RAGE: Bob Woodward's second book about Trump

[suchmoon]

Bob Woodward published his first book about Trump, titled "Fear", in 2018: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Fear/Bob-Woodward/9781501175527

Next week he's releasing his second book "Rage": https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Rage/Bob-Woodward/9781982131739

To me the most astonishing thing about this second book isn't really the salacious but unsurprising stuff about Trump blatantly lying about coronavirus etc, but the fact that he allowed to be interviewed and even taped. Woodward has recordings of Trump actually saying stupid things that will no doubt play non-stop on cable news from now until the election day, or at least until Trump says something even more stupid.

Why did the very stable genius agree to be interviewed by the author of "Fear", which was already very unflattering? I'm sure there is a great 4D chess strategy here, please enlighten me.

[squatz1]

The Trump administration, and the advisors who work for Trump (mostly his family) truly do amaze me. I think that at this point, Trump has booted anyone who has dared to disagree with him, so anyone that is still left in the admin (or has had the privilege of making it from 2016-today) is a yes man. They don't really advise on their own views, they just say whatever Trump wants to hear.

Pretty much EVER SINGLE OTHER US PRESIDENTIAL ADIVSOR IN HISTORY would've told Trump that going on this interview with Woodward is a bad idea. Like -- what is the upside of sitting down with someone and talking about this stuff? I don't see what he was trying to accomplish here. Was he trying to outwit him or get a good piece out of him? After the first book from Woodward, there's no shot that this could've been good for him.

Sigh.

[suchmoon]

Was he trying to outwit him or get a good piece out of him?

That's the only somewhat-plausible reason I could fathom. We know that Trump has a very high opinion of his own abilities so perhaps he thought he could paint a nice picture and make Woodward believe it.

[squatz1]

Was he trying to outwit him or get a good piece out of him?

That's the only somewhat-plausible reason I could fathom. We know that Trump has a very high opinion of his own abilities so perhaps he thought he could paint a nice picture and make Woodward believe it.

Like I think I'd partially understand the rational if this was BEFORE the first book.

But this is literally after Woodward wrote a SCATHING book about the Trump admin in his 2018 book FEAR. I truly just don't get it at all. Before the first book this makes sense, but after it? You know the guy is out for blood and I don't see a reason to interact with him AT ALL.

Just.... don't.... talk... to.... reporters

[coins4commies]

This whole story is a joke and being presented in bad faith.  MSM is pretending Trump was the only source of health information about COVID when information about the virus was widely reported and well known by February 7th.  Wuhan outbreak was reported as deadly and highly contagious back in December and the Diamond Princess cruise ship was quarantined off Japan on February 1st.  Everyone knew about this and had access to the data so you can't say "American people were denied the opportunity to know about the virus" which is being repeated on MSM.  Trump is a politician not a health expert.  

Its also not mutually exclusive. In the clip Trump said:
-Its deadly
-Its contagious
-He's trying to downplay it

In reality, he never said it wasn't deadly, or contagious and he called efforts to shutdown the economy a "hoax" not the virus itself.     He wanted people to continue on with life as usual even though the virus was out there.  This stance is not different from Boris Johnson, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Deblasio and several other politicians who were urging people to stop avoiding Chinese neighborhoods over the virus. Fauci even went on 60 minutes telling people they didn't need to wear masks.   There were 3 democratic presidential debates in the month of February that did not mention the virus at all.  

The slyness of this whole thing is people won't have the ability to recall all of that context when a clip from 7 months ago is being played for political game.  Its really amazing how good they are at creating stories out of nothing and spreading the narrative amongst the proles like wildfire.

[suchmoon]

In reality, he never said it wasn't deadly, or contagious

He actually did say that it's under control, that the numbers will be down to zero quickly, etc, and now there's proof that he was lying and not merely being an idiot. But that's not quite the point and this is thread is not not about Pelosi or even about coronavirus (plenty of other threads about that). It's about Trumps amazing ability to undermine himself in so many different ways, like talking 18 times to a clearly hostile reporter. What did he expect to achieve with that? Best case scenario (if we interpret the situation the way you do) is zero net gain for him.

[coins4commies]

In reality, he never said it wasn't deadly, or contagious

He actually did say that it's under control, that the numbers will be down to zero quickly, etc, and now there's proof that he was lying and not merely being an idiot.

None of those are mutually exclusive.  Something can be deadly, contagious, under control and going down to zero at the same time.   His prediction was wrong but that is not the same thing as lying.

An example of what you are thinking about would have been if there was a video of Trump saying "This is going to kill hundreds of thousands of people but I'm going to downplay it anyway".    What we have is a manufactured gotcha.  

