Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:05 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
The Art of No Deal 
Author Message
Years of membershipYears of membership
Quantity AND Quality


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Thanks: 32
Thanked: 362 times in 284 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
No, it's not surprising. I think it was Huffington Post that said just a couple of weeks after Trump was sworn in that at some unspecified point during the next four years, a delegation of congresspeople--both democrat and republican--would go the White House and meet Trump in the Oval Office and tell him that he must resign and, by that time, Trump will be ready to go. The article said this would be the likely ending of the Trump presidency and now it's no longer simple speculation but very probable. He obstructed justice, it's extremely well documented (twice by his own admission) and therefore undeniable. He will have to pay the price. I see no other way out of it for him. Frankly, whether he colluded with the Russians, at this point, has taken a back seat for me. They don't have to even prove that. They've got enough already to nail him. He's done.



Thu May 18, 2017 10:12 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Authors are MY fans!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1829
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 53
Thanked: 620 times in 484 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
DB Roy wrote:
They've got enough already to nail him. He's done.

No! Not so fast! We MUST NOT repeat the mistakes the Republicans made in trying to take President Clinton down. Yes they impeached, but didn't care that the Senate would not convict so Clinton remained in office. Make no formal moves against Trump until success is assured. Unfortunately investigations move slowly, so it will be quite a while before / if we reach that point.

Quote:
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday warned that Democrats should not rush into impeachment talks despite swirling controversies around President Trump. "That's not something that we should be rushing into or rushing to suggest,” Schiff told CNN’s “New Day.”

5/17/17
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/33378 ... ment-talks

Although here's a headline for you. :lol:
Quote:
‘Art Of The Deal’ Co-Author: Trump Will Resign, Then Declare Victory

...Schwartz predicted that Trump would ultimately “lose,” but said he won’t go through an impeachment process. “I surely believe that at some point over the next period of time he’s going to have to figure out a way to resign,” Schwartz said in comments posted online by Mediaite. But in quitting, Trump will try to “figure out a way, as he has done all his career, to turn a loss into a victory so he will declare victory when he leaves.”

5/18/17
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/art ... cdba511035



Thu May 18, 2017 7:20 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membership
Quantity AND Quality


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Thanks: 32
Thanked: 362 times in 284 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
Quote:
No! Not so fast! We MUST NOT repeat the mistakes the Republicans made in trying to take President Clinton down. Yes they impeached, but didn't care that the Senate would not convict so Clinton remained in office. Make no formal moves against Trump until success is assured. Unfortunately investigations move slowly, so it will be quite a while before / if we reach that point.


I'm not saying impeach and I'm not saying to move right now. The Russian collusion investigation has to be completed. All I'm saying is, even if turned out to be a house of cards (hard to believe considering the effort Trump as put into trying to kill it and the trouble he has gotten himself into in the process), he still must be charged with obstructing justice and he won't be found innocent of that. The evidence is undeniable because one is an admission from his own mouth on national television and another is a tweet sent from his account in which he cannot use the excuse that it wasn't him (or he'd have done so by now). He's boxed in. The collusion and the obstruction are two different things. He can be tried for both. They won't impeach because he'll go to jail. They'll offer him resignation. They'll do the Nixon on him. He should go to prison but he won't because we don't jail presidents in this country. That's what they'll tell him--we can't let you go to prison so you must resign. And he will.

I read the Schwartz article already and I believe he is right. Trump will resign but claim some kind of moral victory although I would suggest to him that for once he'd better shut his damn trap or he will talk himself into a jail cell once the justice system gets sick of his bullshit. As if they aren't already.



Thu May 18, 2017 8:59 pm
Profile Email
Not latency, or power shortage, nor bedtime shall keep me from my appointed screed


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 46
Location: Texas
Thanks: 2
Thanked: 20 times in 17 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
What amazes me lately is how the intelligence community in America has convinced so many that elected government should be overthrown on hearsay.

We in America need to decide if we want our country governed by elected officials (no matter how much we may dislike them), or by intelligence spooks.



