The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump

[Lark]

We require this sort of screening and criteria for many government and military positions, so I don't see why we shouldn't do the same for something as important as President or Legislator, especially considering the President's role as commander of the military, or for that matter, the fact that many legislators see a lot of sensitive, top secret intelligence when serving on certain committees.

I think that's true, I also think secrecy is no basis for government and perhaps the militaries have grown to big and powerful in the modern day.

Dont have the answer to that one though as I know if the US were to try and shrink its military expenditure, deployments, commitments tomorrow it would spell a massive problem for the world, the Cold War shipping lanes policing is better than nothing, the Chinese are already challenging the US and British for dominance in the south china sea, Russia is doing it through their proxy state Iran.

International shipping and security of the waves is one half of the interconnected global economy alongside the internet, the security and open character of each are not a given but a sort of mixture of a bunch of legacies.

 

[ceecee]

We require this sort of screening and criteria for many government and military positions, so I don't see why we shouldn't do the same for something as important as President or Legislator, especially considering the President's role as commander of the military, or for that matter, the fact that many legislators see a lot of sensitive, top secret intelligence when serving on certain committees.

I don't really think any of these things matter as they once did. Anyone can get clearance apparently. You can be indited for misuse of campaign funds (Duncan Hunter and his wife who has already plead guilty) and keep your job. You can even be convicted for theft and fraud and run for your seat, once you get out of prison, of course. Demands for physical and mental fitness are almost quaint and antiquated at this point.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I don't really think any of these things matter as they once did. Anyone can get clearance apparently. You can be indited for misuse of campaign funds (Duncan Hunter and his wife who has already plead guilty) and keep your job. You can even be convicted for theft and fraud and run for your seat, once you get out of prison, of course. Demands for physical and mental fitness are almost quaint and antiquated at this point.

I don't think an ex-conviction should be an automatic bar from running for office or for applying for or taking most jobs (except for obvious exceptions, i.e. a convicted pedophile probably shouldn't be allowed a job where they would work closely with minors), but I do think basic mental fitness and health screenings are in order for public office.

How shitty the current existing clearance checks are is another issue entirely.

 

[ceecee]

I don't think an ex-conviction should be an automatic bar from running for office or for applying for or taking most jobs (except for obvious exceptions, i.e. a convicted pedophile probably shouldn't be allowed a job where they would work closely with minors), but I do think basic mental fitness and health screenings are in order for public office.

How shitty the current existing clearance checks are is another issue entirely.

I'm thinking if you are indited for stealing campaign money, misappropriating funds, financial crimes or abuse of the office and you are convicted and sentenced, you probably shouldn't be put in that position again. Much like the pedophile working with children safeguard. In no way do I think a conviction, even a felony, should permanently bar you from public office. I'm 100% for restoration of rights for felons, including voting.

Physical and mental fitness - look at Trump. Tertiary syphilis seems like the most logical dx, I'll stick with that.

 

[The Cat]

There's a reason they call it Congress instead of progress. :Shrug:

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Ah, then you didn't read the post. I bolded my answer. Was it really so difficult?

You really didn't though. You answered with a bunch of spastic side tangents. You bolded a spastic side tangent.

To repeat myself

"Trump wants the success of America as a whole, for its citizens to have successful lives. All citizens, no matter their race, gender, religion, etc. are included in this desire for success. "

But I guess you didn't read that, even though it was bolded.

Did you also skip everything else, showing clearly that you believed an absolute falsehood about Trump, one that has been repeated by the media for 2 years?

It is nice to see demonstrated an inability to even address one's cognitive blindness and closemindedness.

Gabor Maté' son, Aaron Maté, a left wing journalist who has written for The Nation and the Intercept, has been excellent on Russian Hoax. I posted an interview he did with his father back in May regarding RussiaGate.

