Fear by Bob Woodward

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 8:14 pm

Actually, more and more people are suggesting that the op-ed was a false flag operation done with Trump's full knowledge. Which makes sense in a perverse kind of way:

WH Staffers: I bet we couldn't get the NYT to print a fake Deep State confession.

Trump: Hold my Diet Coke.

The NYT is just humorless enough to fall for it.

There's a truism in politics that President Clinton won because he caught on to the power of databases. I think the next truism is that Trump caught on to the power of social media trolling.

The middle-of-the-night tweets act like laser cat toys for the legacy media. The psychosexual taunting of Putin and NATO plays out flawlessly every day on Instagram. Trading insults with Asian leaders allows them to accumulate "face" in their dealings.

Again, you can dislike Trump himself and/or his agenda, but he's figured out how to use social media to constantly maintain the psychological advantage with enemies, frenemies, and friends.

Jeanette

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 8:25 pm

Fox wrote:

First of all, if you really believe this dont ever complain of fake news again.

The fact that you are seriously entertaining this possibility (and consider it l'maaliyusa!) is just stunning.

Let's set aside the fact that he's been tweeting like a maniac for 2 days and demanding that whoever wrote this be turned over to the authorities immediately.

You are hereby revealing that you think the president of the United States gaslighting the country is not an absolute dereliction of duty but a brilliant political strategy.

Any party that holds up such a person for glorification should never hold power in this country again.

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 9:09 pm

Jeanette wrote:

What has you worked up? The idea that somebody wrote a fake op-ed or acknowledging Trump's mastery of social media trolling.

Let's say, just for the sake of the argument, that the op-ed was a completely fake plant. Are you telling me that the NYT has such poor sourcing and vetting procedures that they couldn't sniff a rat? Or are you telling me that they're so desperate for dirt on Trump that they wouldn't bother to do any due diligence to verify the story?

It seems to me that the NYT is backing themselves into a corner similar to CNN. If the story is revealed as a complete fake, they look incompetent and ridiculous. If the story is revealed to have come from a source who is at a lower level than the NYT claimed or from someone known to have a grudge, they look complicit.

Didn't their editorial board see All The President's Men, where Jason Robards as Ben Bradlee keeps sending Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford back out to get three named sources for everything? No, probably not. It was a movie all about white men, and while there were some scenes in a parking garage, I don't recall any underground groveling goblins.

Don't take all of this stuff so seriously. All of it is just the noise made by the legacy media in its death throes.

Fortunately, after claiming yesterday that nobody was ever banned for their views, @jack has saved us all from Alex Jones, who got in the face of a CNN reporter who's been agitating for a ban for a while. But don't worry, Louis Farrakhan, Hamas, Hezbollah, Antifa, and a wide range of people making death threats can still tweet to warn us about gay frogs.

Jeanette

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 9:14 pm

No no no. You don't get to change the subject now.

I already expressed my opinion pages ago that it was very poor judgment of the NYT to publish this oped anonymously.

YOU proposed that it came from the president and that you admire his deftness in gaslighting America. As in, the people who invested him with leadership powers thinking he'd use them for their benefit. This is what counts for YOU as brilliant political leadership.

All so you can sit back and say, there there! What are you so worked up about? Nobody moved the furniture, dear!

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 9:19 pm

Jeanette wrote:

YOU proposed that it came from the president and that you admire his deftness in gaslighting America. As in, the people who invested him with leadership powers thinking he'd use them for their benefit. This is what counts for YOU as brilliant political leadership.

Where did I say I admired it? Please quote specifically where I said that (a) I believed that the op-ed was a false flag move; and that (b) if so, I admired it.

I said I could see it making sense. That implies neither belief that the theory is correct nor approval of it.

I said I admired his social media strategy. That's a different subject.

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 9:27 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Many people are saying. Really, really fine people.

So tell us what you think of a president who would deliberately perpetrate such a hoax. Do you still support him? Do you still consider him a fit president? I didn't suggest it. You did

Again, where did I say that I believed this or supported it. Waiting . . .