[squatz1]

In reality, he never said it wasn't deadly, or contagious

He actually did say that it's under control, that the numbers will be down to zero quickly, etc, and now there's proof that he was lying and not merely being an idiot. But that's not quite the point and this is thread is not not about Pelosi or even about coronavirus (plenty of other threads about that). It's about Trumps amazing ability to undermine himself in so many different ways, like talking 18 times to a clearly hostile reporter. What did he expect to achieve with that? Best case scenario (if we interpret the situation the way you do) is zero net gain for him.

Yep, anyone can go and watch the audio OVER AND OVER because of how horrible it is and is going to be for him. This is going to be what the Dems run with for the months to come, and it makes sense that they'd do so. It does directly AGAINST what Trump has been saying publicly for months, and it makes the people who were supporting his anti science covid campaign look VERY bad. Because it shows that he knew how bad it was, and was lying to ensure that the markets, and his reelection campaign was in a good spot.

Was it all worth it? No.

[suchmoon]

None of those are mutually exclusive.  Something can be deadly, contagious, under control and going down to zero at the same time.   His prediction was wrong but that is not the same thing as lying.

My point is that it wasn't under control and subsequently there was no plausible way for the number to go down to zero. Trump was called out on it at the time and yes, back then some apologists brushed it off as a wrong prediction based on ignorance. Now we have some context showing that he knew it was more dangerous than what he said publicly. So what other possibilities are there? That he lied about it being under control? That's not a prediction, that's a statement of fact.

An example of what you are thinking about would have been if there was a video of Trump saying "This is going to kill hundreds of thousands of people but I'm going to downplay it anyway".    What we have is a manufactured gotcha.  

You know you lost the argument when you need to bring a strawman into it. How about we get back to the topic. Let's say Trump was 100% right in everything he said. Why talk to a "gotcha" reporter?

[coins4commies]

FWIW I have no desire for Trump and no stake in this election.  I really just hate how the media will craft narratives to sway public opinion in their favor.  He talked to the reporter because there was nothing sinister to hide.  Information about the virus was widely available to anyone who sought it.   Trump downplaying the virus was more about messaging and emphasis on the economy than about "hiding the truth".

[
My point is that it wasn't under control and subsequently there was no plausible way for the number to go down to zero. Trump was called out on it at the time and yes, back then some apologists brushed it off as a wrong prediction based on ignorance. Now we have some context showing that he knew it was more dangerous than what he said publicly. So what other possibilities are there? That he lied about it being under control? That's not a prediction, that's a statement of fact.

If the people who had it were all quarantined effectively then the number would have gone down to zero.  No one in February thought the situation would get to the point where it is now.   That is why I explained how the democrats went 3 more debates without bringing it up at all.  Trump's outlook was overly optimistic. 

There is nothing revealing that he secretly thought hundreds of thousands would die.  You are making a leap from him knowing it was "deadly" to him knowing that 190,000 americans would potentially die.   Thats a big leap. 

[suchmoon]

FWIW I have no desire for Trump and no stake in this election.  I really just hate how the media will craft narratives to sway public opinion in their favor.  He talked to the reporter because there was nothing sinister to hide.  Information about the virus was widely available to anyone who sought it.   Trump downplaying the virus was more about messaging and emphasis on the economy than about "hiding the truth".

Again, this is not about anything sinister, it's about the fact that he was talking to a hostile reporter. It would have been obvious to anyone that it's a bad idea but not obvious to Trump for some reason. And coronavirus is just one part of the whole sordid story. He blabbed about much more.

[GeorgeJohn]

I tried to understand politics currently, I find out that politics is made up of "three negative things" (a)corruption (b) embezzlement of funds (c)bad influence and lies.
Corruption has taken over politics,emerging a situation were president will make force open speech to the people, it shows incredibility, insincerity and lack of trust to the masses.

[squatz1]

FWIW I have no desire for Trump and no stake in this election.  I really just hate how the media will craft narratives to sway public opinion in their favor.  He talked to the reporter because there was nothing sinister to hide.  Information about the virus was widely available to anyone who sought it.   Trump downplaying the virus was more about messaging and emphasis on the economy than about "hiding the truth".

Again, this is not about anything sinister, it's about the fact that he was talking to a hostile reporter. It would have been obvious to anyone that it's a bad idea but not obvious to Trump for some reason. And coronavirus is just one part of the whole sordid story. He blabbed about much more.

Yup. This is really what I'm grilling more then what was said. If you're talking to a reporter and you know that they want blood, which the first hostile Woodward book would point to, then MAYBE you SHOULDN'T be meeting with them on the record. I'm assuming that Trump knew he was being recorded by Woodward as well, as secretly recording the President (or any higher level government official) is a way to make sure NO ONE EVER AGAIN SPEAKS TO YOU.

If this was off the record and Woodward recorded, that burns his credibility with these people.

But I assume it was on the record and Trump thought he could outwit him. Which ya know, didn't happen. Just had to stroke his ego and he was very happy to talk.

