ADVERTISEMENT

Good grief - things get more bizarre each day

Noodle

Noodle

Hall of Famer
Jun 19, 2001
29,109
10,342
113
It almost seems like Michael Wolff and Donald Trump were separated at birth:

The author of the explosive new book about Donald Trump's presidency acknowledged in the book that he wasn't certain all of its content was true.

Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true.

In other cases, the media columnist said, he did use his journalistic judgment and research to arrive at what he describes "a version of events I believe to be true."

Here is the relevant part of the note, from the 10th page of the book's prologue:​

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

"Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."​

http://www.businessinsider.com/mich...-doesnt-know-if-trump-book-is-all-true-2018-1
 
Noodle said:
It almost seems like Michael Wolff and Donald Trump were separated at birth:

The author of the explosive new book about Donald Trump's presidency acknowledged in the book that he wasn't certain all of its content was true.

Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true.

In other cases, the media columnist said, he did use his journalistic judgment and research to arrive at what he describes "a version of events I believe to be true."

Here is the relevant part of the note, from the 10th page of the book's prologue:​

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

"Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."​

http://www.businessinsider.com/mich...-doesnt-know-if-trump-book-is-all-true-2018-1
Click to expand...

Did you see my Tweet?
Have you "liked" my Facebook post?


I miss the United States. It was a hell of a country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1 and td75
Noodle said:
It almost seems like Michael Wolff and Donald Trump were separated at birth:

The author of the explosive new book about Donald Trump's presidency acknowledged in the book that he wasn't certain all of its content was true.

Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true.

In other cases, the media columnist said, he did use his journalistic judgment and research to arrive at what he describes "a version of events I believe to be true."

Here is the relevant part of the note, from the 10th page of the book's prologue:​

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

"Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."​

http://www.businessinsider.com/mich...-doesnt-know-if-trump-book-is-all-true-2018-1
Click to expand...
WTF? On the radio this morning some guy was talking about Wolff not always being the best source of facts but don't know anything about him. What I've read and heard from what the book says rings true because it seems like other things I've read about Trump and his cronies but maybe it's not as true as we believe. I wish Woodward wrote it.
 
Pretty much every well-sourced journalist in the White House says Wolff may not get everything right, but they've heard the same things from their sources.

https://www.axios.com/the-wolff-lin...ously-true-2522675021.html?utm_source=sidebar

Axios said:
In the past year, we have had many of the same conversations with the same sources Wolff used. We won't betray them, or put on the record what was off. But, we can say that the following lines from the book ring unambiguously true:

How Trump processes (and resists) information:

  • "It was during Trump's early intelligence briefings … that alarm signals first went off among his new campaign staff: he seemed to lack the ability to take in third-party information."
  • "Or maybe he lacked the interest; whichever, he seemed almost phobic about having formal demands on his attention."
  • "Trump didn't read. He didn't really even skim. ... [H]e could read headlines and articles about himself, or at least headlines on articles about himself, and the gossip squibs on the New York Post's Page Six."
  • "Some ... concluded that he didn't read because he just didn't have to, and that in fact this was one of his key attributes as a populist. He was postliterate — total television."
  • "[H]e trusted his own expertise — no matter how paltry or irrelevant — more than anyone else's. What's more, he had an extremely short attention span, even when he thought you were worthy of attention."
Instinct over expertise:
  • "The organization ... needed a set of internal rationalizations that would allow it to trust a man who, while he knew little, was entirely confident of his own gut instincts and reflexive opinions, however frequently they might change."
  • "Here was a key Trump White House rationale: expertise, that liberal virtue, was overrated."
Ill-preparedness:
  • "[T]he president's views of foreign policy and the world at large were among [his White House's] most random, uninformed, and seemingly capricious aspects. His advisers didn't know whether he was an isolationist or a militarist, or whether he could distinguish between the two."
  • "He was enamored with generals and determined that people with military command experience take the lead in foreign policy, but he hated to be told what to do."
  • "In the Trump White House, policy making ... flowed up. It was a process of suggesting, in throw-it-against-the-wall style, what the president might want, and hoping he might then think that he had thought of this himself."
Low regard by key aides:
  • "He spoke obliviously and happily, believing himself to be a perfect pitch raconteur and public performer, while everyone with him held their breath.
  • "If a wackadoo moment occurred on the occasions … when his remarks careened in no clear direction, his staff had to go into intense method-acting response. It took absolute discipline not to acknowledge what everyone could see."
  • "At points on the day's spectrum of adverse political developments, he could have moments of, almost everyone would admit, irrationality. When that happened, he was alone in his anger and not approachable by anyone."
  • "His senior staff largely dealt with these dark hours by agreeing with him, no matter what he said."
Be smart: More than half a dozen of the more skilled White House staff are contemplating imminent departures. Many leaving are quite fearful about the next chapter of the Trump presidency.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
CNN was interviewing some journalists and mentioned that Wolff was asked if he used flattery to get quotes. Wolff's reply was that he said whatever he needed to. The journalists were aghast.
 
