RugbyRebels

cashead wrote:

morepork wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yep, it’s only minor stuff. But a few of those is all that’s needed to undermine the whole thing.

Yeah, 'cos the intelligence, poise and understated sophistication with with Trump conducts himself totally refute those claims.

The errors can easily be attributed to the fact that the editing period of it was probably brutally cut short by the publisher's decision to speed up the publication date thanks to what was a likely bigger than expected anti-endorsement by the White House. Had it been published a few months from now, as planned, without all the ballyhoo of the White House shitting on it, probably would've died a quiet death.
I would say there are structural problems that you'd think would be highlighted more than the little errors that would've been picked up in a less hurried editing and publishing period, like the non-Bannon stuff, where it's hard to ascertain whether or not it's second or third-hand recollection to Wolff that he's quoting.
Ultimately though, while it's not probably going to bring down the White House or anything, it's ended up having the impact its had, largely due to the fact that it provides something concrete to legitimise what many observers think about the Trump White House and this dumpsterfire of a presidency.

Sandydragon wrote:

cashead wrote:

morepork wrote:

Yeah, 'cos the intelligence, poise and understated sophistication with with Trump conducts himself totally refute those claims.

The errors can easily be attributed to the fact that the editing period of it was probably brutally cut short by the publisher's decision to speed up the publication date thanks to what was a likely bigger than expected anti-endorsement by the White House. Had it been published a few months from now, as planned, without all the ballyhoo of the White House shitting on it, probably would've died a quiet death.
I would say there are structural problems that you'd think would be highlighted more than the little errors that would've been picked up in a less hurried editing and publishing period, like the non-Bannon stuff, where it's hard to ascertain whether or not it's second or third-hand recollection to Wolff that he's quoting.
Ultimately though, while it's not probably going to bring down the White House or anything, it's ended up having the impact its had, largely due to the fact that it provides something concrete to legitimise what many observers think about the Trump White House and this dumpsterfire of a presidency.

It won’t make the slightest bit of difference. His supporters won’t believe it and those who hate him will see it as confirmation.

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

cashead wrote: The errors can easily be attributed to the fact that the editing period of it was probably brutally cut short by the publisher's decision to speed up the publication date thanks to what was a likely bigger than expected anti-endorsement by the White House. Had it been published a few months from now, as planned, without all the ballyhoo of the White House shitting on it, probably would've died a quiet death.
I would say there are structural problems that you'd think would be highlighted more than the little errors that would've been picked up in a less hurried editing and publishing period, like the non-Bannon stuff, where it's hard to ascertain whether or not it's second or third-hand recollection to Wolff that he's quoting.
Ultimately though, while it's not probably going to bring down the White House or anything, it's ended up having the impact its had, largely due to the fact that it provides something concrete to legitimise what many observers think about the Trump White House and this dumpsterfire of a presidency.

It won’t make the slightest bit of difference. His supporters won’t believe it and those who hate him will see it as confirmation.

Those that hate him outnumber those who do not by at least 2:1. The more he tries to refute this, the more he reinforces it. The more he refutes it, the more he reinforces the anecdote in the book. A intelligent target would not draw fire the way Mango Womble has. The November Senate elections are where it's at, and I'm not sure he possesses the discipline to keep his eye on that prize. If he keeps wailing on the subjects within the book via the conveniently ambiguous legitimacy of twitter, the greater the volume of recruitment on both sides. If my 2:1 statement holds water, his party will suffer. The question is how greater chunk of his prompted nonsense is actually enacted between now and then. Bannon is up in front of a grand jury soon, so more sitcom "drama" to come soon.

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

cashead wrote: The errors can easily be attributed to the fact that the editing period of it was probably brutally cut short by the publisher's decision to speed up the publication date thanks to what was a likely bigger than expected anti-endorsement by the White House. Had it been published a few months from now, as planned, without all the ballyhoo of the White House shitting on it, probably would've died a quiet death.
I would say there are structural problems that you'd think would be highlighted more than the little errors that would've been picked up in a less hurried editing and publishing period, like the non-Bannon stuff, where it's hard to ascertain whether or not it's second or third-hand recollection to Wolff that he's quoting.
Ultimately though, while it's not probably going to bring down the White House or anything, it's ended up having the impact its had, largely due to the fact that it provides something concrete to legitimise what many observers think about the Trump White House and this dumpsterfire of a presidency.

