Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Gronk, Dec 10, 2018.
Dont forget Barry. He tells jokes i cant understand
Put it this way - if you hate a politician do you have any credibility when you editorialise about him?
They are glorified entertainers. They exist to comfort <us> and afflict <them>.
Who said the writer hated him ? Wolff was given access to Trump and staff and the book is based on 200 recorded interviews. What part of the book casts the POTUS in an unfavourable light to make you think that it was written with predetermined bias ?
Journalists are aware they need to try and hide their bias, but even without bias they need to sell drama and bullshit.
Wolff seems to be a victim of your tendency to generalise.
Everyone's a victim.
I read plenty of journalists Gronk, but I take them all with a grain of salt. You have to keep in mind they are first and foremost selling something they know people will buy.
@Twizzle takes them with a kilo of salt.
They are full of shit. As soon as they start telling us why things happened, or otherwise inferring causal relationships and reading merkins' minds they are tainting the facts with their opinions.
But if they don't their stuff is boring and unreadable (or unwatchable). And nobody will pay money for it.
Massive generalisation. Historians fill in the blanks in between the facts too. Running with your premise, they are tainted with bias or colour to sell books.
But we digress. These two particular books by Wolff are based on audio tapes from merkins within the White House. So without any rebuttable evidence, well assume it is the truth until such time it is shown to be otherwise. That how shit works. Not even the queen of spin Kellyanne Conway has had the balls to refute any part of the book, because she knows that this guy does not go to print without accounts from multiple sources .
@Hollywood Jesus will have something to say about this, I’m sure.
Why dignify that kind of scuttlebutt with a response? A book written with a narrative around a bunch of emotionally charged recollections. It's melodrama to entertain watchers of politicians and bureaucrats. You can assume it's pure truth. I will go with Occam's Razor on this one and assume that the underdog in a contest had a plan for if they actually won.
Got it. Dismissing a premise as fake because it does not suit your narrative reminds me of someone. Guess who ?
I don't have a narrative. It's just stupid to think someone would spend all that time and effort on a contest and have no plan for if they won.
Yes it would be very stupid. We can agree on this.
Wooooooo!!! ... Group hug
And yet you believe it.
People do stupid things. I have sat with the notion that he does and says stupid things and concluded that it's ..
Well he would be in the top 10.
I thought these two used to make love to each other. Was quite shocked to learn they where just friends without benefits.
Separate names with a comma.