Bannon tells all in new book about Trump

[alan]

Steve Bannon is a weird dude. He's a Nihilist. He says says things just to get attention. All that is true. But does it mean that everything he says is a lie? I don't know. What he says in this article rings true to me.
There is a new book coming out, from a respected journalist. Quotes Bannon extensively, and also some new reporting which I think everyone should read.
Because if the reality if half this bad, we should all be worried. You guys know I am anti-Trump. But I will never report fake news. Read this excerpt from the book, and then tell me why you are not afraid, and do not hate Trump.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... trump.html

[DooDoot]

What I have observed in life is how evil people collude together for mutual interests then nastily stab each other in the back at later times.

[Sam Vara]

Read this excerpt from the book, and then tell me why you are not afraid, and do not hate Trump.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... trump.html

Having read it, I'm not afraid because partisan political journalism is usually nothing to fear. I have no way of verifying the contents, and therefore have no reason to even suppose it true. I don't hate Trump because, as per other threads on him, hatred is an unwise response to any situation where it can be avoided.

[chownah]

Read this excerpt from the book, and then tell me why you are not afraid, and do not hate Trump.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... trump.html

Having read it, I'm not afraid because partisan political journalism is usually nothing to fear. I have no way of verifying the contents, and therefore have no reason to even suppose it true. I don't hate Trump because, as per other threads on him, hatred is an unwise response to any situation where it can be avoided.

Yeah, hard to know if there is any truth in this at all.....but one can make an educated guess....but even after making that guess one should hold their views very very lightly 'cause its only a guess.
While the article does at face seem like partisan political I was surprised when I looked at the author himself and read a couple of his works. Here is the link from the article which leads to the stuff about wolff:
http://nymag.com/author/Michael%20Wolff/
I read large parts of two of his articles those being:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/ ... ures/3918/
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/col ... alife/153/
I'm not trying to drag this thread off topic but I was surprised that the author seems to view be able to comment on thing political from a seemingly non-partisan perspective.
chownah

[Sam Vara]

Yeah, hard to know if there is any truth in this at all.....but one can make an educated guess....but even after making that guess one should hold their views very very lightly 'cause its only a guess.
While the article does at face seem like partisan political I was surprised when I looked at the author himself and read a couple of his works. Here is the link from the article which leads to the stuff about wolff:
http://nymag.com/author/Michael%20Wolff/
I read large parts of two of his articles those being:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/ ... ures/3918/
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/col ... alife/153/
I'm not trying to drag this thread off topic but I was surprised that the author seems to view be able to comment on thing political from a seemingly non-partisan perspective.
chownah

Many thanks, Chownah. The links look interesting - particularly the Hillary one - and I agree with your point about holding one's opnions lightly on such matters. Wolff certainly is a good writer, and my guess is that he prioritises that writingand selling copy above any partisan allegiances.

The dramaturgical style of the article raises a couple of problems for me. On the one hand, the ordinary reader has no way of verifying even attibutable quotes and conversations. Tony Blair has been busy denying that he had the conversations that Wolff attributes to him
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42561680
and this has even been reported in The Guardian, which hates Trump with a passion:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... gchq-spied
I expect there are other rebuttals should one care to look for them.

The other problem is that Wolff's account tends to veer into asumptions about what or how Trump and others were thinking; analysis of motivation and character which usually require far more positive evidence, and the longer view that is attained by biography or history, rather than journalism.

[chownah]

An article from bloomberg about the ongoing row beteween trump and bannon concerning the wolff book ends with:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-is ... 23129.html

Walsh is quoted saying that working for Trump was “like trying to figure out what a child wants.” She has denied making the remark.

Wolff has “dozens of hours” of recordings to back up quotes in his book, including conversations with Walsh and Bannon, Axios reported on Thursday.

This might get interesting........
chownah

[No_Mind]

Customer reviews from Amazon of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House"

https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Fury-Inside ... merReviews



No_Mind

[Dhammarakkhito]

sloppy steve trying to make a buck; it's sad

[DNS]

Actually, it's Michael Wolff who wrote the book, not Bannon. Perhaps the thread title should be changed? Or was it Bannon who supplied Wolff with the information for the book?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Sounds like fan fiction for the #Resistance, to be honest.

Metta,
Paul.

[lyndon taylor]

Are you going to miss Steve Bannon, Retro??

