Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[PhaelixWW]

Later this year, Bob Woodward, who should be a household name in US presidential politics, is planning to release a book about Trump, detailing the last days of his presidency. This will round out Woodward's Trump trilogy, adding a third book as a sequel to the previously-released "Fear" and "Rage". As the article below states, he has not yet announced a name for this book, but if he's taking suggestions, I would heartily like to throw an idea into the ring and suggest the title: "Impotence".

The three-volume box-set would be glorious, don't you think?

Well, to nobody's great surprise, Bob Woodward didn't take my suggestion, and his third book will be titled "Peril".

CNN Exclusive: Title, cover and details of new Trump book from Bob Woodward and Robert Costa revealed

First it was "Fear," then it was "Rage," now it is "Peril." That is the title of the highly-anticipated third book about President Trump from legendary journalist Bob Woodward, this time written with co-author Robert Costa, a Washington Post national political reporter.

"Peril" is scheduled for release on September 21, and will closely examine the tumultuous time spanning the November 2020 election, the January 6 insurrection, and President Biden's inauguration. According to details exclusively obtained by CNN, the book will reveal how the transition period was "far more than just a domestic political crisis" and "one of the most dangerous periods in American history."

The book will be published by Simon & Schuster, which published Woodward's first two bestselling books on Trump.

According to sources familiar with the book, Woodward and Costa interviewed more than 200 insiders for "Peril," resulting in more than 6,000 pages of transcripts. CNN obtained the book's jacket, which says it "takes readers deep inside the Trump White House, the Biden White House, the 2020 campaign, and the Pentagon and Congress, with eyewitness accounts of what really happened."

Woodward and Costa obtained "never-before-seen material from secret orders, transcripts of confidential calls, diaries, emails, meeting notes and other personal and government records," sources familiar with the book told CNN.

"Peril" also goes behind the scenes during the earliest days of the Biden administration, just weeks after the attack at the Capitol and as the coronavirus pandemic continued to rage throughout the country. The book's title comes from a line in Biden's inaugural address, according to sources familiar with the book.

"Over the centuries through storm and strife, in peace and in war, we have come so far. But we still have far to go. We will press forward with speed and urgency, for we have much to do in this winter of peril and possibility," Biden said on the steps of the Capitol on January 20.

Woodward is known for his bombshell reporting, with explosive details in his 2020 book "Rage" that revealed Trump understood how contagious and deadly the Covid-19 virus was long before the American people were made aware.

Woodward's first book on Trump, 2018's "Fear," detailed the extraordinary measures taken by top officials and White House aides to prevent what they saw as a president "unhinged" and unable to control his own impulses.

The book jacket for "Peril" also includes an intriguing quote about Trump's presidential ambitions for 2024.

"He had an army. An army for Trump. He wants that back," Brad Parscale, Trump's former campaign manager, said privately in July 2021. "I don't think he sees it as a comeback. He sees it as vengeance."

[Dontrike]

I supported Bernie, for the same reason I supported Trump. They were both agents of change for the system and also spoke out against the Washington Establishment, neither certainly not altruistic heroes. One ended up being a weaker force, and the other, much stronger, but more unpredictable.

Difference being one actually was that and the other was Trump, you're kidding yourself if Trump was an agent of change. Trump in no way was stronger, he's one of the weakest men around.

[postman1782]

Trump isn't necessarily the correct leader to guide us into the future but as an agent of change, he caused a lot of people to care about politics again (on both sides). He spent a lot of time ranting, and a lot of time ranting about things wrong with our Federal Government & Corporate America (not all necessarily valid).

If Bernie was true to his Anti-Establishment platform, he would of told Establishment Hillary to shove it. But he caved, and it showed he wasn't serious about fighting the Establishment. If he caved to Hillary, would he have caved to everything else in favor of the Establishment? We don't know, because he never put up a fight, especially after emails were leaked about the primary being rigged in Hillary's favor. His purpose seems to be a dragnet for The Democrats to swoop up the left-leaning fringes, only to conveniently cave at the end of the primaries and endorse an establishment candidate.

And Trump I don't believe Trump broke anything except the minds of his critics, which is proof our system of checks and balances is effective. As for your claim about Russia, that's a matter of political theater. We kept sanctions on powerful Russian interests, we kept up our surveillance patrols all along Russia's border, we melted a bunch of Russian mercenaries that got froggy in Syria, nothing much has really changed between Obama & Trump.

