2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,973
- 52,243
- 2,290
And here we have one of my favorite Conservatives......he sees the truth and speaks the truth.......he's funny too....
Wolff's Book Exposes our Journalists
But Bannon's fall, and the scandal-mongering book that helped it along — Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House — do underscore one thing of real importance: our mainstream journalists are genuinely awful.
They will sell any narrative they can to keep from selling the one that seems increasingly likely to be true: Trump is smarter than they are and doing a better job than the last two presidents combined.
Consider this "bombshell" from the book. Bannon thinks Don Trump Jr.'s June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer was "treasonous," and that "the chance that Don Jr. did not walk these jumos up to his father's office on the twenty-fifth floor is zero." It's a fascinating comment, because it indicates that Bannon so miscalculated his power and political acumen that he thought he could knock down the central pillar of his prestige — Trump's friendship — and survive with his career intact. But it has no factual or evidentiary weight. Bannon wasn't at the meeting and didn't even join the campaign until August 2016. So he's just another guy with an opinion — and a guy whose opinions tend to be overblown and melodramatic at that.
-----
Or consider this description from Wolff's self-promotion piece for Hollywood Reporter: "Everybody was painfully aware of the increasing pace of [Trump's] repetitions. It used to be inside of 30 minutes he'd repeat, word-for-word and expression-for-expression, the same three stories — now it was within 10 minutes."
We know this isn't true. As recently as October, we saw Trump speak for 45 minutes off-the-cuff under press questioning. Over Christmas, he talked to the New York Times. He's clearly all there. A big, outlandish character, no question, but no more outlandish than he was in the 1980s. Why should Wolff's assertion get any sort of attention at all?
----
If there's anything substantial in Wolff's tales of chaos in the early Trump White House, it shows nothing more than this: Those of us who thought the political neophyte Trump was unprepared to take office in January were correct, and Trump's response — that he would learn in office and appoint the "best people" to help him — was equally correct.
But that would mean that Trump is practically smarter and more adept than the journalists who hate him and those journalists will accept any narrative other than that one.
Wolff's Book Exposes our Journalists
But Bannon's fall, and the scandal-mongering book that helped it along — Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House — do underscore one thing of real importance: our mainstream journalists are genuinely awful.
They will sell any narrative they can to keep from selling the one that seems increasingly likely to be true: Trump is smarter than they are and doing a better job than the last two presidents combined.
Consider this "bombshell" from the book. Bannon thinks Don Trump Jr.'s June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer was "treasonous," and that "the chance that Don Jr. did not walk these jumos up to his father's office on the twenty-fifth floor is zero." It's a fascinating comment, because it indicates that Bannon so miscalculated his power and political acumen that he thought he could knock down the central pillar of his prestige — Trump's friendship — and survive with his career intact. But it has no factual or evidentiary weight. Bannon wasn't at the meeting and didn't even join the campaign until August 2016. So he's just another guy with an opinion — and a guy whose opinions tend to be overblown and melodramatic at that.
-----
Or consider this description from Wolff's self-promotion piece for Hollywood Reporter: "Everybody was painfully aware of the increasing pace of [Trump's] repetitions. It used to be inside of 30 minutes he'd repeat, word-for-word and expression-for-expression, the same three stories — now it was within 10 minutes."
We know this isn't true. As recently as October, we saw Trump speak for 45 minutes off-the-cuff under press questioning. Over Christmas, he talked to the New York Times. He's clearly all there. A big, outlandish character, no question, but no more outlandish than he was in the 1980s. Why should Wolff's assertion get any sort of attention at all?
----
If there's anything substantial in Wolff's tales of chaos in the early Trump White House, it shows nothing more than this: Those of us who thought the political neophyte Trump was unprepared to take office in January were correct, and Trump's response — that he would learn in office and appoint the "best people" to help him — was equally correct.
But that would mean that Trump is practically smarter and more adept than the journalists who hate him and those journalists will accept any narrative other than that one.
Last edited:
