Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

[OngBonga]

A/C for me is... open the windows.

[Poopadoop]

Brutal? It was perfect summer weather.

A/C is for faggots who don't like lovely weather.

If you love 30C+ so much why were you talking about putting a bathtub in your last place to evaporate the heat?

I guess that was kind of like your plan to recreate All Quiet on the Western Front by cleaning some old test tubes with bleach.

[BananaStand]

He loved the US so much he took your money and played for Canada. That pretty much says it all.

boy it's easy to shape any narrative when you leave out 90% of the story.

Espo's boss in America is another supremely talented hockey mind that left the Peoples Republic of Moosefuckers as soon as he could.

Canada begged him to come back for this exhibition shit, and he brought his best player with him.

[Poopadoop]

boy it's easy to shape any narrative when you leave out 90% of the story.

Espo's boss in America is another supremely talented hockey mind that left the Peoples Republic of Moosefuckers as soon as he could.

Canada begged him to come back for this exhibition shit, and he brought his best player with him.

Harry Sinden, another Canadian? Yeah, I would want him back to coach TEAM CANADA too. He was great.

[BananaStand]

faggots

WHERE IS THE BANHAMMMER????!!!!!!!

[OngBonga]

If you love 30C+ so much why were you talking about putting a bathtub in your last place to evaporate the heat?

Huh? I was trying to cool my computer because it was overheating. All I really needed to do was give it a good dusting, but that's besides the point. I wasn't complaining about the heat. I was loving it, my computer wasn't.

June/July was perfect. The problem with England is August is usually crap, and by the time it gets nice again in September, summer's over.

And that Siberian storm we had... yes please, that all winter please.

[BananaStand]

Harry Sinden, another Canadian? Yeah, I would want him back to coach TEAM CANADA too. He was great.

You should have kept him. He made the Bruins completely un-watchable in the 80's and 90s

[Poopadoop]

You should have kept him. He made the Bruins completely un-watchable in the 80's and 90s

You just learned he's Canadian and now he sucks despite coaching the team that won the Cold War. gg.

[Poopadoop]

To be fair though a crash test dummy could have coached that team. No way we were losing to fucking commie Russians. Not like Trump, who sucks Putin's dick every chance he gets.

[OngBonga]

WHERE IS THE BANHAMMMER????!!!!!!!

My comment is clearly in jest, and not directed at anyone explicitly. Also, I can say faggot because here in the UK it's a food item, sheep's offal or some disgusting shit. So it's not exactly a dirty word, seeing as faggots are the kind of thing old people eat. And that's preisely the context in which I used the word.

[OngBonga]

Did we ever give Greg Rusedski back to Canada? Useless prick he was.

[Poopadoop]

And by the way, when is America gonna learn to play hockey? you have 10x the population of us and we still embarrass you every time. Sad.

[Poopadoop]

Did we ever give Greg Rusedski back to Canada? Useless prick he was.

No idea who that is, but he obv. doesn't play hockey so he's irrelevant to Canada. Do what you want with him.

[BananaStand]

And by the way, when is America gonna learn to play hockey? you have 10x the population of us and we still embarrass you every time. Sad.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. The cluelessness in this post is what's sad.

Let's see if we can walk you through the logic without your head exploding....

Why would American want to learn to play hockey??

[Poopadoop]

And why the fuck did 2 million Americans show up to honor the '74 Flyers in Philly? Every single player on that team was Canadian. You owe us billions for that shit.

Pay the fuck up or we're withdrawing from every defensive pact we are in with you knobs.

[Poopadoop]

Why would American want to learn to play hockey??

'cause it's better and faster and harder than throwing an oblong shape around?

[OngBonga]

No idea who that is, but he obv. doesn't play hockey so he's irrelevant to Canada. Do what you want with him.

He was a tennis player from Canada who pretended to be British, but his reward was to live in Tim Henman's shadow, even though Tim was a bit crap.

[Poopadoop]

Where in Canada are you going to, numbnuts?

[MadMojoMonkey]

WHERE IS THE BANHAMMMER????!!!!!!!

This is not a democracy. Ongie is a mod. He can do/say whatever he damn well pleases.

Q: What is FTR's stance on Moderator censorship?

A: In regards to forum management, FTR moderators have a broad scope of authority which has been earned by their contributions. WE DO NOT CENSOR OUR MODERATORS, NOR DOES THE OPINION OF ANY GIVEN MODERATOR NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OPINIONS OF THE FTR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF OR BRAND NAME. FTR Moderators are welcome to express their opinions on any topic and members are welcome to agree/disagree with that opinion provided disagreements don't become personal/result in flaming.

https://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerf...on-198129.html

[Poopadoop]

I actually had a question I wanted to bring up before the bananahammer came down but which I assumed before would bring a torrent of insults/abuse.

Did anyone hear the story that Trump was trying to cut ties with S. Korea because it cost the US money to protect them, and his whole staff was 'omfg no, no Mr. President that's a bad idea. They will invade and conquer SK in two days. Please no.' And Trump went on to insist and they drafted a letter, but Cohn stole it off his desk?'

Or was that just me?

[OngBonga]

I can only imagine that clause was put into the T&C's for jyms' benefit.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Nanners would have been banned months ago if Keith, jyms or countless other mods of ye olde tymes were still around.


I'll have to look into the SK thing. I hadn't heard of it, but I don't really try to keep up with stuff like that.

[Poopadoop]

Nanners would have been banned months ago if Keith, jyms or countless other mods of ye olde tymes were still around.

Imma pretty sure Jyms banned people just for looking at him the wrong way. On the internet.

I'll have to look into the SK thing. I hadn't heard of it, but I don't really try to keep up with stuff like that.

It's in Woodward's (the one from Watergate fame) book. Not exactly public knowledge but has been mentioned a few times on MSM.

[OngBonga]

I dunno how I ever dodged jyms' banhammer.

I got my only tempban from bigred.

[OngBonga]

My profile has had 600-odd views. Banana's has had over 2000.

[OngBonga]

Holy fuck mojo, 25k? Someone is popular.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I dunno how I ever dodged jyms' banhammer.

I got my only tempban from bigred.

lol
What did you go to make bigred ban you?
Post a pic of a dog?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Holy fuck mojo, 25k? Someone is popular.

???

I'm popular??

I'm popular!

Hey, Dad, I made it! I'm popular on the internets!

[OngBonga]

That's how many views your profile page has.

I can't remember what I did to annoy bigred, but I'm pretty sure I deserved it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Did anyone hear the story that Trump was trying to cut ties with S. Korea because it cost the US money to protect them, and his whole staff was 'omfg no, no Mr. President that's a bad idea. They will invade and conquer SK in two days. Please no.' And Trump went on to insist and they drafted a letter, but Cohn stole it off his desk?'

Or was that just me?

Well, it's just the single account from Woodward, and from what I can find he hasn't dropped much data to verify it.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis appears to have told Trump that the troops are there (SK) "to prevent WWIII." Which Mattis could affirm or refute, but it's really a tangential point to the whole story. Trump's unsent tweet didn't call for the removal of troops, but the families of the troops.

Woodward says Trump told Rob Porter, then a staff secretary, the tweet "may be [Trump's] best ever." Which could be corroborated by Porter to verify that the tweet actually existed at some point, but I don't see any more to gain from that.

Woodward mentions "back-channel communications with NK" and "profound alarm in the Pentagon leadership" that NK would take pulling the family members of our troops as a sign of eminent attack. But there's nothing tangible in those words to verify unless someone in the Pentagon leadership volunteers to confirm the story.


Do you have any sources of responses or any corroborating stories to go along with this?
I don't see anything in what Woodward said that can be taken too seriously without at least some confirmation from another source.

***
The part about Cohn and the stolen letter is a separate story. That letter is easy to find online and read, and Again, the book has only been public for 2 days and I don't see anything from Cohn directly which affirms or refutes the book.

[MadMojoMonkey]

That's how many views your profile page has.

Yeah, just less than that, but IDK why people are interested in my profile page.
It's not like there's much there.
I wonder what they were hoping to find?

I did update my current employment just now, which was out of date by a few years, lol.