What checks and balances? The Republicans literally gave that fucker anything he wanted. Including saving him from 2 impeachments, where they had enough evidence to literally convict him in a fucking court of law to sentence him to the rest of his fucking life if it were a court case.

Trump literally has about a dozen cases going on right now, especially with what we know was going on in the background on and around January 6th post election. He was literally trying to violate the constitution and install himself as a fucking dictator.

And there is a popular talking point with right wingers. That we were "energy independent" during Trump's reign as president. Except we weren't. Trump DOUBLED the imports of Russian oil in 2019 and 2020, over previous years and previous presidents. Trump changed the EPA regulations about Asbestos to appease Trump since that is one of their exports. Trump believed Putin, over EVERY EXPERT IN INTELLIGENCE about what happened in 2016, including Mueller and the Republican led Senate Intelligence committee that determined that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia at least twice by their reports.

[BronzeCondor]

Difference being one actually was that and the other was Trump, you're kidding yourself if Trump was an agent of change. Trump in no way was stronger, he's one of the weakest men around.

He was a stronger force, because he endured the Republican party, and the Democrats, to make it into office. Although, not strong enough to make it much further than that.

What checks and balances? The Republicans literally gave that fucker anything he wanted. Including saving him from 2 impeachments, where they had enough evidence to literally convict him in a fucking court of law to sentence him to the rest of his fucking life if it were a court case.

Trump literally has about a dozen cases going on right now, especially with what we know was going on in the background on and around January 6th post election. He was literally trying to violate the constitution and install himself as a fucking dictator.

And there is a popular talking point with right wingers. That we were "energy independent" during Trump's reign as president. Except we weren't. Trump DOUBLED the imports of Russian oil in 2019 and 2020, over previous years and previous presidents. Trump changed the EPA regulations about Asbestos to appease Trump since that is one of their exports. Trump believed Putin, over EVERY EXPERT IN INTELLIGENCE about what happened in 2016, including Mueller and the Republican led Senate Intelligence committee that determined that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia at least twice by their reports.

Just read this about the Russian oil situation you described, as I had not heard that claim before.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ising-tensions

It looks like US companies began purchasing Russian oil due to the embargo on Venezuela & OPEC cuts, and it didn't stir any partisan or bi-partisan concern in Washington.

And I believe you are putting too much emphasis on Trump's statement as it relates to Putin as a huge red flag, even if it was a dumb statement. And he's made a lot of them. He also made dumb statements regarding his "Great Friend Xi" & Rocket Man in North Korea. Does that mean he was in bed with them too? Not necessarily. There are plenty of events that show US has maintained a strong position versus Russia and we've continued to monitor them aggressively in the Black Sea & Northern Europe, as we have done traditionally.

There was also the matter of the F-35 sales to Turkey that we pulled out of once we got wind of the S-400 deal. You would think if Trump really had a soft spot for a Russians, that would have been allowed to stay the course.

If you were expecting a complete shut out of Russian economic transactions because of Russia's hostile nature toward the US, I would hope you'd be as equally concerned with China and US political interests tied there. But that's a discussion for another topic.

[Stormspellz]

Proof that our system is well in-tact.

ah yes the "conservative mindset" its not breaking the law and all is fine as long we aren't held accountable

[Dontrike]

He was a stronger force, because he endured the Republican party, and the Democrats, to make it into office. Although, not strong enough to make it much further than that.

He endured? You're kidding, right? He used lowest common denominator speeches and racist rhetoric to get to those "poorly educated" that he loves. He endured nothing.

[BronzeCondor]

ah yes the "conservative mindset" its not breaking the law and all is fine as long we aren't held accountable

That's how some on this forum view corruption as it relates to politics. Because no one's been convicted, corruption must not exist.

He endured? You're kidding, right? He used lowest common denominator speeches and racist rhetoric to get to those "poorly educated" that he loves. He endured nothing.

I agree, it's not much different than what any politician does. And he endured artificial and self-inflicted political scandals, the whole of MSM attacking him (even Fox News), and an entire political system stifling his attempts to get anything done.

So I'd say he endured a lot.

[Stormspellz]

That's how some on this forum view corruption as it relates to politics. Because no one's been convicted, corruption must not exist.

horrible straw man even for someone like you. We have clear tap of Trump attempting to bribe more then once and the senate republicans collectively said "we don't care". and you trying to pass that off as the same as 60 court cases showing no viable evidence of election fraud.

