums when he doesn’t get his way.

https://www.axios.com/the-wolff-lines-on-trump-that-ring-unambiguously-true-2522675021.html

And yet ... yet ... he beat The Harvey-Enabling Grifter. Millions will die!

Would love to go on, but I need to get back to looking lovingly at my 401(k) statement.

Elitist.

signed -- the other half of America that owns no stocks and doesn't GAF about the Dow.

The half of American that doesn't pay federal income tax? There's a big overlap, you know.

And why don't they pay federal income tax?

DP.. because their wages are too low, because Rs are against a living wage, because Rs like cheap labor (ie, farmers and construction business owners who vote overwhelmingly Rs).

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/05/trumps-deportation-vow-spurs-california-farmers-into-action.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/17/labor-shortage-for-washington-state-farmers-highlights-immigration-issues.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-20/-i-need-more-mexicans-a-kansas-farmer-s-message-to-trump

What living wage amount are you suggesting? Should McD workers in the DC area make 60K? 70K?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thread ending comment:

If you still support this monstrosity of a presidency you are psychologically unbalanced and an idiot.

What if you want change?
Voting for establishment candidates, they Republicans or Democrats aren't going to get you there.

DP... I tend to agree with you, but change for the worse is not better than what we had before, as we are seeing. We want change for the good, not for the worse. As a former R, I couldn't vote for Trump because I could tell he was a horrible person, and vastly unqualified to lead a country. If by his own admission he claims he doesn't have to read a book because he's got common sense doesn't make you wary of him, then either you agree with him (which makes you equally ignorant and arrogant) or you are an idiot (I don't mean "you" as in PP, but you in the general sense).

Unfortunately, a politician will almost never make it to the top unless he bows to some of the establishment because that's where the politician will get the money for the campaign. Trump didn't even want to use his own money. He lent his money to the campaign, which had to be paid back to him.

The only way to avoid this is by not allowing private donations to campaigns, and certainly not big corporate money. Unfortunately, the conservative SCOTUS struck down the campaign finance laws that the Dems tried to push forward which would've curtailed big money donors.

There should be one public pot for financing campaigns, taken out of federal money.

Unfortunately, I don't see *anything* changing without campaign finance reform. I don't think Trump is any better than the establishment. At least the establishment doesn't pi$$ off our allies and play nuclear war chicken with NK.

Let's take your first bolded statement. So Trump doesn't want to read this book that insults him at every turn and I should be wary of that? That DOES sound like common sense, frankly. Better to simply ignore a book where the author states straight out that he can't verify the content.

The last, you believe that the taxpayer should pay for campaigns and that money should be trusted to the Feds? You don't see a problem with this, over the people themselves deciding who they would like to support?

[Anonymous]

GQ article is spot on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thread ending comment:

If you still support this monstrosity of a presidency you are psychologically unbalanced and an idiot.

Sorry.

Yes, we all are.

--America

With a 30% approval rating - the lowest in the history of our country - for a President who lost the popular vote by 3 million votes? You are not speaking for America, PP, and you know it.

Actually PP is. Because (a) it's clear from the election itself that these polls are often wrong due to sampling biases and (b) the popular vote in this country is of no real matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Let's take your first bolded statement. So Trump doesn't want to read this book that insults him at every turn and I should be wary of that? That DOES sound like common sense, frankly. Better to simply ignore a book where the author states straight out that he can't verify the content.

The last, you believe that the taxpayer should pay for campaigns and that money should be trusted to the Feds? You don't see a problem with this, over the people themselves deciding who they would like to support?

DP. On the second point, the problem right now is two-fold. First, there are millions of dollars going into campaigns that are completely unaccountable. We have no idea who is funding SuperPACs, including foreign money. Second, then politicians are beholden to their funders, many of whom are unnamed billionaires, then they are no longer beholden to their constituents. The decisions they make reflect that.

So personally, I am opposed to federal funding for elections, but so too, I am opposed to these secret moneypots that the politicians can tap.

I don't know the legal solution though, given the decision in Citizens United.

[Anonymous]

This book confirms everything we all knew. DJT is unfit. How is this new? DJT is a f*king moron. Nothing new there. Javanka are not smart and love to ride coattails. Yawn! Nothing new except a new form factor!


The question is, when will the GOP grow a pair and do something patriotic for its citizens, instead of being the bastion of self-serving monsters hell bent on creating an oligarchy system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thread ending comment:

If you still support this monstrosity of a presidency you are psychologically unbalanced and an idiot.

What if you want change?
Voting for establishment candidates, they Republicans or Democrats aren't going to get you there.

DP... I tend to agree with you, but change for the worse is not better than what we had before, as we are seeing. We want change for the good, not for the worse. As a former R, I couldn't vote for Trump because I could tell he was a horrible person, and vastly unqualified to lead a country. If by his own admission he claims he doesn't have to read a book because he's got common sense doesn't make you wary of him, then either you agree with him (which makes you equally ignorant and arrogant) or you are an idiot (I don't mean "you" as in PP, but you in the general sense).

Unfortunately, a politician will almost never make it to the top unless he bows to some of the establishment because that's where the politician will get the money for the campaign. Trump didn't even want to use his own money. He lent his money to the campaign, which had to be paid back to him.

