OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[1bad65]

The author has done no such thing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDFZKAS5eQw)

Keep up with current events please

If you mimic me again son, you're on ignore.

I don't like grown men trying to be me. It's creepy, and shows an insecure, follower mentality.

Be yourself.

And yes, the author admitted it's not all true.

That means it's fiction. Keep up!

[1bad65]

The author of the explosive new book about Donald Trump's presidency acknowledged in an author's note that he wasn't certain all of its content was true.

Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true.

In other cases, the media columnist said, he did use his journalistic judgment and research to arrive at what he describes "a version of events I believe to be true."

Here is the relevant part of the note, from the 10th page of the book's prologue:

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

"Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."

Source, full story:
http://www.businessinsider.com/micha...ll-true-2018-1

Right from the horse's mouth dude.

He even said "many" parts are "baldly untrue".

So again I ask you, how can YOU tell us which parts are true and which are parts the author simply made up and thus are false?

Good luck answering that one.

[Tomjas]

The author of the explosive new book about Donald Trump's presidency acknowledged in an author's note that he wasn't certain all of its content was true.

Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true.

In other cases, the media columnist said, he did use his journalistic judgment and research to arrive at what he describes "a version of events I believe to be true."

Here is the relevant part of the note, from the 10th page of the book's prologue:

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

"Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."

Source, full story:
http://www.businessinsider.com/micha...ll-true-2018-1

Right from the horse's mouth dude.

He even said "many" parts are "baldly untrue".

So again I ask you, how can YOU tell us which parts are true and which are parts the author simply made up and thus are false?

Good luck answering that one.

You could have saved yourself all of that typing by simply listening to the interview

In it, he explains that everyone in the White House lies and part of his job was to obtain enough evidence to determine which of 2 conflicting stories was more likely to be true

Having done that, he said in the interview that he believed everything in the book to be true

Funny how nobody in the White House has disproved it either

[1bad65]

Having done that, he said in the interview that he believed everything in the book to be true

Which contradicts what his own book says!!

Look, I know Gruber called you folks "stupid" for being easy to lie to and snooker, but this is really sad.

The guy said ahead of time that it's not all true, and here you grubers are trying to tell us it's all true.

Just because y'all are "stupid" and easy to fool doesn't mean the rest of us are.

So again I ask, since the author admits "many" parts are "baldly untrue", how can you tell us which parts are true and which are parts the author simply made up?

I'm growing very tired of asking you the same question and seeing you duck it. This won't go on much longer.

You need to answer it, admit you can't answer it, or keep playing your superfan ducking games and you'll be added to to my Ignore List.

It's on you, but choose carefully.

Funny how nobody in the White House has disproved it either

Oh Jeez /facepalm

Here, learn something you should have learned already:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden...of_(philosophy)

[1bad65]

You could have saved yourself all of that typing by simply listening to the interview

I did listen to it.

Whats your take on the part where Colbert asked about the author presenting the tapes and the author was not forthcoming and all but said he isn't releasing those?

After all, if he released the tapes, we'd know exactly what was true, and what parts he lied about. Hmmm.....

[Tomjas]

Which contradicts what his own book says!!

Look, I know Gruber called you folks "stupid" for being easy to lie to and snooker, but this is really sad.

The guy said ahead of time that it's not all true, and here you grubers are trying to tell us it's all true.

Just because y'all are "stupid" and easy to fool doesn't mean the rest of us are.

So again I ask, since the author admits "many" parts are "baldly untrue", how can you tell us which parts are true and which are parts the author simply made up?

I'm growing very tired of asking you the same question and seeing you duck it. This won't go on much longer.

You need to answer it, admit you can't answer it, or keep playing your superfan ducking games and you'll be added to to my Ignore List.

It's on you, but choose carefully.



Oh Jeez /facepalm

Here, learn something you should have learned already:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden...of_(philosophy)

Burden of proof is only required in the event of legal action and since none has been taken .............



Here is a very simple question

Why do you think that Steve Bannon (a guy who lost his job, financial backing and credibility as a direct result of this book) hasn't sued

You would have to be a completely deluded fanboy to ignore the obvious answer

[1bad65]

Burden of proof is only required in the event of legal action and since none has been taken .............

Nope.

That's the standard in debates too.

Why do you think that Steve Bannon (a guy who lost his job, financial backing and credibility as a direct result of this book) hasn't sued

You would have to be a completely deluded fanboy to ignore the obvious answer

Once you answer the question that's been on the table for awhile, then you get to ask me a question.

You need to get moving on that one simple question I've been asking over and over.

And by the way, we've already covered your 'lack of suing is a concession it's factual' argument. As I said the first time you said it, by your logic it is true Obama was born in Kenya because Obama did not sue those who said he was born in Kenya.

You need to keep up.

You're either ignoring my posts and/or my sourcing because you have a message and nothing will get in your way of saying it, or you're not grasping what I'm saying and sourcing.

So please, just answer my question so we can move on.

[Don Pichardo]

The author has done no such thing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDFZKAS5eQw)

Keep up with current events please

Yo if you haven’t noticed he’s not in it to be swayed. Nothing you tell or sho him will sway him. Koch brothers hired him like they do on other sites to keep deciminating bs right wing agenda. And if he’s not working for them and doing it for free then he’s a cluster buck.

[1bad65]

Yo if you haven’t noticed he’s not in it to be swayed. Nothing you tell or sho him will sway him.

Why should I be swayed?

I have the author himself saying it's not all true.

What more evidence does one need Mr Lawyer?

How would it go over in a courtroom if a witness prefaced his testimony by saying "Some of this is true, and some of it is not....."?

You tell me, Mr Lawyer....

Koch brothers hired him like they do on other sites to keep deciminating bs right wing agenda. And if he’s not working for them and doing it for free then he’s a cluster buck.

LMFAO!!!!

By the way, it's spelled "disseminating". If you're going to use big words to try and sound smart, at least make sure you spell them correctly.

[1bad65]

First the author admits it's not all true.
Then when liberal hero Colbert asks the author to release the tapes so we can see the truth, and the author declines.

And you guys cite specific parts of this book as fact??

C'mon guys, I know Gruber called you guys "stupid" and easily hood-winked, but this is really bad.