[BronzeCondor]

horrible straw man even for someone like you. We have clear tap of Trump attempting to bribe more then once and the senate republicans collectively said "we don't care". and you trying to pass that off as the same as 60 court cases showing no viable evidence of election fraud.

It's not a strawman, there was a pretty extensive conversation on this forum prior to my ban about government corruption, and that was the standard that was established. Convictions were the focus as proof of wrong-doing.

If the government didn't convict Trump, then we must assume he's innocent. Anything to the contrary apparently amounts to conspiracy theory conjecture. If I'm wrong about that, then it helps validates the argument I was attacked for, which entertained that a lack of convictions (as it related to Democrats), didn't mean that corruption didn't exist.

So I'd be interested to hear your opinion and contrast that with your statements in that discussion I referenced. Individuals on this forum seem to levy the double-standard card fairly often on this forum, when it suits their political discussion.

[Dontrike]

I agree, it's not much different than what any politician does.

Nnnnnno. The only other politicians that said shit similar to him are zealots and those worse than him he was trying to emulate.

And he endured artificial and self-inflicted political scandals, the whole of MSM attacking him (even Fox News), and an entire political system stifling his attempts to get anything done.

So I'd say he endured a lot.

Someone putting themselves in scandals because they continue to do illegal shit isn't "enduring."

There was no political system stifling him, he literally didn't get anything done because he had no policies to put in place. Anything he did that did happen were terrible decisions (tax cut, Covid, trade war, Covid, Covid-19) and those he failed at doing would have been terrible if he succeeded implementing them.

Stop thinking he was some savant that was going to save us all. Be smart.

[Stormspellz]

It's not a strawman, there was a pretty extensive conversation on this forum prior to my ban about government corruption, and that was the standard that was established. Convictions were the focus as proof of wrong-doing.

If the government didn't convict Trump, then we must assume he's innocent. Anything to the contrary apparently amounts to conspiracy theory conjecture. If I'm wrong about that, then it helps validates the argument I was attacked for, which was that lack of convictions (as it related to Democrats), didn't mean a lack of corruption. It's just never been convicted.

So I'd be interested to hear your opinion and contrast that with your statements in that discussion I referenced.

that the senate isn't a court of law, and had extenuating circumstances namely half the jury where also the defendants. again trying to say the two is the same is ridiculous, intellectually dishonest, and typical republican bullshit.

I don't know what the previous conversation was about but since you said "government" I assume its some tin foil stupidity about Hillary. Or maybe your half ass loophole logic is the reason you "got attacked", it is kinda your thing

[BronzeCondor]

Nnnnnno. The only other politicians that said shit similar to him are zealots and those worse than him he was trying to emulate.



Someone putting themselves in scandals because they continue to do illegal shit isn't "enduring."

There was no political system stifling him, he literally didn't get anything done because he had no policies to put in place. Anything he did that did happen were terrible decisions (tax cut, Covid, trade war, Covid, Covid-19) and those he failed at doing would have been terrible if he succeeded implementing them.

Stop thinking he was some savant that was going to save us all. Be smart.

No, you should be smart. I've admitted that Trump wasn't smart, and got in his own way, and had no shortage of dumb comments.

I simply he stated he was an agent of change, not an altruistic hero to save us.

Trump isn't necessarily the correct leader to guide us into the future but as an agent of change, he caused a lot of people to care about politics again (on both sides). He spent a lot of time ranting, and a lot of time ranting about things wrong with our Federal Government & Corporate America (not all necessarily valid).

I supported Bernie, for the same reason I supported Trump. They were both agents of change for the system and also spoke out against the Washington Establishment, neither certainly not altruistic heroes. One ended up being a weaker force, and the other, much stronger, but more unpredictable.

I agree, it's not much different than what any politician does. And he endured artificial and self-inflicted political scandals, the whole of MSM attacking him (even Fox News), and an entire political system stifling his attempts to get anything done.

And I believe you are putting too much emphasis on Trump's statement as it relates to Putin as a huge red flag, even if it was a dumb statement. And he's made a lot of them.

[Dontrike]

No, you should be smart. I've admitted that Trump wasn't smart, and got in his own way, and had no shortage of dumb comments.

I simply he stated he was an agent of change, not an altruistic hero to save us.

And the agent of change comment was wrong at best and incredibly untrue at worst. He wasn't ranting about the wrongs of the Government and corporations, he was bitching about them doing stuff to him personally because he's a known conman that no one should trust one bit. He's as far from altruistic as I am from attractive. Trump was not strong and there were no "artificial scandals" made up about him that he had to endure. Media did not attack him. The system did not stifle him.