[Poopadoop]

Well, it's just the single account from Woodward, and from what I can find he hasn't dropped much data to verify it.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis appears to have told Trump that the troops are there (SK) "to prevent WWIII." Which Mattis could affirm or refute, but it's really a tangential point to the whole story. Trump's unsent tweet didn't call for the removal of troops, but the families of the troops.

Woodward says Trump told Rob Porter, then a staff secretary, the tweet "may be [Trump's] best ever." Which could be corroborated by Porter to verify that the tweet actually existed at some point, but I don't see any more to gain from that.

Woodward mentions "back-channel communications with NK" and "profound alarm in the Pentagon leadership" that NK would take pulling the family members of our troops as a sign of eminent attack. But there's nothing tangible in those words to verify unless someone in the Pentagon leadership volunteers to confirm the story.


Do you have any sources of responses or any corroborating stories to go along with this?
I don't see anything in what Woodward said that can be taken too seriously without at least some confirmation from another source.

***
The part about Cohn and the stolen letter is a separate story. That letter is easy to find online and read, and Again, the book has only been public for 2 days and I don't see anything from Cohn directly which affirms or refutes the book.

The fact that it's Woodward and not someone like Omarosa gives the story credibility imo.

And you can't really expect those guys who are still in the WH to say 'yeah, he's an idiot, he actually said that' about Trump.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The fact that it's Woodward and not someone like Omarosa gives the story credibility imo.

It gives us reason to expect less detritus than from another source, but Woodward is still a human, and therefore still has bias.
He has a history of keeping his bias more controlled than some others in his field, but that doesn't mean that he will never make a mistake.

And you can't really expect those guys who are still in the WH to say 'yeah, he's an idiot, he actually said that' about Trump.

I never said I expected that. I said that without some form of corroboration about the story, then we don't really have anything.
No one needs to say Trump is anything. Just that a certain tweet existed, or that "back-channel communications with NK" did happen and that NK said they would interpret the removal of family member from SK as preparation to invade NK, which was alarming to certain Pentagon officials.

[Poopadoop]

It gives us reason to expect less detritus than from another source, but Woodward is still a human, and therefore still has bias.
He has a history of keeping his bias more controlled than some others in his field, but that doesn't mean that he will never make a mistake.

True, but without alternative accounts being provided that are trustworthy, I'm inclined to go with Woodward. He at least doesn't seem to have an axe to grind.

I never said I expected that. I said that without some form of corroboration about the story, then we don't really have anything.
No one needs to say Trump is anything. Just that a certain tweet existed, or that "back-channel communications with NK" did happen and that NK said they would interpret the removal of family member from SK as preparation to invade NK, which was alarming to certain Pentagon officials.

What I meant was, anything in general that makes the president (their boss) look stupid they're going to disown. I'd wager most of the ones who aren't even there anymore wouldn't want to admit things, if they were true, if it made the current president (their former boss, and still the president) look like a knucklehead. People like Omarosa are the exception because she's half bonkers herself.

[BananaStand]

The fact that it's Woodward and not someone like Omarosa gives the story credibility imo.

Why? Because he just happened to be the guy that picked up the phone when Deepthroat called?? That makes him honest, and fair, and credible?

I heard Stalin patted a puppy once. He must be a hell of a guy too.

I read most of one of Woodward's books. It was called "The Price of Politics". And it was a bunch of hearsay and 3rd hand accounts about how poorly Barack Obama demonstrated leadership in the white house. Seems that one didn't get much play in the mainstream media.

It also seems that this guy is making a living by milking his white house sources for gossip and publishing it in books with ominous and scary titles.

I mean, he claims that both Mattis and Kelly made belittling comments about Trump in front of other staffers.

There absolutely, positively, zero chance that Marine Corps generals, at the highest levels of their careers, are going around casually dropping derogatory comments about the commander in chief. There is just no way that stuff happened, ever, at all.

[Poopadoop]

Why? Because he just happened to be the guy that picked up the phone when Deepthroat called?? That makes him honest, and fair, and credible?

He claims to have documented all his sources. So once he dies we'll find out if he's lying or not I guess.