Noodle said:
It almost seems like Michael Wolff and Donald Trump were separated at birth:

The author of the explosive new book about Donald Trump's presidency acknowledged in the book that he wasn't certain all of its content was true.

Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true.

In other cases, the media columnist said, he did use his journalistic judgment and research to arrive at what he describes "a version of events I believe to be true."

Here is the relevant part of the note, from the 10th page of the book's prologue:​

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

"Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."​

http://www.businessinsider.com/mich...-doesnt-know-if-trump-book-is-all-true-2018-1
Click to expand...
Sounds precisely like a combination of what journalists and historians do. What's your issue?
 
Fro said:
Pretty much every well-sourced journalist in the White House says Wolff may not get everything right, but they've heard the same things from their sources.

https://www.axios.com/the-wolff-lin...ously-true-2522675021.html?utm_source=sidebar
Click to expand...
Well sure. But, at least based on the article you linked to, those "same things" others have heard are just two:
Trump is an emotionally erratic president, and some of those serving Trump have a low opinion of him.

But what about the stuff in the book that the world did not already know about Trump?

Also, I really wonder how much MacMillan (the publisher) knew about the, ahem, "issues" with Wolff's sourcing and fact-checking prior to today. Sadly, all of this will just add more fuel to the "fake news" fires raging in the minds of a lot of Trump voters.

Personally, I find it all incredibly frustrating. There are a myriad of things Trump has done and said that deserve ridicule and contempt--significant things, with real consequences, many of which seriously call into question his fitness for office (frankly, any office). But, far too many politicians and members of the press continue to be operating under the misconception that no opportunity to criticize Trump should go unused, regardless of its significance or ability to be proven. And in some instances they have even gone so far as to be actively deceptive in their zeal to attack Trump at every possible turn.

Case in point - check out the ridiculous headline to this story: http://www.newsweek.com/melania-trump-orders-removal-near-200-year-old-tree-white-house-759120.
False headline? Not really. Misleading? Absolutely. And for what purpose?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ladoga and Aloha Hoosier
Noodle said:
Well sure. But, at least based on the article you linked to, those "same things" others have heard are just two:
Trump is an emotionally erratic president, and some of those serving Trump have a low opinion of him.

But what about the stuff in the book that the world did not already know about Trump?

Also, I really wonder how much MacMillan (the publisher) knew about the, ahem, "issues" with Wolff's sourcing and fact-checking prior to today. Sadly, all of this will just add more fuel to the "fake news" fires raging in the minds of a lot of Trump voters.

Personally, I find it all incredibly frustrating. There are a myriad of things Trump has done and said that deserve ridicule and contempt--significant things, with real consequences, many of which seriously call into question his fitness for office (frankly, any office). But, far too many politicians and members of the press continue to be operating under the misconception that no opportunity to criticize Trump should go unused, regardless of its significance or ability to be proven. And in some instances they have even gone so far as to be actively deceptive in their zeal to attack Trump at every possible turn.

Case in point - check out the ridiculous headline to this story: http://www.newsweek.com/melania-trump-orders-removal-near-200-year-old-tree-white-house-759120.
False headline? Not really. Misleading? Absolutely. And for what purpose?
Click to expand...
I don't really understand what these "issues" are supposed to be. He is apparently honest in his book about the fact that he doesn't believe some of the things people told him. He's not claiming they are accurate. He's not even passing them along with a wink and a shady silence. He's saying, this administration is chaotic, and they can't even get their stories straight on various things. Here's a picture of just how f***ed up it is.

Look again at excerpt from Business Insider. Look at their excerpt from the foreword, and then look at how they try to characterize it. It's like they didn't even read it.
 


814020_1.jpg
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
I don't really understand what these "issues" are supposed to be. He is apparently honest in his book about the fact that he doesn't believe some of the things people told him. He's not claiming they are accurate. He's not even passing them along with a wink and a shady silence. He's saying, this administration is chaotic, and they can't even get their stories straight on various things. Here's a picture of just how f***ed up it is.

Look again at excerpt from Business Insider. Look at their excerpt from the foreword, and then look at how they try to characterize it. It's like they didn't even read it.
Click to expand...