Looking forward though I don't think this is going to be the catalyst that takes down Trump.

[suchmoon]

Apparently someone managed to show the dictionary entry for "downplay" to Trump and convince him that it's not a good word, since it implies that he (1) knew the problem was big; and (2) lied to make it seem smaller. So now he's denying that he downplayed the coronavirus threat even though there are "tapes" of him doing that and bragging about it to Woodward.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-abc-news-town-hall-full-transcript/story?id=73035489

STEPHANOPOULOS: But what did you get wrong? You say a lot of people got things wrong.

I mean, you mentioned China at the top right there. All through January and February you were downplaying, by your own admission, the severity of the crisis, that you didn’t want to panic people.

TRUMP: Not downplaying.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me just ask you the question first.

TRUMP: Not downplaying. I don’t want to drive our nation into a panic. I’m a cheerleader for this nation. I’m the one that closed up our country. I closed it up long before any of the experts thought I should -- and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

But when I closed it, I put a ban on our country. And the ban was a very important ban because…

And again...

POWELL: Hello, hi. My question is, if you believe it’s the president’s responsibility to protect America, why would you downplay a pandemic that is known to disproportionately harm low-income families and minority communities?

TRUMP: Yeah. Well, I didn’t downplay it. I actually -- in many ways I up-played it in terms of action. My action was very strong.

POWELL: Did you not admit to it yourself?

TRUMP: Yes, because what I did was, with China – I put a ban on with Europe, I put a ban on. And we would have lost thousands of more people, had I not put the ban on.

So that was called action, not with the mouth, but an actual fact. We did a very, very good job when we put that ban on. Whether you call it talent or luck, it was very important. So we saved a lot of lives when we did that.

[Juggy777]

Apparently someone managed to show the dictionary entry for "downplay" to Trump and convince him that it's not a good word, since it implies that he (1) knew the problem was big; and (2) lied to make it seem smaller. So now he's denying that he downplayed the coronavirus threat even though there are "tapes" of him doing that and bragging about it to Woodward.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-abc-news-town-hall-full-transcript/story?id=73035489

STEPHANOPOULOS: But what did you get wrong? You say a lot of people got things wrong.

I mean, you mentioned China at the top right there. All through January and February you were downplaying, by your own admission, the severity of the crisis, that you didn’t want to panic people.

TRUMP: Not downplaying.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me just ask you the question first.

TRUMP: Not downplaying. I don’t want to drive our nation into a panic. I’m a cheerleader for this nation. I’m the one that closed up our country. I closed it up long before any of the experts thought I should -- and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

But when I closed it, I put a ban on our country. And the ban was a very important ban because…

And again...

POWELL: Hello, hi. My question is, if you believe it’s the president’s responsibility to protect America, why would you downplay a pandemic that is known to disproportionately harm low-income families and minority communities?

TRUMP: Yeah. Well, I didn’t downplay it. I actually -- in many ways I up-played it in terms of action. My action was very strong.

POWELL: Did you not admit to it yourself?

TRUMP: Yes, because what I did was, with China – I put a ban on with Europe, I put a ban on. And we would have lost thousands of more people, had I not put the ban on.

So that was called action, not with the mouth, but an actual fact. We did a very, very good job when we put that ban on. Whether you call it talent or luck, it was very important. So we saved a lot of lives when we did that.

@suchmoon it seems that everyone wishes to know why he went on the record 18 times with Woodward, and when asked by a reporter all he had to say was that he assumed that Woodward was a bit fair . Furthermore now that he understands the gravity of this situation he’s claiming that Woodward is a Democrat, and now he’s urging people to not read the book, but I feel that it’s bit too late because people are definitely going to be reading Woodward’s book.

Asked “why on earth would the president of United States, sit down and talk to Bob Woodward something like 18 times on tape” – the two men also spoke in August, a conversation which did not make the book – Trump said: “Well, because I assumed he was a little bit fair.”

“The guy’s a Democrat,” he said, without providing evidence of Woodward’s political affiliation, which remains opaque. “[He] works with the Washington Post. I mean that tells you right there … you know all about the Washington Post, you don’t get a break with them. Look, you, you, if you want to remain sane just don’t read it because what they do is disgraceful.”

Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/15/donald-trump-bob-woodward-book-rage-very-boring

[suchmoon]

@suchmoon it seems that everyone wishes to know why he went on the record 18 times with Woodward, and when asked by a reporter all he had to say was that he assumed that Woodward was a bit fair . Furthermore now that he understands the gravity of this situation he’s claiming that Woodward is a Democrat, and now he’s urging people to not read the book, but I feel that it’s bit too late because people are definitely going to be reading Woodward’s book.

Well, he might be not wrong that Woodward is fair, except that Trump has his own definition of that word, just like with "downplay". When he says "fair" he means something more like "favorable".