I read most of one of Woodward's books. It was called "The Price of Politics". And it was a bunch of hearsay and 3rd hand accounts about how poorly Barack Obama demonstrated leadership in the white house.

Not quite on the same level as having people steal files off your desk before you can sign them though, is it?

It also seems that this guy is making a living by milking his white house sources for gossip and publishing it in books with ominous and scary titles.

Ya, funny how much of this account lines up with all the other stories and leaks and the Op Ed coming out of the WH. Just a coincidence I guess.

I mean, he claims that both Mattis and Kelly made belittling comments about Trump in front of other staffers.

There absolutely, positively, zero chance that Marine Corps generals, at the highest levels of their careers, are going around casually dropping derogatory comments about the commander in chief. There is just no way that stuff happened, ever, at all.

You mean Marine Corps generals never criticize the president, ever? I didn't know that was in their code of conduct, I thought that they were used to speaking their mind whether others liked it or not.

[BananaStand]

You mean Marine Corps generals never criticize the president, ever? I didn't know that was in their code of conduct,.

Well you learned something today.

[BananaStand]

Ya, funny how much of this account lines up with all the other stories and leaks and the Op Ed coming out of the WH. Just a coincidence I guess.

Confirmation bias much?

[Poopadoop]

Confirmation bias much?

You mean when I keep hearing the same thing from independent sources I become more inclined to believe it? Yeah, I guess so.

[BananaStand]

He claims to have documented all his sources. So once he dies we'll find out if he's lying or not I guess.

What?

No...that's not what happens when you get sources "on background"

That's someone saying "I heard that this certain ugly thing might have happened, but you didn't hear that from me"

[BananaStand]

You mean when I keep hearing the same thing from independent sources I become more inclined to believe it? Yeah, I guess so.

You need to learn what "independent" means.

[BananaStand]

So a Democrat college professor from Palo Alto says her life was de-railed by Brett Kavanaugh because when he was 17 or something, he sat on her.

Maybe he shouldn't be allowed to ever work again.

[Poopadoop]

What?

No...that's not what happens when you get sources "on background"

That's someone saying "I heard that this certain ugly thing might have happened, but you didn't hear that from me"

tucker confused.jpg

He wrote down all the sources of all the conversations he reported. So when event X happens in room Y and Woodward decribes who says what, in his little notebook he has written down 'related by Gen. Kelly, who was in the room at the time.'

Then, in a couple of years when Trump is in jail, Kelly will be under no obligation to lie about what he told Woodward, but can instead say 'that's right, I told him I would have shoved my resignation up his ass', or he can say 'no I never said that, Woodward made that up about me.'

[BananaStand]

He wrote down all the sources of all the conversations he reported.

He already has admitted that the sources of the conversations were not the people engaged in the conversations.

So when event X happens in room Y and Woodward decribes who says what, in his little notebook he has written down 'related by Gen. Kelly, who was in the room at the time.'

Because X event in room Y actually happened, doesn't mean that the people describing those events are telling the truth.

Then, in a couple of years when Trump is in jail, Kelly will be under no obligation to lie about what he told Woodward, but can instead say 'that's right, I told him I would have shoved my resignation up his ass',

If you can even entertain the thought that a marine corp general would say that directly, or indirectly, about the commander in chief, then you're a woefully under-IQ'd for this discussion.

or he can say 'no I never said that, Woodward made that up about me.'

Why isn't it credible if he says that now? Woodward has a second hand source that says he did say it. Kelly hasn't done anything honorable in his life that might earn him some credibility????

[Poopadoop]

He already has admitted that the sources of the conversations were not the people engaged in the conversations.

tucker confused.jpg

I can only assume you got that little tidbit from Fox News Land.

As if Woodward says, 'hmmm I think I'll write a book. And, I'm going to talk to Gary Cohn today. Should I ask him about stuff he and others said in a room while he was there? Nah, that's too easy. I'm going to ask him if he has any gossip he heard from Omarosa'.

Get real.

