Muller, Flynn, et al.

[nahtnoj]

I think most of the things the Republican Party as its currently structured places value on are monstrous. But this isn't about that. Trump is plainly just not capable of performing in the most difficult job in the world.

Michael Wolff: My Insane Year Inside Trump's White House | Hollywood Reporter

"At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends."

"Hicks' primary function was to tend to the Trump ego, to reassure him, to protect him, to buffer him, to soothe him. It was Hicks who, attentive to his lapses and repetitions, urged him to forgo an interview that was set to open the 60 Minutes fall season."

[nahtnoj]

SOP of the Presidency is to create a tweetstorm when there is something important happening which he doesn't want us to pay attention too. Pretty confident something really bad is happening which is not related to this distraction.

Ding ding ding.

Rosenstein and Wray were on the Hill last night having a little come to Jesus chat with Ryan...

[mjbabcock]

Up until a few days ago, Bannon was a white nationalist, racist, media bomb thrower, hated character by the left, and driving force behind Roy Moore's campaign. Now he's totally believable. Got it.

I should be clear in my thinking Bannon is detrimental to our country. He is a race baiting sensationalist who is making money off of tearing the world apart. I’m just happy someone from within the organization is willing to say meeting with Russians is treasonous. To date, everyone from the party aligned with national defense and the rule of law has been looking around and whistling awkwardly and saying “What?” Like a bunch of school kids whose baseball just broke the neighbor’s window...

[sine]

There's an unhealthy fascination because a lot of folks see him as very unhealthy for democracy in the United States. It's not really completely idealogical. Many folks, myself included, see him as wholly unfit for the office he holds in ways that have nothing to do with partisan ideology.

His attacks on freedom of speech are alarming, as are his comments about 'absolute authority', etc. If it was just idealogical it would be one thing but a lot of folks, myself included, see him as unstable and uninformed and not fit to be Commander in Chief.

I agree with much that you posted. You answered part of the equation and the solution to quelling anything alarming lies with the rest of D.C.

[becomingblue]

His attacks on freedom of speech are alarming

Trump has exploited/hi-lighted a number of gaffes by the media. Instead of the media going into hysterics about him attacking freedom of speech, how about they up their game and get their reporting correct. If they would just stop giving him ammunition.

[nahtnoj]

Trump has exploited/hi-lighted a number of gaffes by the media. Instead of the media going into hysterics about him attacking freedom of speech, how about they up their game and get their reporting correct. If they would just stop giving him ammunition.

Errors in reporting aren't new. That the president is such a thin skinned media obsessed asshole that he feels the need to point out every single one is.

[King Of Dirk]

I don't know if it's correctly attributed to Sun Tzu, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Certainly not a philosophy I follow. But watching these two throw bad shit each other is entertaining. Political horror comedy, like John Carpenter got together with Ridley Scott and Aaron Sorkin.

Todd I hear you. I'm one of those weirdos who actually enjoys watching the sausage-making, and I'm aghast at what I see today.

I, too, choose not to follow that maxim. It saddens me to watch a similar level of bone-headedness, the "I'm willing to overlook bad behavior of my guy/gal but I'll pounce on the bad behavior of the 'other side's' guy/gal." The reluctance to apply a single standard across political or ideological lines is a symptom of dishonesty at best.

It not easy to put yourself in the shoes or mindset of those with whom you disagree, but I believe it's important to try. I have evangelical friends who refuse to imagine the pain of a gay man who could not marry his partner until quite recently. I have progressive friends who refuse to imagine why a 95 pound woman who walks through a dark parking garage might want to keep a 9mm in her purse. In both cases, I'm not talking about people who disagree - that's fine...that's one of the things we're supposed to revere about the idea of America - I'm talking about people who simply refuse to consider another's viewpoint. People who would rather mock and deride than understand or empathize (or - dare I say it - concede that another's point might have some validity). That's toxic, both for the soul and for the state.

If you're a Trump-loather, I beg you: try to think of three non-malicious reasons a person would have voted for him. If you're a Trump-lover, I beg you: try to think of three non-malicious reasons a person would oppose him. You don't have to list them, and (spoiler alert), it's totally fine if you don't change your mind about your beliefs one iota. Just try to escape the ridiculous notion that everyone who disagrees with you has some nefarious purpose. Some do. Most don't.

We don't have to love one another. Hell, we don't even have to like each other. But the death of civility and respect for unlike minds is beneath us. If we can't find a way to show an ideological opponent the common fucking courtesy of hearing them out and considering their position, we will have failed to live up to the dreams of those who we claim inspire us: Locke, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, Gandhi, [insert your person here].

[false_aesthetic]

FWIW, The preview of Michael Wolff's book is a great read but it should be followed up with this:

Michael Wolff tells a juicy tale in his new Trump book. But should we believe it? - The Washington Post

[Matthew Strongin]

Up until a few days ago, Bannon was a white nationalist, racist, media bomb thrower, hated character by the left, and driving force behind Roy Moore's campaign. Now he's totally believable. Got it.

He's still all those things. I'm also confident that anything he says, be it pro- or anti-Trump, is self serving. But that doesn't mean everything he says is a falsehood, not to be believed.