It all depends on who the peope are. It would not be unusual for low level people to "exaggerate" to build up their importance. I just saw the episode of the West Wing where Toby talks about staff leaking to appear in the loop. Telling stories they heard as fact would not seem far off.

I doubt the book meets the standards of The Times.
 
Marvin the Martian said:
It all depends on who the peope are. It would not be unusual for low level people to "exaggerate" to build up their importance. I just saw the episode of the West Wing where Toby talks about staff leaking to appear in the loop. Telling stories they heard as fact would not seem far off.

I doubt the book meets the standards of The Failing Times.
Click to expand...
Correction.
 
Marvin the Martian said:
It all depends on who the peope are. It would not be unusual for low level people to "exaggerate" to build up their importance. I just saw the episode of the West Wing where Toby talks about staff leaking to appear in the loop. Telling stories they heard as fact would not seem far off.

I doubt the book meets the standards of The Times.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the book doesn't need to meet the standards of The Times, because the book isn't doing The Times' job. The book is (apparently; I haven't bought it) intended as a snapshot of a chaotic administration. Part of that chaos includes different actors stabbing each other in the back and spreading falsehoods about them. I don't understand what people are expecting of Wolff, here. So long as he doesn't pass off stories he doesn't believe as true, what's the problem? Is he supposed to say, "On this day, I talked to Person A, but I can't actually print anything he said, because I think he was full of shit?" That's ridiculous. People need to be able to distinguish between the reporting of a conversation and the use of a conversation to back up a claim. It sounds like Wolff is quite honest about the fact that he is only reporting conversations, and he's not using them to back up any dubious claims of truth.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Yeah, but the book doesn't need to meet the standards of The Times, because the book isn't doing The Times' job. The book is (apparently; I haven't bought it) intended as a snapshot of a chaotic administration. Part of that chaos includes different actors stabbing each other in the back and spreading falsehoods about them. I don't understand what people are expecting of Wolff, here. So long as he doesn't pass off stories he doesn't believe as true, what's the problem? Is he supposed to say, "On this day, I talked to Person A, but I can't actually print anything he said, because I think he was full of shit?" That's ridiculous. People need to be able to distinguish between the reporting of a conversation and the use of a conversation to back up a claim. It sounds like Wolff is quite honest about the fact that he is only reporting conversations, and he's not using them to back up any dubious claims of truth.
Click to expand...
Some people claim juice boxes make kids gay.
 
Noodle said:
Some people claim juice boxes make kids gay.
Click to expand...
And I have no problem with you reporting it, since you didn't say "Juice boxes make kids gay, and I know this because I heard it from X."

My point is, Wolff is apparently reporting what "some people say," and is unfairly being accused of reporting what those some people said as fact, when he very clearly said the opposite in his book.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Yeah, but the book doesn't need to meet the standards of The Times, because the book isn't doing The Times' job. The book is (apparently; I haven't bought it) intended as a snapshot of a chaotic administration. Part of that chaos includes different actors stabbing each other in the back and spreading falsehoods about them. I don't understand what people are expecting of Wolff, here. So long as he doesn't pass off stories he doesn't believe as true, what's the problem? Is he supposed to say, "On this day, I talked to Person A, but I can't actually print anything he said, because I think he was full of shit?" That's ridiculous. People need to be able to distinguish between the reporting of a conversation and the use of a conversation to back up a claim. It sounds like Wolff is quite honest about the fact that he is only reporting conversations, and he's not using them to back up any dubious claims of truth.
Click to expand...

About half, or more, of what I read are books on history. I would be very disappointed with any book that doesn't try to vet a source. The author listens to person x, if they conclude x is lying why include x without at least a notation. Just throwing everything in with equal accreditation seems dishonest. Your point is it shows a Whie House in disarray has some validity, that is still true if it is observed that claim x cannot be substantiated.

The problem is people are reading this as Trump in disarray. If we know the author doubts some percentage of the charges, how can we determine anything about Trump? I don't care if there is a dysfunctional junior assistant speechwriter. Can I trust this book on Trump, I cannot see how.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ladoga, MrBing, RBB89 and 1 other person
Tbf. to Wolff, he is essentially putting a dialogue with the collection or cumulation of individual reports done by WaPO or NYT over the past year

The fact that Trump doesnt read; he is unqualified for the position; ignorant of how gov't works or what the Constitution stands; his cabinet members think he aint so smart for et al .. isnt news really.

Like the Steele dossier, the media is focusing on the more salacious stuff like what Jared said or Ivanka or Sloppy Steve said what etc.