Because X event in room Y actually happened, doesn't mean that the people describing those events are telling the truth.

tucker confused.jpg

No-one assumes they're the word-for-word truth. But when you step back and look at the big picture, you're going to have a hard time convincing me all these sources are lying to make Trump look like an idiot. Especially since he already makes himself look like one every time he tweets or goes on TV.

If you can even entertain the thought that a marine corp general would say that directly, or indirectly, about the commander in chief, then you're a woefully under-IQ'd for this discussion.

tucker laughing.jpg

So your reasoning is there's a law of the universe that says Marine Corps Generals can't possibly criticize the president?

Why isn't it credible if he says that now?

tucker confused.jpg

Take the Cohn resignation as an example. Woodward has Gary Cohn who reported a convo he was directly involved in with Kelly outside the president's office. Kelly still works for the president and obviously isn't going to admit to the public (yet) that he told Cohn he would have told the president to shove his resignation up his ass six times. So instead he says 'everything in that book about me is a lie'.

[Poopadoop]

Oh, and I should add that if Kelly DID admit to saying those things, his life would be instantly made miserable, he'd get fired, and Trump would probably pull all the US dependents out of Korea tomorrow and start WWIII within two weeks.

[BananaStand]

I can only assume you got that little tidbit from Fox News Land.

It was directly from Bob Woodward's interview with Savannah Guthrie on the Today show (which is not on Fox).

haven't you guys been bitching forever now about a lack of civil debate. And yet when it's YOU who is confronted with information that doesn't fit your world view, you automatically go for "that's probably Fox BS".

Facts are facts kid. Use your brain

No-one assumes they're the word-for-word truth. But when you step back and look at the big picture, you're going to have a hard time convincing me all these sources are lying to make Trump look like an idiot.

Regarding the bolded: How many sources? What is "all these"?

Furthermore, WHY is that so hard to believe? Do you think Mattis and Kelley told Bob Woodward these things? Can we at least agree that the chances of that are about zilch?

So Woodward is hearing this stuff third-hand. Is it at all possible that someone in the whitehouse has an axe to grind and either made something up, or misunderstood something, or took something out of context just to get their story in a book?

Especially since he already makes himself look like one every time he tweets or goes on TV.

Yeah, he's really bringing himself down. I mean, he's only POTUS. If he was smarter, I guess he would be supreme overlord of the universe.

So your reasoning is there's a law of the universe that says Marine Corps Generals can't possibly criticize the president?

Pretty much

Take the Cohn resignation as an example. Woodward has Gary Cohn who reported a convo he was directly involved in with Kelly outside the president's office. Kelly still works for the president and obviously isn't going to admit to the public (yet) that he told Cohn he would have told the president to shove his resignation up his ass six times. So instead he says 'everything in that book about me is a lie'.

"would have told".....so what?

First of all, no he wouldn't have. 2nd, if he did say it, that's obviously hyperbole. and third, it's not critical of Trump. So how are you deducing that these "lies" are meant to "make Trump look like an idiot"?

Kinda hilarious that the most credible (i.e. non-anonymous) source in this book has the least damaging story to tell. What part of that story makes Trump look bad?

And how come nobody puts their name on the really juicy stuff??

[Poopadoop]

It was directly from Bob Woodward's interview with Savannah Guthrie on the Today show (which is not on Fox).

Sigh, are you really gonna make me waste my time watching this whole interview just to prove you're full of shit?

Just admit he said something like 'I sometimes had direct sources, sometimes I had second-hand ones' and save me the trouble, ok?

[MadMojoMonkey]

haven't you guys been bitching forever now about a lack of civil debate. And yet when it's YOU who is confronted with information that doesn't fit your world view, you automatically go for "that's probably Fox BS".

I'm pretty sure poopy is just 1 guy.
IDK.

Poopy? Are you just one guy, or a bunch of guys?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sigh, are you really gonna make me waste my time watching this whole interview just to prove you're full of shit?

Nope. You are responsible for your inability to leave him alone in his absurd wrongness.

[BananaStand]

Sigh, are you really gonna make me waste my time watching this whole interview just to prove you're full of shit?

Just admit he said something like 'I sometimes had direct sources, sometimes I had second-hand ones' and save me the trouble, ok?

