As far as I know, no-one quoted in the book has accused it of being untrue or of mis-quoting them. Except for Trump obviously. In fact people have admitted they did say those things.
I think thats pretty significant. I'm sure the Trump team must be furiously contacting people to deny the book statements and that if they things were untrue they would be mercilessly doing so. That it stands more or less unchallenged is a testimont to its credibility imo.
Originally posted by Nephthys
As far as I know, no-one quoted in the book has accused it of being untrue or of mis-quoting them. Except for Trump obviously. In fact people have admitted they did say those things.I think thats pretty significant. I'm sure the Trump team must be furiously contacting people to deny the book statements and that if they things were untrue they would be mercilessly doing so. That it stands more or less unchallenged is a testimont to its credibility imo.
That is probably because the author conducted over 200 hours of recorded interviews in order to write the book.
Trump may be in the habit of denying he has said things which there is recorded evidence of him saying, but most sane and rational people are not.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yeah, one didn't want classified information going out, the other used legal power against mean books, there's no equivalency.Deflection noted.
You clearly didn't read everything in the article.
You are expressing that Trump is stifling freedom of speech by exercising his individual rights to pursue legal action.
Obama used his executive powers to stifle communications among other things in the article.
Which one of those has a larger impact on freedom of speech, executive actions as president or individual legal action taken as a citizen.............
No deflection, your lack of comprehension is noted.
No, Rocky's right. It's a laughable deflection. The actions of Obama have literally zero bearing on the conversation at hand. He isn't President. Trump is. And preventing the release of classified information that could put America's national security in jeopardy is not even remotely comparable to the President himself trying to block a book simply because it was critical of him. Can you even imagine how bad of a precedent would be set if he was successful in not only doing that, but also "opening up the libel laws", which he has expressed support for before and reiterated in his recent speech? If you're peddling Obama-Trump false equivalences, then you're abetting a dangerous man setting a precedent which could allow him and even more dangerous men to shut down critical press, and put democracy itself at risk.
And on the topic of whistleblowing and government surveillance, Trump has called the likes of Chelsea Manning a 'traitor', whilst Obama commuted her, and also called for Edward Snowden to be killed. Furthermore, Trump has expressed support for increased powers for intelligence services, including allowing them to torture 'even if it doesn't work', and he constantly demonises the press. Obama may have crossed some lines, but the idea Trump is even remotely better in the realm of press freedom and liberty in general, is snortworthy. He just hasn't been faced with the same intelligence-based scandals that Obama faced. And when he does, his words and actions would suggest a draconian approach that would make Obama look like a child.
Originally posted by EmperordmbTrue, but his end intention is to change policy, as he has said publicly on several occasions. And regardless, when a public figure acts in this way, they are shifting the Overton window in a way which could aid Trump or an aspiring tyrant to change the laws in the future. Deflection and apologia aren't appropriate here.
Yes it's shitty, but him pursuing legal action via lawyers within the current paradigm of policy is =different from him actually changing policy to lash out at criticism.
Originally posted by Scribble
You mean Tony "There are WMD in Iraq, this war is legal, I'm not a war criminal" Blair? Yeah, super trustworthy.
Lol and uh, our own intelligence agencies said that too, about the WMD's at least.
Awesome, dipshits will stop trusting BS spewed about Trump from them, correct?
Just kidding, we both know they won't. And even the fact this author has been called out in the past for making shit up? Pshh, something something Trump something something.
Originally posted by snowdragon ]You clearly didn't read everything in the article.You are expressing that Trump is stifling freedom of speech by exercising his individual rights to pursue legal action.
Obama used his executive powers to stifle communications among other things in the article.
Which one of those has a larger impact on freedom of speech, executive actions as president or individual legal action taken as a citizen.............
No deflection, your lack of comprehension is noted.
I'm pretty sure that's something presidents are supposed to do, though maybe Trump disagrees given his active support for things like wiki leaks.
Your false equivalency remains laughable.
Originally posted by Emperor DMB ]👆
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah I'm not disagreeing it's shitty, I'm just not sounding the alarm bells as I would if it were an actual policy change.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Your real life is sad. I'm glad you shared enough to me so I definitely know you're a loser.
If you need to believe this because pretend victories online are important to you...you go ahead. I am granting permission to you. What you do with the permission is your choice.
Originally posted by SurturThis is a real victory co signed by yourself. You always play the victim and run away like a *****.
If you need to believe this because pretend victories online are important to you...you go ahead. I am granting permission to you. What you do with the permission is your choice.