You bolded very specific things in a lame attempt to prove something, problem is for every "he's not great" you then came up with half a dozen reasons why he is.

Air isn't that transparent. Your shtick is incredibly obvious. Much like a vegan at a butcher shop, no one buys it.

[BronzeCondor]

And the agent of change comment was wrong at best and incredibly untrue at worst. He wasn't ranting about the wrongs of the Government and corporations, he was bitching about them doing stuff to him personally because he's a known conman that no one should trust one bit. He's as far from altruistic as I am from attractive. Trump was not strong and there were no "artificial scandals" made up about him that he had to endure. Media did not attack him. The system did not stifle him.

You bolded very specific things in a lame attempt to prove something, problem is for every "he's not great" you then came up with half a dozen reasons why he is.

Air isn't that transparent. Your shtick is incredibly obvious. Much like a vegan at a butcher shop, no one buys it.

I think you're upset that I called you out.

And yes, he was ranting about it. It was part of his platform during campaign events, and certainly part of his Twitter rants.

[Fugus]

Guys, can you seriously stop feeding the damn pigeons.

I actually used to enjoy reading this stuff because it was informative, but you got it so full of pigeon shit that it is completely worthless beyond skimming for links because virtually everything else has negative value at this point.

I really wish the GMs here could implement a functional ignore system that would actually ignore a person where their posts don’t show nor does any responses to them. That would at least make this thread worth reading again.

[beanman12345]

Guys, can you seriously stop feeding the damn pigeons.

I actually used to enjoy reading this stuff because it was informative, but you got it so full of pigeon shit that it is completely worthless beyond skimming for links because virtually everything else has negative value at this point.

I really wish the GMs here could implement a functional ignore system that would actually ignore a person where their posts don’t show nor does any responses to them. That would at least make this thread worth reading again.

Agreed. It's made all the worse by it just being banal. zzzzzzzzzz

[Dontrike]

I think you're upset that I called you out.

*Looks* Where? If you did I certainly missed.

And yes, he was ranting about it. It was part of his platform during campaign events, and certainly part of his Twitter rants.

Him ranting about it is not him being an agent of change, it's him bitching like a little girl that the "cool rich people" don't like him. There's many reasons for it, most of which you seem to ignore.

- - - Updated - - -

Guys, can you seriously stop feeding the damn pigeons.

No, when people say something incredibly wrong you don't go "Hmm, guess I should ignore it, they'll learn eventually." 'Cause that works every time. If you don't like it you're certainly capable of not looking at it. Weird how that works.

Want it to stop go take up a mod position and ban those that deserve it, until then though.

[BronzeCondor]

*Looks* Where? If you did I certainly missed.

Him ranting about it is not him being an agent of change, it's him bitching like a little girl that the "cool rich people" don't like him. There's many reasons for it, most of which you seem to ignore.

You claimed I looked at him as a savant, and I showed you plenty of examples where I was providing criticism, even specific terms, in contrast to that.

And he is certainly an agent of change. If you're the traditional GOP, he's an agent of change for the worst. If you're the Democrats, he's an agent of change that gifted a Presidency. And if you're the America First movement, he's a loud and boisterous New Yorker that has no problem calling out everything and giving a voice to a disgruntled Middle America that felt disregarded amid a surge of Globalism over the last 20-30 years.

[Azadina]

Guys, can you seriously stop feeding the damn pigeons.

I actually used to enjoy reading this stuff because it was informative, but you got it so full of pigeon shit that it is completely worthless beyond skimming for links because virtually everything else has negative value at this point.

I really wish the GMs here could implement a functional ignore system that would actually ignore a person where their posts don’t show nor does any responses to them. That would at least make this thread worth reading again.

Maybe the mods should deal with the pigeons shitting all over the place, rather than demand all passers by to ignore the pigeons taking a shit.

It's impressive though on how T....ehh pigeons can T...shit for dozens of pages straight with one infraction at best. Like, what's with the massive discounts.

[Benggaul]

Quickie Monday report:

103,697 new cases, about 6k more than last Monday. Florida had top spot with 17k. 308 deaths is slightly lower than last Monday (but does not include any deaths from Florida because they did not report them) and brings the total to 638,798. The national trend is still heading up. @Breccia has already kept everyone abreast of the news out of Texas and Florida with regards to the Trumper governors fucking it up and others fighting back against them, so all I've got left to say is, well, fuck Florida.

Stay safe, folks.