Just a few days ago, the Nation posted an good article by Stephen Cohen discussing the lack of Russia in RussiaGate: What We Still Do Not Know About Russiagate | The Nation

In any event, people who want to remain blinded will remain blinded. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Trump, but doing so because one has been manipulated to do so is by far the worst. It means the billionaires can continue to manipulate people and maintain their power.

There's really no need to repeat the spastic side tangents again. Just answering the original question would be appreciated.

Here it is again: Is it very specifically about who he intends to feel included when he says "we" or "our country", or are you disagreeing with the wider point that there's a systematic belligerent "us vs. them" divisiveness in his vernacular?

You've answer the first part of the question a couple times over; you clearly believe he intends everyone to feel included when he says "our country".

The part to focus on here - and it's actually just a yes or no question, so a simple yes or no would be ideal - is that I'm asking if you see the rampant "us vs. them" divisiveness in his vernacular. The best place to assess this would be his tweets, since he posts them himself. They are his words, things he chooses to retweet - straight from his fingers to the American audience. No "Fake News Media" to intervene (or blame).

What I'm not asking for:

• Your opinion of the media's opinion of him.
• Your opinion of my opinion of him.
• Your opinion of why I have the opinion I do.
• If you'd please blather extensively about how everyone else but you - and those who believe exactly what you do - have cognitive blindness which prevents them from seeing the obvious actual truth (which you clearly have a direct line to).

What I am asking for:

• Your opinion of whether the messages he tweets are laden with "us vs. them" divisiveness.
  

I'm going to post examples of tweets from this past week, hopefully to make things as clear as possible. (Which will take a few moments because I have to do it from a different device).

I'd be interested to hear if you can honestly say you do not see any "us vs. them" divisiveness in them.

eta: I'm having trouble posting screen shots of his tweets, so I'll just have to leave it at asking if you can see the "us vs. them" in his tweets.

 

[The Cat]

A lie is just a lie, unless you can get your friends and family in on it; then it becomes a commonly held belief.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Question for Highlander, as the OP, and everyone else really, do you think there should be health and psychological qualifications to holding, or running for, public office?

The trouble with this - as Trump has already done - is that it's relatively easy to find someone who is 'officially' capable of giving a green light, but they're actually more a spineless tool than a competent professional. I mean, how do you find someone everyone can agree on to officiate?

 

[SearchingforPeace]

You really didn't though.

I did, not just how you wanted me to. As such, saying I didn't is a gross misrepresentation.

You answered with a bunch of spastic side tangents. You bolded a spastic side tangent.

Utter nonsense. All that was directly on point, but you can't address it and so call it "spastic side tangents", which is very divisive language. It really speaks volumes of you.

There's really no need to repeat the spastic side tangents again. Just answering the original question would be appreciated.

There you go again, using "divisive language". Sorry, that you can't address those points is very telling.

Here it is again: Is it very specifically about who he intends to feel included when he says "we" or "our country", or are you disagreeing with the wider point that there's a systematic belligerent "us vs. them" divisiveness in his vernacular?

You've answer the first part of the question a couple times over; you clearly believe he intends everyone to feel included when he says "our country".

The part to focus on here - and it's actually just a yes or no question, so a simple yes or no would be ideal - is that I'm asking if you see the rampant "us vs. them" divisiveness in his vernacular. The best place to assess this would be his tweets, since he posts them himself. They are his words, things he chooses to retweet - straight from his fingers to the American audience. No "Fake News Media" to intervene (or blame).

What I'm not asking for:

• Your opinion of the media's opinion of him.
• Your opinion of my opinion of him.
• Your opinion of why I have the opinion I do.
• If you'd please blather extensively about how everyone else but you - and those who believe exactly what you do - have cognitive blindness which prevents them from seeing the obvious actual truth (which you clearly have a direct line to).

What I am asking for:

• Your opinion of whether the messages he tweets are laden with "us vs. them" divisiveness.
  

I'm going to post examples of tweets from this past week, hopefully to make things as clear as possible. (Which will take a few moments because I have to do it from a different device).

