Fire and Fury

Runnin

Runnin

Well-known member
Is no one reading this book? While it's clearing an opportunistic hack job and its author's own take is a little too obvious at times, there is still a lot of information here for Trump supporters and objective readers. Trump's own words, for example, make up a pretty significant percentage of the read.

Certain overly salacious quotes aside, it's significant because it's the first, and you know there are going to be many, many more. And one can argue that, considering Trump's odd behavior and statements during the Immigration meeting, the book may already be having an affect on public policy. He was clearly trying hard to appear Presidential and cognitively sharp, in the wake of the growing concerns of his mental condition.
 
sturg33 said:
not much of a fiction reader
Click to expand...

I like fiction, but I suspect very little of the book can be described that way. Ex. Melania was "in tears" about Trump winning the election. Seems like a plausible way to describe her condition, and if not, so what? If even one person described her state that way, which is not literal, it's a fair statement. Remember, most of the information is hearsay.

The general plot is solid and verifiable, the Bannon/Jarvanka feud, the C Pac meeting, the staff turnover, the leaks, the President's recorded words and tweets, etc. Both Bannon and Trump have plenty of good moments, as they have had. Even Ann Coulter said the book did not make Trump out as bad as many have claimed.

I'd be interested to hear from those who have read the book. It's a pretty fascinating read and while it may be far from 100% accurate in all its details, I think it may still be closer to the truth that what one gets in daily press snippets.
 
calling it fiction

the end game all along with these people

make sure anything that comes out is called fake news

just keep repeating that over and over and just follow the dear leader.

he would never lie
 
In the introduction to “Fire and Fury,” Wolff writes many of the accounts provided “are in conflict with one another” and may be “badly untrue.” He says he “settled on a version of events” he believed to be true.

That's, uh, the version that sells books to y'all hot under the collar folk.
 
Hawk said:
In the introduction to “Fire and Fury,” Wolff writes many of the accounts provided “are in conflict with one another” and may be “badly untrue.” He says he “settled on a version of events” he believed to be true.

That's, uh, the version that sells books to y'all hot under the collar folk.
Click to expand...

That's what biographers usually do.

Have you read it?

One reason the press may not want to talk about it is because he is merciless against the media, but of course he is just as opportunistic as anyone.
 
goldfly said:
calling it fiction

the end game all along with these people

make sure anything that comes out is called fake news

just keep repeating that over and over and just follow the dear leader.

he would never lie
Click to expand...

Lol goodness

Do you think the book is 100% true?
 
Runnin said:
That's what biographers usually do.
Click to expand...

If you really believe that to be the case, then I suggest you read up on the methods of some of the great biographers. Take DKG for example.

Have you read it?
Click to expand...

No. I thought about it, but my reading list is spiraling out of control as it is.
 
In the wake of the "****hole" comments, here's a short excerpt from Fire and Fury About the Mika Brzezinski "bleeding badly from a facelift" tweet. My bolds.

"The next step in his Tweet paradigm was universal liberal opprobrium. Almost a week of social media fury, cable breast-beating, and front page condemnation followed his tweet about Brzezinski. That was accompanied by the other part of the Trump tweet dynamic: by unifying liberal opposition against him, he unified the opposite for him.

In truth, he was often neither fully aware of the nature of what he had said nor fully cognizant of why there should be such a passionate reaction to it. As often as not, he surprised himself. “What’d I say?” he would ask after getting severe blowback.

He was serving up these insults for effect—well, not entirely. And his behavior wasn’t carefully calculated; it was tit for tat, and he would likely have said what he’d said even if no one was left standing with him. (This very lack of calculation, this inability to be political, was part of his political charm.) It was just his good luck that the Trumpian 35 percent—that standing percentage of people who, according to most polls, seemed to support him no matter what (who would, in his estimation, let him get away with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue)—was largely unfazed and maybe even buoyed by every new expression of Trumpness.

Now, having expressed himself and gotten in the last word, Trump was cheery again.

“Mika and Joe totally love this. It’s big ratings for them,” said the president, with certain satisfaction and obvious truth."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top