Posted on Sep 9, 2018
Bob Woodward: "People better wake up to what's going on" in the Oval Office
808
44
50
6
6
0
In the interests of real transparency, (1) I am totally awake to what's going on in the Oval Office. (2) I voted for President Trump. (3) I have no regrets. He is doing exactly what I expected of him and, most importantly, Hillary isn't (thank God). (4) I believe we will survive eight years of his Administration even if everything Woodward writes is true. (5) Possibly, most importantly, President Trump is the most honest man who has occupied the White House since Ronald Reagan (and we desperately need that after all the lies and chicanery of the previous administration). So, you may well ask, why did I watch this and share it? Simple. I believe that We the People have suffered the fools in politics far too long because we chose to ignore them. We allowed them, reelected them countless times, while they made terrible decisions, negotiated terrible deals, and enriched themselves at our expense, because we chose to ignore them. Never, never turn you back on an SOB. They'll stab you in the back every time.
Bob Woodward: "People better wake up to what's going on" in the Oval Office
Posted from cbsnews.comPosted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 12
3
3
0
Me, me, look over here! I’m relevant again, even though I’m using an old playbook. Woodward and Bernstein still using the same old tired playbook.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - Because anyone who speaks ill of POTUS should be put in jail... I think it's a new executive order that's coming out soon.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - What do you mean? I recall a LOT of criticism for Obama. And a lot of it was called for. But, those who used his skin color as a criticism, yeah, they were racist.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - Changing story... "zero criticism from Democrats"... just like there isn't much criticism from Republicans now.
I'm not sure I'd use that "HotAir" article as much evidence of anything. It's mostly incoherent.
And the second article is specific to the Black Causcus in Congress and what THEY think. I'm still not seeing a large overarching story of how any criticism of Obama was considered racist.
I don't want hundreds more of the same thing - how about just one that has a succinct analysis of the issue?
I'm not sure I'd use that "HotAir" article as much evidence of anything. It's mostly incoherent.
And the second article is specific to the Black Causcus in Congress and what THEY think. I'm still not seeing a large overarching story of how any criticism of Obama was considered racist.
I don't want hundreds more of the same thing - how about just one that has a succinct analysis of the issue?
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - "To my knowledge, none of them [Senators and Representatives] even batted an eye at anything he did."
That's just not a true statement as evidenced by the following:
https://www.newsmax.com/Slideshows/Profiles-in-Courage--10-Democrats-Opposing-Obama/104754/slide/1/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/30/politics/democrats-distance-obama/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-anti-obama-democrats/2012/05/22/gIQArS7MiU_blog.html?utm_term=.4d2924d35092
The articles you said you had were supposed to be evidence that anytime someone said something disparaging about Obama or his policies, they were labeled as racists. That's not what your articles say.
That's just not a true statement as evidenced by the following:
https://www.newsmax.com/Slideshows/Profiles-in-Courage--10-Democrats-Opposing-Obama/104754/slide/1/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/30/politics/democrats-distance-obama/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-anti-obama-democrats/2012/05/22/gIQArS7MiU_blog.html?utm_term=.4d2924d35092
The articles you said you had were supposed to be evidence that anytime someone said something disparaging about Obama or his policies, they were labeled as racists. That's not what your articles say.
Profiles in Courage: 10 Democrats Opposing Obama
Bright has opposed just about every major piece of legislation that the president and Democratic leaders have sought. "Party leaders are not my directors or my boss," Bright said after calling for an extension of the Bush tax cuts.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I read his book Obama's Wars. It was a well-done book. I still haven't read the last book I bought, Anthony Beeveor's Ardennes 1944 , which I think is more exciting, truthful and relevant than the book that he just put out.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
LTC (Join to see) - That's a valiant effort at back-peddling, but your original statement said that the next book you want to read was "more exciting, truthful, and relevant" than his Trump book. Now, "exciting" is an opinion - so, have at it. "Revelant" - also an opinion.
But, "truthful" - truth isn't an opinion. It's an objective reality. You just said that the current Woodward book, that you haven't read, is somehow less true than the one you want to read. My question is, on what evidence are you basing that statement of fact? The NPR reporter that wasn't important to you? THAT's the one that convinced you that the current book is less true than the one you want to read?
No one is saying you're obligated to read anything, but, if you're going to make a statement of fact about the book, don't you think it makes sense to have READ the book? I mean, I can say that the next book you want to read is 100% lies - but, I've never read it, so, how could I say that? I couldn't. Similarly, neither can you. Unless, of course, you ALSO have a bias that's clouding your judgment....
But, "truthful" - truth isn't an opinion. It's an objective reality. You just said that the current Woodward book, that you haven't read, is somehow less true than the one you want to read. My question is, on what evidence are you basing that statement of fact? The NPR reporter that wasn't important to you? THAT's the one that convinced you that the current book is less true than the one you want to read?
No one is saying you're obligated to read anything, but, if you're going to make a statement of fact about the book, don't you think it makes sense to have READ the book? I mean, I can say that the next book you want to read is 100% lies - but, I've never read it, so, how could I say that? I couldn't. Similarly, neither can you. Unless, of course, you ALSO have a bias that's clouding your judgment....
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
There may be some bias based on another friend who told me that some of investigative reporting of Woodward's earlier Works may not have been so accurate. I did like Obama's Wars because I was expecting it to be sensationalized. Like I said, I work 12 hours a day and I have other priorities. I'm not a subject matter expert nor my god when it comes to books.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski also, President Nixon was a Troublesome president as well. Yet, he opened up the door to China and Russia. In spite of President Trump's tempers, we should look at the big picture. What will his legacy be 10 15 20 years down the road? We have Congress as his checks and balances. You can make your assertions of what you do or don't want him to do. I just let the president, Congress and the courts work themselves out. I don't need to be right and you can say that I backpedaled when I'm more than clarified. Like I said, I don't need to be right.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
LTC (Join to see) - No one is saying you are or should be a god. But, if you make a factual statement, it should be supported by evidence.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google