Thu May 18, 2017 9:14 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5879
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1513
Thanked: 1603 times in 1247 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
KindaSkolarly wrote:
What amazes me lately is how the intelligence community in America has convinced so many that elected government should be overthrown on hearsay.

We in America need to decide if we want our country governed by elected officials (no matter how much we may dislike them), or by intelligence spooks.

Can you expand on that a little? I agree that it would be best for our system if we simply endure a bad president, and not make his incompetence or even his abuse of power reasons to remove him. We're not England. We've endured bad presidents before; we've also had some good ones who abused their powers. Even if the Trump presidency is a train wreck, as is looking to be the case, we shouldn't necessarily be talking impeachment. But there are limits, clearly, and given what's happened so far, it's unavoidable that the possibility of impeachment will be raised. Democrats will be wise not to beat that drum, though. They need to wait until even loyalists to Trump begin to come around to the opinion that he's committed high crimes and misdemeanors.



Fri May 19, 2017 5:24 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4190
Location: NC
Thanks: 1668
Thanked: 1732 times in 1324 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
DWill wrote:
They need to wait until even loyalists to Trump begin to come around to the opinion that he's committed high crimes and misdemeanors.


KindaSkolarly wrote:
We in America need to decide if we want our country governed by elected officials (no matter how much we may dislike them), or by intelligence spooks.


Yes, I'm surprised that anyone is talking about impeachment at this stage. Trump has not been proven to have committed any crimes. His comment to Comey: "I hope you can let this go” is not a specific request to end the Flynn investigation and not enough to warrant a charge of obstruction of justice. The memo is ultimately Comey's side, not to mention that the memo hasn't been released yet. To discuss impeachment without evidence only feeds into the Republican narrative that there's a witch hunt in progress. It only creates further division in our country. Sorry, you have to wait until Trump actually does something treasonous or illegal before we start an impeachment process, which itself would be very divisive and damaging.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Fri May 19, 2017 8:34 am
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membership
Quantity AND Quality


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Thanks: 32
Thanked: 362 times in 284 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
DWill wrote:
Can you expand on that a little? I agree that it would be best for our system if we simply endure a bad president, and not make his incompetence or even his abuse of power reasons to remove him. We're not England. We've endured bad presidents before; we've also had some good ones who abused their powers.


Then why did we bother to go after Nixon or Clinton or Andrew Johnson for that matter? Why bother to go after any president who breaks the law? Hell, why don't we just pass a law and say a president can do anything he wants and no one can do anything about it because that is what you are advocating. Just get rid of checks and balances altogether and let the president be a dictator? If you say it is not what you are advocating (and I'm fairly certain you will), then at what point do we finally tell a corrupt president that he has crossed the line? Who tells him and what is that line?

Quote:
Even if the Trump presidency is a train wreck, as is looking to be the case, we shouldn't necessarily be talking impeachment.


Because...

Quote:
But there are limits, clearly, and given what's happened so far, it's unavoidable that the possibility of impeachment will be raised. Democrats will be wise not to beat that drum, though. They need to wait until even loyalists to Trump begin to come around to the opinion that he's committed high crimes and misdemeanors.


So we just wait and wait and wait...until he leaves office, right? Right.



Sun May 21, 2017 12:15 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membership
Quantity AND Quality


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Thanks: 32
Thanked: 362 times in 284 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
geo wrote:

Yes, I'm surprised that anyone is talking about impeachment at this stage. Trump has not been proven to have committed any crimes.


What???? So, if my wife is found murdered in my house and all the evidence points to me, I should not be charged because no one has proven I did it??? See, you have to charge the person first in order to prove he did it. That's called a trial. But before a trial can be begin, charges have to be filed. You DO know that what the word "impeach" means right? Of course Trump must be impeached, it is the only way his guilt can be established or dismissed.

Quote:
His comment to Comey: "I hope you can let this go” is not a specific request to end the Flynn investigation and not enough to warrant a charge of obstruction of justice.


