Corner of Berkshire & Fairfax Message Board

General Category => Politics => Topic started by: Liberty on September 04, 2018, 04:09:08 PM

Title: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 04, 2018, 04:09:08 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bob-woodwards-new-book-reveals-a-nervous-breakdown-of-trumps-presidency/2018/09/04/b27a389e-ac60-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html

The whole thing is worth quoting.

Even Ari Fleischer vouches for how accurate Woodward is with these things..

https://twitter.com/arifleischer/status/1037015246081347584?s=21
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: cobafdek on September 04, 2018, 04:49:29 PM
Even Ari Fleischer vouches for how accurate Woodward is with these things..

What's it like when mythic "reporters" exercise their confirmation bias and make stuff up for dramatic narrative effect?  Ask his Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee.  Woodward and Bernstein have long been criticized, beginning with their first book "All the President's Men," with their "truthful" depictions from "sources."  Since they're MSM heroes, their work is gospel.

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/04/the-woodward-method-075770

" . . .the critics who say source material has been misquoted, miscast, misrepresented — or even made up — in the service of Woodward’s relentless pursuit of a gripping yarn."
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: bookie71 on September 04, 2018, 06:29:18 PM
if you can, get the recording of where Trump call's Woodward and wants to know why he didn't interview him.  Woodward records with Trump's permission, Trump finally admits he knew Woodward was tying to interview him.
Part of it was on CNN which I put on a par with FOX (both are propaganda machines  that Hitler or Stalin would have loved)
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/04/bob-woodward-trump-phone-call-audio-vpx.cnn
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 05, 2018, 07:42:53 AM
Even Ari Fleischer vouches for how accurate Woodward is with these things..

What's it like when mythic "reporters" exercise their confirmation bias and make stuff up for dramatic narrative effect?  Ask his Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee.  Woodward and Bernstein have long been criticized, beginning with their first book "All the President's Men," with their "truthful" depictions from "sources."  Since they're MSM heroes, their work is gospel.

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/04/the-woodward-method-075770

" . . .the critics who say source material has been misquoted, miscast, misrepresented — or even made up — in the service of Woodward’s relentless pursuit of a gripping yarn."

Who, an editor questions a potted plant years later, and the editor wasn't there? Oh my, that surely hurts his credibility...

Any surprise the people who look bad then claim it was all made up?

Obviously no book is 100% like a video recording of the scene, but it's as close as we're likely to get, at least until more close Trump people come out with their own recordings...
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Spekulatius on September 05, 2018, 10:18:31 AM
Hehe, none of Trump‘s people who worked for him have any credibility after they stopped working for him and make damning statements about him. Make of this what you like. There are several conclusions one can draw from this, but none are positive for Trump.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 05, 2018, 10:58:06 AM
Hehe, none of Trump‘s people who worked for him have any credibility after they stopped working for him and make damning statements about him. Make of this what you like. There are several conclusions one can draw from this, but none are positive for Trump.

Why is that? You cant just declare that by fiat. I think some don't have credibility because they are just habitual liars (Giuliani), but others are credible, and the fact that they tried their best and didn't get anywhere (Rex Tillerson) doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't true..

But anyway, the book is full of statements by people who are still working for Trump (Kelly)....

More here about Trump not believing in "human sources" (wtf?):

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/trump-said-us-intel-sources-are-people-who-sold-their-souls-report.html

Quote
After hearing that a U.S. intelligence source in Russia was in enough danger that the CIA wanted to remove that person from the country, President Donald Trump reportedly responded by criticizing the use of human sources.

"These are people who have sold their souls and sold out their country," Trump said, according to reporting from a new tell-all book by famed Watergate journalist Bob Woodward that was obtained by NBC News.

"I don't trust human intelligence and these spies," Trump added. [...]

During the briefing, Clapper reportedly told Trump, without providing the sources' names, that one source was in enough jeopardy that the CIA wanted to move that person to safety, either through exfiltration to a different country or to the U.S.

But Clapper said the source refused, possibly for fear of harm to the person's family if he or she suddenly left the country, NBC reported from Woodward's book.

Trump replied: "I don't believe in human sources."
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 05, 2018, 12:59:13 PM
Op-Ed by someone within Trump administration (anonymously published, but identity known to NYT):

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Quote
To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

etc etc etc
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 05, 2018, 04:39:07 PM
Op-Ed by someone within Trump administration (anonymously published, but identity known to NYT):

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Quote
To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

etc etc etc

LOL I hope the same thing happens to companies you guys invest in. Tesla maybe? Rogue employees, (let alone cowardly anonymous ones whom pen letters bragging about it), purposely sabotaging their employer is not something worthy of praise.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: cobafdek on September 05, 2018, 04:41:43 PM
1. Suppose you could de-link the authors' names from their books - Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury, Omarosa's Unhinged, and Woodward's Fear - scramble them up, then randomly attach the names to the books.  Would anyone be able to detect any differences? 

2. Next, pretend Trump was not President - insert random generic Republican.  Does not the current domestic and international situation call for a judgment of a better-than-average results for a Presidential administration?

Poor Woodward, late to the game, beaten to the scoop by the likes of Wolff and Omarosa.  He had a chance to provide insight into how the gossip of #1 above can co-exist with the outcomes of #2.  Instead, it's all anti-Trump confirmation bias of "he's stupid, he's crazy."

Who, an editor questions a potted plant years later, and the editor wasn't there? Oh my, that surely hurts his credibility...

Any surprise the people who look bad then claim it was all made up?

More on Woodward's credibility in the past:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/03/bob_woodward_and_gene_sperling_what_woodward_s_john_belushi_book_can_tell.html

". . . in the final product, a lot of what Woodward writes comes off as being not quite right—some of it to the point where it can feel quite wrong. There’s no question that he frequently ferrets out information that other reporters don’t. But getting the scoop is only part of the equation. Once you have the facts, you have to present those facts in context and in proportion to other facts in order to accurately reflect reality. It’s here that Woodward fails."

"The simple truth of Wired is that Bob Woodward, deploying all of the talent and resources for which he is famous, produced something that is a failure as journalism. And when you imagine Woodward using the same approach to cover secret meetings about drone strikes and the budget sequester and other issues of vital national importance, well, you have to stop and shudder."


 
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: LC on September 05, 2018, 05:21:16 PM

LOL I hope the same thing happens to companies you guys invest in. Tesla maybe? Rogue employees, (let alone cowardly anonymous ones whom pen letters bragging about it), purposely sabotaging their employer is not something worthy of praise.

Would never happen. One of the important things about investing is avoiding toxic management.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 05, 2018, 05:31:26 PM
https://nypost.com/2018/09/05/trump-demands-ny-times-reveal-identity-of-anonymous-official/

I'd wager they won't, must likely because the source is not real.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: cobafdek on September 05, 2018, 06:12:21 PM

LOL I hope the same thing happens to companies you guys invest in. Tesla maybe? Rogue employees, (let alone cowardly anonymous ones whom pen letters bragging about it), purposely sabotaging their employer is not something worthy of praise.

Would never happen. One of the important things about investing is avoiding toxic management.

Like Elon Musk and Steve Jobs.

https://www.cultofmac.com/507881/woz-aspects-steve-jobs-personality-trumpish/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/doronlevin/2018/07/17/elon-musk-and-donald-trump-are-in-their-own-disruptive-spheres-are-birds-of-a-feather/#17be85c4649c
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: rb on September 05, 2018, 06:20:07 PM
LOL I hope the same thing happens to companies you guys invest in. Tesla maybe? Rogue employees, (let alone cowardly anonymous ones whom pen letters bragging about it), purposely sabotaging their employer is not something worthy of praise.
here's the thing. Those employees don't work for Donald Trump. They work for the American people.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: SharperDingaan on September 05, 2018, 06:42:03 PM
The message here is that respect for the 'office of the president', and the 'president' are not the same thing.
No different to what you might see in any major company around the world.

The inference is that the knives are now out - and they like their chances

We live in interesting times.

SD
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: investor-man on September 05, 2018, 07:27:51 PM
Op-Ed by someone within Trump administration (anonymously published, but identity known to NYT):

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Quote
To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

etc etc etc

FAKE NEWS FROM THE FAILING NEW YORK TIMES
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: investor-man on September 05, 2018, 07:38:51 PM
https://nypost.com/2018/09/05/trump-demands-ny-times-reveal-identity-of-anonymous-official/

I'd wager they won't, must likely because the source is not real.

Revealing the source would basically put the newspaper out of business.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: sleepydragon on September 05, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lodestar-mike-pence-anonymous-new-york-times_us_5b905dd5e4b0511db3dec1e1?utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&section=politics&utm_medium=facebook&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&utm_source=politics_fb

Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: sleepydragon on September 05, 2018, 08:26:50 PM
If it’s indeed mike pence who wrote it, then maybe GOPs are scheming to get pence to replace trump. Impeachment is coming.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: rb on September 05, 2018, 09:08:27 PM
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lodestar-mike-pence-anonymous-new-york-times_us_5b905dd5e4b0511db3dec1e1?utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&section=politics&utm_medium=facebook&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&utm_source=politics_fb
This has to be one of the most ridiculous lol pieces I've ever read. The author must have had a deadline, had nothing, and also had a date.... et voila.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: LC on September 05, 2018, 10:58:02 PM
If it’s indeed mike pence who wrote it, then maybe GOPs are scheming to get pence to replace trump. Impeachment is coming.

Personally, I doubt it. Pence is just as bad on the fiscal side and even worse socially.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: rb on September 05, 2018, 11:22:20 PM
If it’s indeed mike pence who wrote it, then maybe GOPs are scheming to get pence to replace trump. Impeachment is coming.

Personally, I doubt it. Pence is just as bad on the fiscal side and even worse socially.
I find the impeachment talk hilarious. Donald Trump is not gonna get impeached. Almost nobody wants to impeach Donald Trump. The Republicans don't, the Democrats don't. Ironically, in relation to this post, Mike Pence is probably the only guy in Washington that probably wants Trump impeached.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 06, 2018, 12:52:24 AM
https://nypost.com/2018/09/05/trump-demands-ny-times-reveal-identity-of-anonymous-official/

I'd wager they won't, must likely because the source is not real.

Revealing the source would basically put the newspaper out of business.

First off, I think citing anonymous sources should be illegal. It's basically grounds to make things up or let cowards run amok. Second, if NYT went out of business, would anyone besides Dougie or Liberty really care?
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 06, 2018, 07:03:11 AM
LOL I hope the same thing happens to companies you guys invest in. Tesla maybe? Rogue employees, (let alone cowardly anonymous ones whom pen letters bragging about it), purposely sabotaging their employer is not something worthy of praise.

People pledge allegiance to the US and the constitution, not to Trump. I certainly hope that there are antibodies in the system against incompetents and amoral authoritarians.

And if I ever invest in a company that is run by an idiot and a con man, I hope he'll get removed and replaced as fast as possible, because he can't be good for any business.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 06, 2018, 07:03:47 AM
First off, I think citing anonymous sources should be illegal. It's basically grounds to make things up or let cowards run amok. Second, if NYT went out of business, would anyone besides Dougie or Liberty really care?

What's your real name, Gregmal?
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 06, 2018, 08:28:42 AM
First off, I think citing anonymous sources should be illegal. It's basically grounds to make things up or let cowards run amok. Second, if NYT went out of business, would anyone besides Dougie or Liberty really care?

What's your real name, Gregmal?

As a matter of fact, yes. The other thing I'll point out, again, taking a giant leap and assuming the NYT story is real, is that in any other position, all this thing is, is basically an employee bitching and moaning about their boss. Nothing more to it. Because it feeds the liberal hate machine, and is anti Trump, it's somehow something different and front page worthy. Logically that is odd.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: LC on September 06, 2018, 08:52:22 AM
Quote
As a matter of fact, yes. The other thing I'll point out, again, taking a giant leap and assuming the NYT story is real, is that in any other position, all this thing is, is basically an employee bitching and moaning about their boss. Nothing more to it. Because it feeds the liberal hate machine, and is anti Trump, it's somehow something different and front page worthy. Logically that is odd.

Yea but...this is the President, not Joe Schmoe's plumbing and supplies.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Viking on September 06, 2018, 08:53:51 AM
I would never invest in a company run by Trump (or someone in his mirror image). The Woodward book and the Time Op Ed are simply data points to help inform. (I did not say they were perfect data points.) With the fullness of time it is possible to construct a pretty accurate picture of what is going on.

I think Trump is underappreciated for what he is accomlishing from an economic standpoint. Tax cut. Deregulation. Trade deals are getting renegotiated in months (not decades which would be what normally happens). Does this mean i like the man? No.

