Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

[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'.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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?