Republicans

[pErvinalia]

I might actually get Fear. I think, given the journalist's prestige and track record of integrity, it will be on a different level to the personal memoirs of ex-staff.

He actually wrote an insider book about the Obama administration too. All of the Republicans smears won't stick here.

I've got the one he wrote about Dubya's invasion of Iraq. Haven't read it yet, though.

[Joe]

Joe -- until you can provide absolute examples which meet all of 42's conditions you forfeit your right to an opinion, or even to be taken seriously, and in the meantime the contrary view will be repeated, often, as if it remains unchallenged - untill/unless examples are provided that satisfy the aforementioned conditionality tests. Rinse and repeat...

I don't take him seriously. He didn't read the book.

[Jason]

You mean he's out of your league?

[Joe]

And, Joe, the passage you quoted was NOT very specific - look at this:

It was as if one of Woodward’s sources had chosen to publish a real-time epilogue in the pages of the Times. Reading the Op-Ed, I immediately thought of an amazing passage in the book, which quoted a summary of a national-security meeting written by a White House official (and which never even made it into the news accounts about the book). It said, “The president proceeded to lecture and insult the entire group about how they didn’t know anything when it came to defense or national security. It seems clear that many of the president’s senior advisers, especially those in the national security realm, are extremely concerned with his erratic nature, his relative ignorance, his inability to learn, as well as what they consider his dangerous views.”

This is gossip, not specifics. We can tell from this that someone in the white house characterizes a meeting where the President lectured and insulted an entire group about how they didn't know anything regarding defense and national security. It's not a quote, it's a paraphrase. But, that's not a threat to democracy or democratic institutions. The President is the elected executive and commander in chief. The people he's "lecturing" work for him, not the other way around. We elected Trump, not whoever he was talking to. It's a characterized as a "national security meeting," but conspicuously absent from that passage is WHO WAS IN THE MEETING? Surely the writer/Woodward knows. Why not identify the specific people. Kelly? Mattis? Who? And do those people agree with the characterization of that meeting?

President's senior advisers are very concerned about his erratic behavior. Oh, really? Who? Which "senior advisers?" What will those senior advisers confirm? Did Woodward get that info FROM the senior advisers in question, or from someone in the administration who claims to be a "resister" of Trump?

Dangerous views? Which "views?" Are we talking a policy difference, or a "danger?" What danger? Does he think that nuclear weapons can be used on a whim for fun and profit? Does he think that he can disband Congress? Is he going to appoint a horse to his cabinet? Or, is this that he is "too friendly" with Russia? Or, does someone think his North Korea policy is dangerous because it doesn't come down on them enough for their human rights abuses and prison camps?

What you quoted was not an example of specifics that people are resisting - what you posted are generalized allegations. He's dumb. He doesn't even want to learn. He told other people they didn't know anything about defense. Etc. Do you honestly think he's the first President in history to manage in that fashion? Verbal abuse? Insult? Yelling? If that's what anyone thinks, I have some serious news for you - there is a type of manager who operates like that. Trump is not the first.

It's fair to seriously consider reports that a President is abusive, ignorant, and unwilling to learn, and it's fair to seriously consider reports that he is trying to do dangerous and damaging things. But, that's the beginning of the analysis, not the end. Who is making the allegation is important. Why? On what basis? What examples of policies the President sought to enact that are dangerous and damaging? Remember, this is politics, so just because someone comes out anonymously saying the President is an abusive, ignorant and dangerous person doesn't (a) make it so, or (b) provide us with any actionable information.

People in the Lyndon Johnson administration thought he was a psycho too - he'd hold meetings while he was taking a shit on the toilet. He cursed like a truck driver, and yelled at his staff all the time. He would talk openly about the size of his penis, calling it Jumbo, in front of staff, including women. He would be naked in front of his staff and talk to them with his cock and balls hanging out. Some people thought he was involved in the Kennedy assassination. Some people thought he rigged the election when he was running with Kennedy so they could take Texas. And, he's the one whose "dangerous" policies and his "impulses and inclinations" escalated the Vietnam War resulting in 10s of thousands of American military deaths and upwards of million dead Vietnamese.