As i have said before, the mid term elections are going to be key. If the Democtrats get control of the House we will be entering a brand new world politically speaking in the US. If the Republicans maintain control of both houses then i My guess is we get more of the same (last 2 years).
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: LC on September 06, 2018, 08:57:09 AM
I think Trump is underappreciated for what he is accomlishing from an economic standpoint. Tax cut. Deregulation. Trade deals are getting renegotiated in months (not decades which would be what normally happens).
Jury is out on the trade renegotiations but both the tax cut and deregulation looks pretty bad to me. What about them do you like?
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 06, 2018, 10:37:01 AM
First off, I think citing anonymous sources should be illegal. It's basically grounds to make things up or let cowards run amok. Second, if NYT went out of business, would anyone besides Dougie or Liberty really care?

What's your real name, Gregmal?

As a matter of fact, yes. The other thing I'll point out, again, taking a giant leap and assuming the NYT story is real, is that in any other position, all this thing is, is basically an employee bitching and moaning about their boss. Nothing more to it. Because it feeds the liberal hate machine, and is anti Trump, it's somehow something different and front page worthy. Logically that is odd.

Anything positive for Trump matters, anything negative doesn't and gets brushed off. When Trump quotes random talking heads on Fox News and retweets random twitter accounts praising him, or cites "sources" about Obama's birth certificates or amplifies random conspiracy theories (including as a guest on Alex Jones' show), that's fine, but when experienced and qualified journalists with decades of experience cite multiple sources (that their editors have vetted, putting their careers on the line if it someday turns out they made things up), now the standard is really high and only names will do. That's basically your mental algorithm, it seems. Maybe look at what is being said and judge it on its merit, look at how many times it has been said, and by how many people, named or anonymous, people who have worked closely with him and are ideologically aligned and really tried (almost his whole original cabinet that is now gone and many of their replacements), over how many years and decades, and include that in your model of what Trump must be like, and then ask yourself if he should be chief executive of anything at all, last of all the world's biggest nuclear power. When almost everybody who comes into contact with someone agrees, chances are, there's a real issue and it's not all made up.

Anyway. You've been conned. Trump doesn't care about any of your ideals and policy positions, he only cares about Trump, and about telling people what they want to hear so he can have fame and power.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 06, 2018, 10:48:45 AM
First off, I think citing anonymous sources should be illegal. It's basically grounds to make things up or let cowards run amok. Second, if NYT went out of business, would anyone besides Dougie or Liberty really care?

What's your real name, Gregmal?

As a matter of fact, yes. The other thing I'll point out, again, taking a giant leap and assuming the NYT story is real, is that in any other position, all this thing is, is basically an employee bitching and moaning about their boss. Nothing more to it. Because it feeds the liberal hate machine, and is anti Trump, it's somehow something different and front page worthy. Logically that is odd.

Anything positive for Trump matters, anything negative doesn't and gets brushed off. When Trump quotes random talking heads on Fox News and retweets random twitter accounts praising him, or cites "sources" about Obama's birth certificates or amplifies random conspiracy theories (including as a guest on Alex Jones' show), that's fine, but when experienced and qualified journalists with decades of experience cite multiple sources (that their editors have vetted, putting their careers on the line if it someday turns out they made things up), now the standard is really high and only names will do. That's basically your mental algorithm, it seems. Maybe look at what is being said and judge it on its merit, look at how many times it has been said, and by how many people, named or anonymous, people who have worked closely with him and are ideologically aligned and really tried (almost his whole original cabinet that is now gone and many of their replacements), over how many years and decades, and include that in your model of what Trump must be like, and then ask yourself if he should be chief executive of anything at all, last of all the world's biggest nuclear power. When almost everybody who comes into contact with someone agrees, chances are, there's a real issue and it's not all made up.

Anyway. You've been conned. Trump doesn't care about any of your ideals and policy positions, he only cares about Trump, and about telling people what they want to hear so he can have fame and power.

I really don't care about the bulk of the things you mentioned. I spent zero time or gave zero credibility to the Obama birth certificate issue. I treat it the same as some fabricated letter supposedly from a guy bitching about his boss or any of the tabloid nonsense that gets all you guys so excited. I don't care to count "how many times something is being said", because it's pushed hard by the same corrupt folks with an obvious agenda, and ultimately isn't anything a I give a shit about. He was elected to be President, by the same system the has elected all of our presidents, are you really naive or arrogant enough to think asking yourself or others " if he should be chief executive of anything at all, last of all the world's biggest nuclear power. " holds any weight that is more relevant than that??

And I'm not sure what I've been conned about. I know exactly what I voted for, given the choices, and I think the only thing that is evident is that the people crying about ethics and playing the moral higher ground cards are obvious liars and hypocrites IF they voted for Hillary Clinton. Which ironically puts them in the same boat as both Trump and Clinton.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Viking on September 06, 2018, 10:53:31 AM
I think Trump is underappreciated for what he is accomlishing from an economic standpoint. Tax cut. Deregulation. Trade deals are getting renegotiated in months (not decades which would be what normally happens).
Jury is out on the trade renegotiations but both the tax cut and deregulation looks pretty bad to me. What about them do you like?

LC, I am looking at both simply through the lens of a small or big business owner in the US today; my guess is they are willing to put up with Trump the man because they approve of what he acomplishing economically (in its totality).

If the US reaches an agreement this week with Canada on NAFTA I think that has to ge viewed as a big win for the US; without Trump does a deal this big get renegotiated in 18 months with both Mexico and Canada signing on? Not likely.

Does the trade relationship with China need to get reset? If it does, it needs to happen now. As China grows it will become more powerful and the US will have less leverage. Without Trump how long would it take to renegotiate with China? My guess is it wouldn’t happen.

I am simply trying to point out that i can understand why Trump has strong supporters in terms of the policies that he is pursuing. As with all Presidents we will only truly be able to evaluate his performance 5 and 10 years later (and even this will be incomplete).
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 06, 2018, 11:05:47 AM
Looking more and more like this "letter" is a fake.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wrote-times-op-ed-pence-pompeo-coats-say-wasnt-160758168.html


LOL at this too:

"at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure"

First, I think it's becoming clear they made it up. And two, why would anyone want to protect the job of someone who is purposely NOT DOING THEIR JOB? If the author is concerned about losing their job, shouldn't they start doing it properly???
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 06, 2018, 11:20:37 AM
Looking more and more like this "letter" is a fake.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wrote-times-op-ed-pence-pompeo-coats-say-wasnt-160758168.html


LOL at this too:

"at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure"

First, I think it's becoming clear they made it up. And two, why would anyone want to protect the job of someone who is purposely NOT DOING THEIR JOB? If the author is concerned about losing their job, shouldn't they start doing it properly???