She asks "How come it's mostly anonymous"

BW: "Well the events aren't anonymous"

In other words, because a meeting happened...then anything we hear about that meeting must also be true.

She presses him to say whether or not Mattis and Kelly are his sources. And obviously, those are NOT his sources.

Do you really think that Kelly and Mattis said these things to Woodward?

If not, then ergo, you believe woodward got it secondhand. Why are secondhand anonymous sources more compelling to you than the words of two extremely high ranking and distinguished military officers?

If you do believe that Mattis and Kelly said those things to woodward, you're high.

[BananaStand]

leave him alone in his absurd wrongness.

Care to elaborate why it's "absurd wrongness"?

Is the book mostly anonymous sources, or not?

Do you think Marine Corp generals, TWO of them, badmouthed the POTUS to a journalist? Do you think that's possible, at all?

What exactly do you find "absurd"?

[BananaStand]

SG: Are they lying?
BW: They're not telling the truth
SG: That's lying?
BW: No, but look, what’s going on here and uh, my old boss at The Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, the great editor, used to say the truth emerges. Sometimes it takes time

Wow....rock solid reporting there Woody!

[BananaStand]

Do you really think that the white house just cleared out the day Obama left? Everyone just emptied their desks and carried boxes to their cars. There were tears, and hugs, and everyone promised to write??

No. There are hundreds of people in the executive branch that have been there forever, and are democrats, and loved Obama, and hate Trump. Then one day a reporter comes around asking for shitty stories.....how do you not expect every unsubstantiated rumor and toxic lie to get printed in that book?

[Poopadoop]

She asks "How come it's mostly anonymous"

BW: "Well the events aren't anonymous"

In other words, because a meeting happened...then anything we hear about that meeting must also be true.

She presses him to say whether or not Mattis and Kelly are his sources. And obviously, those are NOT his sources.

Do you really think that Kelly and Mattis said these things to Woodward?

If not, then ergo, you believe woodward got it secondhand. Why are secondhand anonymous sources more compelling to you than the words of two extremely high ranking and distinguished military officers?

If you do believe that Mattis and Kelly said those things to woodward, you're high.

So your argument is Cohn has a conversation alone with Trump, tells it to a friend later, who then tells it to Woodward, who makes up whatever he wants.

Then on the next page, your argument is that Omarosa walks up to the secretary and asks the secretary if she can see Trump and she says 'no, he's meeting Rob Porter'. And Omarosa tells that to Woodward and he just makes up an entire conversation between Trump and Porter

Then on the next page, Dowd has a meeting with Trump about testifying to Mueller, later tells his neighbor about it, and Woodward interviews Dowd's neighbor, finds out this meeting took place, and makes up some shit about it.

And this goes on for 450 pages.

tucker laughing.jpg



Brilliant.

[Poopadoop]

Wow....rock solid reporting there Woody!

He's actually being tactful there, saying they're lying in as nice a way as possible. Not surprising that went over your head though to be fair.

[Poopadoop]

If you do believe that Mattis and Kelly said those things to woodward, you're high.

No I don't believe Mattis and Kelly talked to Woodward directly necesssarily. But, I do believe people in the room who weren't named Omarosa heard them say those things, and then told Woodward. And then Woodward went and asked other people in the room what was said, and they told him the same thing. And once Woodward had a general consensus he wrote it down.

[Poopadoop]

Is the book mostly anonymous sources, or not?

You mean there's people who wanted to talk but didn't want to face a tweetstorm and whatever else Trump can throw at them, so asked that their names not be used? That's fucking amazing.

Do you think Marine Corp generals, TWO of them, badmouthed the POTUS to a journalist? Do you think that's possible, at all?

Who says they told Woodward anything? You know there were other people around who might have heard them say it, right?

[BananaStand]

No I don't believe Mattis and Kelly talked to Woodward directly necesssarily. But, I do believe people in the room who weren't named Omarosa heard them say those things, and then told Woodward. And then Woodward went and asked other people in the room what was said, and they told him the same thing. And once Woodward had a general consensus he wrote it down.

WHAT????

So, one anonymous source is not ok, but a consensus of anonymous sources is just fine?