Actually it is. Trump did not say, "I don't want to butt in here but Flynn is a good guy and I've never known him to do anything illegal or unethical." That's okay. He can say that. But he cannot say that he hopes Comey will stop the investigation, which is what he meant by "let it go." That's obstruction by iself. And then he fires him--big red flag! Moreover, Trump asked everyone to leave the room before he talked with Comey. That's suspicious. If they were all present, they all become accessories to Trump's obstruction. it indicates that Trump knew what he was doing was illegal. He did the same thing when he wanted Comey's loyalty--he got Comey alone and asked him in private. It was the privacy issue that prompted Comey to make memos in the first place because it was only proof he had of what happened. He didn't like what Trump was doing. It's all the more damning because the Trump administration has a policy against contact between the WH and the Justice Department except in national security matters that this did not fall under that. Also, since Trump had already fired Flynn, why vouch for him as a good guy? Why bother? Yet Trump tries to stop the investigation of a man he fired. That indicates that he feared that the investigation may lead to him or to others he is currently trying to protect. If that's the case then that's illegal.

Quote:
The memo is ultimately Comey's side, not to mention that the memo hasn't been released yet.


Comey is a law enforcement officer and a law enforcement officer's memos, notes and reports form the foundation of a case against a defendant and are considered admissible evidence. Comey's memos CAN be used as evidence against Trump because he is a sworn law enforcement officer. If a cop busts you and says you tried to bribe him, the court takes that to be the case. Your lawyer will get nowhere telling the cop on the witness stand. "That's just YOUR version of events. My client said it didn't happen." Of course you're going to say that. But the court won't side with you. An LEO's statements are taken as evidence. Now, granted, they don't want to simply pit Comey against Trump so they are going to look for other evidence that Trump has tried these shenanigans on others or admitted to someone that he did this. And they may decide not to press ahead but they must investigate and the very fact that a special counsel has been appointed indicates there is a lot of evidence to sift through to make a case because the fact that Trump was always careful to do this in private would indicate he wanted no witnesses to his actions.

Quote:
To discuss impeachment without evidence only feeds into the Republican narrative that there's a witch hunt in progress. It only creates further division in our country. Sorry, you have to wait until Trump actually does something treasonous or illegal before we start an impeachment process, which itself would be very divisive and damaging.


No you don't have to wait. That's stupid when you have enough to go after him. They have enough. Trump's exact words on the firing of Comey:

"And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won."

Right there is an admission that he fired Comey over the Russian investigation. Doesn't matter if he thought it was a made-up story. It's an official investigation. Then he said he welcomed Mueller to get to the bottom of it. Why didn't he just say that about Comey? Why fire him then? Why not just say, "I welcome Comey to get to the bottom of this." Because he thought firing him would be the end of it. Now he knows it is not. If there is no evidence against him, he has gone through a lot of trouble and hurt himself trying to kill these investigation that he now says he welcomes. Plus there are too many contradictory stories floating around within the White House about Trump's actions. That indicates a cover-up.

No, I'm afraid there needs to be an investigation and that it will end with a recommendation for an impeachment.



Sun May 21, 2017 1:20 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5879
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1513
Thanked: 1603 times in 1247 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
DB Roy wrote:
Then why did we bother to go after Nixon or Clinton or Andrew Johnson for that matter? Why bother to go after any president who breaks the law? Hell, why don't we just pass a law and say a president can do anything he wants and no one can do anything about it because that is what you are advocating. Just get rid of checks and balances altogether and let the president be a dictator? If you say it is not what you are advocating (and I'm fairly certain you will), then at what point do we finally tell a corrupt president that he has crossed the line? Who tells him and what is that line?

I wrote, "clearly there are limits," intending to mean that Trump's blunders and incompetency could tip into the territory suitable for an impeachment inquiry by the House--crimes and other proven, serious misdeeds. We don't yet have a parallel with the Nixon situation, and Andrew Johnson belonged to a distant political time after a cataclysmic war. The fact that not even many Democratic politicians are bringing up impeachment tells me that they, too, don't see a strong case for impeachment. This could change quickly, but if the Russia investigation proves inconclusive or Trump suffers just a glancing blow, and by some remarkable change he avoids more scandal, we could be looking at having him around until 2020. We just don't know how things will play out.

