330west wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

jetero wrote:

Trump blocked a cancer patient on Twitter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 63636.html

What a CLASS ACT.

While Obama gave Biden money so he wouldn't have to sell his house because Beau had cancer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCbI1svgSoQ

How much can Trump handle before all this disapproval starts to weigh on what's left of his mental health and thus impact his physical health? Just looking at him and knowing his eating habits it's highly likely it's more compromised than his quack doctor in NY indicated. I know it's awful to hope for this but is it at all possible or likely that he becomes too ill to perform his duties before his term is up?

He's getting there.

I mean, look at his priorities. Didn't even give a damn about Puerto Rico. No aid as of yet. Shouldn't we be sending warships down there?! None has been activated.

330west wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

jetero wrote:

Trump blocked a cancer patient on Twitter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 63636.html

What a CLASS ACT.

While Obama gave Biden money so he wouldn't have to sell his house because Beau had cancer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCbI1svgSoQ

How much can Trump handle before all this disapproval starts to weigh on what's left of his mental health and thus impact his physical health? Just looking at him and knowing his eating habits it's highly likely it's more compromised than his quack doctor in NY indicated. I know it's awful to hope for this but is it at all possible or likely that he becomes too ill to perform his duties before his term is up?

Wouldn't he have to first acknowledge that people actually disapprove of him? As far as I can tell, he thinks he's the greatest man who's ever lived.

jetero wrote:

330west wrote:

As far as I can tell, he thinks he's the greatest man who's ever lived.

You can say the same about his base.

330west wrote:

How much can Trump handle before all this disapproval starts to weigh on what's left of his mental health and thus impact his physical health? Just looking at him and knowing his eating habits it's highly likely it's more compromised than his quack doctor in NY indicated. I know it's awful to hope for this but is it at all possible or likely that he becomes too ill to perform his duties before his term is up?

Mr. Trump has good reason to laugh at polling results. Aren't they all fake or misinformed? They've been so wrong before.

He has a magical cure for when the pressure builds up -- fire someone. It does wonders for him.

Normal people think that, because of the way Mr. Trump acts/tweets that he is heavily burdened with problems of some sort.

But Mr. Trump is not a "normal" person. He's having fun acting at being President.

BobPatterson wrote:

He's having fun acting at being President.

At the world's expense.

jetero wrote:

330west wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

While Obama gave Biden money so he wouldn't have to sell his house because Beau had cancer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCbI1svgSoQ

How much can Trump handle before all this disapproval starts to weigh on what's left of his mental health and thus impact his physical health? Just looking at him and knowing his eating habits it's highly likely it's more compromised than his quack doctor in NY indicated. I know it's awful to hope for this but is it at all possible or likely that he becomes too ill to perform his duties before his term is up?

Wouldn't he have to first acknowledge that people actually disapprove of him? As far as I can tell, he thinks he's the greatest man who's ever lived.

I think he has acknowledged that through his habit of blocking people on Twitter for mostly tame criticisms.

Beyond that, look at the cheesy-ass gifs and memes he retweets. This isn't a man who's in full control of his faculties.

BobPatterson wrote:

Mrs.Merkel is in effect elected by parties. American Presidents are elected by States.

The direct vote for President is only at the State level.

I'd probably be as happy to live under a different system as I am under the one we now have.

I wouldn't shed too many tears to live in a parliamentary republic with proportional representation, but it's not happening any time soon, and as I laid out before, I do like the existence of the Senate and the *idea* of proportional+2 electors in terms of the presidential election. The United States is huge and has a lot of diverse geography. Thus these quirks are *overall* more helpful than not, in my opinion. (Note I still believe the EC should be reformed to eliminate winner-take-all. It's the narrow topic of proportional+2 EC representation that I am talking about.)

I'd much rather lose - and you can make a much better case for abolishing - the EC than the Senate. But neither is going to happen. The best hope for EC abolitionists is to get states to sign on to the NIPVC.

Aesma wrote:

Your system prevents the rise of smaller parties. The US should have at least 4 parties, 1 center-left (democrats), 1 center-right (GOP), 1 more to the left (socialists ?), and the Tea Party. Then Trump would have had a harder time getting a majority.

This is probably the most important enduring problem with the American political system. There would still be issues with the EC, but edge cases where the EC exhibits problematic behavior when elections are very very close to 50/50, would not appear so much.

jetero wrote:

Wouldn't he have to first acknowledge that people actually disapprove of him? As far as I can tell, he thinks he's the greatest man who's ever lived.

Deep inside, people with NPD know they're a fraud. It may be so walled off with defense mechanisms that they're rarely conscious of it, but the knowledge is in there.

treetreeseven wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Mrs.Merkel is in effect elected by parties. American Presidents are elected by States.

The direct vote for President is only at the State level.

I'd probably be as happy to live under a different system as I am under the one we now have.

I wouldn't shed too many tears to live in a parliamentary republic with proportional representation, but it's not happening any time soon, and as I laid out before, I do like the existence of the Senate and the *idea* of proportional+2 electors in terms of the presidential election. The United States is huge and has a lot of diverse geography. Thus these quirks are *overall* more helpful than not, in my opinion. (Note I still believe the EC should be reformed to eliminate winner-take-all. It's the narrow topic of proportional+2 EC representation that I am talking about.)

I'd much rather lose - and you can make a much better case for abolishing - the EC than the Senate. But neither is going to happen. The best hope for EC abolitionists is to get states to sign on to the NIPVC.

Aesma wrote:

Your system prevents the rise of smaller parties. The US should have at least 4 parties, 1 center-left (democrats), 1 center-right (GOP), 1 more to the left (socialists ?), and the Tea Party. Then Trump would have had a harder time getting a majority.

This is probably the most important enduring problem with the American political system. There would still be issues with the EC, but edge cases where the EC exhibits problematic behavior when elections are very very close to 50/50, would not appear so much.

jetero wrote:

Wouldn't he have to first acknowledge that people actually disapprove of him? As far as I can tell, he thinks he's the greatest man who's ever lived.

Deep inside, people with NPD know they're a fraud. It may be so walled off with defense mechanisms that they're rarely conscious of it, but the knowledge is in there.

Could you please explain what NIPVC and NPD are supposed to stand for?

Thanks.

maortega15 wrote:

330west wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

While Obama gave Biden money so he wouldn't have to sell his house because Beau had cancer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCbI1svgSoQ

How much can Trump handle before all this disapproval starts to weigh on what's left of his mental health and thus impact his physical health? Just looking at him and knowing his eating habits it's highly likely it's more compromised than his quack doctor in NY indicated. I know it's awful to hope for this but is it at all possible or likely that he becomes too ill to perform his duties before his term is up?

He's getting there.

I mean, look at his priorities. Didn't even give a damn about Puerto Rico. No aid as of yet. Shouldn't we be sending warships down there?! None has been activated.

Not true. Just can't get there in a few hours over land like Houston/Corpus Christi. Trucks of donations were being loaded in Dallas/Ft Worth and made it to Houston quickly. That wasn't possible for Puerto Rico. Hoping all of the ports and airports become usable quickly so aid can get there.

BobPatterson wrote:

He has a magical cure for when the pressure builds up -- fire someone. It does wonders for him.

Part of his coping mechanism are the rallies he regularly holds in front of an adoring crowd who'd cheer at literally anything idiotic thing he said.

The WH staff also used to be able to exclusively feed him positive news and opinions about him from selected (few) press outlets and keep him tame and 'sedated'.
Apparently, Gen. Kelly has managed to introduce some more down to Earth information and news into his feed, but WH leaks seem to describe a certain struggle for Kelly to keep him on a 'healthier' diet and to prevent him from reverting to his habitual sources.

He keeps demanding to read Breitbart and other devoted fringe outlets, binge watch Fox News as well as to call Bannon and other of his former close advisers which his chaperon would rather he didn't.