"Dangerous" policies? Really? GHWBush's policy in Iraq. Obama's policy in Libya and Syria. Clinton's policies in Serbia/Kosovo, and Sudan (where he bombed a factory and such). Reagan and Bush policies in Nicaragua and Panama?

Every President has "dangerous" policies. There were "inside sources" in the Reagan administration that said he took his policy advice from an astrologer and his wife, and that he had dementia or alzeimers in meetings and fell asleep. Reagan.

I'm not going to take anonymous inside sources at face value, and certainly not on generalized allegations without factual back-up.

President Obama was said to have told his staff "I can do every one of your jobs better than you can." He centralized decision-making in an unprecedented manner. People around him were not pushing back on him, because President Obama thought he was "the smartest guy in the room."



So? What do we do with that information? He's the President. He was elected. Not Gates, not the President's advisers. Maybe Obama was pushing his staff to prove him wrong. That's one management style - the manager asks for X, and he expects his staff to fight for what they believe in - if they think something is wrong, then they have to stand up and stand behind their contradiction or opposition - and they better be right. That's what the manager wants -- people who better be right, and can be held accountable when they're wrong. They don't want an adviser who later says "well, i was just an adviser, it was your decision, Mr. President" - he wants an adviser who says "no, Mr. president, here's the right thing to do, and here's why, and I stand behind it."

Take it up with Glasser, Forty Two, if you disagree with her citation from the book. I gave you what you asked for,

Well, because I think the media did not, in fact, say that woodward’s book contained examples of what the op ed writer said he and his cohorts were doing. But you can always cite your source. Maybe it’s one I haven’t seen.

Hey, at least it got your mind off John Brennan, and seems to have helped your writer's block.

[Joe]

You mean he's out of your league?

Trolling Siva?

[Jason]

You mean he's out of your league?

Trolling Siva?

No, just you.

[Joe]

You mean he's out of your league?

Trolling Siva?

No, just you.

If you're not, I'm not.

[Jason]

Did you read his arguments or just dismiss them with petty insults?

[Joe]

I always read his arguments, and think about them too. When I dismiss them, it's either because he's repeating something I've already responded to, or he's wandered off topic.

Otherwise, I try to respond to them.

[pErvinalia]

Coiti Two has a bit of a track record. I for one don't hold it against anyone who gets exasperated with him. God knows I do.

[JimC]

But you get exasperated with yourself!

[pErvinalia]

I do. I'm a real piece of work..

[Forty Two]

Take it up with Glasser, Forty Two, if you disagree with her citation from the book. I gave you what you asked for,

Didn't, actually, because what I asked for was an example of what the op ed writer said he "thwarted." What you posted was not that.

Well, because I think the media did not, in fact, say that woodward’s book contained examples of what the op ed writer said he and his cohorts were doing. But you can always cite your source. Maybe it’s one I haven’t seen.

Hey, at least it got your mind off John Brennan, and seems to have helped your writer's block.

Your citation did not refer to or describe an example of what the op ed writer said he and his cohorts were doing. Pointing out that Trump insults people and says they don't know what they're doing is not that.

[Forty Two]

Joe -- until you can provide absolute examples which meet all of 42's conditions you forfeit your right to an opinion, or even to be taken seriously, and in the meantime the contrary view will be repeated, often, as if it remains unchallenged - untill/unless examples are provided that satisfy the aforementioned conditionality tests. Rinse and repeat...

I don't take him seriously. He didn't read the book.

The op ed writer wrote his piece, not Woodward. And nothing you've said suggests Woodward's book provides a single example of what the op ed writer said he and his resisters were thwarting. There are lots of books about Trump. I don't have to read them in order to know that the op ed writer said that he and others in the administration were actively thwarting the President from doing specific things that he is impulsed and inclined to do which are dangers/threats to democracy and democratic institutions. That's what the op ed writer said he and others were doing. Not one example of that has been cited or described.

It's not a "threat to democracy" for the president to think advisers don't know what they're doing. The President's cabinet is not a democratic institution. As noted, Obama was reported to have said he could do all their jobs better than they could. That, too, was not a "threat to democracy." All that is is pointing out that the President is conceited, self-aggrandized and egotistical. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

[Forty Two]

... bit of a track record...

Hardly anybody's track record is as bad as yours.