It won’t make the slightest bit of difference. His supporters won’t believe it and those who hate him will see it as confirmation.

Those that hate him outnumber those who do not by at least 2:1. The more he tries to refute this, the more he reinforces it. The more he refutes it, the more he reinforces the anecdote in the book. A intelligent target would not draw fire the way Mango Womble has. The November Senate elections are where it's at, and I'm not sure he possesses the discipline to keep his eye on that prize. If he keeps wailing on the subjects within the book via the conveniently ambiguous legitimacy of twitter, the greater the volume of recruitment on both sides. If my 2:1 statement holds water, his party will suffer. The question is how greater chunk of his prompted nonsense is actually enacted between now and then. Bannon is up in front of a grand jury soon, so more sitcom "drama" to come soon.

morepork wrote:Muddle America does have a tendancy to obsess over taxes, gunz, and a shiny military. Because the economy is relatively steady at the moment, there is a reasonable degree of confidence amongst the uneducated feckless minority that these tax cuts based on trickle down theory may be cause for optimism. There is ample time between now and the next election for that tired old assumption to be proven wrong once again. Then they will take notice. The opposition needs to redirect their gaze from the flatulent misspelt social media outbursts from the guy in charge that knows even less about things than they do (Gunz! Military! Immigration!) to a very mathematically objective presentation of the facts. You can't rob Peter to pay Paul. In short, they need to be educated in a way that is not condescending of seen as "elitist". Not easy, but definitely doable.

morepork wrote:Common sense deals with it. There is not an impartial economist in the world that will stand by the proposed tax changes. I'm not denying the legitimate claims of the disenfranchised, I am saying that on the strength of evidence, a Trump presidency is worse than anyone could have imagined. Actual damage is being done.

Muddle is how Kiwis say it.

morepork wrote:As much as I loathe it, economics is a discipline and should be treated with the appropriate emphasis on objectivity.

morepork wrote:Common sense deals with it. There is not an impartial economist in the world that will stand by the proposed tax changes. I'm not denying the legitimate claims of the disenfranchised, I am saying that on the strength of evidence, a Trump presidency is worse than anyone could have imagined. Actual damage is being done.

Muddle is how Kiwis say it.

Digby wrote:Big tech lobbying hit a new height in 2017 with the likes of Apple, Google, Facebook spending more than ever on influence at a federal level. It's an interesting one about how firms go about gaining influence over Trump, and there's a nice story about how in one of his first conversations with Rupert Murdoch as President that Trump was happy to report he'd met with some of the big firms and was excited he'd be able to help them remove some regulations which they felt had really held them back under Obama, and that he Trump would be much better placed to help develop the sector after Obama's failings (as per his meetings with big tech rather than even a casual glance at reality), at which point Murdoch is reported to have said in essence 'what the fuck are you talking about, these big tech firms are running the show already, they didn't need any help from Obama, and they don't need any help from you'

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:Big tech lobbying hit a new height in 2017 with the likes of Apple, Google, Facebook spending more than ever on influence at a federal level. It's an interesting one about how firms go about gaining influence over Trump, and there's a nice story about how in one of his first conversations with Rupert Murdoch as President that Trump was happy to report he'd met with some of the big firms and was excited he'd be able to help them remove some regulations which they felt had really held them back under Obama, and that he Trump would be much better placed to help develop the sector after Obama's failings (as per his meetings with big tech rather than even a casual glance at reality), at which point Murdoch is reported to have said in essence 'what the fuck are you talking about, these big tech firms are running the show already, they didn't need any help from Obama, and they don't need any help from you'

Murdoch does have a lot of skin in the game. Facebook, Twitter etc are all a big threat to the newspaper industry. The Times have run a lot of articles and investigations into their - Facebook, Twatter etc - complete lack of oversight on content, and rightly so. But whilst you’re sitting their nodding as you read you know the investigations undertaken are not wholly done in the interest of the public at large.

Having said all that, Murdoch is right. They’re so big that they’re pretty much beyond state control. Regardless, even without the lobbying there is no way Trump will do anything to curb their hegemony. They’re American, loaded and dominant. Everything Trump knocks one out over every evening once he’s finished his Big Macs and cokes.