|
Post by mrsonde on May 9, 2018 18:52:46 GMT 1
You mean, you are in complete denial. You say Most people don't understand Trump ...I think I do. None of it's nice. [/quote] I'm not in denial of anything. Trump has his obvious and clearly not-so-obvious faults (seeing as most people haven't even noticed them!). But I do think most people do not understand him, and grossly distort the faults they've projected onto his persona. Alan for example seems convinced he's a "fascist". On the basis that he wishes to keep illegal immigrants out of his country, it would seem, and uses "rhetoric". A third of the population of Mexico has moved into the southern United States, everyone recognises it's a problem, including Obama, who deported more Mexicans than Trump ever will, yet because Trump has the nerve to openly address the problem he's Adolf Hitler. But - for I'm pretty sure must be the fifth time of asking you this direct question now, without even an attempt at a response - what is it that you think you "understand" about Trump that makes him so very not nice? What is it that you object to?
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on May 10, 2018 0:04:41 GMT 1
I enumerated the objectionable features in this or a nearby thread, so did respond, tho I don't recognise that a question - let alone four - was fired.
Without dazzling you with my knowledge of Freud, I'll simply say that Trump acts like a petulant, self-centred child. Who, of course, doesn't care about the consequences - for others - of their actions.
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 10, 2018 7:59:30 GMT 1
...Trump has his...clearly not-so-obvious faults (seeing as most people haven't even noticed them!)... And what are those?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 10, 2018 22:25:07 GMT 1
I enumerated the objectionable features in this or a nearby thread, so did respond, tho I don't recognise that a question - let alone four - was fired. You and Alan should start wearing different suits, or hairstyles, or something. But you're right, such an unprecedented exertion at explaining yourself must have been thoroughly exhausting for you, and we mustn't ask you overstretch your mental resources in so unreasonably repeating yourself. You said it all, once, to someone else, probably somewhere else - fair enough, nuff said. You must have been right, if you took the trouble to do all that. Tut. Without even a gong for your efforts! Really. Like when, exactly? Yeah? Like when? Be specific, please - and try to provide at least a piece of evidence and context for your amazingly astute diagnosis. I like to be dazzled, especially about people's "knowledge" of Freud. Not enough humour in the world. I know what you're getting at, of course. People used to say exactly the same thing about Churchill, and Roosevelt. Might have been some truth in it even; but even if so, it entirely missed the point about them, as effective leaders, who you wanted in power when it mattered.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 10, 2018 22:46:32 GMT 1
...Trump has his...clearly not-so-obvious faults (seeing as most people haven't even noticed them!)... And what are those?The most serious is his almost total lack of respect for or even acknowledgement of tradition. That's a very good thing in many ways, in a leader with the power to change things that desperately need to be changed. But it's also a dangerous quality, because traditions are accumulations of the wisdom of past generations that is often psychologically too deep to be discernible or readily understood and you do away with them at grave peril. I say almost total, because there are clear signs he's matured since his middle-age and started to recognise this - his change from support to opposition to gay marriage is probably down to that maturing, as is his ambiguous reluctance to go along with the modern "genderquake", or his respect for the symbolism and collective unconcsious influence of pageantry. Easy to say this is more evidence he's "right-wing" or a "fascist" of course - but, in fact, he's the opposite to both. His second major fault, and in some ways this ties in with the above, is his impatience, He wants things done yesterday, and has little tolerance for people or institutions that simply can't or more dangerously won't change at the speed of his vision. This has its positive side, especially in a crisis - it's also a potential source of serious errors of judgement.* Churchill's few mistakes in the war must be put down to this flaw in his make-up - getting rid of really good generals in Egypt, for example, ending up being saddled with an incompetent popinjay like Montgomery as a result; Greece, Crete, Italy - that whole Mediterranean misadventure. He should have listened more calmly to everyone around him who was advising against these impetuous plans. Sometimes he did, sometimes he didn't. Trump clearly has the identical dilemma. The third ties in with the second - he's not a team player. At all. He's an individualist, pure and simple, used to making the decisions, giving orders, expecting his will and vision to be carried out. If you're very quick, as quick as him at least, and of similar revolutionary temperament, he'll listen to you, maybe even ask your advice - if not, you're just another obstacle, probably defending like everyone else their self-interests. Dangerous, sometimes. On the other hand, it can sometimes be even more dangerous to be ineffectual and dithering, like Carter or Obama, when what's urgently requires is firm decisive action. Very often action that everyone else thinks is a mistake, and are all telling you so, as with the Palestine mess, or North Korea, or the Iran "Deal". What you want when so much is at stake - as with JFK in the Cuba missile crisis, say, or Reagan at Reykjavik - is someone with the strength, incisiveness, and self-confidence to be able to say, STFU! We're not doing what you say, we're doing what makes sense. All these come together in the over-riding flaw, if flaw it is, which I'm sure everyone recognises, but probably don't appreciate how understandable and in many ways justified it is - except those who know him, or have even met him - of a very confident ego and sense of self-esteem. It's the prerequisite of a can-do attitude that actually gets things done. *He hasn't made any yet, as far as my analysis goes, and that's because nine times out of ten his judgement will be incisive and in the long run straight to the heart of the matter. The Trans-Pacific, Nafta, the Paris Accord, the Iran Deal, Obamacare - all ridiculous transparently useless pseudo-solutions, designed to make the rich richer and pretend a problem is being dealt with. Coming up with proper solutions is another matter - for which the whole apparatus of govt is supposed to justify their living - but the first step must be in exposing the fraud. How he deals with Wall Street will be the real test - I suspect he doesn't have the strength yet to take that power nexus on, as he couldn't with trying to reach an entente with Russia, and will have to wait for his second term - as the issue of money in politics, the corruption of the electoral system (wrought primarily by the Democrats) will.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 11, 2018 0:02:30 GMT 1
