Bob Woodward's new book FEAR

[Belsnickel]

There. Is. A. Tweet. For. Everything. https://t.co/7vvNxbabrI

— Matt Viser (@mviser) September 4, 2018

[*michaelsean*]

Oh and it’s not treason either way.

[Belsnickel]

(09-05-2018, 07:33 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Are they subverting him or steering him? It doesn’t seem like he says do one thing and they do another.

From the sound of things they are subverting him on certain issues. Even steering him isn't ok, though. His role is to steer them, not the other way around.

Let's think of the executive branch like a ship. There is one captain. The personnel like the helmsmen, navigators, and so forth can provide information about what is around them, but it is up to the captain to set the course. If the crew take charge, that is a mutiny. That's what you're dealing with if what is being said in that op-ed is true.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-05-2018, 07:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually you are allowed to look at lots of other facts to determine who is lying.

I don't know how you can judge the credibility of the source when you don't know who it is. Woodward broke the Watergate story on information from anonymous sources, so I guess you believe Nixon is innocent also, right?

Mattis would lie to protect his boss if he felt is was necessary to protect the United States.

It always amuses me when you contradict yourself in the same post.  You're saying we can't determine if anonymous source is lying but we absolutely can definitively state that Mattis would lie.  Omniscience must be exhausting.

[Vas Deferens]

being a piece of trash like daddy simultaneously inhibits him from receiving proper credit for his perceived accomplishments AND informs his future decisions.

kind of makes you wonder if it wouldnt be better to have someone who isnt a piece of trash as president.

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2018, 06:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Right, just "one reason".

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that Trump has repeatedly attacked Sessions in public. 

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that Trump has repeatedly shown his love for grade school level insults.

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that trump has repeatedly been shown to be a liar.

Couldn't have anything to do with Woodward's career and track record of reliable reporting.

Nope, there is only ONE REASON, the mainstream media just hates Donald Trump for no reason. 

Do you realize in all your huffing and puffing how many times the name Mattis (you do realize this is who we are talking about, don't you) was mentioned? 0

Do you realize how many times the name Trump was mentioned? 4

Thanks for illustrating the reason is exactly as I suggested.

[GMDino]

Trump's word salad of a defense against the article:

The Failing New York Times! pic.twitter.com/SHsXvYKpBf

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2018

Followed by a tweet demanding the source be "turned over".

Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2018

This all just perfectly normal behavior by a very stable genius who is a very modern President.  

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2018, 07:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It always amuses me when you contradict yourself in the same post.  You're saying we can't determine if anonymous source is lying but we absolutely can definitively state that Mattis would lie.  Omniscience must be exhausting.

You do realize that rationality for many ended the morning of 9 NOV 2016?

Perhaps the unknown source is someone with more credibility than a retired 4 star Marine General. We just can't be sure; so we have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[BmorePat87]

(09-05-2018, 07:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm guessing the timing of this is not coincidental: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html


What do y'all think of this?

I know that many will cheer at this, if true, because according to this senior official they are keeping us away from disaster. I admit, the fact that our country maintains a steady path is one that I am happy with. However, I take issue with non-elected officials subverting the will of the elected one. Whether you voted for Trump or not, whether you like him, or whether you think he is a loathsome toad, this is an undermining of our democracy. It is not the responsibility of the bureaucrats to serve this function. It is the responsibility of Congress and the judiciary to check the Executive when they go off the rails.

I mentioned in the Kavanaugh thread that policy gets made up and down the ladder, which is 100% true. But those policies are created to carry out the policies of the elected officials. When the bureaucrats are creating policy that is counter to what the elected official orders, we are in a constitutional crisis.

I put this here because this op-ed piece says some of the same things that come out in the book, and this is a big issue.

I am more concerned with the claim that the chief executive is incapable of even realizing that his aides are guiding policy in a direction contradictory to what he is calling for and apparently cannot even notice if paperwork he is working on suddenly goes missing. 

[GMDino]

(09-05-2018, 09:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I am more concerned with the claim that the chief executive is incapable of even realizing that his aides are guiding policy in a direction contradictory to what he is calling for and apparently cannot even notice if paperwork he is working on suddenly goes missing. 

How hard could it be to guide Trump?  Praise him and let him think it was his idea in the first place.

Bonus if it goes against anything Obama did.

He's a CEO...not a worker.  He wouldn't know what papers were there because he doesn't have to read them.  That's someone else's job.  Then they report to him.

Piece of cake.

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2018, 07:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It always amuses me when you contradict yourself in the same post.  You're saying we can't determine if anonymous source is lying but we absolutely can definitively state that Mattis would lie.  Omniscience must be exhausting.

I don't think you understand the meaning of "contradiction".

Mattis has motive to lie.

Don't know if anonymous source has motive to lie.

Where is "contradiction"?

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2018, 09:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You do realize that rationality for many ended the morning of 9 NOV 2016?

Perhaps the unknown source is someone with more credibility than a retired 4 star Marine General. We just can't be sure; so we have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

You military guys are so cute.


"A general tell a lie????  You have got to be kidding.  That has never happened in the history of the military!!"

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2018, 09:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I am more concerned with the claim that the chief executive is incapable of even realizing that his aides are guiding policy in a direction contradictory to what he is calling for and apparently cannot even notice if paperwork he is working on suddenly goes missing. 

This is easy to believe.  There have been multiple examples of Trump making comments in public that contradict his own policy statements.  He often has not clue what is actually happening.

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2018, 08:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you realize in all your huffing and puffing how many times the name Mattis (you do realize this is who we are talking about, don't you) was mentioned? 0

Do you realize how many times the name Trump was mentioned? 4

Thanks for illustrating the reason is exactly as I suggested.

What exactly is your point.

You say "Only think to look at is Mattis to determine truth"

I say "No there are other things to look at"

So why are you shocked that I mention Mattis zero times when giving examples of other facts to consider besides Mattis?

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2018, 09:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You military guys are so cute.


"A general tell a lie????  You have got to be kidding.  That has never happened in the history of the military!!"

Outstanding use of bold font and multiple punctuation aside; that's not what anyone said.

I said credibility of source carries weight.  Is this a point you disagree with?

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2018, 09:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What exactly is your point.

You say "Only think to look at is Mattis to determine truth"

I say "No there are other things to look at"

So why are you shocked that I mention Mattis zero times when giving examples of other facts to consider besides Mattis?

Point is: using the word Trump 4 times in an attempt to refute that the decision is based on feelings about Trump prove exactly what I suggested.

I once again extend my thanks.

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2018, 09:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Point is: using the word Trump 4 times in an attempt to refute that the decision is based on feelings about Trump prove exactly what I suggested.

I once again extend my thanks.

WTF?

I can not mention Trump in a discussion about Trumps actions?

This is getting ridiculous.

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2018, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I said credibility of source carries weight.  Is this a point you disagree with?

And history is full of Generals who told lies.

Is this a point you disagree with?

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2018, 09:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And history is full of Generals who told lies.

Is this a point you disagree with?

Meh, you've got to answer the question posed first; I know you hate it.

Does credibility of a witness carry weight?

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2018, 09:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: WTF?

I can not mention Trump in a discussion about Trumps actions?

This is getting ridiculous.

Actually it was about whether or not Mattis was lying. AKA Mattis' actions

I do agree with your final statement

Oh, and thanks.