There is no way so much power should be given to someone with an ego so overbearing and fragile. Everything he says and does is a direct consequence of his mental condition. He is extremely unstable and dangerous. We have his incompetence to thank for the lack of too many lasting nefarious consequences for the US and the World so far, but how long will that last? While there is a congress to keep him in check within the US, his hand is a lot freer when it comes to international affairs, and his deliberate and unnecessary escalation of the situation with NK is proof that his complete lack of any diplomatic skills, combined with his 6th grade intelligence and massive ego could very well lead to the death of millions of people...

BobPatterson wrote:

Could you please explain what NIPVC and NPD are supposed to stand for?

Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... te_Compact and
Narcissistic Personality Disorder

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Could you please explain what NIPVC and NPD are supposed to stand for?

Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... te_Compact and
Narcissistic Personality Disorder

best regards
Thomas

Thanks very much for the link, Tommy. I got nowhere in my own search for NPVIC (I searched for NIPVC).

My goodness! My own State of Maryland was the first State to adopt the measure in 2007.

I would have no problem at all with a Constitutional Amendment to do away with the Electoral College and switch to national popular vote for the Presidency.

But I would oppose the NPVIC measure. My State is in effect saying that if we, as a State, vote to elect candidate A, that our State would nevertheless give our Electoral College votes to candidate B, who was put over the top by the voters in Texas and California.

Changing the system, constitutionally, is OK with me. Bastardizing the system by the agreement of some of the State Legislatures is not OK with me.

I need to do much more reading about this, but it appears to me that the NPVIC plan amounts to a cabal among urban Democrats to subvert the Constitution.

BobPatterson wrote:

Thanks very much for the link, Tommy. I got nowhere in my own search for NPVIC (I searched for NIPVC).

My goodness! My own State of Maryland was the first State to adopt the measure in 2007.

I would have no problem at all with a Constitutional Amendment to do away with the Electoral College and switch to national popular vote for the Presidency.

But I would oppose the NPVIC measure. My State is in effect saying that if we, as a State, vote to elect candidate A, that our State would nevertheless give our Electoral College votes to candidate B, who was put over the top by the voters in Texas and California.

Changing the system, constitutionally, is OK with me. Bastardizing the system by the agreement of some of the State Legislatures is not OK with me.

I need to do much more reading about this, but it appears to me that the NPVIC plan amounts to a cabal among urban Democrats to subvert the Constitution.

I don't know that there's any way to prevent the states from doing it. It's my understanding that they can allot their electoral votes however they like.

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of the EC being abolished by amendment. You can pry those +2 electors out of the low population states' cold dead hands.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/p ... e=Homepage

6 Members of the governments inner circle are a risk to national security, according to my favorite oxymoron, republican logic, so where are the GoP voices calling for an investigation, prison time and such.... did the GOP mean a single thing they said during the Obama administration or was this just to fuel hatred, racism and the division of the US society as a sort of customer lock in?

best regards
Thomas

treetreeseven wrote:

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of the EC being abolished by amendment. You can pry those +2 electors out of the low population states' cold dead hands.

Our larger parties thought the same, benefiting from the system that was in place, until our supreme court explained to them that being equal in front of the law included that each vote has the same value no matter what.

best regards
Thomas

BobPatterson wrote:

The electoral college was recently described in this forum as idiotic by a non-American who, just today, seems to approve election results in Germany where a "winner" is supported by 32.5%. That's pretty idiotic to me, so different strokes for different folks.

Maybe a bit of a misunderstanding.

CDU/CSU at 32.5% is the strongest party.
From that position those parties will present an arrangement to govern.
usually in a coalition with other parties.
The Bundespräsident will present the chancellor candidate of that group
to be voted on.
Next is a parliamentary vote to bring the candidate into office .. or not.
That vote is a majority of seats vote. ( with a fallback to majority of votes only.
i.e. a minority government like we've seen ins Scandinavia is possible. never happened yet. )

After a successfull vote the new chancellor will present a cabinet of ministers.

So if Ms. Merkel gets the job again she is not a 32.5% Chancellor but a 50+% one.