Of course, Democrats are well aware that their numbers in the House don't make it likely that they will be able to get the House to look at impeachment. By 2018, they might be in a better position to do that.



Last edited by DWill on Sun May 21, 2017 4:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Sun May 21, 2017 4:25 pm
Profile
Not latency, or power shortage, nor bedtime shall keep me from my appointed screed


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 46
Location: Texas
Thanks: 2
Thanked: 20 times in 17 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
DWill wrote:
KindaSkolarly wrote:
What amazes me lately is how the intelligence community in America has convinced so many that elected government should be overthrown on hearsay.

We in America need to decide if we want our country governed by elected officials (no matter how much we may dislike them), or by intelligence spooks.


Can you expand on that a little? ...


I try not to engage in political discussions on the internet anymore. Too many closed minds. Instead I put the time into my fiction, a lot of which is political.

https://www.amazon.com/Now-th-Tim-Mike- ... B006SON65S

That's a link to a collection of my politically inclined stories. If you click the Look Inside feature you can read the first couple of pieces in their entirety.



Sun May 21, 2017 8:20 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membership
Quantity AND Quality


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Thanks: 32
Thanked: 362 times in 284 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
DWill wrote:
I wrote, "clearly there are limits," intending to mean that Trump's blunders and incompetency could tip into the territory suitable for an impeachment inquiry by the House--crimes and other proven, serious misdeeds. We don't yet have a parallel with the Nixon situation, and Andrew Johnson belonged to a distant political time after a cataclysmic war. The fact that not even many Democratic politicians are bringing up impeachment tells me that they, too, don't see a strong case for impeachment. This could change quickly


Of course, Democrats are well aware that their numbers in the House don't make it likely that they will be able to get the House to look at impeachment. By 2018, they might be in a better position to do that.[/quote]

You seem to be changing what you were saying though. You said:

"I agree that it would be best for our system if we simply endure a bad president, and not make his incompetence or even his abuse of power reasons to remove him."


That's not saying wait until we have evidence, that's saying that even if he broke the law that shouldn't be a reason to remove him. So my question is, what in the hell then would be a good reason to remove him??

You also wrote:

"They need to wait until even loyalists to Trump begin to come around to the opinion that he's committed high crimes and misdemeanors."

Trump's loyalists are not going to come around. Under no circumstances do we wait for them. If the evidence shows he broke the law, then charge him. I couldn't care less how his loyalists feel about it.

Quote:
but if the Russia investigation proves inconclusive or Trump suffers just a glancing blow, and by some remarkable change he avoids more scandal, we could be looking at having him around until 2020. We just don't know how things will play out.


That's all the more reason to impeach him. We have three possibilities:

1. We do nothing and let him walk away scot-free.
2. We impeach and the evidence isn't there and he walks way scot-free.
3. We impeach and we get a conviction.

What then do we have to lose via impeachment? He could walk but he'll definitely walk if we do nothing.

But you also have to realize there will be no impeachment no matter what. No evidence would mean no impeachment but strong evidence will force Trump out before there is an impeachment a la Nixon. If he's impeached, he is certain to be convicted because they won't impeach on flimsy evidence.

That's why I think obstruction of justice is the way to go rather than collusion unless the evidence for it is very strong (and I'm willing to bet it is). I don't want to see him walk because he colluded but they couldn't dig up enough to make it stick. Go with obstruction. They have him to dead-to-nuts on that.



Sun May 21, 2017 9:12 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Authors are MY fans!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1829
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 53
Thanked: 620 times in 484 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
1. We do nothing and let him walk away scot-free.
2. We impeach and the evidence isn't there and he walks way scot-free.
3. We impeach and we get a conviction.
4. We impeach, the evidence isn't sufficient, a major backlash erupts against that process as a failed coup d'etat, and Trump wins a 2nd term. 8 years of Trump!

Don't move on impeachment until votes in the house and senate are fairly certain...