I thought it was interesting and kind of funny to consider. I forgot that amusement at humorous scenarios is evidence of not being sufficiently enraged by the fact that the world is ending.

Jeanette

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 9:30 pm

Fox wrote:

Again, where did I say that I believed this or supported it. Waiting . . .

A. You find it plausible and
B. You still support Trump

So, A in your mind is no disqualification for B.

Oh yes yes, back to the "I was only joking" defense amidst observations of the general humorlessness of liberals. Well played! Back slaps all around!

Last edited by Jeanette on Thu, Sep 06 2018, 9:35 pm; edited 2 times in total

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 9:45 pm

Jeanette wrote:

"Could see it making sense" is basically the definition of plausible.

"in a perverse way." And then I made a joke about it. Which you chose to ignore and instead got outraged. And what's weird is that it wasn't a joke that was complimentary toward Trump.

I have a ton more jokes and imaginary humorous scenarios. But I guess none of them are funny if you genuinely believe the world is ending. Except . . . didn't it already end when Trump got us into war with North Korea? Or when Trump got us into war with Iran? Or when Trump made Justin Trudeau mad over cheese? Or when . . .

Jeanette

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 9:47 pm

Fox wrote:

Yes. I can hear the nervous laughter.

Trumpers never like to see themselves exposed.

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 9:55 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Yes. I can hear the nervous laughter.

Trumpers never like to see themselves exposed.

Well, earlier you claimed I should feel smug. So why would I be laughing nervously? And how am I (or anyone) being "exposed" by a joke?

I don't suppose you want to hear the one about why Rahm Emanuel isn't running for Mayor of Chicago again, do you? He wants to move someplace safer.

Oh, or how about this one:

"I returned my Nikes to the store for a credit, and the clerk asked me what was wrong with them. I told her they hurt my feet when I stood up for the National Anthem."

or

“Trump has unemployment so low that Kaepernick found a job”

I mean, not great moments in the history of humor, maybe, but worth a smile before the world blows up.

PinkFridge

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 10:06 pm

Jeanette wrote:

I have to agree that if this were true, the gaslighting is beyond disconcerting.
That might top his attacks on McCain as a hero as a shooting on 5th Ave. moment.

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 10:32 pm

Could we resolve to use "gaslighting" in its original psychological sense rather than its current social justice version?

"Gaslighting" is not a synonym for lying, distorting, contradicting, or manipulating. It means something very specific: to deliberately plant seeds of doubt in a person's mind about their perceptions or experience.

It's a common component of abusive relationships, and to apply it willy-nilly to political shenanigans and civic disputes cheapens the meaning and the understanding of what happens to victims of abuse. Not cool. If you think someone is lying, say so.

Jeanette

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 10:50 pm

Here are some examples of gaslighting:

Making a statement and denying in the next breath that you ever made the statement.

Making a deliberately provocative statement and then when the target is predictably provoked, say, "What's there to get upset over?"

Make a deliberately provocative statement and then when the target reacts, claim you were joking and hold up reaction as evidence of target's gullibility and lack of humor.

Make a provocative but ambiguous statement. Whatever interpretation the target gives, claim you really meant the opposite.

Split hairs over the definition of the term gaslighting and then claim that misuse of the term (according to however you define it) is disrespectful to its victims.

I don't really care, do u?

SixOfWands

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 11:00 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Oh cmon. This is the funniest thing I’ve read in years. Trump supporters grasping at straws, trying to grasp the last shreds of possibility that Trump is actually, I can’t think of the right word. Sane, maybe?

The NY Times obviously knows who wrote the Op Ed. They almost certainly met with the person, or at the very least spoke with him on the phone and verified his (or her) identity. Trump may try to paint them like idiots, and his supporters may be gullible enough to believe it. But that’s not the way the news industry works.

Should it have been posted anonymously? I don’t know. But it was important. And it certainly backs up Woodward’s reporting.

And it’s scary as h3ll. And you know what else is scary as h3ll? You’re not seeing a lot of denials that it’s true.