PS: The CDU/CSU thing is a bit strange actually. CSU is only available in Bavaria
while the CDU is active in the remaining 15 Bundesländer.
The CSU like any other party has to clear the 5% hurdle _for the overall vote_.
i.e. if the CSU vote at home drops another couple percent the CDU/CSU game is over.
( That explains why Seehofer was so very busy fishing on the right fringe of voters which seems to have backfired some.)

tommy1808 wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... te_Compact

Interesting,

Democrats make these policies and stay home on election Tuesday. Republicans milk every aspect and tweak every law to win. Imagine if Trump is able to get the DACA bill passed, Dems won't get many Hispanic votes.

A simple and reasonable way for each state to split the electoral votes based on the percentage of popular vote.

Narwhal/Facebook helped Obama win earlier. Russians manipulated same ad revenue greed of social media majors in 2016 to hurt HRC. Now Democrats and same social media majors are complaining.

Dems have no strategy, just lot of emotions.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Dems have no strategy, just lot of emotions.

You are missing the point.

This is about loyal opposition.
Democracy is majority vote _plus_ everybody pulling in the direction of the vote afterwards.


Thus the difference is "being loyal member of a democracy" versus "minority taking the system hostage for every microscopic whim".

WIederling wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Dems have no strategy, just lot of emotions.

You are missing the point.

This is about loyal opposition.
Democracy is majority vote _plus_ everybody pulling in the direction of the vote afterwards.


Thus the difference is "being loyal member of a democracy" versus "minority taking the system hostage for every microscopic whim".

Even in parliamentary democracy leader is not elected directly.

Republicans worked on gerrymandering for years by winning local/state elections, they will find another way to win popular vote it becomes the norm.

Super Delegates are not popular among Democrats, but HRC had no issue using them to win primaries. Without Super Delegates, it would be President Sanders.

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Could you please explain what NIPVC and NPD are supposed to stand for?

Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... te_Compact and
Narcissistic Personality Disorder

best regards
Thomas

Obama suffered from that as well.

dtw2hyd wrote:

WIederling wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Dems have no strategy, just lot of emotions.

You are missing the point.

This is about loyal opposition.
Democracy is majority vote _plus_ everybody pulling in the direction of the vote afterwards.


Thus the difference is "being loyal member of a democracy" versus "minority taking the system hostage for every microscopic whim".

Even in parliamentary democracy leader is not elected directly.

Republicans worked on gerrymandering for years by winning local/state elections, they will find another way to win popular vote it becomes the norm.

Super Delegates are not popular among Democrats, but HRC had no issue using them to win primaries. Without Super Delegates, it would be President Sanders.

It still would have been Hillary, what does irk me about the Bernie wing of the democrats is that they believe that Sanders was going to win the primaries and a majority of the delegates in the process. Hillary was still going to win more of the pledged delegates.

What the super delegates should have done is what they are there for. It should have occurred to the democrats that Bernie was galvanizing energy that Hillary wasn't and winning states that the democrats ended up needing in the election and made the decision to override the people and nominate Bernie. Hillary winning New York, California meant nothing and her winning red states were not relevant either.

The DNC seeing that Bernie won Wisconsin and Michigan should have woken the DNC up that Hillary wasn't energizing those in the Midwest states and Bernie was. They correctly got behind Obama in 2008 because he had way more positive energy than Hillary.

Now saying all of this had Bernie got the nomination it would have been a very interesting campaign. He would have gone toe to toe with Trump in the debates but Bernie threatens the establishment far more than trump. He has advocated the media conglomerates being broken up along with the banks, health insurance industry etc. It would have been very likely that the mainstream media (even the liberal outlets) would have backed Trump in the general.

stratosphere wrote:

Obama suffered from that as well.

Since you claimed the electoral college was set up to keep coastal liberals from calling the shots, i would assign the same truth value to that statement. .....

What behavior of Obama exactly (Quote/Video, Link to the source) do you think exactly mark Obama as a narcissistic person?

best regards
Thomas

stratosphere wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Could you please explain what NIPVC and NPD are supposed to stand for?

Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... te_Compact and
Narcissistic Personality Disorder

best regards
Thomas

Obama suffered from that as well.

Oh I see we've "evolved" from "but . . . but . . . Hillary" to "Obama did it first."

You guys really have some sort of "tit-for-tat" wiring in your genes.

Whataboutery, a well known Soviet tactic, is basically all they have left(not that they ever had much). Unfortunately that sort of thing plays well in the cheap seats.

"But but but, George W Bush! Obama lord and savior did nothing wrong!"

Gee, I wonder where I heard that before...

Super80Fan wrote:

"But but but, George W Bush! Obama lord and savior did nothing wrong!"

Gee, I wonder where I heard that before...

The voices in your head maybe?

If you have recent examples on here, please share.

I've got plenty of "BBHs" and Obama to share--just from this week!!!!!

Super80Fan wrote:

"But but but, George W Bush! Obama lord and savior did nothing wrong!"

Gee, I wonder where I heard that before...

Look, if you want to solve that, to have it stop, just accept what is going on now and don't keep looking back to blame only. Accept that certain things were in motion before whoever is "now" and that whoever is "now" can't say "I did this" if it was due to "then's" actions and time. And by the same token "now" can't blame "then" if "now" is not taking firm action to address things.

People keep trying to go back and blame the past for everything.... OK great, the past is always there and has always created what is going on now, that can never change. Just accept it and move forward, take action, work with others to attack and resole problems and the "but but but" might stop.

Tugg

jetero wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

"But but but, George W Bush! Obama lord and savior did nothing wrong!"

Gee, I wonder where I heard that before...

The voices in your head maybe?

Nope. Every leftist ever. Apparently everything bad that ever happened in the world is GWB's fault. Still is apparently, although fortunately we can start blaming stuff on Trump now. Clinton and Obama were Gods however.

Super80Fan wrote:

jetero wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

"But but but, George W Bush! Obama lord and savior did nothing wrong!"

Gee, I wonder where I heard that before...

The voices in your head maybe?

Nope. Every leftist ever. Apparently everything bad that ever happened in the world is GWB's fault. Still is apparently, although fortunately we can start blaming stuff on Trump now. Clinton and Obama were Gods however.

There is help out there, buddy. All it takes is a phone call.

("Every leftist ever." God, you guys really believe that sh*t, don't you?)

BonkersinYonkers wrote:

Nope. Every leftist ever. Apparently everything bad that ever happened in the world is GWB's fault. Still is apparently, although fortunately we can start blaming stuff on Trump now. Clinton and Obama were Gods however.

I'm actually not being sarcastic or facetious here but what happened to you? How did you end up like this?

330west wrote:

BonkersinYonkers wrote:

Nope. Every leftist ever. Apparently everything bad that ever happened in the world is GWB's fault. Still is apparently, although fortunately we can start blaming stuff on Trump now. Clinton and Obama were Gods however.

I'm actually not being sarcastic or facetious here but what happened to you? How did you end up like this?

Oh 330 you made my morning, if not my day!

At least we "leftists" have a monopoly on a sense of humor.

330west wrote:

BonkersinYonkers wrote:

Nope. Every leftist ever. Apparently everything bad that ever happened in the world is GWB's fault. Still is apparently, although fortunately we can start blaming stuff on Trump now. Clinton and Obama were Gods however.

I'm actually not being sarcastic or facetious here but what happened to you? How did you end up like this?

When the left interjected themselves into my personal life, I don't take too kindly to that. The GOP tries everyday but at least you can ignore them/tune them out. Leftists will make sure to ruin your life if you don't agree with them.

Super80Fan wrote:

The GOP tries everyday but at least you can ignore them/tune them out.

Well, 330, I was wrong! They do have a sense of humor!!!

Super80Fan wrote:

330west wrote:

BonkersinYonkers wrote:

Nope. Every leftist ever. Apparently everything bad that ever happened in the world is GWB's fault. Still is apparently, although fortunately we can start blaming stuff on Trump now. Clinton and Obama were Gods however.