Mon May 22, 2017 6:16 am
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membership
Quantity AND Quality


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Thanks: 32
Thanked: 362 times in 284 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
LanDroid wrote:
1. We do nothing and let him walk away scot-free.
2. We impeach and the evidence isn't there and he walks way scot-free.
3. We impeach and we get a conviction.
4. We impeach, the evidence isn't sufficient, a major backlash erupts against that process as a failed coup d'etat, and Trump wins a 2nd term. 8 years of Trump!


Very unlikely. Trump is wildly unpopular in public opinion polls. He is erratic and unpredictable. Half his base is pissed that he went to Saudi Arabia and kow-towed to their king and gave a moderate speech in contrast to his hardline stance with the travel bans which they think makes him look like he pussied out. The rest of his base thinks he's preaching a sensible message but to everybody else, it is clearly not Trump's message but a prepared speech probably dictated by Rex Tillerson. It clearly doesn't match the man who refused to shake hands with Angela Merkel for allowing Muslim immigrants into her country and the man who hung up on the Australian prime minister who wanted the US to honor their pledge to take some 1250 refugees stuck in limbo on an island. Suddenly, he's in a Muslim country preaching tolerance and peaceful coexistence and sword-dancing as well as selling them billions of dollars of war-making hardware. How much can this man be trusted?

No, I wouldn't expect a backlash. i would expect a lot of people grousing that he got away with Russian collusion. With his terrible popularity in the US and the world, I don't expect for a second that he could be reelected to a second term. I think people have already seen enough and can do without 8 years of this kind of drama. Trump didn't get elected by a landslide; he squeaked through. If so many Bernie crybabies and blacks that were pissed no black democratic candidate was running had bothered to vote, Trump would not be in office. I think those people now realize what a mistake they made to stay home and will turn out in 2020. And virtually all these people believe Trump colluded and won't change their opinion if they fail to convict him for it.

Quote:
Don't move on impeachment until votes in the house and senate are fairly certain...


Well, that's a silly thing to say since no impeachment can proceed without those votes. It's not like you can proceed to impeach if the House votes no on impeachment.



Mon May 22, 2017 12:50 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Authors are MY fans!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1829
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 53
Thanked: 620 times in 484 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
Of course we could proceed with the impeachment process even if the House eventually votes no; Trump would not be impeached in that case. And of course we can repeat the case where Clinton was impeached in the House, but not convicted in the Senate. I'm merely saying to avoid both of those cases, hold off until the votes in both chambers are fairly certain. Consider carefully: it's gonna take quite a while before the likes of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are able to vote to impeach Trump.

Although this is gonna accelerate even faster with the bombshell that was just released!
Quote:
Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence

...Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election. Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

5/22/17
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

Holy crap, obviously Trump knows nothing of Watergate where we learned (and therefore Trump was doomed to repeat) two lessons.
1. Do not attempt to use the CIA or other agencies to shut down an investigation, the "smoking gun" of the Nixon administration.
2. The cover up is worse than the crime.



Mon May 22, 2017 6:24 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membership
Quantity AND Quality


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Thanks: 32
Thanked: 362 times in 284 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
That's what I'm saying: Trump is expending a lot of effort trying to shut down an investigation that he claims is a made-up story. His actions are only explainable if he has something to hide. I mean, all 17 of our intelligence agencies say there was collusion. Now how can that be if it's a made-up story? Why would Trump want Comey to lay off the investigation of Flynn, why does Flynn want immunity for his testimony and documents, why did Trump want Comey's loyalty and why would he then fire him when Comey said no? There HAS to be something there Trump is desperate for us not to see. Why would Trump want Coats and Rogers to deny evidence that he insists doesn't exist? And since they wouldn't comply, that pretty much tells you there IS evidence.

As for the cover up being worse than the crime, that may well be! That's why I think they might do better to go after an obstruction charge. That's kind of a slam-dunk. They can level collusion and obstruction and that might be too much for the republicans in Congress to deal with and that might force them to approach Trump about the need to resign. However you cut it, though, it's gonna git ugly!



Mon May 22, 2017 6:30 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Newsletter 



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!



Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2017. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank