Standup Zone Forum
General => Random => Topic started by: PonoBill on February 26, 2019, 07:38:17 PM
-
Okay, this is a lot spookier than I thought it would be. It's no fun having someone who is an intelligent, capable, dedicated public servant who completely understands the function and processes of the intelligence community and who made his bones busting Russian mobsters methodically and calmly unwrap our current clusterfuck and tell us how screwed we really are. I had nightmares last night. I never have nightmares.
-
I'm sure there are many here who know precisely what you are referring to.
-
Oops, sorry. It's a book by Andrew McCabe, former director of the FBI.
-
He was actually Deputy Director. Anyone know why he was fired?
-
oh no--i just finished fifth risk.....
and i knew a lot of what was written, but it's scary when presented so comprehensively
i am sure ill feel worse after the threat, but ill get to it
-
He was actually Deputy Director. Anyone know why he was fired?
Acting director when he was fired. The book is a slow start, but rolls right along. Very credible guy, very rough story.
-
Did Hillary not contribute $600k to his wifes campaign fund? How would he not be confliced in his investigation? Credible my ass...
-
nope-- a pac controlled by terry macauliffe, an ally of the clintons did.
and yeah mcabe's wife is a democrat, who ran for office and received donations from demo entities but there is zero evidence that mccabe did anything that benefitted hilary in the email probe, or any fbi activities
in fact, net, the fbi's handling of the email probe, as executed by comey and mccabe, may have caused Trump to be elected:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/what-really-happened-with-andrew-mccabe-it-wasnt-conspiracy-fbi
but email issues seem to be like deficits these days---aok! nbd!!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ivanka-trump-used-a-personal-email-account-to-send-hundreds-of-emails-about-government-business-last-year/2018/11/19/6515d1e0-e7a1-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?utm_term=.d90618b5174c
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html
then there's trump's wholesale rejection of security requirements:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/trump-phone-security-risk-hackers-601903
whatever................"look at all he's accomplished"----cue vomiting
we know what sessions said about why mccabe was fired--but there's a whole lot more to that story (you know sessions, our esteemed atty gen'l, who clearly lied to congress--"forgot" "got tripped up by tough questioning" (sessions is a lawyer, no?)--when asked re contact with russians during the election--yep sessions---so why sessions said mccabe was fired dont fly so good with me.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/17/mccabe-fired-trump-fbi-1173596
just began the book--we'll see how i feel at the end
we differ on this, bean--i hope cheerfully! you seem a nice human-- i plan to hit you next time west winds send me over the verrazano
got some repairs to get done, need to borrow a good vacuum setup--just kidding, be well
-
We need to consider McCabes independence from two broad perspectives, independence in-fact but also independence in appearance.
McCabe didn't exactly hit it out of the box with his investigation of Benghazi either...is anyone satisfied that we know all that we should know about the circumstances surrounding Benghazi?
-
We need to consider McCabes independence from two broad perspectives, independence in-fact but also independence in appearance.
McCabe didn't exactly hit it out of the box with his investigation of Benghazi either...is anyone satisfied that we know all that we should know about the circumstances surrounding Benghazi?
Yeah, I am. There were about a half dozen investigations. My opinion is it could have been handled a lot better, but it wasn't gross negligence. Then Hillary's crew tried to make it sound like the mistake was not her fault. I don't think they crossed the line doing it, but they came pretty close. I am not a Hillary fan. I voted for her because she isn't named Trump. I don't think she should be in jail, but I don't think she was the best candidate the DEMs could have gone with as far as suitability to govern at the highest level.
-
Same here RTG but voted for Trump in opposition of Hillary. Mostly because I've seen first hand the pitfalls of "socialized medicine".
The problem with McCabe was that he had "trouble with the truth", he showed "lack of candor". These are all nice ways of saying that he lied while in his official capacity. That's a huge issue that can not be overlooked, and one that DT himself may soon be facing. Yes, it will get interesting.
-
Same here RTG but voted for Trump in opposition of Hillary. Mostly because I've seen first hand the pitfalls of "socialized medicine".
The problem with McCabe was that he had "trouble with the truth", he showed "lack of candor". These are all nice ways of saying that he lied while in his official capacity. That's a huge issue that can not be overlooked, and one that DT himself may soon be facing. Yes, it will get interesting.
Totally socialized medicine or just single payer? I think we would be better off with a single payer comprehensive plan, like Medicare for all, but I am against government run health care. But the really odd thing is that my support of it is one reason I didn't like Hillary. She tried hard to be vague about it, but I don't think she would have pushed for single payer. If she were president and congress decided to actually represent their constituents, the majority of whom are in favor of single payer, and put a bill on her desk she would probably sign it. Yes, I know she pushed it in the past but she wasn't sitting at the table, didn't really know the game and owe any favors yet.
It's a shame we have developed such a high tolerance for deceit from government officials. Trump has lowered the bar even further. As much as I liked Obama, who I think is a genuinely good person, he told a few whoppers. Bill Clinton once said that term limits is the only reason he didn't get elected again. He may be right; the peace and prosperity of his tenure was nice and he even managed a surplus budget one year (he was the last to do that). But lying came naturally to him and we all knew it before his second term.
-
Same here RTG but voted for Trump in opposition of Hillary. Mostly because I've seen first hand the pitfalls of "socialized medicine".
The problem with McCabe was that he had "trouble with the truth", he showed "lack of candor". These are all nice ways of saying that he lied while in his official capacity. That's a huge issue that can not be overlooked, and one that DT himself may soon be facing. Yes, it will get interesting.
Totally socialized medicine or just single payer? I think we would be better off with a single payer comprehensive plan, like Medicare for all, but I am against government run health care. But the really odd thing is that my support of it is one reason I didn't like Hillary. She tried hard to be vague about it, but I don't think she would have pushed for single payer. If she were president and congress decided to actually represent their constituents, the majority of whom are in favor of single payer, and put a bill on her desk she would probably sign it. Yes, I know she pushed it in the past but she wasn't sitting at the table, didn't really know the game and owe any favors yet.
It's a shame we have developed such a high tolerance for deceit from government officials. Trump has lowered the bar even further. As much as I liked Obama, who I think is a genuinely good person, he told a few whoppers. Bill Clinton once said that term limits is the only reason he didn't get elected again. He may be right; the peace and prosperity of his tenure was nice and he even managed a surplus budget one year (he was the last to do that). But lying came naturally to him and we all knew it before his second term.
Closer to single payer system, but referred to as socialized medicine back in the day.
-
benghazi? i found it, unsurprisingly, to be a typical invented scandal---a tragedy for those involved, no doubt, but not a result of dangerous incompetence, and where there was no nefarious coverup--info was sketchy, as often the case surrounding mideast violence--the info evolved, improved over time
the trey gowdy benghazi session was laughable--not a hilary fan but she held up quite respectably, given 13 hours of testimony in a totally hostile setting--embarrassing otherwise
i cant imagine any of us inder 65 havent felt the challenge of our current health care system, including some real, often deadly, tragedies. i dont even know what to call it, it's private insurance, but impossible to shop--totally non-competitive---and nearly impossible to get (since obamacare's been gutted) if a person doesnt work for a big corp---and the premium costs, combined with deductibles, mean many families pay in 30k$+ before they get a dime out out the "insurer"---whatever
decent family coverage these days costs minimum 2000 per month, with family deductibles usually 3-5000 and individual deductibles of 1 or 2000--what could be worse?
i dont hear perfection out of single payer countries, but i hear of superior levels of care for the non-wealthy---stats certainly back that up
-
benghazi? i found it, unsurprisingly, to be a typical invented scandal---a tragedy for those involved, no doubt, but not a result of dangerous incompetence, and where there was no nefarious coverup--
Except the fact that McCabe recharacterized the attack as a non terrorist event when in fact he already knew the truth. In other words he showed a lack of candor when communicating the events to his people at the FBI and other related agencies. The agents actually working on the case were stunned. They were forced to follow through with the lie, WTF.
Healthcare for all would be great, but here and now in the US, we simply can’t afford it. Go visit a critical access hospital in rural America, and you will see the juxtaposition of poverty and healthcare played out right before your eyes. It will bring you to tears.
On a tour of one such hospital a couple years back, the administrator told me the place lights up on Valentine’s Day-our cafeteria is the best restaurant in town. That’s not a reflection of how good the food was but rather how depressed the surrounding community was. In OZ they would cover an area like this with flying doctors and not spend millions on a dying hospital, but that’s a whole other topic and there are both good pros and cons.
We need a stronger economy and a lot less drag, including defense spending.
-
If you would actually like some detail on all the issues you folks are talking about, read the book. Both this book and Comey's are very detailed. You can certainly judge for yourself how credible you think they are, but I find nothing that doesn't square with what I've seen and previously read. A different slant, but definitely one from the inside, first hand. For example, McCabe took extreme efforts to distance himself from his wife's run for Congress, sought guidance on all the issues he could potentially face from her run for office, just as you would expect a career FBI officer would do. The presumption was that Macauliffe's support for his wife was to influence the email investigation, which is ridiculous since the support had been given and his wife lost the election more than a year before there was any understanding that HC was using a private server. The investigation and its approach is finely detailed. Anyone with an understanding of the technology would have no problem understanding how and why it progressed as it did. The result was a clusterfuck, and you can see exactly how it unfolded, and clarify your understanding of who fucked whom.
I'm not saying this as an apologist for him, simply that the book is good, it's detailed and clear almost to the point of pedantry, and reading it will give you a different set of insights into something very important--how our intelligence and justice systems are faring these days. You can't get that kind of information from media sources, especially with the massive manipulation of media that is so clearly underway.
-
How do you have partial credibility, it’s like being partially pregnant...
Read his book, why?
-
“FOX NEWS ALERT”....Pono Bill on a Roll!! Hannity at 9. Be there or be square.
-
How do you have partial credibility, it’s like being partially pregnant...
Read his book, why?
Really, that's what you've got? How about because you don't just want to live in an echo chamber. Because you'd like to see all perspectives. Because you don't necessarily believe you are fucking right. I can promise you one thing, from your little tiny corner of the universe you don't know what is going on, any more than I do. Your only hope to have a clue is to be open, skeptical, and curious.
Bean, I've been reading your posts for years, I know you're a smart guy. Where does this ossification come from? Who said anything about partial credibility? Is that a straw man you're looking to knock down?
-
“FOX NEWS ALERT”....Pono Bill on a Roll!! Hannity at 9. Be there or be square.
clearly you dont know pono, rider
he calls bullshit where he sees it, regardless of agenda
he's not bothering with your garbage
but he'll happily tell me i am full of shit when i say the clintons arent even in the same universe of criminality and neg effect on this country as the clintons!
and he might not bother with me either, for that matter
but, hey, keep up with the excellent insights
-
woops---typo
"but he'll happily tell me i am full of shit when i say the clintons arent even in the same universe of criminality and neg effect on this country as the TRUMPS!"
-
You had it right the first time, and the second time...
-
I saw 'socialized medicine' in Bean's post and thought; 'I had that!.' In the ARMY ...in Toronto, I simply handed my OHIP card to the receptionist ...and now my Medicare card. I'm the one who throttles back, to keep 'Pathway' docs from running the table.
If there are ~40mil people without health insurance ...and roughly half the citizenry could not come up with $400 for an emergency ..overlaid atop 'The 1%' holding more of the country's wealth than the 90% beneath them ....there is something seriously wrong that more 'open carry' laws will not solve.
While unable to fill 7.1mil job openings with qualified applicants, ~45mil young people owe 1.5 trillion in student loans, an alarming number are overdue in repayment.
The myopics, Right and Left, are sooooo easily distracted by carnival barkers with religious fervor and loud voices. Perhaps both the guys with big flags in their pickup trucks and the ones with Che' t-shirts actually want us to become a Venezuela?
Jim
-
well, bean, the first time made no sense, since it was a typo--tho i think PB'll let that go--we'll see tho
how he responds to (or ignores) my corrected version of the sentence, which i strongly believe, will remain to be seen
seems you feel the clintons are every bit the lying criminals the Trumps are?
-
hadnt known this fact--ill get to it in the book:
mccabe's "wife lost the election more than a year before there was any understanding that HC was using a private server"
-
Who said anything about partial credibility?
My point is simply this, McCabe was not credible in his service at the FBI, how can I now count on him being credible in his book?
-
... only hope to have a clue is to be open, skeptical, and curious.
Part of skepticism involves rejecting unreliable information.
While I would expect that more than 95% of his book is completely factual and totally inconsequential, the remaining facts of consequence, the important stuff, will be completely distorted. Why do I need to buy into that? I would rather hear from his subordinates who have no axe to grind in the matter.
Of course by now you have sufficiently whetted my appetite and I almost have to read it.
-
Reading something is an entirely different matter than buying into it.
-
Reading something is an entirely different matter than buying into it.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle
-
sessions fired mccabe
given my what i know as of now, i consider mccabe way more credible, and a much better human, hands down, than sessions
sessions is scary evil
-
Reading something is an entirely different matter than buying into it.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle
Not sure that's true. I need to think about it.
-
Reading something is an entirely different matter than buying into it.
Jorge, the buy-in I'm referring to is simply whether I would spend my time reading the book not whether I would buy-in to McCabe's narrative.
And yes Eastie, Sessions has his own baggage for sure. To me, it's not so much a matter of degree of credibility as it is whether the relator has credibility.
In the end it's quite possible that DT may clean house whether intentionally or not, and himself included...
-
Here is why the rest of the world find Trump’s attitudes to his allies (and US’s previous foes) so worrying. There are two videos in this series and you need to watch both. I hope that you can view them in the US.
https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/the-blueprint-for-world-domination-that-spooked-am/p07087xd?playlist=ideas-that-shaped-the-world
Basically, to foreigners it feels as if Trump is tipping the balance of the world order towards Russia-China, and dismantling the checks and balances that have existed to prevent a single dominant non-democratic superpower from emerging since WWII. His acceptance of Putin’s versions of events over those of his own intelligence staff, alluded to earlier in this thread, is just one example of several.
-
Here is why the rest of the world find Trump’s attitudes to his allies (and US’s previous foes) so worrying. There are two videos in this series and you need to watch both. I hope that you can view them in the US.
https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/the-blueprint-for-world-domination-that-spooked-am/p07087xd?playlist=ideas-that-shaped-the-world
Basically, to foreigners it feels as if Trump is tipping the balance of the world order towards Russia-China, and dismantling the checks and balances that have existed to prevent a single dominant non-democratic superpower from emerging since WWII. His acceptance of Putin’s versions of events over those of his own intelligence staff, alluded to earlier in this thread, is just one example of several.
I just watched those two videos. I don’t expect the order to never change over the course of geological time, but I fear that 45 is embracing the values of dictators (and mob bosses) over the long-held values of the west. I can only imagine what Europeans think of trump, but I can tell you that I am appalled by him and his sycophants. He embodies the worst of America.
-
I just saved 15% on my car insurance.
-
I saved. I thought that meant something to you.
-
food stamps save lives--lives of hungry innocent children
you mean that kind of savings?
or the savings that get depleted when americans get sick, since the vast majority of personal bankruptcies in US are a result of a family medical episode?
-
Here is why the rest of the world find Trump’s attitudes to his allies (and US’s previous foes) so worrying. There are two videos in this series and you need to watch both. I hope that you can view them in the US.
https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/the-blueprint-for-world-domination-that-spooked-am/p07087xd?playlist=ideas-that-shaped-the-world
Basically, to foreigners it feels as if Trump is tipping the balance of the world order towards Russia-China, and dismantling the checks and balances that have existed to prevent a single dominant non-democratic superpower from emerging since WWII. His acceptance of Putin’s versions of events over those of his own intelligence staff, alluded to earlier in this thread, is just one example of several.
I just watched those two videos. I don’t expect the order to never change over the course of geological time, but I fear that 45 is embracing the values of dictators (and mob bosses) over the long-held values of the west. I can only imagine what Europeans think of trump, but I can tell you that I am appalled by him and his sycophants. He embodies the worst of America.
That site cost me a lot more time than it took to watch those two videos and I am not sorry. I learned a lot about economics, some science and even found the history of animation intriguing. This was one of my favorites - the history of the universe:
https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/the-history-of-the-universe-in-4-minutes/p067jl92?playlist=amazing-animations
It does go a little political at the end, but I strongly agree with the direction.
EDIT - Another link to BBC that has some indication of what Europe thinks of Trump. It is not an opinion piece; in fact it seems remarkably dry and even reporting things that I feel pretty certain the majority of their readers find objectionable, but it gives you an idea of what stands out:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47430996
-
Yeah, the BBC are paid for by UK TV licence payers’ money, and so have a remit to be as impartial as they can be. Which means that they will try to give both sides of the argument if they can. In general, when the British public want to know what’s going on, they trust the BBC more than any other source. Alongside the National Health Service it is considered one of the great British institutions that contributes to a fairer and more civilised nation. However it is very much under threat these days. It will be a great shame when it is gone, because I think it will accelerate the social and economic divisions in our society.
-
Seems we have moral issue at had, or mabe it was always there. Books, articles and news cast have become complicit with fake news attempting persuade the reader at all cost. I find both sides unable to to tell the truth.
Half truths and facts left out are just that. Money is the driver for some for others its power. Spooky is the right word in addition to scary describes how many feel today. Its good to read both sides, evaluate the sources and don't a make decision on emotion, facts produce better results ! In my book winning at any cost, no matter how deceptive usually yields problems down the line. Deliberately misleading is a moral issue.
It's hard to find the truth, it is out there !
Reading is far better than listening to 1 min news clips !
Happy hunting and paddling !
-
Well.... You can tell there are some wave deprived souls posting here. All this rain, dirty water, lack of ridable waves, and 20 ft of snow is giving some folks cabin fever.
-
Well.... You can tell there are some wave deprived souls posting here. All this rain, dirty water, lack of ridable waves, and 20 ft of snow is giving some folks cabin fever.
Even worse for those of us without a board! 😄
-
Print media is not inherently more accurate than other forms. One nice thing about getting news on the net is it is easier to cross check sources. I often search things I see posted to see if they are or were widely reported by news outlets. There is some bias, sensationalizing headlines to get eyeballs and breaking news is often short on relevant details or even wrong when rushed. But I still feel like I am much more likely to root out a more complete and accurate understanding online than using printed material. Online doesn't mean I believe every FB post or inflammatory blog post; people that do give the internet a bad rep.
-
Yeah, the BBC are paid for by UK TV licence payers’ money, and so have a remit to be as impartial as they can be. Which means that they will try to give both sides of the argument if they can. In general, when the British public want to know what’s going on, they trust the BBC more than any other source. Alongside the National Health Service it is considered one of the great British institutions that contributes to a fairer and more civilised nation. However it is very much under threat these days. It will be a great shame when it is gone, because I think it will accelerate the social and economic divisions in our society.
A-10, I’m not clear about whether a system of checks and balances exists for the BBC nor the NHS.
-
The challenge with news media is that both sides are using some really sleazy approaches to bring "news" to more respectable (barely) outlets. Say you have a completely fictional story, you check it out and can't confirm anything. So instead of spiking it as you would have when media was a little bit honorable, you feed it to some completely bogus "news" outlet (there are thousands of them on both sides)--or maybe you dump it to ten such sites who have names like "honestnewstoday" or "therealstory" or some such newspeak. When they can spare time from creating bullshit memes to feed into Facebook for useful idiots to share, they publish the completely fictional story. Now the news outlet with some modicum of respectability can publish their own version, attributing it to numerous source on the web, and even providing links to attribute as the "source".
Bottom line, you have to have your bullshit detector turned to eleven to have a hope of seeing through the chaff.
This is the reason I've been reading so many books. You can fact check the shit out of them. I did that with Comey's book and I'm working through "the threat" which I finished both listening to and reading a few days ago. I have copious notes and I'm digging through them. So far, squeaky clean. Both of them.
Here's the scary part, everything is a lot worse than I thought. And I thought it was a clusterfuck.
-
Yeah, the BBC are paid for by UK TV licence payers’ money, and so have a remit to be as impartial as they can be. Which means that they will try to give both sides of the argument if they can. In general, when the British public want to know what’s going on, they trust the BBC more than any other source. Alongside the National Health Service it is considered one of the great British institutions that contributes to a fairer and more civilised nation. However it is very much under threat these days. It will be a great shame when it is gone, because I think it will accelerate the social and economic divisions in our society.
A-10, I’m not clear about whether a system of checks and balances exists for the BBC nor the NHS.
They do.
-
The challenge with news media is that both sides are using some really sleazy approaches to bring "news" to more respectable (barely) outlets. Say you have a completely fictional story, you check it out and can't confirm anything. So instead of spiking it as you would have when media was a little bit honorable, you feed it to some completely bogus "news" outlet (there are thousands of them on both sides)--or maybe you dump it to ten such sites who have names like "honestnewstoday" or "therealstory" or some such newspeak. When they can spare time from creating bullshit memes to feed into Facebook for useful idiots to share, they publish the completely fictional story. Now the news outlet with some modicum of respectability can publish their own version, attributing it to numerous source on the web, and even providing links to attribute as the "source".
Bottom line, you have to have your bullshit detector turned to eleven to have a hope of seeing through the chaff.
This is the reason I've been reading so many books. You can fact check the shit out of them. I did that with Comey's book and I'm working through "the threat" which I finished both listening to and reading a few days ago. I have copious notes and I'm digging through them. So far, squeaky clean. Both of them.
Here's the scary part, everything is a lot worse than I thought. And I thought it was a clusterfuck.
Is this a fair summary of the book?
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/andrew-mccabe-the-threat/
-
Not really. It's essentially a summary of the last few chapters. The book is procedural, detailing how the FBI works and what it's function is, the first two-thirds is a backdrop, a very careful explanation of why the detailed investigation process and checks and balances inside the FBI serve justice, and why they are important. It's useful in understanding why the investigations in the final section proceeded as they did, and why investigations into fast-moving situations like Benghazi seemed to be covering up, when really they were proceeding deliberately, consistent with a policy that has proven to be effective over a long history. It's a bit slow moving, but the background is necessary. It's part of the reason why I find the book to be convincing, even though there is clear personal animus. The source of it is plain.
I'm a little more than halfway through my fact checking, I haven't found anything that is questionable, and there is a huge body of information available. The media reported all the issues in detail, Their analysis did not always agree with McCabes, but the underlying facts are identical--so far.
-
According to the OIG report February 2018:
...McCabe lacked candor when he told Comey, or made statements that led Comey to believe, that McCabe had not authorized the disclosure and did not know who did
...When questioned under oath by FBI agents from INSD, McCabe lacked candor when he told the agents that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ and did not know who did
...when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview, McCabe lacked candor when he stated: (a) that he was not aware of Special Counsel having been authorized to speak to reporters around October 30
...when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview during which he contradicted his prior statements by acknowledging that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ
...McCabe’s decision to confirm the existence of the CF Investigation through an anonymously sourced quote, recounting the content of a phone call with a senior Department official in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership, was clearly not within the public interest exception
https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/politics/20180413a-doj-oig-mccabe-report.pdf
-
Yes, that's covered extensively in the last section of the book. I haven't gotten that far in fact-checking, though I expected to read the OIG's report and some of the media coverage. It's an interesting process. Since you brought it up I jumped ahead and read the OIG's report and a Washington post article on the initiation of the investigation in 2017. But I'm getting ahead of myself. I will say though at first blush I don't see a conflict in the underlying facts between what McCabe says in his book and what the OIG or Washington Post say. Certainly, there's a different perspective on the matter, but that's why I read the book in the first place.
-
I'm looking forward to hearing your perspective PB.
-
ive got some wood to saw getting there--it's a tough read--shd be--it's written like i would imagine a concise detailed accurate FBI repor would be written--just doesnt flow so good
-
I warned you. The background stuff and detail about how the FBI works is necessary. I for one didn't really realize that their function is almost purely investigative. I guess I should have since it's right there in the name. The internally imposed burden of proof for almost any case is remarkable and important to the story.
-
Has anyone here read “Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic” by David Frum. The Independent newspaper carried the following blurb, which made it sound interesting:
“Many Republicans are, of course, deeply hostile to the Trump project, and as a conservative commentator and former speechwriter for George W Bush, David Frum provides a right-of-centre perspective on the direction of America since Trump came to power. In fact he argues that Trump is actually opposed to fundamental conservative principles, and is an opportunist who has allied himself to a political party which, to its shame, has sold its soul for short-term gain. Frum’s analysis of what he terms this “repressive plutocracy” now in charge makes cogent and compelling reading and should concern anyone who cares about the future of democracy”.