[Matthew Strongin]

Errors in reporting aren't new. That the president is such a thin skinned media obsessed asshole that he feels the need to point out every single one is.

And "the media" still gets it right more often than not when looking at journalistic reporting (editorials are another thing). It's also just a bit cute when a man who lies and misleads so often that it's nearly impossible to keep track gets worked up about an occasional gaffe by a reporter.

[vertical_doug]

Trump has exploited/hi-lighted a number of gaffes by the media. Instead of the media going into hysterics about him attacking freedom of speech, how about they up their game and get their reporting correct. If they would just stop giving him ammunition.

Yes, the media does make mistakes, but it is another matter when various organizations supporting the President try to disseminate false stories so they can later attack the reporting. Project Veritas attempt to discredit the Washington Post with the fake allegations. This is not the first time they have been caught, and O'Keefe is a favorite of Trump. This was one of the favorite techniques of Erdogan in Turkey. Spread false stories, or create fake demonstrations so you can crack down on them. I believe the White House does plant fake stories to take advantage of the stupid media trying to out scoop each other. The media needs to up their game. I also like to listen to Chris Plante and Rush Limbaugh on WMAL in DC. I am amazed how they twist or misrepresent stories. Jeanine Pirro on Fox News was previously the DA in Westchester. She did some good things, but also did some bad things. I am amazed on what a cartoon she has become.

[becomingblue]

Errors in reporting aren't new. That the president is such a thin skinned media obsessed asshole that he feels the need to point out every single one is.

Then good for me and you. We now have someone alerting us when we are being fed BS. I guess that wasn't happening before Trump.

The media knows by now who and what they are dealing with. Likely, Trump and his team are going to keep on doing what they are doing. The media can elect to get better and get it right, or, they can stay the course and whine about attacks on freedom of speech and that people's confidence in the media is low.

[nahtnoj]

Then good for me and you. We now have someone alerting us when we are being fed BS. I guess that wasn't happening before Trump.

The media knows by now who and what they are dealing with. Likely, Trump and his team are going to keep on doing what they are doing. The media can elect to get better and get it right, or, they can stay the course and whine about attacks on freedom of speech and that people's confidence in the media is low.

If he did it in a way that betrayed the slightest interest in the truth, you might have a point. But he doesn't, so you don't.

And you're revealing an awful lot about your own personal biases when you couch someone being upset about attacks on the first amendment as baseless whining.

[becomingblue]

If he did it in a way that betrayed the slightest interest in the truth, you might have a point. But he doesn't, so you don't.

And you're revealing an awful lot about your own personal biases when you couch someone being upset about attacks on the first amendment as baseless whining.

I don't follow the first part. He, anybody, points out something that's not true but they don't do it the right way so it's not valid?

As far as the first amendment, he hasn't stifled the press, and can't. So why is the press, or anybody, even bringing that up?

[Saab2000]

As far as the first amendment, he hasn't stifled the press, and can't. So why is the press, or anybody, even bringing that up?

You're right that he can't stifle the press. It doesn't mean he doesn't think he can and has bleated about it.

http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-...htmlstory.html

[sine]

United States | RSF

[dogrange]

I don't follow the first part. He, anybody, points out something that's not true but they don't do it the right way so it's not valid?

As far as the first amendment, he hasn't stifled the press, and can't. So why is the press, or anybody, even bringing that up?

I think the point is that he shouts fake news and other denials and makes threats about stories that are ACCURATE.

[0nelove]

I’m just happy someone from within the organization is willing to say meeting with Russians is treasonous. To date, everyone from the party aligned with national defense and the rule of law has been looking around and whistling awkwardly and saying “What?” Like a bunch of school kids whose baseball just broke the neighbor’s window...

I don't take sides since I fundamentally view both sides as blood-sucking ticks at best, but if that's treason for meeting with a few Russian citizens of questionable importance, a large portion of the Obama administration including himself, should be sent straight to the firing squad for their dealings with Iran and Russia. Same with the Clintons.

The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook
FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow | TheHill

A bunch of wrongs don't make a right, but I think its important to keep a little bit of perspective.

IMO if people like yourself really wanted to prove or discredit Trump in a definitive manner to the masses, it would be far more beneficial to find and focus on a few big things rather than creating SOOOOO much white noise by beating every minuscule detail to death. Time will out, but so much white noise from Trump haters is just annoying. Frankly I'm surprised people haven't exhausted themselves already, I'm exhausted just listening to it non-stop, but I guess real hate is a powerful thing haha. As it appears things are going for this administration, why not just sit back and relax and let it all implode with quiet satisfaction?

[nahtnoj]

I think the point is that he shouts fake news and other denials and makes threats about stories that are ACCURATE.

Correct. And promotes ones that aren't - crowd size, illegal voting, etc.

[Toddykins]

Further, the 'mainstream media' owns up to its mistakes, prints corrections and even apologises in some instances.

The New York Times, Washington Post and others have done an outstanding job covering the administration. Their game is not 'weak', making an occasional error is simply a human trait.