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Lyndon,

Miss him in what capacity?

People don't mysteriously ended up suicided with two bullets to the back of the head when they do wrong by Trump.



Metta,
Paul.

[lyndon taylor]

Well partly as head of Breibart news, a news source you have quoted extensively, word is their board of directors is looking to let him go, I imagine he could fade into obscurity with the level of attacks Trump is going to pull on him, his ability to be a mover and shaker in Republican circles looks to be almost over. What do you think??

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Lyndon,

I don't really have strong feelings either way what he does, so long as he doesn't make a career out of white-anting Trump.

Metta,
Paul.

[lyndon taylor]

Just out of curiosity, Retro, do you have the same positive feelings for Malcolm Turnbull or Tony Abbott that you have for Trump, who is your favourite?? I can't help but wonder if you actually lived in the USA if your positive take on Trump might be less so??

[Bundokji]

Regardless of the truth of such claims, i am not sure how raising them is beneficial, or how attempting to humiliate a president of a country would help to move things into the right direction.

[lyndon taylor]

Regardless of the truth of such claims, i am not sure how raising them is beneficial, or how attempting to humiliate a president of a country would help to move things into the right direction.

The truth will set you free, wouldn't you rather know the truth than believe the lies??

[chownah]

Regardless of the truth of such claims, i am not sure how raising them is beneficial, or how attempting to humiliate a president of a country would help to move things into the right direction.

If what is written is truthful then I don't see how printing the truth would not be beneficial.

Also, have you read some of the other political articles written by wolff? I brought some links above and I'll put them here again. He really does seem to be able to write from a non-partisan position or at least that's the impression I get from having read just a bit of his other stuff:

http://nymag.com/author/Michael%20Wolff/
I read large parts of two of his articles those being:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/ ... ures/3918/
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/col ... alife/153/
I'm not trying to drag this thread off topic but I was surprised that the author seems to view be able to comment on thing political from a seemingly non-partisan perspective.

chownah

[Bundokji]

The truth will set you free, wouldn't you rather know the truth than believe the lies??

If what is written is truthful then I don't see how printing the truth would not be beneficial.

From your input, you are using the word "truth" in the sense that what is written in the book corresponds to events that took place in the real world, and you both concluded that this will necessarily be beneficial.

However, from a Buddhist perspective, the above is one of the most important criteria determining right speech, but it is not the only one:

"And how is one made pure in four ways by verbal action?

"There is the case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty, if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell, good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he does know, he says, 'I know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I have seen.' Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of any reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world.

"Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord.

"Abandoning abusive speech, he abstains from abusive speech. He speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing & pleasing to people at large.

"Abandoning idle chatter, he abstains from idle chatter. He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya. He speaks words worth treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the goal.

"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will."

The Buddha's emphasized on speaking the truth, but did not stop there. Imagine you speak publicly about a particular flaw or shortcoming in my character because you have issues with me. While you did not lie, does that make you a truthful person? If you were truthful, you would ask yourself few questions such as: why did not you speak with me in private instead of embarrassing me publicly? or you would have reflected if speaking publicly would help me improve my behavior or would make me more defiant? or you might want to question your intentions if your action (speaking publicly) is driven by truthfulness and inner integrity or seeking to impress and make money?

It is easy to see how the term "truth" can serve to mislead.

[chownah]

Bundokji,
You start with:

From your input, you are using the word "truth" in the sense that what is written in the book corresponds to events that took place in the real world, and you both concluded that this will necessarily be beneficial.

THis seems really theoretic. No need to be so theoretic....It seems that you are failing to actually take a look at what is in the book and make a statement about that. It sounds like you are saying that not all truths when expressed are beneficial.....I won't dispute that.....but.....this is not some theoretic situation....there is a book...its already existing content is what I am talking about.

My view is that if what is written in the book is true then it is a matter of great public interest and even international concern that the issues raise be dealt with or at least analyzed and considered........perhaps you are not aware of what is written in the book.

I want to stress that I am not saying that what is written is true.....but then I am not saying that it is false either.....but I think that some of the issues raised are of great importance.
chownah
edit: I just realized that my view on this is not entirely captured in what I have been saying. To clarify: I think that there are things in the book which if they are true will not be beneficial by being made public....but there are things which if true would be beneficial by being made public.
chownah