The only way to avoid this is by not allowing private donations to campaigns, and certainly not big corporate money. Unfortunately, the conservative SCOTUS struck down the campaign finance laws that the Dems tried to push forward which would've curtailed big money donors.

There should be one public pot for financing campaigns, taken out of federal money.

Unfortunately, I don't see *anything* changing without campaign finance reform. I don't think Trump is any better than the establishment. At least the establishment doesn't pi$$ off our allies and play nuclear war chicken with NK.

Let's take your first bolded statement. So Trump doesn't want to read this book that insults him at every turn and I should be wary of that? That DOES sound like common sense, frankly. Better to simply ignore a book where the author states straight out that he can't verify the content.

The last, you believe that the taxpayer should pay for campaigns and that money should be trusted to the Feds? You don't see a problem with this, over the people themselves deciding who they would like to support?

First of all, Trump stated that he doesn't need to read because he has common sense. Secondly, you can bet Trump will absolutely read this one book.

As to the taxpayer financing campaigns, we already do that to some degree. Each candidate gets something from the pot. Have you never noticed on your tax return that there is a box at the end of the form that asks if you want to contribute to the presidential campaign. Right now, it's voluntary, but we should just have a set aside in the budget for it.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-checkbox-on-your-tax-return-helped-kill-public-campaign-funding/

The share of tax forms with a checked box has been declining steadily for decades.

That widespread sentiment is one of the principal reasons why the public funding of presidential campaigns, long a goal of campaign finance reform activists, is dying. Because the checkoff has provided a reduced stream of money, public financing is no longer an attractive option for the major party candidates, who now prefer to let private citizens with money pay for their campaigns.

When you agree to the $3 tax checkoff, it funds the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF), a common pool of money that matches the fundraising of eligible presidential candidates in primary and general elections, for those who choose to take it. The $3 does not come out of your taxes; it’s just $3 less the government receives in tax revenue.

I believe many European countries do it this way, too. Very little private money in campaigning, as it should be. If we did it this way and the conservative SCOTUS hadn't killed campaign finance reform, we wouldn't have big money in politics as much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thread ending comment:

If you still support this monstrosity of a presidency you are psychologically unbalanced and an idiot.

What if you want change?
Voting for establishment candidates, they Republicans or Democrats aren't going to get you there.

DP... I tend to agree with you, but change for the worse is not better than what we had before, as we are seeing. We want change for the good, not for the worse. As a former R, I couldn't vote for Trump because I could tell he was a horrible person, and vastly unqualified to lead a country. If by his own admission he claims he doesn't have to read a book because he's got common sense doesn't make you wary of him, then either you agree with him (which makes you equally ignorant and arrogant) or you are an idiot (I don't mean "you" as in PP, but you in the general sense).

Unfortunately, a politician will almost never make it to the top unless he bows to some of the establishment because that's where the politician will get the money for the campaign. Trump didn't even want to use his own money. He lent his money to the campaign, which had to be paid back to him.

The only way to avoid this is by not allowing private donations to campaigns, and certainly not big corporate money. Unfortunately, the conservative SCOTUS struck down the campaign finance laws that the Dems tried to push forward which would've curtailed big money donors.

There should be one public pot for financing campaigns, taken out of federal money.

Unfortunately, I don't see *anything* changing without campaign finance reform. I don't think Trump is any better than the establishment. At least the establishment doesn't pi$$ off our allies and play nuclear war chicken with NK.

Let's take your first bolded statement. So Trump doesn't want to read this book that insults him at every turn and I should be wary of that? That DOES sound like common sense, frankly. Better to simply ignore a book where the author states straight out that he can't verify the content.

The last, you believe that the taxpayer should pay for campaigns and that money should be trusted to the Feds? You don't see a problem with this, over the people themselves deciding who they would like to support?

First of all, Trump stated that he doesn't need to read because he has common sense. Secondly, you can bet Trump will absolutely read this one book.

As to the taxpayer financing campaigns, we already do that to some degree. Each candidate gets something from the pot. Have you never noticed on your tax return that there is a box at the end of the form that asks if you want to contribute to the presidential campaign. Right now, it's voluntary, but we should just have a set aside in the budget for it.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-checkbox-on-your-tax-return-helped-kill-public-campaign-funding/

The share of tax forms with a checked box has been declining steadily for decades.

That widespread sentiment is one of the principal reasons why the public funding of presidential campaigns, long a goal of campaign finance reform activists, is dying. Because the checkoff has provided a reduced stream of money, public financing is no longer an attractive option for the major party candidates, who now prefer to let private citizens with money pay for their campaigns.

When you agree to the $3 tax checkoff, it funds the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF), a common pool of money that matches the fundraising of eligible presidential candidates in primary and general elections, for those who choose to take it. The $3 does not come out of your taxes; it’s just $3 less the government receives in tax revenue.

I believe many European countries do it this way, too. Very little private money in campaigning, as it should be. If we did it this way and the conservative SCOTUS hadn't killed campaign finance reform, we wouldn't have big money in politics as much.

The infrastructure already exists. So we should then expand it to cover Senate and House elections and outlaw any direct or indirect campaign funding with severe penalties for violators.

That would shift the balance back to being "by, for and of the People" rather than being completely dominated by corporations, billionaires and special interests.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile, note that Bannon and a few others cited in Wolff's book are expressing regret for what they said. As opposed to denying the truth of what they said. They are confirming what they said.