I'll give you an example of the difference between him and, say, Obama. He wouldn't have listened to the cabal from Goldman Sachs, the Fed, and the Treasury, that virtually forced Obama's hand into a multi-trillion bail-out of all their careers and extravagant lifestyles. He'd have said - what's the source of this problem - apart from the complete incompetence of you lot, that is? Your whole house of cards is coming tumbling down because working stiffs can't pay the exorbitant interest-rates you've made a fortune out of allowing them to be charged and so they're defaulting on the mortgages that you should never have sold them in the first place - is that right? Okay. We'll bail them out then - don't worry, we'll pay your effing usury, but give them reasonable mortgage deals they can afford, and keep the whole game in play without ruining millions of people's lives. It'll cost getting on for a trillion, but a fraction of what it will to cover your gambling losses. And if you can't cover those, you can go bust - you're private companies, it's nothing to do with us. You can go the way of Bear Stearns and Lehmans, whom you were all very happy to see go under so you could pick their bones.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 11, 2018 3:03:54 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 11, 2018 3:08:20 GMT 1
Whether you love or loathe Trump, you can do nothing about his election This is sadly true. However, there is probably less actual evidence for Abbott's supposed mental incapacity than there is for Trump's. That's all. There's no evidence at all for any alleged mental incapacity of Trump's. Not a scrap. If there was, it would have been used by the Democrats to try to impeach him - we know that, because they tried their damnedest to find some, rallying any tom dick or harry from the psychiatry racket to break the Goldwater Convention to do so. Nothing came of it, and nothing will.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 11, 2018 3:38:10 GMT 1
mrsonde said What? "Trump has grown the economy by 4%"; "The Economist says it is 2.6%"; "Well it's 3.4%, and accelerating". So why did you say 4%? Because it's now May, you dimwit! Okay, 2.9% at the latest revision - it was estimated at 3.4% he last time I looked, back in the autumn. Still much higher than Obama achieved which overall was less than 2%. As for your 2.3% estimate - we'll see. I doubt it very much. He's only just passed his tax reforms, and the effects have yet to feed through - if they produce a fall in GDP, or demand, I'll eat my hat. I couldn't give a toss what you believe, but you can google it yourself if you're interested. Private sector wages are up by 3% in real terms since Trump took office. Inflation has stalled, Obama's housing bubble has flattened, energy prices have levelled, consumer demand is rising at over 4% growth, and business confidence that the economy is going to continue its increase in growth (otherwise known as accelerate) is the highest since the crash. www.investors.com/politics/editorials/wages-obama-economys-weakest-link-now-surging-under-trump/
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 11, 2018 4:01:56 GMT 1
[Trump's]...Duplicity - I've not come across any indication of such. Reliability - ditto. Stability - ditto. Many would agree with you on the latter two. Though I'm not sure what you wrote there accurately reflects what you meant."Widespread worries about his..." You're sort of what they call an anal personality, aren't you Jean? Get a bit confused if your carrots touch your peas? Don't know what it is - you haven't said, in your usual bone idle way. Some blog from a Women's Studies lecturer in some liberal arts community college in Buttfuck, Connecticut, is it? Look - if we're talking duplicity, I'm sure Trump isn't 100% truthful, by the standards of anal personalities anyway. I can't think of a single President that ever was, including Washington and including the soppy holier-than-thou bible-bashing Carter. But in comparison to Hillary, who we know - because it's been proven, in courts, and by a half dozen official investigations by several legal authorities - has lied in a way that means she's committed very serious felonies many times both in and out of office, making many millions of dollars by the process incidentally, then he's a paragon of integrity. I doubt if there's another public figure in US history who's ever had so much legal and media scrutiny as Trump, enquiries into every tiny little detail of his life, by very well-funded investigators determined to bring him down, going back for 30 years at least. If all that they've managed to turn up is that he gave a fraction of what the Clintons slushed out to Bill's many sexual assault and rape victims to keep their mouths shut - to someone who freely entered into a consensual relationship for 18 months before she decided to opportunistically blackmail him - I'd say he's doing pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 11, 2018 4:23:04 GMT 1
My understanding is that Abbott was diagnosed in 2016 and was on medication well before the election. However, that doesn't stop you having a 'hypo' (low blood-sugar) if you don't eat regularly and sensibly. As the main car-crash interview was her tenth interview of the day, I can imagine she had dashed around and not had time to take food. If she ate sensibly she probably wouldn't have Type II diabetes in the first place - it surely can't have been a surprise to her that she's obese. And if she did so now she'd more than likely no longer have it within a few months at most. Her "car-crash interviews" have been going on for years. I suspect the real change has been one of responsibility. She's no longer allowed to simply mouth off with her loony opinions - everything has to be in line with what Jeremy has decreed is allowed according to whatever on-the-hoof policy he and his barmy clique have come up with that weekend. She can't handle the pressure, and interviewers of the calibre of Humphrys or Ferrari sense it as sharks smell blood in water. Every time she digs her own grave, and simply won't stop digging - I can't remember any politician so incompetent at marshalling even the basics of their brief under question. She's simply not bright enough, and she's further crippled both by her own cranky ideology and by now having to defend ideas and proposals that mirror it and are in themselves divorced from reality.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 11, 2018 4:28:23 GMT 1
Oh! Mea culpa. How could I have forgotten Skippy No-Brain?
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 11, 2018 8:28:27 GMT 1
...You merely know there's yet another liberal-left conspiracy theory out there... What conspiracy theory are you talking about? As for the rest - get your quote formatting sorted out if you want a reply.
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 11, 2018 9:40:22 GMT 1
As for the first...what's your take on all this? Don't know what it is - you haven't said... It's a link, but since you can't read those (unless they're the ones yu post yourself), here's more of it: There's been more since then, of course. For example: On “Fox & Friends” last week, Rudolph W. Giuliani invited viewers to imagine what would have happened if Stormy Daniels had gone public in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign with her claim of a decade-old affair with Donald Trump.
So let's imagine. What if the adult-film star had told her story on ABC's “Good Morning America,” as the Wall Street Journal reported she was in talks to do, before signing a $130,000 nondisclosure agreement in October 2016?
Such an appearance certainly wouldn't have helped Trump's electoral prospects, yet there is reason to think the damage would have been minimal.
At the time, other women were making worse accusations than Daniels, who says she had consensual sex with Trump at a golf tournament in 2006 and continued to see him and talk with him by phone in the ensuing months. Three weeks before Daniels signed the nondisclosure agreement, The Washington Post published the now-infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, on which Trump could be heard boasting about groping and kissing women without consent.
After Trump denied during a debate that he had done what he talked about on the recording, multiple women came forward with accounts of unwanted touching and kissing by Trump.
Daniels's story, however salacious, would have likely paled in comparison and merely reinforced the playboy image Trump once cultivated.
Now, however, Daniels has become a bigger problem than Trump or the lawyer who arranged the payoff, Michael Cohen, could have foreseen. In the latest development, Daniels attorney Michael Avenatti on Tuesday posted on Twitter a document purporting to show wire transfers made to Essential Consultants, the shell company Cohen created in October 2016 and used to represent Trump in negotiations with Daniels.
According to the document, Essential Consultants received $500,000 from an investment firm called Columbus Nova, the U.S.-based affiliate of a Russian business magnate who attended Trump's inauguration and was recently sanctioned by the U.S. government. Columbus Nova confirmed paying Essential Consultants for what it called services “regarding potential sources of capital and potential investments in real estate and other ventures.”
The firm denied that the Russian magnate, Viktor Vekselberg, was involved with hiring or paying Cohen, but there is no avoiding the bad optics: It looks as though a powerful Russian, and others, may have tried to curry favor with Trump by sending money to the shell company used by the president's fixer to make headaches such as Daniels go away.
As special counsel Robert S. Mueller III probes possible links between Trump and Russia, disclosures like the one made Tuesday by Daniels's lawyer could weaken the president's claim to have “nothing to do with Russia.”
Also, records related to Daniels were among the documents sought by FBI agents who raided Cohen's office, home and hotel room last month as part of an investigation into possible bank fraud, wire fraud and campaign finance violations. And Trump may have facilitated the warrant needed to execute the raid by publicly denying any knowledge of the payment to Daniels. If Trump was unaware of the payment, then there wouldn't be any privileged communications between him and Cohen, related to Daniels, right?
If Trump and Cohen participated in Giulani's exercise, and imagined that Daniels had gone public in October 2016, they might have wished she had. Paying for her silence may have caused more trouble than letting her talk would have.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 11, 2018 10:14:14 GMT 1
...You merely know there's yet another liberal-left conspiracy theory out there... What conspiracy theory are you talking about? I'm not, you are. There's nothing wrong with my formatting. If there's anything wrong with it, that's down to you, because all of it's quoting your own post. But please don't worry about me wanting a reply! The last post I can recall from you worth reading must have been, ooh, ten years ago at least. Since then you've sadly gone through your own steady mental deterioration - you gave up the pretence of analytical acuity long ago, and all that's left now is the carping resentful bitterness of your Nurse Ratched impression. Admittedly that used to be quite impressive in its accuracy, and somewhat guiltily entertaining when you had someone deranged enough like Vanya to warrant being the foil of your bullying, but stripped of any point or purpose or wit is now merely sour.
|
|