Can you tell me which claims come from "an anonymous source who says..." and which claims come from "anonymous sources who say..."

[BananaStand]

Who says they told Woodward anything? You know there were other people around who might have heard them say it, right?

You know that makes it even less likely that they said it, right?

[Poopadoop]

aaargh.jpg

So, one anonymous source is not ok, but a consensus of anonymous sources is just fine?

Can you tell me which claims come from "an anonymous source who says..." and which claims come from "anonymous sources who say..."

If you want a book where someone writes 'And then Cohn told me he called the president a moron for wanting to put tariffs on everything and everyone' you're gonna be waiting a long time.

See, a lot of people don't want the shitstorm of death threats and probably legal issues that's going to come to them if they start publicly accusing the president of being a moron.

Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

[Poopadoop]

You know that makes it even less likely that they said it, right?

No, it makes is less likely they want it to get out themselves.

[BananaStand]

If you want a book where someone writes 'And then Cohn told me he called the president a moron for wanting to put tariffs on everything and everyone' you're gonna be waiting a long time.

Lol, no. It came out six months ago.

https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Fury-Ins.../dp/B077F4WZZY

Remember how that was supposed to be the schocking expose that took Trump down! Remember how this was going to show what an idiot he is and how little respect he gets, and how he needs words spoon fed to him by staffers who are practically asylum nurses.

Remember how everyone stopped caring after three days?

LOL

See, a lot of people don't want the shitstorm of death threats and probably legal issues that's going to come to them if they start publicly accusing the president of being a moron.

And you don't think that diminishes their credibility at all?

[Poopadoop]

Remember how everyone stopped caring after three days?

Remember who wrote Fire and Fury?

[Poopadoop]

Basically, the difference between Fire and Fury and Omarosa's book on the one hand and Woodward's on the other, is the difference between the National Enquirer and the WP.

[BananaStand]

Basically, the difference between Fire and Fury and Omarosa's book on the one hand and Woodward's on the other, is the difference between the National Enquirer and the WP.

What?? Wolff worked for USA Today.

[Poopadoop]

What?? Wolff worked for USA Today.

USA Today is serious journalism? Dint no dat.

[BananaStand]

USA Today is serious journalism? Dint no dat.

It's not the Enquirer. Not even close!

It's circulation is higher than the WP!!

[Poopadoop]

It's not the Enquirer. Not even close!

It's circulation is higher than the WP!!

Circulation reflects integrity now?

[BananaStand]

Circulation reflects integrity now?

Acceptance by an audience is a factor in considering integrity and/or credibility.

What exactly is your beef with USA Today?

[Poopadoop]

Acceptance by an audience is a factor in considering integrity and/or credibility.

National Enquirer is credible to 1 million people then. That in itself doesn't make it objectively credible by any stretch of the imagination.

[BananaStand]

Acceptance by an audience is a factor in considering integrity and/or credibility.

Trump rallies sell out arenas.

And then there's this...

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/maxi...ampaign-party/

[Poopadoop]

Trump rallies sell out arenas.

Most of them are there just to watch someone lose his mind in public.

And he's still gonna get crushed in the midterms lol.

[BananaStand]

National Enquirer is credible to 1 million people then. That in itself doesn't make it objectively credible by any stretch of the imagination.

That's like saying The Daily show competes with CNN. Any similarity in their audience size is coincidental. People watch those for different reasons.

Anyway, getting back to the issue here.

You said comparing Bob Woodward to Michael Wolff is like comparing the Washington Post to The National Enquirer.

^Do you deny saying this? BEfore we go forward, I wanna make sure that we don't get to the end of this, and you're cowering in a puddle of your own tears, and you have nothing left to debate with except a flimsy accusation of how I'm misrepresenting your views.

Did you, or did you not make that analogy?

So you are connecting Bob Woodward to his ACTUAL employer. But you're NOT connecting Wolff to his actual employer. Instead, you're connecting him to the worst example you can think of. Why is that?

Why should I think YOU are credible at this point?

[BananaStand]

^Still kinda hoping we can resolve this

Seems really fishy that whenever the demagoguery becomes indefensible...the conversation stops.