I'd be interested to hear if you can honestly say you do not see any "us vs. them" divisiveness in them.

eta: I'm having trouble posting screen shots of his tweets, so I'll just have to leave it at asking if you can see the "us vs. them" in his tweets.

"Blather" lol. This is fascinating. Such "divisive" language......

So in this thread, you made a ridiculous over the top point, which I called you on. When you wanted to discuss the topic with me, I tested your ability to see reality, and you failed, completely. And now you are dictating my answers to you, completely ignoring everything out there.

You once again confirmed you really didn't want an answer. You want confirmation. Interesting.

"Divisive" means tending to cause division. "Oh, no, Trump is advocating for his positions, and I might need to consider points I disagree with!!!!"

Once again, the "us" for Trump is the USA as a whole, including his vernacular. He excludes no citizens from his "us", not even those citizens he disagrees with. Trump aggressively pushes his points, like many in politics do. He also pushes back hard at those who try to confront him publicly. If that is what you are looking at, what of it? Really?

This isn't new. It is partisan politics since there was politics, going back to ancient Greece and Rome. Partisanship is politics 101. He is not uniquely "divisive" and Trump is "divisive" only in the sense that he doesn't submit to the will of his opponents and advocates for his positions, whether his opponents agree or not.

But, hey, Republicans used to play like the Washington Generals and let their opponents attack them without response, like Mitt. But they were not "divisive ", right? Except they all were still called Nazis....

But Trump was a Democrat until not long ago, so he does have a style more typical of Democrats.....

 

[Tellenbach]

I don't know if Trump's plan to relocate the homeless people living in tents will work, but it's a great idea to clear the streets because homeless encampments are filthy, stinky, and pose a public health hazard. In Los Angeles, we're seeing diseases like typhus and typhoid fever making a come-back because the trash on the streets attract rats and the rats carry diseased fleas.

The mayor of LA, Typhoid Eric, won't remove the homeless and the city has now attracted homeless folks from other cities. There are literally thousands of tents along the sidewalks of major streets. Democrats have shown no leadership; they've ignored the problem and made it worse. Trump's $1.5 billion plan entails relocating these people into real shelters where they can get help.

I'm all for personal liberty, but you can't camp out on the sidewalk and stink up the place. Go to some park or rural area to live.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

In Los Angeles, we're seeing diseases like typhus and typhoid fever making a come-back because the trash on the streets attract rats and the rats carry diseased fleas.

You coastal elites can't understand those of us in the heartland. I'll bet you don't even know how to ride a tractor or milk a cow.

 

[JAVO]

He's probably a little less dangerous now. Two nutjobs left yesterday: Bolton and the guy who wanted to edit away climate change.

Two down, and how many more to go?

 

[The Cat]

He's probably a little less dangerous now. Two nutjobs left yesterday: Bolton and the guy who wanted to edit away climate change.

Two down, and how many more to go?

Ice bear's gonna need more ninja stars.

 

[Tellenbach]

You coastal elites can't understand those of us in the heartland. I'll bet you don't even know how to ride a tractor or milk a cow

I see plenty of the heartland on American Pickers. It's a lot of barns with old motorbikes, oil cans, and Coke machines.

Btw, Democrats don't milk cows; it's considered sexual assault; just ask PETA.

 

[Honeydew]

Btw, Democrats don't milk cows; it's considered sexual assault; just ask PETA.

And white supremacy, duh...

PETA claims milk a 'symbol of white supremacy'

Drink upm Nazis.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is making the claim that milk is the perfect tipple for racists.

The assertion first appeared in a blog post last yea,r but slipped under the radar. Last week, PETA doubled down.

PETA points to Christopher Waltz’s Nazi character in the film Inglourious Basterds knocking back a glass of milk in a French farmhouse as he hunts for Jews.

The organization tweeted: “Cows’ milk has long been a symbol used by white supremacists.”