In the main, Wolff reconfirms what we already know. More confirmation rather than revelation.
 
Last edited:
Marvin the Martian said:
About half, or more, of what I read are books on history. I would be very disappointed with any book that doesn't try to vet a source. The author listens to person x, if they conclude x is lying why include x without at least a notation. Just throwing everything in with equal accreditation seems dishonest. Your point is it shows a Whie House in disarray has some validity, that is still true if it is observed that claim x cannot be substantiated.

The problem is people are reading this as Trump in disarray. If we know the author doubts some percentage of the charges, how can we determine anything about Trump? I don't care if there is a dysfunctional junior assistant speechwriter. Can I trust this book on Trump, I cannot see how.
Click to expand...
Until we read the book, we really can't judge it in that kind of detail. I mean if the main point of the book is simply that even his own people think he's incompetent, well, that seems obvious to some of us, and other outlets have shared that they've heard the same. I don't see any problem with that. If, on the other hand, the book is a diary of all the crazy things Trump has done, then we have to start really being concerned about credibility.

What I'm saying is that the accusations against the author don't seem to match how the author himself is presenting his work. The accusation against Wolff basically boils down to "He's using bad sources to disparage Trump!" But that accusation doesn't stick when the author himself says, "You really shouldn't necessarily trust what all these people are saying."
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Until we read the book, we really can't judge it in that kind of detail. I mean if the main point of the book is simply that even his own people think he's incompetent, well, that seems obvious to some of us, and other outlets have shared that they've heard the same. I don't see any problem with that. If, on the other hand, the book is a diary of all the crazy things Trump has done, then we have to start really being concerned about credibility.

What I'm saying is that the accusations against the author don't seem to match how the author himself is presenting his work. The accusation against Wolff basically boils down to "He's using bad sources to disparage Trump!" But that accusation doesn't stick when the author himself says, "You really shouldn't necessarily trust what all these people are saying."
Click to expand...

If I cannot trust it, why should I read it? We already have the National Enquirer, which i do not read. I suspect they really do interview a woman who believes Bigfoot is her child's father. But I still see no reason to read the article. If Wolff is not representing in any way what is credible and what is not, why should I bother?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ladoga, MrBing and HillzHoozier
Marvin the Martian said:
If I cannot trust it, why should I read it? We already have the National Enquirer, which i do not read. I suspect they really do interview a woman who believes Bigfoot is her child's father. But I still see no reason to read the article. If Wolff is not representing in any way what is credible and what is not, why should I bother?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you should. Read it, don't read it. That's up to you. I'm saying that the charges against Wolff on this point don't comport with Wolff's own presentation of the book.

Consider an extreme example. Imagine someone writes a detailed history of holocaust denial. That person is going to present a lot of flatly false statements. But that doesn't mean you might not find the book interesting, and it doesn't mean you would automatically assume the author himself is a holocaust denier. It sounds like Wolff wrote a book about holocaust deniers, but is being attacked for denying the holocaust.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
I'm not saying you should. Read it, don't read it. That's up to you. I'm saying that the charges against Wolff on this point don't comport with Wolff's own presentation of the book.

Consider an extreme example. Imagine someone writes a detailed history of holocaust denial. That person is going to present a lot of flatly false statements. But that doesn't mean you might not find the book interesting, and it doesn't mean you would automatically assume the author himself is a holocaust denier. It sounds like Wolff wrote a book about holocaust deniers, but is being attacked for denying the holocaust.
Click to expand...

Have you seen Darkest Hour? It is a thoroughly OK movie. One of my strikes against it, they completely invent a key scene. Why do that, why tell a story of Churchill and make that up. If you want to do that, tell the story of the Earth Defense Force trapped on Rigel 3.

I am not shocked that White House members might lie to exaggerate their importance, or denigrate a rival's. I think if someone had the access to Obama's White House some of this would have occurred. The scale is almost certainly different but that is at least partially because Trump's insurgency was always going to attract more from the tin foil hat brigade than a mainstream candidate.

I guess I need to see the dust jacket to see how the book is actually being sold. If it is just a book on holocaust deniers I think you have a good point. If it is the true story from inside the holocaust... .
.
I have yet to see how they are trying to get me to read it.

Back to movies making things up, the craziest is The Longest Day. All these men that were there were hired as consultants. 98% of the movie is outstandingly accurate. There is a scene where the French assault a casino. Ok, in reality the casino was torn down and replaced with a pillbox, bit I can accept the casino. In that scene they added several nuns walking right through the battle to treat the wounded. Absolutely did not happen, why add that?

