Anyone read this yet? How is it?

Anyone read this yet? How is it?

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42730192
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Super fun. Would recommend to both sides.

She lost. Get over yourself.

gossip magazine tier

This. The amount of shitflinging is amazing. Whether it's all true or not is part of the fun for me.

> the popular vote

I think the book cover is ugly af. It looks like a mock book cover someone would do as they're learning graphic design. There surely could've been a more aesthetic approach to the cover.

impeech zhrumpf

Oh great, another /pol/ thread.
>but it's about a book!

>republic
>direct democracy
America is only one of these things, user. I know you're probably not from here, but this is elementary-level civics.

> book criticising Trump, left-leaning
> /pol/

Didn't Trump try to sue the publisher before they could release the book, so they decided to release it earlier just because fuck you?

And then wikileaks released apdf on twitter the same day or something

Halfway through my copy atm. Pretty interesting. From the way Trump acts publicly, it doesn't sound out of character for him to do some of the things claimed in the book.

I don't think I can justify the price though, but I get that's the publisher wishing to get as much cash as they can due to the controversy surrounding the book.

pretty much. michael wolff has basically tweeted "dude thanks trump lmao" ever since

Something I found interesting is how it portrays the media not as a strict news machine conveyor of truth, but rather an emotional system that reacts rather... emotionally. How it felt wronged, and now it's on this weird crusade of redemption but in such a weird way that they are doing all this blasting you would have never expected from high caliber outlets.

In a sense, I guess (if the book is right) I can understand why Trump is actually sincere and right about the Fake News deal. It really makes sense when you see how it develops (inside the book at least).

Really, if this wasn't a "true story" book, but just all fiction, it'd be a fun and entertaining postmodernist novel.
It has everything.
>incompetent characters
>competent characters
>quirky ones
>money
>schemes
>insane things happen and everyone just keeps rolling with it
>machines and systems that make you question if they are conscious creations or subconscious ones
>at the end of the day, this is the result kind of deal

It really is. I just kept grinning or laughing.

I get your concern, user, I don't like /pol/ threads on Veeky Forums either, but this book has been a big focus recently and I was genuinely curious to hear what people thought about it (my copy arrived in the post this morning).

Reading about politics is interesting for me so I was curious about the book.

I believe it's being adapted into a BBC TV series. I suppose other people thought they needed to pick up the rights for the potential of a new House of Cards-esque series.

if you enjoy the asininity of u.s. politics i'm sure you'll love the book.

bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42730192

> "The bestselling exposé Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by journalist Michael Wolff is about to hit the small screen."
> "According to Hollywood Reporter, Mr Wolff has sold television rights for seven figures."
> getting over 1 milli for your White House drama
> it will be the next The Thick of It/In The Loop/Veep

Please get Armando Iannucci to write it.

Potential book of the year (saying that, very few contemporary books are worth reading imo)

The author missed out on the chance to call it "The Sound and the Fire and the Fury" which really makes me doubt his general abilities as a writer.

>if this wasn't a "true story" book, but just all fiction, it'd be a fun and entertaining postmodernist novel.
>I believe it's being adapted into a BBC TV series.
On how many layers of postmodernity would it be, were Trump to play as himself?

>ianucci on Trump
Would pirate

Wolff is liberal trash. He’s not left at all

Why are Americans like this? I have never heard any European respond to criticism of a national leader with "the opponent lost, get over it". Was people like this with Obama too?
>Obama is doing x thing which I think is undesirable

fucking brainlet. The subject of /pol/ is politics, this is a politics related thread. Hence it is a /pol/ thread, not a Veeky Forums thread, and does not belong here

It's because Euros tend have more than two parties.

people tried to litigate Obamas victories for 8 solid years

so by your line of reasoning a book about the prince is pol-tier too, retard

>Was people like this with Obama too?
Yes, we absolutely were. The only difference was that it was the common people who were upset instead of celebrities and social media drones. Also, social media wasn't as prevalent or controlling as it is now, so the echo was much softer.

The only thing that's really changed is that people are more polarized and vitriolic, but only marginally so.

That isn't what is going on. The book needs to be understood within the current news media context.

it's trash for wine moms to read and pretend to be informed about government

Take it with a grain of salt but if the spirit of what he's saying is true and if he's described the culture in the White House fairly accurately then it's a good look into the President. But stuff like this "insider" information comes out every presidency and is usually rag trash but that sad thing is most of this is believable from what you can independently observe of Trump and his administration.

This is my take as well. I know it isn't the case, but it feels like by releasing it early they didn't have time to create a cover for the book so just opened Paint and quickly pulled one together

There wasn't a concerted effort to try and install McCain as the president after Obama won. That's the difference.

Because there's no coup to overthrow the election just because one side doesn't like the person where you're from

They lack political education.

pure b@z

>be intern at some publisher
>don't really do much besides get coffee and handle faxes
>sitting in the office waiting for someone to tell me what to do
>editor rushes in
>"Fuck fuck fuck fuck"
>they look really flustered
>calls an office meeting
>"Okay guys, Donald Trump's team is about to sue us. We need to get the book out to print as soon as possible"
>they start handing out jobs to people
>lots of people have to work overtime on copyediting, securing the printer's contract, and working on distribution
>"Fuck, we need a cover"
>editor looks around, panicked
>"DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO MAKE A COVER"
>the main guy who does it is working on other projects
>it's my time to shine
>if I do well maybe I'll get a job here
>"I know InDesign!" I yell
>"Fuck it, get it to me as soon as possible"
>4 hours later, I still hardly have shit done on the cover
>it's the end of the day
>sheepishly give it to the editor
>they look at the cover, look back to me, and look at the cover
>editor puts their head in the hands
>"get out of my office"
>mfw I should have actually gone to that Intro to Graphic Design class instead of sleeping in
>mfw they won't even give me credit for the cover
>mfw I'm still an intern and have no face

1/10

it looks like a drudge report headline, I think it's on purpose and actually pretty creative agitprop

Interesting excuse, considering we too have more than two parties.

I've literally never even heard "McCain lost, get over it," or any criticism of Obama being answered with "well, what about McCain" until that user typed it.

That is what's going on. People say this shit all the time. It's a little scary that we are a year into his presidency and the main topics of conversation is the election, Russian collusion, FBI investigations. Maybe if he's lucky they will keep it up and refuse to report on his presidency all together for the whole 4 years.

Hardly. Trump is very much the president and that's not changing anytime soon.

What about

>we too have more than two parties
Then act like you do.

>the current news media context
How would you describe it?

i'm not that into trump hysteria but just passively listening to the audiobook i heard too many things that even i know just from skimming the liberal nytimes in the morning knew to be false, if even i can spot obvious falsehoods in the shit then i'd say it's probably a hoax

I read the other one.

it was spicy as fuck when he claimed murdoch's oriental whore wife fucked tony blair tho lol

literally BTFO

They literally had to make it idiot proof for the lowest common denominator who buys this type of trash and they still failed. Another book about ww2 called fire and fury shot up to the top 10 best sellers because these people are so stupid

kek

If we have to include conservatives you have to include liberals.

>he actually bought the book
floored me

something by faulkner?

But, but it's a book.

Apparently Das Kapital and Mein Kampf are now off-limits now, as well as literally any other book with politically charged content.

>tabloid in book format
>best seller

lmaoing at you america. I recently read this in an article:

>Wolff sagte in einem Interview mit einer Zeitung: "Eigentlich wollte ich eine Erfolgs-Geschichte über Trump schreiben. Aber es hat nichts Positives gegeben."

made me kek.

The mods literally just delete anything that is not directly related to books.

Most likely this thread will stand. I imagine someone made a thread about Marxism? Of course that's going to be deleted. It's not about books. Same with just trying to talk about hitler, shit will be deleted fast.

When you take out all the fraud, dead people and illegals she lost that too

>considering we too have more than two parties.
Oh yes, we have a couple of parties

> “I smoke weed while having gay sex with gun owners on a gravel highway (muah roads!) in the middle of nowhere, as long as that nowhere isn’t Aleppo”

> “Science dictates that animals are people too, that clean nuclear energy is evil, and that you can replace the polio vaccine which has CHEMICALS in it with vegan free range kale chips”

> “the Bible says that niggers shouldn’t have welfare. Luke 14:88”

> “Stalin did nothing wrong”

No we essentially have two parties and we have about 4% joke ballots

There are other parties though. And if you look at European parties, which is the comparison that prompted that post, there is no difference between our off brands and theirs.

>thread that's an excuse to talk about Trump on Veeky Forums
>not /pol/

I'm with ya man. It's why I would have voted for Bernie Sanders. I was hoping for something a little different than the typical democrat vs. republican bullshit. In the end, I think that's why Trump won. He was an outlier in the Republican party. And people want things that are different these days and not the same bullshit. I swear to god I cannot take having another president share a last name as a former one. Especially if they are a 'conservative democrat'

Their off brands are basically irrelevant and basically serve as a way to water down whatever their two major parties are in a coalition, or to make it simply harder for the major two parties to govern. In Germany it’s always the center left vs Christian Right, and they’re basically Democrats vs Republicans with the other parties never being of any significance. In France the presidential winner is either Socialist party or Republican Party, except now it’s a battle between the centrist capitalist ex-socialist and whoever steps in to represent the further right. In Britain it’s the Conservative party vs the socialist party, and now the libdem party is dead and the SNP is dying. So that’s basically like our system too now.

The multi party approach looks cool from a distance but what you usually get is an umbrella center left and an umbrella center right and then some other parties who stand for single issues or platforms that intersect with a small minority of the republic’s voters, and even then, most of that minority will vote for the umbrella instead to ensure they’ll at least get something

Are you a 61 year old that stumbled onto your grown grandsons open browser or something?

I don't understand? Are there 61 year olds that are really that liberal?

I think trump won because Hillary Clinton is just that stale and unlikable as a candidate. She just comes across as that grandma who rear ends you in traffic and her car is covered in “religion of peace” and “coexist” stickers and then gets out of the car and screams at you for daring to get hit by her car. Then her insurance company says that she’s not at fault because she accidentally deleted her brake pedal

Yeah I’ve got an aunt that’s almost 70 who thought Obama was a cuck for not personally executing racists on live TV. Some people got way too into hippie shit.

Thanks for the post. I agree.
I was just trying to prove the same point as you though to a guy that said Americans have only two parties as an explanation for why any criticism of Trump is answered by "she lost, get over it."

That, meaning is something brain dead boomers collecting social security and blowing it all on retail good say to each other while they go shopping, take in a "based on a true story flick," and finish off the big weekend with a trip to the Olive Garden.

They have all the answers. We just won't listen.

A major reason Trump got into office was because most thought he wasn't as bad as Hillary or the "establishment."

This. Hardly anyone in my age range was excited to vote in this election. Both options were ass and there was no viable third party choices. Trump, regardless of his politics, was exciting and someone to get behind and many people just plain don't identify with HC.

go back to le reddit nerd

> The book needs to be understood within the current news media context.
You need the news to know Trump is a moron who can barely form a sentence?

She comes more across like a stale career politician who doesn't really care about any of the policies she talks about except on a superficial level to garner support. I don't think looking at her that way is incorrect desu.

Do Democrats feel even slightly hypocritical after spending the election cycle whining about Breitbart and other "fake news?"

No, see you misunderstand.
See the news is fake. So anything said against Trump is fake, and everything approving of Trump is true.

Do Trump supporters feel even slightly hypocritical after spending the election cycle citing Breitbart and other fake news as supportive of their cause?

Nobody tell him

That post upset you so much you couldn't think of any way to express yourself so you just repeated what was said with a few word changes.

>The current state of (You)

>does political team A feel bad about slandering team B because of some other slander about team B that recently came out?
No, and team B wouldn't feel bad about it either if the roles were reversed. Or at least they shouldn't, but they probably would because DC Republicans are massive cucks.

>the owner of Breitbart
hurrrr

You're butthurt. Accept it and move on, catty faggot.

I'm not upset. I was under the impression you were going for a hollow victory by implying the "hypocrisy" the democrats should feel for rightly calling Breitbart is a shit news source is somehow greater than the hypocrisy Trump supporters should feel over the owner of Breitbart and Trump's chief media strategist turning on Trump, and thus all those anons whose opinions were formed by his shitty news site.

>and thus all those anons whose opinions were formed by his shitty news site.
I don't think anyone around here got/gets their opinions from fucking Breitbart, user. At its absolute best it was there to rile up normie conservatives for Trumpite civic nationalism, and at this point it's boomer-tier calling-Democrats-the-real-racists trash.
I bet you were kvetching about Fox News back in the 2000s.

God damn you write like a retard. I can't talk to you.

God damn you think like a retard. Go to bed.

This is embarrassing.

So you do know how to use periods. Good for you.

Trump won because people feel rightly alienated about current neoliberal politics but are too disenfranchised to do anything and thus voted for the rogue outlier.

People need to realize that capitalism is reaching it's end, and we desperately need to fight it 1. to usher in a new, comprehensible society that empowers ordinary people and 2. literally save the world because global warming.

Trump is conducive to this goal. Hillary Clinton, the establishment incarnate, would have placated liberal sensibility and resumed the previous decades political paralysis. Trump symbolically and effectively calls to attention how American politics is fucked beyond belief and devouring itself in spectacle and resentment. Nothing has changed, really, except that we have a bumbling moron that calls attention how the system is breaking before our eyes.

Books like this are needless distractions from the real work that needs to be done. It highlights the spectacle of the presidency, something that has always existed since Kennedy, but has little operation or relevancy now. It's plain to see how foolish and awful the presidency is by watching the news, not by reading an ineffectual gossip mag. Shit like this is tabloid fodder. The insistence that Michael Wolff is a part of the "resistance" and participating in this spectacle makes you complicit fool in retaining the previous system.

I'm not mad, I say as I slowly shrink and transform into a corn cob

Never try to be funny again.

Worst thread on Veeky Forums rn.

You should really learn how to tell a joke and how to make a joke. : /

>tfw the American system of government will fall apart and be replaced in your lifetime

Did she win a majority of the popular vote?

Centre-left is still left-of-centre, communicuck

Good post

Yes, only people who believe the American press to be informed and unbiased think that is true, you are correct about that.

Feigned hysteria

You can fucking watch him speak and tell he cant stop stumbling over his words and constantly repeating simple phrases. There's no need for the press to verify that.