I'm actually not being sarcastic or facetious here but what happened to you? How did you end up like this?

When the left interjected themselves into my personal life, I don't take too kindly to that. The GOP tries everyday but at least you can ignore them/tune them out. Leftists will make sure to ruin your life if you don't agree with them.

How did the left interject into your personal life?

330west wrote:

How did the left interject into your personal life?

Well there was the time the left did all it could to ensure I couldn't get married. Oh wait...

Well there was the time the left tried every tactic possible to limit what a woman can do with her own body, oh wait again....

Hmmm, what about that time the left tried to silence Black people when they tried to protest peacefully? Oops, nevermind....

OA412 wrote:

330west wrote:

How did the left interject into your personal life?

Well there was the time the left did all it could to ensure I couldn't get married. Oh wait...

Well there was the time the left tried every tactic possible to limit what a woman can do with her own body, oh wait again....

Hmmm, what about that time the left tried to silence Black people when they tried to protest peacefully? Oops, nevermind....

It's a real question. I'd genuinely love to know and understand what his grievances are with the 'intrusive' left.

330west wrote:

OA412 wrote:

330west wrote:

How did the left interject into your personal life?

Well there was the time the left did all it could to ensure I couldn't get married. Oh wait...

Well there was the time the left tried every tactic possible to limit what a woman can do with her own body, oh wait again....

Hmmm, what about that time the left tried to silence Black people when they tried to protest peacefully? Oops, nevermind....

It's a real question. I'd genuinely love to know and understand what his grievances are with the 'intrusive' left.

He has to be nice and respectful to people at work.

Maybe he's the poor mistreated Google guy James Damore.

330west wrote:

OA412 wrote:

330west wrote:

How did the left interject into your personal life?

Well there was the time the left did all it could to ensure I couldn't get married. Oh wait...

Well there was the time the left tried every tactic possible to limit what a woman can do with her own body, oh wait again....

Hmmm, what about that time the left tried to silence Black people when they tried to protest peacefully? Oops, nevermind....

It's a real question. I'd genuinely love to know and understand what his grievances are with the 'intrusive' left.

Indeed. I'd be interested in knowing that as well, because I'm at a loss.

jetero wrote:

330west wrote:

OA412 wrote:

Well there was the time the left did all it could to ensure I couldn't get married. Oh wait...

Well there was the time the left tried every tactic possible to limit what a woman can do with her own body, oh wait again....

Hmmm, what about that time the left tried to silence Black people when they tried to protest peacefully? Oops, nevermind....

It's a real question. I'd genuinely love to know and understand what his grievances are with the 'intrusive' left.

He has to be nice and respectful to people at work.

Maybe he's the poor mistreated Google guy James Damore.

He probably has to pay taxes too...

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

jetero wrote:

330west wrote:

It's a real question. I'd genuinely love to know and understand what his grievances are with the 'intrusive' left.

He has to be nice and respectful to people at work.

Maybe he's the poor mistreated Google guy James Damore.

He probably has to pay taxes too...

Best regards
Thomas

Maybe he is a wedding cake baker.

Super80Fan wrote:

jetero wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

"But but but, George W Bush! Obama lord and savior did nothing wrong!"

Gee, I wonder where I heard that before...

The voices in your head maybe?

Nope. Every leftist ever. Apparently everything bad that ever happened in the world is GWB's fault. Still is apparently, although fortunately we can start blaming stuff on Trump now. Clinton and Obama were Gods however.

Exactly Obama and the Clintons (both of them) enriched their pockets over the years in office then Obama cuts terrorists loose from Guantanamo Bay only to kill some more but you all come unglued when Trump pardons Sheriff Joe when the most he was faced with was a misdemeanor at best. Liberals still trying to figure you all out.

stratosphere wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

jetero wrote:

The voices in your head maybe?

Nope. Every leftist ever. Apparently everything bad that ever happened in the world is GWB's fault. Still is apparently, although fortunately we can start blaming stuff on Trump now. Clinton and Obama were Gods however.