I am thinking philosophically, like angels dancing on the head of a pin. How much fiction can reside in a work of non fiction?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ladoga and Aloha Hoosier
Marvin the Martian said:
About half, or more, of what I read are books on history. I would be very disappointed with any book that doesn't try to vet a source. The author listens to person x, if they conclude x is lying why include x without at least a notation. Just throwing everything in with equal accreditation seems dishonest. Your point is it shows a Whie House in disarray has some validity, that is still true if it is observed that claim x cannot be substantiated.

The problem is people are reading this as Trump in disarray. If we know the author doubts some percentage of the charges, how can we determine anything about Trump? I don't care if there is a dysfunctional junior assistant speechwriter. Can I trust this book on Trump, I cannot see how.
Click to expand...
As another avid history reader, I completely agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RBB89
Marvin the Martian said:
About half, or more, of what I read are books on history. I would be very disappointed with any book that doesn't try to vet a source. The author listens to person x, if they conclude x is lying why include x without at least a notation. Just throwing everything in with equal accreditation seems dishonest. Your point is it shows a Whie House in disarray has some validity, that is still true if it is observed that claim x cannot be substantiated.

The problem is people are reading this as Trump in disarray. If we know the author doubts some percentage of the charges, how can we determine anything about Trump? I don't care if there is a dysfunctional junior assistant speechwriter. Can I trust this book on Trump, I cannot see how.
Click to expand...
But we know Trump is in disarray. We see it with our own eyes every day. Ignore the book if you like, that’s fine. Regardless of the book’s specifics, though, its essence is wholly consistent with what we know. Yet it feels as though folks are still saying, “I have some questions but man, we just can’t get to the bottom of this; we need more unimpeachable data to draw any firm conclusions.”

Meanwhile, an ignorant, stunted, reckless person with some sort of personality disorder is at the head of our government, accepted widely by a meaningful portion of the electorate, and bolstered by a tribe that holds most of government. And, among other things, we’re poking around with another unstable sociopath in North Korea about nuclear war.

If this had been presented in some kind of dystopian feature film five years ago I would have walked out and guffawed about how stupid and improbable it was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: largemouth, zeke4ahs and Bill4411
Thyrsis said:
But we know Trump is in disarray. We see it with our own eyes every day. Ignore the book if you like, that’s fine. Regardless of the book’s specifics, though, its essence is wholly consistent with what we know. Yet it feels as though folks are still saying, “I have some questions but man, we just can’t get to the bottom of this; we need more unimpeachable data to draw any firm conclusions.”

Meanwhile, an ignorant, stunted, reckless person with some sort of personality disorder is at the head of our government, accepted widely by a meaningful portion of the electorate, and bolstered by a tribe that holds most of government. And, among other things, we’re poking around with another unstable sociopath in North Korea about nuclear war.

If this had been presented in some kind of dystopian feature film five years ago I would have walked out and guffawed about how stupid and improbable it was.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you present. But we have to be careful as this plays into Trump's hands. We have to knpw the dissarray is real, making it up returns us yo the other side and Vince Foster (and a million other things). Having not read the book, maybe every single quote is attributed. If so, painting disarray may well be possible.

But if there are "one White House staffer went as far to say that Trump is actually an iguana" quotes, it is useless. That staffer might be an intern or someone so painfully junior it means nothing. We have no idea who it is, so how does it help paint any picture? It does not, it just gives Trump supporters the right to make fun of people attacking Trump as I have used Vince Foster to make fun of Republican elements for what seems forever.

This shoud not be throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. Unless we know who is being quoted, that is what it is unless he has in some way verified the information. Since he admits to no verification, how is it different than the National inquierer?

An unnamed source telling a lie is in no way informative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing, RBB89 and Noodle
Begining of a meltdown?


"Being, like, really smart" :rolleyes:



He's a living, breathing meme at this point. The POTUS feels the need to publicly state that mental stability is one of his greatest assets. What a time to be alive.
:D:)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B

Pence: I "cannot in good conscience" endorse Trump

Replies
263
Views
4K
The Water Cooler
Mas-sa-suta
Mas-sa-suta
B

Clarence Thomas

Replies
21
Views
469
The Water Cooler
Bowlmania
B
C

Is "True the Vote" another Smirnov about to make MAGA look duped?

Replies
0
Views
106
The Water Cooler
cosmickid
C
C

Got a text from my long lost buddy today...

Replies
6
Views
374
The Water Cooler
snarlcakes
S
C

Jan 9th and the COA oral arguments...

Replies
12
Views
573
The Water Cooler
Bowlmania
B
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back