The lactose longshot comes in the wake of a New York Times article headlined ‘Why white supremacists are chugging milk (and why geneticists are alarmed).’

Some scientists are claiming their work is being twisted by lactose-tolerant racists who want to project a perceived “white superiority.”

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Dr. John Novembre even used a photo of white nationalists chugging milk during one of his lectures.

PETA added that for health — and humane — reasons, people should drink alternatives because dairy is linked to heart, prostate, breast and ovarian cancer. They suggest soy, almond, rice, cashew, or coconut milk.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I see plenty of the heartland on American Pickers. It's a lot of barns with old motorbikes, oil cans, and Coke machines.

Riding and driving are two different things. I'm sure I could probably handle tractor-riding.

Btw, Democrats don't milk cows; it's considered sexual assault; just ask PETA.

As for cows, there's a farm exhibit in the MSI with a sort of cow sculpture that you can milk, and you get feedback as to whether you did it successfully (can't recall exactly what it was, at the moment). I certainly managed to master it.

 

[Deprecator]

It's interesting to note how a number of the criticisms made against Trump are just as applicable to many other presidents and administrations, and yet for for whatever reason people will focus these criticisms exclusively on Trump. The obvious example would be the whole "babies in cages" debacle, which was recently brought up in the DNC debates. Indeed, the line has become a go-to for many Democrats criticizing the Trump administration's treatment of immigrant children in U.S. custody, and it made for an awkward moment for former Vice President Joe Biden, who was part of the Obama administration that used the same facilities. "We didn't lock people up in cages," Biden said. "We didn't separate families." But of course, a simple fact check shows that neither of these protestations is even remotely accurate.

The same type of disconnect can be applied to the criticism of ICE. ICE, like virtually any other law enforcement agency that's ever existed, has detained and arrested innocent persons. And despite there being virtually no evidence whatsoever that as a percentage we've seen more wrongful arrests under the Trump administration than the Obama administration, people here are still able to perform a rather impressive feat of mental gymnastics and blame Trump. It really is just one of many examples of Trump Derangement Syndrome, which has clearly run quite rampant on this forum.

 

[Tellenbach]

I certainly managed to master it.

I'm reporting you to the #mootoo movement.

 

[Lark]

I see plenty of the heartland on American Pickers. It's a lot of barns with old motorbikes, oil cans, and Coke machines.

Btw, Democrats don't milk cows; it's considered sexual assault; just ask PETA.

You guys milk cows by hand? Have politicians do it?

Wow, in Europe we have automated that, our politicians can occupy themselves with politics full time.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm reporting you to the #mootoo movement.

Mootoo? That sounds like a delicious beverage.

 

[Lark]

It's interesting to note how a number of the criticisms made against Trump are just as applicable to many other presidents and administrations, and yet for for whatever reason people will focus these criticisms exclusively on Trump. The obvious example would be the whole "babies in cages" debacle, which was recently brought up in the DNC debates. Indeed, the line has become a go-to for many Democrats criticizing the Trump administration's treatment of immigrant children in U.S. custody, and it made for an awkward moment for former Vice President Joe Biden, who was part of the Obama administration that used the same facilities. "We didn't lock people up in cages," Biden said. "We didn't separate families." But of course, a simple fact check shows that neither of these protestations is even remotely accurate.

The same type of disconnect can be applied to the criticism of ICE. ICE, like virtually any other law enforcement agency that's ever existed, has detained and arrested innocent persons. And despite there being virtually no evidence whatsoever that as a percentage we've seen more wrongful arrests under the Trump administration than the Obama administration, people here are still able to perform a rather impressive feat of mental gymnastics and blame Trump. It really is just one of many examples of Trump Derangement Syndrome, which has clearly run quite rampant on this forum.

Well from what I can tell Trump wants it that way, so long as you debate the guy you're not looking too closely at the policy which is wrecking havoc instead.

Or he could just be mad and engaging in Wrestling TV trash talk. That fits too.