How is anything making it clear it's made up? You think the author is going to go "oh, yes, I'm going to say it was me now that I've been asked, I didn't really want to stay anonymous"?
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 06, 2018, 11:25:29 AM
Looking more and more like this "letter" is a fake.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wrote-times-op-ed-pence-pompeo-coats-say-wasnt-160758168.html


LOL at this too:

"at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure"

First, I think it's becoming clear they made it up. And two, why would anyone want to protect the job of someone who is purposely NOT DOING THEIR JOB? If the author is concerned about losing their job, shouldn't they start doing it properly???

How is anything making it clear it's made up? You think the author is going to go "oh, yes, I'm going to say it was me now that I've been asked, I didn't really want to stay anonymous"?

Because everyone is denying it. Which means, either it isn't real(most likely), or the author is a major liar. And remember, we don't like liars. That's why we hate Trump.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: rb on September 06, 2018, 11:26:52 AM
Maybe we should operate under the he who smelt it dealt it rules.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 06, 2018, 11:28:39 AM
I really don't care about the bulk of the things you mentioned. I spent zero time or gave zero credibility to the Obama birth certificate issue. I treat it the same as some fabricated letter supposedly from a guy bitching about his boss or any of the tabloid nonsense that gets all you guys so excited. I don't care to count "how many times something is being said", because it's pushed hard by the same corrupt folks with an obvious agenda, and ultimately isn't anything a I give a shit about. He was elected to be President, by the same system the has elected all of our presidents, are you really naive or arrogant enough to think asking yourself or others " if he should be chief executive of anything at all, last of all the world's biggest nuclear power. " holds any weight that is more relevant than that??

And I'm not sure what I've been conned about. I know exactly what I voted for, given the choices, and I think the only thing that is evident is that the people crying about ethics and playing the moral higher ground cards are obvious liars and hypocrites IF they voted for Hillary Clinton. Which ironically puts them in the same boat as both Trump and Clinton.

You've painted yourself in a nice corner where nothing can ever change your mind. Republicans have called Trump a con man and an idiot, even people who have tried to work with him before that turned out to be impossible. Oh well, they're just disgruntled. People still inside the administration have been quoted as saying he's amoral and stupid and doesn't know what he's doing. Oh well, it's all made up.. There are scandals every week and many investigations. It's all a witch hunt, I'm sure. His own attorney said he directed him to commit a crime, and CFO and publisher friend and ex cabinet members are taking deals to testify against him... Probably just guys making things up.

Trump himself goes on TV to defend neo-nazis and grovel at Putin's feet. Oh well, I'm sure there's a good explanation for that too...

You're basically a good example of Munger's saying about ideology.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 06, 2018, 11:31:05 AM
Because everyone is denying it. Which means, either it isn't real(most likely), or the author is a major liar. And remember, we don't like liars. That's why we hate Trump.

 ???

Dude, the piece says that the author feels that they're serving the US best by staying inside the administration, but that they're staying anonymous because they fear for their job, which would defeat the whole purpose of what they're saying.

So the next day they're not going to reveal themselves and lose their job.

If you care about the op-ed author lying about that, then why don't you care about Trump's constant stream of lies about everything big and small? Oh, that's right...
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 06, 2018, 11:48:14 AM
I really don't care about the bulk of the things you mentioned. I spent zero time or gave zero credibility to the Obama birth certificate issue. I treat it the same as some fabricated letter supposedly from a guy bitching about his boss or any of the tabloid nonsense that gets all you guys so excited. I don't care to count "how many times something is being said", because it's pushed hard by the same corrupt folks with an obvious agenda, and ultimately isn't anything a I give a shit about. He was elected to be President, by the same system the has elected all of our presidents, are you really naive or arrogant enough to think asking yourself or others " if he should be chief executive of anything at all, last of all the world's biggest nuclear power. " holds any weight that is more relevant than that??

And I'm not sure what I've been conned about. I know exactly what I voted for, given the choices, and I think the only thing that is evident is that the people crying about ethics and playing the moral higher ground cards are obvious liars and hypocrites IF they voted for Hillary Clinton. Which ironically puts them in the same boat as both Trump and Clinton.

You've painted yourself in a nice corner where nothing can ever change your mind. Republicans have called Trump a con man and an idiot, even people who have tried to work with him before that turned out to be impossible. Oh well, they're just disgruntled. People still inside the administration have been quoted as saying he's amoral and stupid and doesn't know what he's doing. Oh well, it's all made up.. There are scandals every week and many investigations. It's all a witch hunt, I'm sure. His own attorney said he directed him to commit a crime, and CFO and publisher friend and ex cabinet members are taking deals to testify against him... Probably just guys making things up.

Trump himself goes on TV to defend neo-nazis and grovel at Putin's feet. Oh well, I'm sure there's a good explanation for that too...

You're basically a good example of Munger's saying about ideology.

Because the above can be summed up, as I've already done multiple times, as follows.

It's more or less a combination of gossip, media bias, and the fact that most politicians are corrupt. I know this already, so I don't care. I've come to accept this is just the way it is, whether it's Trump, Obama, the Clintons, or whomever.

So yes, nothing will change my mind, I don't care about the stuff that you are bringing up and I didn't under any prior president either. You still haven't reconciled how you are crying about all these things, on a daily basis, yet supported Hillary Clinton, who is an equal embodiment of them? Or made no mention of your moral crusade in politics under the previous presidencies? Quite odd.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 06, 2018, 11:50:27 AM
Because everyone is denying it. Which means, either it isn't real(most likely), or the author is a major liar. And remember, we don't like liars. That's why we hate Trump.

 ???

Dude, the piece says that the author feels that they're serving the US best by staying inside the administration, but that they're staying anonymous because they fear for their job, which would defeat the whole purpose of what they're saying.

So the next day they're not going to reveal themselves and lose their job.

If you care about the op-ed author lying about that, then why don't you care about Trump's constant stream of lies about everything big and small? Oh, that's right...

LOL and jihadis think they are helping the world... Everyone has a story or a justification. Still not sure how we are defending a coward and a liar who openly admits to deliberately screwing up their job(even seemingly bragging about it) but at the same time doesn't want to lose it...Some world we live in.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 06, 2018, 12:42:01 PM
Because the above can be summed up, as I've already done multiple times, as follows.

