International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   "A warning", upcoming book by anonymous White House official (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=340180)

Safe-Keeper 8th November 2019 03:43 PM

"A warning", upcoming book by anonymous White House official
 
Apparently the same anonymous "senior White House official" who wrote the op-ed piece a while ago is about to release a whole book.

Judging by their earlier writing, and the quotes from the book cited in the link above, the author, a conservative who seemed to intiailly be enthusiastic about Trump, is not happy with the way the administration is turning out. To say the least.

Looking forward to seeing how the book is received.

alfaniner 8th November 2019 03:53 PM

What's the over-under until this person is outed? It wouldn't be illegal like exposing the whistleblower.

Craig4 8th November 2019 05:54 PM

This book isn't going to convince anyone nor do I think it was intended to. The intent was to hurt Trump personally. Trumptrash, the ones who can read anyway, won't buy it. To everyone else, it will simply confirm what they already know, that Trump is an idiot man-child. It's going to be fun to watch Trump explode over this book but the author is delusional if he/she thinks there are all that many minds that are going to change.

Brainster 8th November 2019 10:10 PM

The NY Times reviewer is somewhat less than impressed:

Quote:

Anonymous has seen disturbing things. Anonymous has heard disturbing things. You, the reader, will already recognize most of what Anonymous has seen and heard as revealed in this book if you have been paying any attention to the news. Did you know that the president isn’t much of a reader? That he’s inordinately fond of autocrats? That “he stumbles, slurs, gets confused, is easily irritated, and has trouble synthesizing information”?

“A Warning,” Anonymous says, is intended for a “broad audience,” though to judge by the parade of bland, methodical arguments (Anonymous loves to qualify criticisms with a lawyerly “in fairness”), the ideal reader would seem to be an undecided voter who has lived in a cave for the past three years, and is irresistibly moved by quotations from Teddy Roosevelt and solemn invocations of Cicero.

TragicMonkey 8th November 2019 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 12885818)
This book isn't going to convince anyone nor do I think it was intended to. The intent was to hurt Trump personally. Trumptrash, the ones who can read anyway, won't buy it. To everyone else, it will simply confirm what they already know, that Trump is an idiot man-child. It's going to be fun to watch Trump explode over this book but the author is delusional if he/she thinks there are all that many minds that are going to change.

I think the real fun is going to be Trump broadcasting what the book says by tweeting angry denials. It'll reach a much wider audience that way, and be much funnier. And he won't confine it to just tweets. He'll talk about it in person at inappropriate times to inappropriate audiences, as he's so often done with other things.

The Great Zaganza 8th November 2019 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 12885915)
The NY Times reviewer is somewhat less than impressed:

"in all fairness" I'm "somewhat less than impressed" by Trump as President.

ArchSas 8th November 2019 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 12885818)
This book isn't going to convince anyone nor do I think it was intended to. The intent was to hurt Trump personally. Trumptrash, the ones who can read anyway, won't buy it. To everyone else, it will simply confirm what they already know, that Trump is an idiot man-child. It's going to be fun to watch Trump explode over this book but the author is delusional if he/she thinks there are all that many minds that are going to change.

In general I agree. But the sheer lack of apparent purpose of the book made me wonder about why it was actually written (aside from sheer value as a salacious piece of tabloid fodder that's bound to sell), and now I think there's a decent chance it's an attempt at damage control by the GOP, who know that Trump's popularity is declining. Think about it, the entire framing of the book is that it's the work of a Republican official who's a part of an internal resistance that's continually shocked by Trump's incompetence. That helps create a narrative that Trump is some kind of strange aberration that the "good Republicans" don't approve of and are trying to stop. It'll make it easier for Republicans to say (at some point) "Look, we never really approved of this crazy dumbass, there were always people working to take him down from the inside."

Maybe that's just my conspiratorial thinking kicking in, but I still think it's a decent possibility. Possibly especially in a field where members of the GOP are still reluctant to criticize Trump publicly (in a way, having this book be anonymous is a safe way to criticize Trump without pissing off his base). Either way, I find it hard to trust to motivations of a person apparently so appalled by Trump's behavior they feel the need to write an expose, but who still hasn't done any actual work to stop his actions, policies, or conduct in general.

Susheel 9th November 2019 12:37 AM

From the excerpts, the book just seems to be series of very colourfully described anecdotes. Yhere also seems to be an over use of metaphors and analogies. There are no new revelations. I think the real joy of this book will not be in the reading, but in watching Trump's adolescent hissy fit.

Stacyhs 9th November 2019 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susheel (Post 12885969)
From the excerpts, the book just seems to be series of very colourfully described anecdotes. Yhere also seems to be an over use of metaphors and analogies. There are no new revelations. I think the real joy of this book will not be in the reading, but in watching Trump's adolescent hissy fit.

Fasten your seat belts, there's gonna be a hissy fit.

(Apologies to Margo Channing)

alfaniner 9th November 2019 01:02 AM

We all know he's never gonna read the book in its entirety. The best I could hope for is that the actual author picks out the most salacious stuff and says to him (directly in person) "Oh, my! Look at what that awful person wrote in this paragraph! And this one! And this one! You must really be angry!!!"

Safe-Keeper 9th November 2019 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArchSas (Post 12885944)
In general I agree. But the sheer lack of apparent purpose of the book made me wonder about why it was actually written (aside from sheer value as a salacious piece of tabloid fodder that's bound to sell), and now I think there's a decent chance it's an attempt at damage control by the GOP, who know that Trump's popularity is declining. Think about it, the entire framing of the book is that it's the work of a Republican official who's a part of an internal resistance that's continually shocked by Trump's incompetence. That helps create a narrative that Trump is some kind of strange aberration that the "good Republicans" don't approve of and are trying to stop. It'll make it easier for Republicans to say (at some point) "Look, we never really approved of this crazy dumbass, there were always people working to take him down from the inside."

Maybe that's just my conspiratorial thinking kicking in, but I still think it's a decent possibility. Possibly especially in a field where members of the GOP are still reluctant to criticize Trump publicly (in a way, having this book be anonymous is a safe way to criticize Trump without pissing off his base). Either way, I find it hard to trust to motivations of a person apparently so appalled by Trump's behavior they feel the need to write an expose, but who still hasn't done any actual work to stop his actions, policies, or conduct in general.

That makes sense. I can see the anonymous author(s) coming forward at some convenient point going "see, I worked against him all along".

Ladewig 9th November 2019 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12885940)
I think the real fun is going to be Trump broadcasting what the book says by tweeting angry denials. It'll reach a much wider audience that way, and be much funnier. And he won't confine it to just tweets. He'll talk about it in person at inappropriate times to inappropriate audiences, as he's so often done with other things.

I imagine that when Barbra Streisand isn’t hating the President with a burning passion, she is crossing her fingers that the effect will soon be named after him rather than her.

Ladewig 9th November 2019 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper (Post 12886025)
That makes sense. I can see the anonymous author(s) coming forward at some convenient point going "see, I worked against him all along".

I wonder if that day will turn into an I-am-Spartacus moment with dozens of Republicans claiming authorship.

dann 9th November 2019 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper (Post 12886025)
That makes sense. I can see the anonymous author(s) coming forward at some convenient point going "see, I worked against him all along".


You mean it was Kellyanne the whole time? That would explain how she can still be married to George T. Conway III.

Safe-Keeper 9th November 2019 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfaniner (Post 12885982)
We all know he's never gonna read the book in its entirety. The best I could hope for is that the actual author picks out the most salacious stuff and says to him (directly in person) "Oh, my! Look at what that awful person wrote in this paragraph! And this one! And this one! You must really be angry!!!"

There is something delightful about the official being able to taunt Trump about the book, and Trump knowing it's written by someone around him and not knowing who. To a pathological narcissist, this must be annoying as all ****.

Craig4 9th November 2019 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper (Post 12886067)
There is something delightful about the official being able to taunt Trump about the book, and Trump knowing it's written by someone around him and not knowing who. To a pathological narcissist, this must be annoying as all ****.

And that I think is the author's true intent.

Craig4 9th November 2019 07:17 AM

I'm guessing it's Miller BTW.the author's last straw was Trump trying to keep flags from flying at half staff when McCain died. There were so many moral outrages before that but flying the flag for a Republican set him off. That sounds a lot like Miller.

phiwum 9th November 2019 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 12885915)
The NY Times reviewer is somewhat less than impressed:

I mentioned the review in the catch-all Trump thread as well.

BobTheCoward 9th November 2019 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12886054)
You mean it was Kellyanne the whole time? That would explain how she can still be married to George T. Conway III.

The obvious answer is that it is her job. Spouses don't always like their spouse's boss.

varwoche 9th November 2019 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper (Post 12886067)
There is something delightful about the official being able to taunt Trump about the book, and Trump knowing it's written by someone around him and not knowing who. To a pathological narcissist, this must be annoying as all ****.

According to recent reporting, Trump obsesses over disloyalty in his ranks far more than he obsesses over Democrats et al. That's what brings out the steel balls, so to speak.

BobTheCoward 9th November 2019 07:50 AM

Anonymous carries as much credibility as Qanon.

phiwum 9th November 2019 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfaniner (Post 12885746)
What's the over-under until this person is outed? It wouldn't be illegal like exposing the whistleblower.

Heck, I don't see that it would be troubling morally to out him either. I genuinely think that if he sees the president as so incompetent and dangerous, he would do more good to resign and go public with his concerns. It would also be the honorable thing to do, rather than to publicly support the administration while anonymously trashing it.

I'm not saying it would necessarily be virtuous to out him. The reason would certainly matter, for instance. But I don't know that I'd think he has any sort of right to remain anonymous. (He has a right to not divulge his name, of course, I just mean that he doesn't have a right to demand others keep silent as well.)

I agree that he's likely to be outed at some point, though I don't know how soon. I'd reckon that baseless speculation on the internet will be the first step, assuming that isn't already the case.

Speaking of baseless speculation, I guess I'm reckoning he isn't a household name yet. He's a senior official according to the Times, but I don't think it's an official often discussed.

TragicMonkey 9th November 2019 08:08 AM

It's totally Pence.

autumn1971 9th November 2019 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12886130)
Anonymous carries as much credibility as Qanon.

Wrong again. The NYT confirmed that the original Anonymous was, in fact, a highly placed republican staff member. Same with this book.

Apparently the Right is so committed to disloyalty and scavenging the bones of their dead that they still truly do not understand keeping a verified source anonymous.

BobTheCoward 9th November 2019 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by autumn1971 (Post 12886192)
Wrong again. The NYT confirmed that the original Anonymous was, in fact, a highly placed republican staff member. Same with this book.

Apparently the Right is so committed to disloyalty and scavenging the bones of their dead that they still truly do not understand keeping a verified source anonymous.

I reject secret claims. "It's true but I can't provide evidence" is not an acceptable argument.

Lurch 9th November 2019 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12886196)
I reject secret claims. "It's true but I can't provide evidence" is not an acceptable argument.

Sure, Bub. Until we all are omnipresent, or at least have clairvoyance and a crystal ball, none of us can know or trust anything.

BobTheCoward 9th November 2019 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 12886269)
Sure, Bub. Until we all are omnipresent, or at least have clairvoyance and a crystal ball, none of us can know or trust anything.

We have the process for advancing knowledge. You produce all evidence, both in support and not, for review. Reject secret claims.

CaptainHowdy 9th November 2019 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by autumn1971 (Post 12886192)
Wrong again. The NYT confirmed that the original Anonymous was, in fact, a highly placed republican staff member. Same with this book.

Apparently the Right is so committed to disloyalty and scavenging the bones of their dead that they still truly do not understand keeping a verified source anonymous.

Oh, well, if the NYT says it’s true it must be true.

Trebuchet 9th November 2019 12:04 PM

I just want to know where this guy was four years ago, when we needed him.

Bob001 9th November 2019 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 12886277)
Oh, well, if the NYT says it’s true it must be true.

Generally, it is. Unlike, say, Fox.

Bob001 9th November 2019 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12886196)
I reject secret claims. "It's true but I can't provide evidence" is not an acceptable argument.

The testimony of an actual witness is evidence in itself. What additional evidence could he provide of unrecorded conversations?

BobTheCoward 9th November 2019 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12886299)
The testimony of an actual witness is evidence in itself. What additional evidence could he provide of unrecorded conversations?

Open evidence that the person was in the room.

Bob001 9th November 2019 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12886305)
Open evidence that the person was in the room.

You understand what "anonymous" means?

BobTheCoward 9th November 2019 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12886310)
You understand what "anonymous" means?

And anonymous assertions are unacceptable.

Safe-Keeper 9th November 2019 02:51 PM

Thread successfully bobbed :) .

TragicMonkey 9th November 2019 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper (Post 12886423)
Thread successfully bobbed :) .

He himself said anonymous assertions are unacceptable. Since we don't know who Bob actually is we must therefore disregard everything he says.

Craig4 9th November 2019 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 12886277)
Oh, well, if the NYT says it’s true it must be true.

They didn't say it was true. They said they confirmed the author's role as a senior member of the Trump Administration.

BobTheCoward 9th November 2019 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12886425)
He himself said anonymous assertions are unacceptable. Since we don't know who Bob actually is we must therefore disregard everything he says.

This is why I rarely make claims of fact.

TragicMonkey 9th November 2019 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12886437)
This is why I rarely make claims of fact.

I fear I must disregard whatever it is you just said, anonymous stranger!

BobTheCoward 9th November 2019 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12886451)
I fear I must disregard whatever it is you just said, anonymous stranger!

You should.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.