Exactly Obama and the Clintons (both of them) enriched their pockets over the years in office then Obama cuts terrorists loose from Guantanamo Bay only to kill some more but you all come unglued when Trump pardons Sheriff Joe when the most he was faced with was a misdemeanor at best. Liberals still trying to figure you all out.

Ramble ramble ramble ramble ramble ramble ramble

(I hope you took a breath when you wrote that.)

So much winning!

When you have to push fake news in order to sell your line of action.

Fake news

einsteinboricua wrote:

So much winning!

When you have to push fake news in order to sell your line of action.

Fake news

On that note:

Aides often privately describe the president as highly susceptible to acting upon the last piece of information he's seen — no matter how dubious. And controlling that flow of information is a big part of new White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly's effort to right the ship and keep the Oval Office on-task.

But rarely do you see someone close to the president just come out and admit how unsophisticated he is as a consumer of information.

That's what Stephen K. Bannon did Monday night, though not quite in so many words. While chatting with Fox News's Sean Hannity, the former White House chief strategist suggested that Trump was essentially duped into supporting appointed Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.) in Tuesday's Alabama special-election runoff. And it wasn't really all that subtle.

Bannon, who along with Breitbart and some other Trump stalwarts, has endorsed former state Supreme Court justice Roy Moore against Strange, told Hannity that there needs to be a “real … review” of how Trump came to the decision to endorse Strange.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... f7b0217d95

stratosphere wrote:

Exactly Obama and the Clintons (both of them) enriched their pockets over the years in office then Obama cuts terrorists loose from Guantanamo Bay only to kill some more but you all come unglued when Trump pardons Sheriff Joe when the most he was faced with was a misdemeanor at best. Liberals still trying to figure you all out.

Two things: Are you implying that Trump is not enriching himself and his family while in office? And with Arpio, it was just so stupid, it did not have to be done at all.

If you are using your examples of Obama and Clinton and saying that what they did was OK, using that to defend Trump is one thing. But if you are saying what they did is wrong then it cannot be used to say Trump is right.

Tugg

stratosphere wrote:

What about this? What about that? What about those people?

You need to get some new material(and learn to write).

tommy1808 wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=65874496&pgtype=Homepage

6 Members of the governments inner circle are a risk to national security, according to my favorite oxymoron, republican logic, so where are the GoP voices calling for an investigation, prison time and such.... did the GOP mean a single thing they said during the Obama administration or was this just to fuel hatred, racism and the division of the US society as a sort of customer lock in?

best regards
Thomas

Most important line in the Times's story, way down at the bottom/end of it:

"But it is not illegal for White House officials to use private email accounts as long as they forward work-related messages to their work accounts so they can be preserved."

tommy1808 wrote:

did the GOP mean a single thing they said during the Obama administration or was this just to fuel hatred, racism and the division of the US society as a sort of customer lock in?

C'mon Tommy, do you really have to ask?!?!

tommy1808 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

Obama suffered from that as well.

Since you claimed the electoral college was set up to keep coastal liberals from calling the shots, i would assign the same truth value to that statement. .....

What behavior of Obama exactly (Quote/Video, Link to the source) do you think exactly mark Obama as a narcissistic person?

best regards
Thomas

A Google search on "Obama narcissistic" turns up many supposed sources.

http://bigthink.com/articles/barack-oba ... rcissistic

http://bigthink.com/articles/barack-oba ... rcissistic

I make no claims, based on these "sources", about Mr. Obama's mental state.

It is interesting to read the bullet-point definitions for the "disorder". Mr. Trump seems to be hit by every bullet.

BobPatterson wrote:

It is interesting to read the bullet-point definitions for the "disorder". Mr. Trump seems to be hit by every bullet.

Wow, you are right. From the article:

The narcissist:

* Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying, demands to be recognised as superior without commensurate achievements);

* Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion;

* Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions);

* Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation – or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (Narcissistic Supply);

* Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favourable priority treatment;

* Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends;

* Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others;

* Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustration. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions as he or she believes that they feel the same about him or her and are likely to act similarly;

* Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, "above the law", and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy.

Tugg