It's more or less a combination of gossip, media bias, and the fact that most politicians are corrupt. I know this already, so I don't care. I've come to accept this is just the way it is, whether it's Trump, Obama, the Clintons, or whomever.

So yes, nothing will change my mind, I don't care about the stuff that you are bringing up and I didn't under any prior president either. You still haven't reconciled how you are crying about all these things, on a daily basis, yet supported Hillary Clinton, who is an equal embodiment of them? Or made no mention of your moral crusade in politics under the previous presidencies? Quite odd.

Where did I support Hillary Clinton? I don't think I've ever done that, other than indirectly by highlighting how garbage Trump is as a person (a serial sexual abuser/rapist too, which many seem to forget).

I think this thing you describe is a stupid approach. I don't like politicians either, but to pretend that it's all binary and that everybody's the same is just willful blindness.

That's like saying that car salespeople a liars, so they're all exactly the same and no information that I can gather about any individual salesperson will ever change my mind about that person even if I have mountains of specific information about that person coming from dozens of very varied and unrelated sources over decades.

That doesn't make any sense.

Most CEOs are really bad, not shareholder-friendly, and don't create much value, right. Does it mean that nothing can convince you that certain CEOs are better (or even worse) than others?

That's just your ideology shielding you from facts that contradict your tribal allegiance, it's not a rational position to take.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 06, 2018, 12:45:57 PM
LOL and jihadis think they are helping the world... Everyone has a story or a justification. Still not sure how we are defending a coward and a liar who openly admits to deliberately screwing up their job(even seemingly bragging about it) but at the same time doesn't want to lose it...Some world we live in.

Man, you're Trumpian in how you totally think in broad labels rather than about actual context and facts and specifics.

If you like the US and think that someone is undermining it, pushing against them is the thing to do. Senior US officials pledge allegiance to the constitution, not to Trump. General Matthis was probably right not to try to assassinate Asad and get the US into an open war with Syria because Trump was angry one night... Or are you sad that the US isn't entangled in a war in Syria right now?
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 06, 2018, 01:09:55 PM
Because the above can be summed up, as I've already done multiple times, as follows.

It's more or less a combination of gossip, media bias, and the fact that most politicians are corrupt. I know this already, so I don't care. I've come to accept this is just the way it is, whether it's Trump, Obama, the Clintons, or whomever.

So yes, nothing will change my mind, I don't care about the stuff that you are bringing up and I didn't under any prior president either. You still haven't reconciled how you are crying about all these things, on a daily basis, yet supported Hillary Clinton, who is an equal embodiment of them? Or made no mention of your moral crusade in politics under the previous presidencies? Quite odd.

Where did I support Hillary Clinton? I don't think I've ever done that, other than indirectly by highlighting how garbage Trump is as a person (a serial sexual abuser/rapist too, which many seem to forget).

I think this thing you describe is a stupid approach. I don't like politicians either, but to pretend that it's all binary and that everybody's the same is just willful blindness.

That's like saying that car salespeople a liars, so they're all exactly the same and no information that I can gather about any individual salesperson will ever change my mind about that person even if I have mountains of specific information about that person.

That doesn't make any sense.

Most CEOs are really bad, not shareholder-friendly, and don't create much value, right. Does it mean that nothing can convince you that certain CEOs are better (or even worse) than others?

That's just your ideology shielding you from facts that contradict your tribal allegiance, it's not a rational position to take.

I again would reiterate that it doesn't really bother me, meanwhile you guys are so invested in this; it is quite amusing. Your analogies are poor. You can pick a CEO of your choice by choosing to invest or owning enough of a company. Despite the fact that you get to vote, you really don't have any say on the President. I mean haven't you seen by now that all your whining and Twitter links hasn't changed the fact Trump is still at the helm?

If willful blindness with politicians is the current word for accepting reality and choosing to worry about things I have more direct control over, guilty as charged. Again, haven't you seen your ranting hasn't changed the world? But hey, at least you're not willfully blind...

The car salesmen analogy again, is quite poor. I get a handle on reality, that a car salesman is someone doing a job, that I could do, probably better than them, if I wanted to do it, as such, they have no usefulness to me. The value to me of having the greatest car salesman in the world, and the worst, in both cases is zero. So I don't waste my time trying to get to know them or whatever you seem to allude to in your example, just for the sake of not being willfully blind or making some imaginary difference. To each their own though.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: gfp on September 06, 2018, 01:24:44 PM
I would be shocked if the NY Times op-ed was made up by the NYT.  It is even more plausible after reading excerpts from Woodward's book, which is certainly not made up.  The list of likely authors for this op-ed is ridiculously long: Dan Coats, John Kelly, James Mattis, Mike Pence, Don McGahn, Jeff Sessions, Steve Mnuchin.  It would not surprise me in the least if any one of the people on that list was the author of the NYT op-ed.  That in itself tells me something...

Woodward has credibility problems?  C'mon man..
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: LC on September 06, 2018, 03:05:42 PM
I think Trump is underappreciated for what he is accomlishing from an economic standpoint. Tax cut. Deregulation. Trade deals are getting renegotiated in months (not decades which would be what normally happens).
Jury is out on the trade renegotiations but both the tax cut and deregulation looks pretty bad to me. What about them do you like?

LC, I am looking at both simply through the lens of a small or big business owner in the US today; my guess is they are willing to put up with Trump the man because they approve of what he acomplishing economically (in its totality).
...
I am simply trying to point out that i can understand why Trump has strong supporters in terms of the policies that he is pursuing. As with all Presidents we will only truly be able to evaluate his performance 5 and 10 years later (and even this will be incomplete).

Ok that makes it a little more clear. I've mentioned repeatedly about how to attribute success regarding a president (well more in general) e.g. creating SMART goals and setting milestones before-the-fact.

If you recall, in the waning years of Obama's tenure, this forum was pretty agreed that the POTUS has little impact on the economy. I still agree with that sentiment (essentially, the economy has too many moving parts).

Deregulation has pros and cons. The trick IMHO is to use a scalpel and not a meat cleaver. Deregulating DOE and national forests/parks is not a good idea, again my opinion.

Tax cuts? I am mixed. I am not against a corporate tax cut, but I would like to have seen it balanced with progressive tax cuts to the lower and middle class. The megacorps and megawealthy got their cuts, but someone always pays: Again it seems to be the people who can afford it least. Not good for a healthy society, again my opinion.

Other than that? Not sure what to judge him on. Socially, obviously headline affairs are pretty bad but I will concede they are "small" (i.e. the immigration issues). Removing mandates at the federal level and kicking those decisions to the states is fine in theory. Unfortunately the federal officials Trump has in place seem to be lying and misinforming in order to do so (see the Net Neutrality fiasco at the FCC) or are too incompetent to understand their role (See the DOE)
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: cobafdek on September 06, 2018, 04:49:45 PM
. . . Woodward's book, which is certainly not made up. 

Woodward has credibility problems?  C'mon man..

Woodward's credibility problems are well-documented.  I doubt the new Woodward book Fear will be any more credible than his book on John Belushi.  Regarding Woodward's flawed methodology, re-read the Slate article, for one example:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/03/bob_woodward_and_gene_sperling_what_woodward_s_john_belushi_book_can_tell.html

The point of the article is that even if you get all of the detailed facts correct, your story can be completely wrong, so that the "facts" are no longer facts. 

Excerpts from the Slate article:

"Again, Woodward’s account is not wrong. It’s just … wrong. In his version, Belushi is not a prankster but a jerk."

". . . she was still upset at how Woodward had portrayed it in Wired. 'It was my first experience of getting tricked by a journalist,' she said. 'Woodward appeared as if he really wanted to know what went on, and I actually had marvelous times with Belushi. But the thing that was depressing when I read the book was that he had taken the facts that I told him, and put an attitude to them that was not remotely right.'”

"Wired is like that throughout. Like a funhouse mirror, Woodward’s prose distorts what it purports to reflect. Moments of tearful drama are rendered as tersely as an accounting of Belushi’s car-service receipts. Friendly jokes are stripped of their humor and turned into boorish annoyances. And when Woodward fails to convey the subtleties of those little moments, he misses the bigger picture."

'Woodward also makes peculiar decisions about what facts he uses as evidence. His detractors like to say that he’s little more than a stenographer—and they’re right. In Wired, he takes what he is told and simply puts it down in chronological order with no sense of proportionality, nuance, or understanding.'

"He took a comment from a source, missed or misinterpreted the subtext of what was being said, and went on to characterize it in a way that bore no resemblance to reality."



Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 06, 2018, 05:15:48 PM
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/06/joe-kernen-i-care-about-trump-policies-that-fuel-stock-market-highs.html

The real Morning Joe hits the nail on the head. That other toolbox should take notes.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: doc75 on September 06, 2018, 05:58:32 PM

This anonymous op-ed raises all kinds of red flags for me.   IMO there's zero chance it was fabricated by the NYT, but the way it was written and delivered makes me really question its purpose.  It strikes me as an attempt to reassure folks who want to vote GOP but are queasy about Trump's antics and stability.  I can't help but feel that the NYT is being played here. 

As for Woodward...  The problem I have with this type of journalism is that much of the text found between quotation marks isn't actually a quotation, but rather an imperfect memory of a conversation or a second-hand account of something overheard (by a biased observer).

Woodward seems credible in the sense that his reporting accurately reflects the big picture (ie. he gets the gist), but ascribing quotations to people as he does lends a false sense of accuracy in the details -- kind of like using too many significant figures in a calculation.   I think the false sense of accuracy leads readers to assign more weight to his narrative than might be deserved.

All my humble ill-informed opinion.  I have read very little of his work. 
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: sleepydragon on September 06, 2018, 07:10:34 PM
I think this is a move from GOPs, hoping this will help them in the Nov election.
But if they really hate trump that much, I think they shall just all resign and don’t work for him.
Gutless.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: rb on September 06, 2018, 09:41:45 PM
Thinking more about the NYT op-ed, I think it's true. But I agree with our friends from the right. The one that wrote it is a gutless, sanctimonious pussy!
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Parsad on September 06, 2018, 11:25:23 PM
https://nypost.com/2018/09/05/trump-demands-ny-times-reveal-identity-of-anonymous-official/

I'd wager they won't, must likely because the source is not real.

Revealing the source would basically put the newspaper out of business.

First off, I think citing anonymous sources should be illegal. It's basically grounds to make things up or let cowards run amok.

Kind of like Trump's tweets?  By the way, did you see Trump try and pronounce "anonymous" today?  He kept saying "amonomyous".  You have a moron running the country, but let's worry about anonymous sources.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: rb on September 06, 2018, 11:56:01 PM
https://nypost.com/2018/09/05/trump-demands-ny-times-reveal-identity-of-anonymous-official/

I'd wager they won't, must likely because the source is not real.

Revealing the source would basically put the newspaper out of business.

First off, I think citing anonymous sources should be illegal. It's basically grounds to make things up or let cowards run amok.

Kind of like Trump's tweets?  By the way, did you see Trump try and pronounce "anonymous" today?  He kept saying "amonomyous".  You have a moron running the country, but let's worry about anonymous sources.  Cheers!
The ironic part about all of this (setting aside the whole Kenyan birth certificate thing) is that Trump's whole campaign has been "people are sayin'", "people are sayin'". Now all of a sudden people sayin' things is a problem. Funny that eh.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: MarkS on September 07, 2018, 05:21:41 AM
Interesting take on the use of anonymous sources.

---------
Cillizza: Let's take a step back. What is the history of anonymous sources? Where did this all start?

Rosen: I don't think we know for sure. One of the oldest dynamics in politics — reaching back to the 18th century Parliaments — is when the loser in an internal conflict decides to "change the game" by going public with a dispute that had previously been kept in house. Since they still have to live in that house, these people tend to be anonymous. This method in political combat first became possible when there were printed journals reporting on Parliament, and coffee houses where public questions were being debated— assisted, of course, by the newspapers of the day, on sale in those establishments.

Roughly speaking, then, the origins of anonymous sourcing, the birth of public opinion as a live factor in politics, and the invention of political reporting all occur together, in the mid 1700s. And that dynamic I identified — loser in an internal dispute goes public, hoping that the reaction will change the outcome — continues unchanged to this day.


Cillizza: Finish this sentence: "Anonymous sources are _________ in modern journalism."

Rosen: "Anonymous sources are withdrawals against the bank balance built up by more transparent practices in modern journalism."

News accounts that rely on confidential sources do not contain within themselves the information required for us to trust them. By definition we cannot "go to the source" because the source is hidden. If we extend our trust to such reports, we do so because of reputation: the reporter's reputation, or more often the news brand's.

Some acts of journalism are easier to trust than others. If I tell you what the data shows about test scores in different schools around your district, and I also link to the data so you can check for yourself, that is a fundamentally different act from... "The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said." (My italics.)

That term, "officials said" is relatively hard to trust. We can't go to those people and ask: did you really say that? We can't decide how credible they are, and act accordingly. Instead we have to trust the Washington Post, which gave us this report, and its reporters. It might be rational to do so, but it's also subtractive. We are drawing on reserves of trust built up by previous acts of journalism that told us the Post could be trusted. Some acts of reporting add to the bank account, others draw upon reserves of trust. To put it another way, when trust is the currency, stories that depend on anonymous sources are expensive.

Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Cardboard on September 07, 2018, 05:52:36 AM
"Kind of like Trump's tweets?  By the way, did you see Trump try and pronounce "anonymous" today?  He kept saying "amonomyous".  You have a moron running the country, but let's worry about anonymous sources.  Cheers!"

Kind of funny Parsad. You keep on saying that Trump is a racist and now you pick on someone having difficulty pronouncing a word. That helps to qualify him as a moron?

Would you have said the same thing if John Kasich had been elected President with all his tics?

Cardboard
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Cigarbutt on September 07, 2018, 06:19:18 AM
That term, "officials said" is relatively hard to trust. We can't go to those people and ask: did you really say that? We can't decide how credible they are, and act accordingly. Instead we have to trust the Washington Post, which gave us this report, and its reporters. It might be rational to do so, but it's also subtractive. We are drawing on reserves of trust built up by previous acts of journalism that told us the Post could be trusted. Some acts of reporting add to the bank account, others draw upon reserves of trust. To put it another way, when trust is the currency, stories that depend on anonymous sources are expensive.
Interesting perspective on anonymous sources.

In a way, this can be considered as lower level evidence. In other fields like science, it is possible to increase the strength of relatively poor evidence if similar concluding trends are reached from many independent sources.
If you want the political and human variable to be included in your analysis of evidence, you may want to look at independent sources who have a diverse range of motivations.

In terms of trust, I understand that investigative journalism and journalism in general became much more popular among student applicants after the Watergate affair. Then, the journalists happened to be right.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: bookie71 on September 07, 2018, 10:35:38 AM
Well said, Parsad.  BUT you aren't going to influence a Trump supporter as they only watch Fox News.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Schwab711 on September 07, 2018, 02:08:13 PM
Good post Mark. I like the history and way of describing anonymous sourcing.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 07, 2018, 04:16:11 PM
Would anyone rely on "an anonymous source" to make an investment? Of course not. I'd either want to know who they are and how credible, or I'd assume what's going on is illegal. But when it applies to slandering the President... fair game I guess.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 07, 2018, 04:56:29 PM
Would anyone rely on "an anonymous source" to make an investment? Of course not. I'd either want to know who they are and how credible, or I'd assume what's going on is illegal. But when it applies to slandering the President... fair game I guess.

People make investments based on what anonymous posters on the internet say all the time. How many people listened to Ericopoly or Packer because what they said made sense and they could tell what kind of person they are by how they write?

Some anonymous sources have credibility and some don't. The source is anonymous to the readers of the NYT, but it isn't anonymous to the NYT itself, they know that the source is who they say they are, and the editors are putting their jobs on the line for it because it'll no doubt come out at some point in the future who it was.

Whistleblowers and anonymous sources are a totally valid thing. Some people just wouldn't be able to get their message out because of the risk to their lives/livelihood/etc, and some of their messages are important. You just have to take them for what they are and in context (some random blog not the same as an op-ed that has been vetted by a top national paper).

It's not like named sources are automatically credible either. I mean, Sean Spicer put his name to things, but you shouldn't exactly have trusted him because of that... You should judge things on merit.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 07, 2018, 05:00:39 PM
Would anyone rely on "an anonymous source" to make an investment? Of course not. I'd either want to know who they are and how credible, or I'd assume what's going on is illegal. But when it applies to slandering the President... fair game I guess.

People make investments based on what anonymous posters on the internet say all the time. How many people listened to Ericopoly or Packer because what they said made sense and they could tell what kind of person they are by how they write?

Some anonymous sources have credibility and some don't. The source is anonymous to the readers of the NYT, but it isn't anonymous to the NYT itself, they know that the source is who they say they are, and the editors are putting their jobs on the line for it because it'll no doubt come out at some point in the future who it was.

Whistleblowers and anonymous sources are a totally valid thing. Some people just wouldn't be able to get their message out because of the risk to their lives/livelihood/etc, and some of their messages are important. You just have to take them for what they are and in context (some random blog not the same as an op-ed that has been vetted by a top national paper).

It's not like named sources are automatically credible either. I mean, Sean Spicer put his name to things, but you shouldn't exactly have trusted him because of that... You should judge things on merit.

What a horrible rebuttal. Posters here have track records. And people know who Packer is. Can't say the same for "anonymous source" quoted in a news article... Come on buddy, try harder!
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Cigarbutt on September 07, 2018, 05:34:52 PM
Would anyone rely on "an anonymous source" to make an investment? Of course not. I'd either want to know who they are and how credible, or I'd assume what's going on is illegal. But when it applies to slandering the President... fair game I guess.

When you make an investment, you are building a case.
Whistleblowers want to signal potential or actual wrongdoing, ie want to challenge the thesis.

When building an investment case, you may come across "short" reports which, often, are a collection of + or- anonymous, vague and only partially substantiated allegations.
Your job (think of the journalist and editor) is to evaluate the validity of the allegations versus your thesis on the target firm.

Examples:
With the "Fairfax Project", after analysis, short reports = smear campaign ----) buying opportunity
With Valeant, after analysis, short reports = red flags ----) stay away

Anonymous sources can be significant inputs in certain circumstances.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 08, 2018, 05:09:06 AM
What a horrible rebuttal. Posters here have track records. And people know who Packer is. Can't say the same for "anonymous source" quoted in a news article... Come on buddy, try harder!

Yeah, and the op-ed writer was verified as being a senior administration official.

If it was an anonymous Obama official that had been verified by WSJ editors, you'd be all over it. You're transparent.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: MarkS on September 08, 2018, 05:33:04 AM
Fivethirtyeight has a good article on how to evaluate anonymous sources.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 08, 2018, 07:29:44 AM
What a horrible rebuttal. Posters here have track records. And people know who Packer is. Can't say the same for "anonymous source" quoted in a news article... Come on buddy, try harder!

Yeah, and the op-ed writer was verified as being a senior administration official.

If it was an anonymous Obama official that had been verified by WSJ editors, you'd be all over it. You're transparent.

Even weaker rebuttal. Make up some theoretical "you would do it too" scenario. Give one example where I previously cried and foamed at the mouth attacking Obama during his presidency, the same way you do with Trump. I haven't. As I've stated before, I simply don't care about this stupid tabloid gossip regardless of the president.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 09, 2018, 11:22:54 AM
What a horrible rebuttal. Posters here have track records. And people know who Packer is. Can't say the same for "anonymous source" quoted in a news article... Come on buddy, try harder!

Yeah, and the op-ed writer was verified as being a senior administration official.

If it was an anonymous Obama official that had been verified by WSJ editors, you'd be all over it. You're transparent.

Even weaker rebuttal. Make up some theoretical "you would do it too" scenario. Give one example where I previously cried and foamed at the mouth attacking Obama during his presidency, the same way you do with Trump. I haven't. As I've stated before, I simply don't care about this stupid tabloid gossip regardless of the president.

There's nothing to rebuke. I'm just pointing out that you are basically standing there with your hands on your ears going "lalalala, I can't hear anything" whenever new evidence is added to the mountain showing that Trump is an amoral pile of garbage.

This isn't tabloid stuff. Tabloid stuff isn't usually a tape of the president bragging about sexual assault and more than a dozen women coming out and confirming it, or those press conferences in Helsinki and Charlotesville, or the president attacking his attorney general because he won't dismiss an investigation into him, or a president not releasing his tax records and having his kids that he meets daily run his businesses while he's in office, or almost everybody around the president getting fired or quitting or getting indicted by the FBI or sentenced to jail or getting immunity because they're testifying against the president. That you dismiss it as such just shows your willful blindness. We're way past Nixon level here, and in the fullness of time things will keep being revealed.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: cobafdek on September 10, 2018, 03:41:38 PM
Woodward should lose his status as top investigative journalist.  How did his miss the Russia collusion?  He usually gets the smoking gun.

Ditto for the New York Times's Anonymous columnist, if things are worse than Watergate.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: cubsfan on September 10, 2018, 03:47:30 PM
Woodward should lose his status as top investigative journalist.  How did his miss the Russia collusion?  He usually gets the smoking gun.

Ditto for the New York Times's Anonymous columnist, if things are worse than Watergate.

It's called being a total partisan hack, instead of being an objective news man. Woodward is part of the elite media and the DC Swamp that can't
stand to see his power threatened by Trump.  After all, Trump takes his message directly to the people and does not need the Post or the NYT.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Liberty on September 11, 2018, 03:58:04 AM
https://overcast.fm/+LHydnBKCQ

Woodward on his reporting process. He has tapes of all his sources and know who they are, not anonymous to him. And we know that his past reporting has proved to be right and not made up (Watergate, etc). Promising sources they won't be named is actually the opposite of fake news; named sources either give you the press release version or slam the door in your face, but unamed ones often have something they want to unburden and give you the truth (which you still have to cross-reference to be sure).
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: SharperDingaan on September 11, 2018, 07:29:49 AM
Apparently ONLY Trump can throw insults at others ....  as ONLY others in the Whitehouse can get fired ... 'cause you can't fire the president?
Of course the problem is that the 'Office of the President', and the 'President' are different things - & presidents routinely get impeached or 'overthrown'. Even in the US.

Boo-hoo, the 6th grader couldn't get a name to slander; and seems to think that anything out of his mouth (or alternative fact) has to be true - simply because he said it. The Palace has deceided that it's better for the 'Office of the President' to let the world see the incompetence of the 'President', and let America make a decision. Should the Mid-Terms go Trumps way; we 'the people' will have deceided that we are OK with it. 'Deep throat' is simply good men/women collectively acting in the common good.

Apparently you can get impeached at 20% popularity (Nixon), but not so much at 60% (Clnton).
Trump is on the bubble at 40%, and falling. If he goes down, anyone not on the Trump team is a 'treasonous dog'?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Our own thoughts are that he doesn't survive.
Ultimately there's a 'deal' in return for a graceful exit that doesn't impeed the authority of future presidents.

Call the bluff, and lets play.

SD



Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: cubsfan on September 11, 2018, 07:59:25 AM
Not bad Sharper - well said.

There is a civil war going on in this country - and Trump has the fight of his life going on with the Deep State and the DC Swamp.
I will be very disappointed if he fails.

But in the interim - to understand the level of corruption in the Deep State - have a listen from one of the finest investigative reporters in
Washington,DC :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIJQI2-34y0&t=1775s

Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Schwab711 on September 11, 2018, 08:51:02 AM
There is a civil war going on in this country - and Trump has the fight of his life going on with the Deep State and the DC Swamp.

The 'Meme War' is not a real war. The 'Culture War' is not a real war. This sounds insane.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: cubsfan on September 11, 2018, 09:09:00 AM
There is a civil war going on in this country - and Trump has the fight of his life going on with the Deep State and the DC Swamp.

The 'Meme War' is not a real war. The 'Culture War' is not a real war. This sounds insane.

Of course it's not a real war - thank you for pointing that out genius.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Schwab711 on September 11, 2018, 09:29:50 AM
There is a civil war going on in this country - and Trump has the fight of his life going on with the Deep State and the DC Swamp.

The 'Meme War' is not a real war. The 'Culture War' is not a real war. This sounds insane.

Of course it's not a real war - thank you for pointing that out genius.

I believe if an anti-Trump individual said something like this you'd yell TDS. Anyway, deep state and DC swamp are hyperbole too. This another vague trope to avoid the facts at hand.
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: cubsfan on September 11, 2018, 11:25:52 AM
There is a civil war going on in this country - and Trump has the fight of his life going on with the Deep State and the DC Swamp.

The 'Meme War' is not a real war. The 'Culture War' is not a real war. This sounds insane.

Of course it's not a real war - thank you for pointing that out genius.

I believe if an anti-Trump individual said something like this you'd yell TDS. Anyway, deep state and DC swamp are hyperbole too. This another vague trope to avoid the facts at hand.

You and your facts are a real joke. Stay tuned for the coming indictments against the swamp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU7epeM1wkg
Title: Re: Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...
Post by: Gregmal on September 11, 2018, 02:12:53 PM
LOL basically everyone is saying this guy Woodward is a liar.

Hee's Cohen

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/11/ex-white-house-aide-cohn-pushes-back-at-woodward-book-on-trump.html