This book, claiming to view happenings inside Trump's Whitehouse, has caused a firestorm in the press and in Trump's inner circle. It's flying off the shelves 4 days earlier than expected due to Trump's empty threat to sue the publishers and the author for defamation and slander. It just goes to show the state of ignorance and arrogance the Liar-In-Chief possesses. Time wounds all heels!
Hey there Randy, I have read a couple lengthy excerpts from the book, in various articles, and two things stick out to me.
One is that the book sounds like an obvious Trump hit-piece that would be a Hillary-supporting author's dream come true.
And two is that if even a smidgen of the claims are true then... whooee! Trump is everything you folks have been saying he is.
I wonder what the betting handicappers in Vegas are laying?
“Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.
Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.”
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who the book said warned Trump that he may be under surveillance from British spies, issued a statement describing the claim as "categorically absurd" and "simply untrue."
Anna Wintour, the longtime Vogue editor, also dismissed the claim that she lobbied Trump to be his ambassador to the UK as "laughably preposterous."
Other journalists have also urged caution. Some cited Wolff's track record — questions were raised about his 2008 book on Rupert Murdoch — and others compared his claims with their own knowledge of the Trump White House
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael- … rue-2018-1
As usual, liberals don't seem to be able to comprehend facts, truth and reality. Enjoy this emotional high associated with your fantasy world. It will soon go away.
Trump supporters claim the book is worthless because an author's note says that some sources were lying. For anyone who cares about the truth, here is what Wolff actually wrote:
"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.
"Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."
Book bashers seem to think the book has no credibility because it includes some liars. I don't think Wolff means that everyone was lying about everything in all 200 interviews he did.
This is Kitty Kelly copycat. She wrote sensational stuff about other celebrities that were all false...
You and other Trump haters will gobble this up at your own peril.
He is not going to be impeached...
Hating Trump will lead nowhere, for he has done a lot of things which other presidents never had the courage to do. He is good for America and it was about time a man like Trump took charge of affairs in America.
As usual, Trump and his administration brought this mess on themselves by allowing this reporter access and by running their mouths. Wolff reportedly has dozens of hours of audio to back up his book.
Trump is toast. It's only a matter of time.
And, yeah, Trump fans, we warned you he was not fit.
I don't think it will make any difference because Trump supporters will simply label it "fake news".
I have seen clear signs of the exact same blind support from those who support(ed) Clinton, despite considerably more negative information (books, investigations, lawsuits) being public knowledge and the Clintons being involved in politics (and becoming worth hundreds of millions from it) for more than three decades.
The overwhelming problem discussing politics today, is there is no 'common ground' for a great many people. Being labeled patriotic used to be a compliment no matter what side of the aisle one sat on, today it is sneered at or meant as a derogatory 'compliment' by those on one side, against the other.
There was a time when all sides agreed that while the unfortunate, indigent, and disabled should be helped and cared for, these programs are now abused by millions looking to game the system, and this corruption is often overlooked or even fostered by one side to gain support in politics.
The country seems more divided than ever before, but I'm sure it was worse in the 60s, and then again one hundred years earlier than that, and then at the founding of the Nation. So in all likelihood, we will continue to find our way ahead, and things will continue to move forward until a time comes when it is impossible for it to do so.
It won't be politics or a president that brings about our downfall or our doom, it will be something beyond our ability to divert, like a mini Ice-age or a volcanic eruption like that of Mt. Tambora in 1815 that cast a veil of ash around the world. The result was the "year without a summer" in 1816. A year so cold a foot of snow fell in Quebec City in June.
Civil discourse is certainly on the wane, and Trump is one clear reason for that, his tweets are nothing if not inflammatory, but an honest and objective viewer to the political happenings of the last year would be willing to admit while Trump seems an aggrandizing buffoon, the true criminals and conspirators are the ones his election to the presidency left exposed.
Almost everything Trump touches turns to Sh*t. Art of the Deal, Casinos, marriage, world record law suits and so on. He is the front man to something much worst.
The most annoying Trump Bragg about greed he is and smarter than everyone. I can't watch Trump on TV , pushing Nationaism, in which is worst and criminal than Religion. He Continue to praise justice system that emprisons and ruins more people's lives than the Holocaust over the most important plant in the world, cannabis.. Authorities kill more people than the public do. Why people regurgitate this totally destructive sh*t is beyond me.
Even through the deepest clouds of evil Trump could show us clearly how deeply evil the fascist Corperationism is. Alternative movements are on their way, after the third world war.
I read a review of the book, listing its "20 most jaw-dropping claims." One example: "Trump regularly sits in bed eating a cheeseburger at 6.30pm while calling his friends and watching three TVs."
Another: "Trump and Melania sleep in separate bedrooms." Um... that is exactly how the Presidential sleeping quarters have been set up for decades.
But let me be clear: I have never approved of people who have a TV in their bedroom, and I consider it a mistake to eat cheeseburgers from McDonald's. I even harbor suspicions that people with TVs in their bedrooms are mentally unbalanced and are people of low character. (But then I think this about everyone who even owns a TV, so I have to concede that I may be holding a minority opinion about this.)
As for the "calling his friends," I haven't objected to that since I had three teenagers at home and one landline with a dial-up modem.
The man is entitled to watch TV and eat cheeseburgers to his heart's content. I couldn't care less. And I would be truly surprised if Melania and he shared a bedroom. She clearly doesn't even like him. Again, irrelevant.
There are plenty of tidbits that will interest Mueller, though.
I realize Trump fans will never admit he's unfit, no matter how much instability he displays.
How come Trump, the smartest man in the world. ls eating cheeseburgers alone in bed. Wail he focus on 3 TVs in regurgitating more garbage. Then dictates to the entire world we are losers and he is the solution and the way..
We must be incredibly dumb to allow more worst to come.
What makes you think he is? Because a man that cautions that his sources "were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others." quoted somebody else that claimed it was true?
I'd have to say that anyone that would believe it really ARE losers and perhaps Trump really IS the solution and way...
I don’t like Trump (understatement) but I don’t see what eating cheeseburgers in bed and watching TV has to do with anything. There are so many real things he gives us to complain about, why start focusing on the silly stuff?
And maybe Trump snores like a freight train and Melania is a very light sleeper. My husband and I have taken to sleeping in separate bedrooms recently for this very reason. He’s waiting on his surgery to repair whatever the heck it is in his nose that makes him shake the walls when he sleeps... any day now... sigh.
Anyway, random meaningless stuff from his personal life has no business being criticized, it’s just petty.
Any credibility that this 'Author' may have had, was lost when he used the word "everyone". For example "Everyone in the White House agrees that Trump is a child and it is all about him."
Not "several", not "many", not "the majority", not "a few" but.... "everyone".
While "a few" focus on the gospel according to Wolff, I will focus on the positives; tax cuts, a President who is an advocate for small business, an end to Obama's Government mandate forcing me and you to buy a product or face the wrath of the Gov (this still makes me cringe), a thriving economy with consumer confidence on the rise.....
Yes, we know you don't care if a child engages in Twitter battles with an unstable foreign dictator on behalf of the United States about the size of his button. You all have made it abundantly clear that your standard for presidential conduct is abysmally low.
Do you believe he is not only a genius, "but a very stable genius at that!" as he explained on Twitter this morning? LOL
Reminds me of "I am not a crook."
I do not believe that Trump is genius any more than I believe that Hillary Clinton is the smartest woman on the planet.
I will give it to Trump though, he has certainly mastered Twitter and the art of pushing people's buttons.
For people who have standards, true.
Did Hillary state she is the smartest woman on the planet? I must have missed that.
That book was written as a gossip column, not a factual report. As has been pointed out, the first paragraph of the book denies that the sources have any credibility at all; all that's left is nasty, ugly gossip - repetition of baseless rumors and made up stories.
This is not about Hilary or Obama. This is about the snake oil peddler that currently inhabits the white house and the new book t that appears to be verify what many have observed. Out-of-context memes are not needed. Thank you.
Talk about snake oil peddlers! From the front of the book:
“Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.
Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.”
It's nothing but gossip! Nothing in it can be believed, according to the author!
Only fitting...it was the gossip column in new York papers that brought him to prominence in the 70s and 80s.
I presume he ran it - yes, that would fit right in with this effort. Just think how many copies he can sell to those afflicted with TDS! Half the country is but a backyard fence to him, with the nosy neighbor eager to hear dirt on someone else, true or not.
You are posting a sentence from Business Insider that does not come from the book or Michael Wolff.
Business Insider was created by a former cabinet member in the Reagan administration.
Talk about snake oil salesmen!! Good point, Pro!
Did Wolff not post a statement in the book saying his sources were unreliable? Or are you saying he did not say "I posted a notice..."?
I believe he said" some sources", Dan. Not all of them. Naturally Trump's cronies would be, for the most part, unreliable. That goes without saying though.
Ah. So we should believe the ones throwing dirt (because we want dirt) and disbelieve the ones that we don't like or that are too clean for our purposes.
You take your road and I'll take mine. A book written by a gossip columnist, denying the accuracy of even one (unspecified) source, is not to be believed at all, IMO. Not on page one, not on page 100 and not on the last page. It may or may not have truth buried in amongst the acknowledged lies, but there is no way for a reader to dig out which are which. That was the task of the author, who made it clear he didn't do so; that the book was another, long-winded, gossip column rather than a scholarly endeavor to describe the workings of the White House staff.
I'm just saying he didn't write what you posted.
You can see his actual words in my post above.
Promisen, work with me here. These are known as response quotes to people who have seen the book. Do you understand such a thing? Also, the fact in the Business Insider article are replicated in other publications as well. As I've said before and I'll say it again, facts, truth and reality are unknown concepts to liberals. It's why Trump finds it so easy to manipulate them.
Mike, I will work with you.
I'm just saying Wolff didn't write the quote that was used in the post by Wilderness.
It is a truth and reality that Wolff did 200 interviews with dozens of White House staff. They simply repeated what we have already heard from many other sources and what we see in Trump's actions and his own words.
Likewise, it's truth and reality that Wolff is both a thorough journalist and a sloppy one.
Promisen, seriously? Guess what...this is from the 10th page of the book from the author "Here is the relevant part of the note, from the 10th page of the book's prologue:
"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book."
Now...what does the author mean when the author writes in his book "badly untrue" as well as "an elemental thread of the book?"
Mike, I was aware of that statement and posted a complete copy of it higher on this topic.
Do you believe all politicians tell the truth all of the time?
Good journalists often get accused of lying when it's actually their sources who are lying.
That's why journalists "attribute" the sources whenever possible so that readers can judge for themselves the truth of what is said. Often times it's "he said versus she said".
Are you confusing Wolff with a "good journalist"? Any decent journalist, given two conflicting tales from two sources, will either print neither or make a determined effort to find which is true. Or even print both with a disclaimer that one must be wrong.
But this gossip monger does none of those things - he merely says "Well, some of the stories I believe but lots of them are "baldly untrue"...without ever indicating which is which.
So tell me - what possible purpose can be served by printing something known to be "baldly untrue" without saying so? Answer: because the public wants ugly gossip (as ugly as possible) and wants it badly enough to pay for it. This is nothing but a tabloid masquerading as a informative book.
Have you read the book? How do you know the following is what the author has done in the book?
"But this gossip monger does none of those things - he merely says "Well, some of the stories I believe but lots of them are "baldly untrue"...without ever indicating which is which.
So tell me - what possible purpose can be served by printing something known to be "baldly untrue" without saying so? Answer: because the public wants ugly gossip (as ugly as possible) and wants it badly enough to pay for it. This is nothing but a tabloid masquerading as a informative book."
Why do you think he wrote a book, and offered it for sale, with statements he knew to be untrue buried inside? Do you have a different possibility? It might be that he has TDS, and will do pretty much anything to cause harm to our president - do you think that might be why he wrote it?
He wrote it for money. I guess you have not read the book and do not know if statements he believes are untrue are buried within in it without his mentioning that he doubts its veracity. I have not read the book, so I don't know how he has treated these quotes. This is from the preface, so he may be up front and say something like, "Association with the president has turned xxx into a patholgical liar as well, he said this which we know to be baldly false." or maybe he does hide it. Neither of us knows until we buy or borrow the book.
Do you believe Carl Bernstein is a reputable journalist?
Given that there is a primary difference between "reputable" and "responsible", or even "good", sure - he has a reputation and apparently the liberal community swears by him as much as the conservative swears by Limbaugh.
Whether he's responsible or good I haven't the faintest. Why?
Did you edit your post after the fact? Because I thought you said something to the effect that no reputable journalist would defend Wolff's methods, or something like that. I happened to see Carl Bernstein engage in a discussion about that very thing this morning, and he was defending the book.
But, maybe I am wrong and that is not what you said.
Probably did say that.
And that means that either Bernstein is saying it's a valuable work in the sense it will earn lots of money...or that he is neither a responsible OR good journalist.
Or perhaps he's thinking it's a good tool for teaching what good journalism is NOT? Or as an example of the difference between gossip and journalism? I guess there could be a lot of reasons to defend it...as a book, if not as responsible, valuable journalism.
Lol, no. Maybe you could take some time and pay attention to what other journalists are saying about the book. It is not overwhelmingly positive, nor is it overwhelmingly negative.
One of the most telling things, in my opinion, is the lack of specific denials from those quoted in the book.
I wonder if it's because they know the tape recorder was on?
Excellent points. It's accurate to say that respected Washington journalists such as Maggie Haberman are giving it mixed reviews.
And if Wolff is any good at his job, he did bring a tape recorder. If he did, he will easily win any libel lawsuits.
Maybe. In my state a recording is only legal and admissible if at least one party consents to it. In most cases that means the one with the recorder, but if Wolff is recording the conversation of two other people...
And some states require the consent of ALL the parties.
Carl Bernstein publishes corrections in the Washington Post whenever he makes a rare mistake, even though his articles are based on multiple sources of information and go through multiple editors and fact checkers before they are published.
Does Rush Limbaugh go through multiple editors and fact checkers before he speaks? Does he announce corrections?
Are you comparing Wolff with Bernstein? It would be interesting to know which of Bernstein's actions you think compare with Wolff's.
Careful now, I have a lot of respect for Bernstein's journalistic integrity. Due to his Watergate reporting, his journalistic ethics have been under the microscope more than once. I think he came out fine each time. From what I read about Wolff's compatriot's view of him - the same can't be said about his journalistic abilities or ethics.
No, I'm not comparing the two.
See my reply to wilderness for an explanation of why I asked the question.
Bernstein has been questioning Trump's fitness for office for months now.
I did see your reply to Wilderness. I wasn't aware of Bernstein's statements.
If you are interested, google Carl Bernstein Trump and you will find quite a bit from him on the subject.
Do you have proof that Wolff didn't try to pin down a source that he thought might be lying?
Journalists don't print disclaimers saying that someone is wrong. That's libel and illegal.
Besides, the truth often lies somewhere between the perceptions of one person and the perceptions of another. Just like here on HP.
"Do you have proof that Wolff didn't try to pin down a source that he thought might be lying?"
Perhaps he did...any went ahead and printed what he believed was a lie, for he is pretty straightforward that not all of his tales are true.
"Journalists don't print disclaimers saying that someone is wrong. That's libel and illegal.
As I recall he printed grossly different versions of the same tale, from different sources. Without indicating that one must be wrong, which is NOT libel. Nor is it libel if it's true; if he can prove something is wrong, print it with a statement it IS wrong and rely on the truth to prevent losing a libel suit.
Given an intent to deceive, perceptions do not define what is a lie any more than they define what is real or imaginary.
You are mixing suspected lies and proof of lies for both Wollf and all journalists.
Journalists print two versions of a topic if they conflict but can't prove with certainty which one is right and which one is wrong.
The fact that one is a lie doesn't mean a journalist can prove it's a lie.
If a journalist claims a lie without proof, he or she can easily be sued for libel. That's why good NEWSPAPER journalists go through extensive fact checking, unlike Rush Limbaugh.
"Journalists print two versions of a topic if they conflict but can't prove with certainty which one is right and which one is wrong."
And do they print them in widely separated areas of a book? Do they print them in such a manner, with surrounding text, as to attempt to convince a reader both are true? Or does a responsible journalist point out that at least one is false and neither can be believed without further vetting?
"The fact that one is a lie doesn't mean a journalist can prove it's a lie. "
Of course he can't. He also can't prove it's true (without further effort). The obvious response should be not to print either, then. Or print them both with comments indicating at least on is a lie.
"If a journalist claims a lie without proof, he or she can easily be sued for libel. That's why good NEWSPAPER journalists go through extensive fact checking, unlike Rush Limbaugh."
You seem to be intentionally obfuscating what was said. If two statements contradict each other, one is false. This is true even to idiot lawyers, judges and jurors in a libel suit. So don't claim a specific one is a lie; point out the obvious fact that one is, and the author doesn't know which one. But DO NOT print both in an effort to give dirt diggers ammunition to pick the one they drool over as "obviously" true so it can be repeated thousands of times until the general public accepts a (possible) lie as gospel.
It's called "journalism" as opposed to "gossip". Something our media seems to have forgotten how to do, and which Wolff has apparently made zero effort to do.
You are absolutely right. Here's an in context meme.
Nice try. Most of the quotes were cherry-picked to fit the meme's theme. Muddying the debate is not going to change the matter.
Oh, the irony of a Trump supporter believing they can judge a liar and a phony while continuing to support a liar and a phony.
Again this not about hilary. Stop grabbing at straws
Totally relevant rebuttal. I wasn't addressing you, you aren't the moderator.
Not relevant. This is a failed attempt to move the conversation to something else. Basically, that what-about-ism that a lot of people have been doing lately. On top of that, why say things with a meme. That's weak.
So don't get so butt hurt when someone points it out.
Another SJW incorrectly attempting to tell me how I feel. So back to the topic. In case you missed it, here it is again. Now this guy himself has admitted to his own lying for the sole purpose of selling books, and you believe him. And you accuse me of grasping at straws?
Oh, I didn't incorrectly tell you how to feel. I CORRECTLY did so, just as you incorrectly thought you could hijack this discussion because you can't handle that people are now openly discussing your boy Trump's mental and intellectual capacity to do his job. You can post all those faux meme you want, but you're not going to stop people from discussing this all-important issue. Also, you know where you can stick that Social Justice Warrior garbage. Ideologists like you never seize to amuse me.
You absolutely did.
Still avoiding the topic while telling me to stay on topic.
btw, Promisem already addressed that the supposed comments he made was BS. It came from a fake news source....so yes, you're still grasping for straws.
Geeze, you want cheese with that whine?
The fake source being the man himself admitting that he's a professional bloviator. So you admit that he's a fake.
Wishful thinking....he never mentioned it. That fake news you like to affirm your beliefs told you so. I guess they'll tell you to jump off a bridge if they said so, right?
You should believe the author then, Onus! There's no bigger bloviator than your boy Donnie!
I guess bloviator will become the Trumper's new safe word. Just say it enough and they'll start feeling better about themselves.
Cut them a little slack, Dean. They're suffering from buyer's remorse about now, and it has to be tough knowing you may have voted for a traitor. By the way, does anyone know what the sentence for treason is nowadays?
Try to stay on topic. The guy who wrote the bull sh*t book said himself that he makes stuff up to sell more books, the reviews are real, liberals grasping for straws are now $25.00 poorer, and Trump is still the president.
Onus, love your circular reasoning. You're off target with your lame memes and now you're crying foul that I'm off topic. Trump logic, I guess. But, (and I know I will be discussing this to a human wall) let's get a few things out there. 1. Reports that the author admitted to lying is false. In a classic move, somebody at one of those Russian..err right wing news sites took his comments out of context, misconstrued it and wrought it to sound like the way you read it (or wanted to hear). 2. Why lie about stuff that other reporters covering the president have noticed? And why mention it during the release of his book? 3. Liberals, conservatives, and independents are critical of this president, not just one ideological group. 4. the response from some of the people involved have been very subdued. Yes, there's the usual name game that Trump likes to do. But, oddly, I don't hear a lot from Bannon, Priebus, and others, yet . 4. Other reporters have verified some of the events in the book.
Illl give you with this. Promisem originally posted this in a earlier thread, but this is what is said.
Wolff actually wrote:
"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.
"Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."
As I've often said, a horrible truth is often better than a fanciful lie. And there has been some big time pathological lies coming for the commander-in-chief. The truth is that our president is one bad hombre (sorry, i had borrow his words on that one). When will people like you have the courage to open your eye, get passed your subservience, and see him for the headcase he really is?
Oh and one last thing: You lose an argument when you pull out the ideological card. Simply put I stop taking you seriously. Then again, that may have been too little, too late.
Oh man I feel like I just destroyed your religion with one meme. Nobody except for you is defending this guy, not even the Clinton News Network. Dems are in overtime trying to figure out how to validate this dude's credibility, but his track record speaks for itself. "Sloppy"
Onus, destroyed what? That's a huge reach. You lose this argument and you're still trying to save face. You have a vivid imagination about who is protecting who. Now (not that I didn't notice before) I can see you have a problem with reality. Then again, I didn't expect much from somebody who is essentially a follower.
Btw at this point the only people still criticizing Wolff on CNN are the typical Trump tools they hire (because unlike another network they are willing to show and listen to opposing views). Oh, and by the way, I actually know one of the commentators that's on CNN (and has his own radio show). He's connected with a lot of inside source. I've heard nothing from him stating that that Wolff made things up as you wish.
As a former journalist myself, the only thing I would fault him with is that he had to take information from more than 200 interviews and try to piece something together to make a narrative. Sure, as is the case with many stories of this magnitude, some things may have been left out while other matters may have been included that don't have anything to do with the narrative he wrote. That happens, and it may well be interesting to see what his notes were. Still, a lot of stuff that I've read in the New York Magazine seems to verify other reports about your boy Trump. Of course, if you don't want to believe (once again, I'm dealing with a follower living in a cocoon of illusion) , I'll just simply do what students of mine Compton use to say 23 years ago....talk to the hand.
Not a Trump follower at all really, I'm simply exceedingly grateful that Hillary isn't in charge. Again you have no rebuttal for the topic at hand once your narrative is, as usual, spiraling into the septic tank.
"piece together 200 interviews"? No flaws there. LOL!
You have no rebuttal. You have no argument. Circular reasoning isn't going to help. And please, stop repeating yourself. Now go play go play with your guns and let the adults talk. Toot-ah-loo...I'm done with you.
Why call you a racist? You already made a fool of yourself. No, the Chump will not help you.
BTW what's Liberal protocol? Then again, you threw out the ideological card. I told you you lose arguments that way.
Hijacking the word "fact" doesn't make justify your ignorance. Now you're just getting silly. Call me when you stop being a follower and can think for yourself.
In the mean time, here's a meme that probably best describes the way you feel...
You can't even argue against the facts, all you can do is offer insults. Where's your rebuttal?
“[Steve] Bannon may well have said all that stuff but let's remember that Wolff is an unprincipled writer of fiction.” -Steven Rattner
I wonder how many [White House] staff told Wolff things off the record that he then used on the record,He’s never much cared about burning sources. Can’t imagine that many of those quotes were meant for publication.” -Joe Nocerra
What's the matter, no rebuttal?
“historically one of the problems with Wolff’s omniscience is that while he may know all, he gets some of it wrong.” -David Carr
I've already won the argument. Why do you even try? So let me reiterate what I said
yeah, I may get banned for forum...since you like to whine, but what the heck.
Still no rebuttal? Try to stay on topic. At least you can go for the character assassination.
"laughably preposterous." -Anna Wintour editor Vogue
Do you even know what the definition of a rebuttal is?.You've been obsessed with that. Get over it. You should be use to losing an argument by now. Also, stop data-mining. Like I didn't see the interview that quote came from?
Geeze, cry me a river..
A debate requires discussion, arguments, and rebuttals. All you did was call me a whiner, crybaby, but hurt and then claimed victory. You don't seem to have a grasp on even the basics of discussion.
"I believe parts of it, and then there are other parts that are factually wrong," -Haberman
So your rebuttal is a bunch of insults, and because my pal at CNN said so? Well, that's iron clad. Lol!
"Michael Wolff’s tell-all may not be super reliable, but it’s juicy enough" -Charlie May
You know, for a person who has a history of insulting people on this site (as well as getting fixated on rebuttals that you don't seem to know how to use or what they're for) you sure have the galls to call someone "insulting". All you've done is post off-topic memes as a substitute for a debate and post parts of quotes that only fit your beliefs (you can't be bothered to post the entire quotes! And, I knew where most of those came from!).
And now with this rebuttal BS? And, that's your "rebuttal?" Please!
Why are you trying to carry this on? All you are doing is verifying my belief that you really don't have much to say and you're here just to pester people who happen to have better rhetorical and writing skills (probably because you're so damn insecure). You like to dish it out, but when somebody flings it back at you, you can't handle it. Don't try to act like you've been nailed to the cross when you get called out for your "tactics."
Do us all a favor, go find the closest community college and take a course in rhetoric. Better yet, since you live in a state with two major universites with world class journalism programs, go there and learn a little bit of the trade so you can start understanding how to communicate effectively.
In the mean time, if you don't like what I have to say, then go write a hub about it. There you can moan and groan about how awful I made you feel.
At this point, your response in this has been beyond pathetic. Trying to pretend I didn't have a rebuttal when you didn't have an argument in the first place is just --in the word of your lord and savior --sad, so very, very, sad.
Well I guess you put me in my place. All of your personal insults towards me certainly have restored the honor of your hero Michael Wolff. Well done master debater.
Attacking my religion too, way to stay on topic Mr. Moderator...
"Several things that are true and several that are not. Light in fact-checking and copy-editing." -Maggie Haberman
Good! You're learning..some said it was impossible, but you took your first baby steps in realizing you don't dare play me.
.now take out the condescending attitude, snide remarks and misinterpretation of my comments (I guess you don't have a clue about extended metaphors and allegories -- you obviously got the last statement incorrect) and you may actually be able to say something true and concrete.
Also, that's a false quote. She actually confirmed a lot of Michael's report...and the two don't really like each other.
Mr. Moderator? Nah, I like the nickname I was given by a former pro football player: The Mean One
You must admit, all of those quotes come from "Fake" news outlets, ergo it must be that Wolffe is correct, and not a sloppy writer. You can't have it both ways as it suits your opinion.
And here's another one for the snake oil comment;
I didn't say the book was factual in my OP. But you must admit, it sounds just like him....
Any of you Trump fans catch his Tweets this morning? He calls himself a "stable genius."
It was just funny to hear the President leading the way by cheeseburgers and TV.
When the nationial meal of US is a hamburger, French fries and a coke wail watching 30 hours of TV a week. What rottens your brain and body more
than this. Trump is a reflection of the mess American is in. Ths system is fixed and no politican even Ron Paul because they fix any good man to lead.
Your only going to continue to get worst results until world war 3
Castlepaloma, I agree. I think he should go with the paleo diet.
Plus he needs to do away with all the agricultural subsidies, regulations, and government conferred monopolies that have turned this country's food to shit.
I find it very ominous that he would actually eat such substances.
Good theme song for Trump. :Cheeseburger in Paradise: Would Muslims allow Trump into their Paradise heaven?.
There is many other alternative ways than this crap. All my green living ways have been cancelled by synthetic greed.
You can keep up the fantasy that this is all gossip and "made-up." But this man was given a blue pass and allowed sit there as a fly on the wall gathering up overheard conversations and those venting following particularly caustic meetings.
He looks like Dr. Evil, and naturally fit into the administration bent on destroying the nation just because they can.
"But Wolff was getting support from other corners Thursday. Janice Min, an owner of The Hollywood Reporter, tweeted that she was one of the few guests at a dinner reported in the book at Roger Ailes' house in January last year. According to Wolff, Bannon discussed Trump's plans for appointing Cabinet and other advisers and Ailes warned him about the qualifications of some. "It's not a deep bench," Bannon acknowledged, according to the book.
"So I was one of the 6 guests at the Bannon-Ailes dinner party in January 2017 and every word I've seen from the book about it is absolutely accurate," Min tweeted.
Nearly a year ago, Wolff disparaged news outlets covering their own industry even in the time of Mr. Trump.
"The media should not be the story," he said on CNN in February.
Around the same time, Wolff also wrote a prescient Newsweek column about how the still-new and struggling Trump White House and the media might reach a balance or detente. At the time, Wolff had been spotted multiple times by a reporter who now works for The Associated Press on the White House grounds with a "blue badge" — instead of a traditional press badge — that gave Wolff wide access to the West Wing. One former White House official said Wolff was known to camp out for hours in the West Wing lobby after meetings, sitting on a sofa as he waited to talk to staffers passing by."
If only 1/10 of what is in the book is true, it is entirely damning. This man is not fit for office. He has dementia.
Thank you for speaking up about Trump's unfitness to serve as president.
Nice! Would you care to make public your qualifications and study courses that produce a medical diagnosis ("He has dementia")? Along with the notes and records of your examination of the patient?
If you're going to ignore your oath and make public diagnosis, might as well go all the way, right?
Really, you believe one has to be an MD to tell that someone has diminished capacity. You can't tell when someone repeats themselves regularly to remember what they were saying and where they were going with it; that their vocabulary has diminished substantially, they have given up using adjectives and nouns in favor of sentences like "This thing is going to be great." Can't even remember what he was talking about except that he had a warm feeling in his Depends, and that must mean he liked whatever it was. .
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying, even though you didn't indicate "diminished capacity"; the term used was "dementia". Which is a medical diagnosis, and one I assume you are neither qualified nor trained to make as you declined to produce any evidence of either training or examination.
I assume it is much like the "warm feeling in his Depends": you don't know anything at all, but wish to make a negative statement and so make up something and hope you'll find others that might even believe it. It's called TDS (and yes, I'm qualified to diagnosis that ailment).
Although dementia is not a certainty, anyone who has spent years with a relative who has dementia can easily see it's possible with Trump.
Really? I have done just that and find no comparison at all. But I WILL agree that it's possible...just as it was with Clinton (both of them), Obama, Abe Lincoln and both you and I. A great many things are possible even if not probable.
But I confess; it is almost hilarious (and sad, but still hilarious) the number of completely unqualified people willing to stand up and make a medical diagnosis without any training or even an examination at all. At least it's better than the quacks that ARE supposedly qualified and more than willing to forget or ignore their oath and ethics of their profession in making a public diagnosis, with OR without an examination. That's not funny at all - that one of these charlatans may be the "doctor" you depend on when you need one is scary.
As suspected, Trump fans will get more desperate the more he's exposed for what he is. Of course, those who didn't vote for him already knew he was anything but a "very stable genius."
I knew this would be a hot topic Randy. Now I am glad I haven't looked into the book any more than I have. I don't want to have to decide one way or the other - it's entertaining enough just to be a bystander.
It has been claimed that I never criticize Pres. Trump - personally, but I have to admit it is becoming a struggle.
I do like the apparent effects of many of his policy directions, and I do understand the degree of TDS opposition he is fighting, but...
*... time to back away from the keyboard.
Wait... I did think of a piece of safe ground. Anybody remember what Hillary and Bill fans had to say about that Secret Service agent's book Crisis of Character? Does he have less credibility than a gossip columnist? He certainly spent more time in the White House.
Wolff has stated that this book is, "his version of the truth."
I cannot fathom this alternative universe, I choose to live in Realville.
Can you please offer a link to a credible source where he says what you quote?
'99'.... wow impressive.....
Would it matter?
Yes, accuracy matters, whether it's from the left, right or middle.
I tried to find a source myself, even from Fox News, and didn't.
Wolff is the source, he writes it in the book's prologue. "accounts are In conflict with one another", "looseness with the truth", "Conflicting", "version of events, I believe to be true"
Isn't the truth, the truth? If consistency (or if I may quote you... "accuracy") isn't proved and Author has to pick a side, by going with his own version, isn't that something else altogether?
Please see Wolff's complete quote, which I posted higher in this thread. Nowhere does he say the book is "his version of the truth."
As I said to Mike, some politicians lie in books, articles and TV interviews. That doesn't mean everything is untrue.
Even if 50 percent of it is true, so what?
Would you be open yourself to scrutiny on that level?
If someone interview your neighbors and dig up dirt about your family, would you be comfortable with a book published by an outsider, unauthorized?
TDS is alive and well and a planned distraction...
Be smart and don’t fall for it.
For the sake of the country, the mental fitness of the U.S. President requires close scrutiny.
The imaginary TDS has nothing to do with it.
Promisen, you're funny. "the mental fitness of the U.S. President requires close scrutiny." Where was all this close scrutiny when Bill Clinton was in the White House sexually abusing an intern? Where was all this scrutiny when Obama and Hillary were lying to the UN and the American people about Benghazi? Where was it when Obama made one of the most historically idiotic deals with Iran? Again, liberals swimming in a sea of hypocrisy. Trump is doing a good job. This book won't hurt him.
Thanks for the compliment.
Close scrutiny of Clinton led to his impeachment. Close scrutiny of Hillary led to multiple Republican investigations, which resulted in the Republicans themselves admitting she didn't do anything wrong.
So by that logic, you must believe that we need close scrutiny of Trump and that we must impeach him.
Mike, I'm trying to "work with you". It doesn't sound like you are trying to work with me.
What mental problem are you referring to?
Only in the mind of TDS...
Trump may be many things, an egotist, a brute, thin skinned, but he is not insane.
Largest inauguration crowd size in history
A very stable genius
I know more about taxes than the greatest CPA
I alone can fix it
It is a place where people would never say things such as "my version of the truth" or "it depends on what the definition of is, is" or "you listen to me, I did not....", all while lying through their teeth to the American people.
Realville most certainly would not contain an entire Political Party, acting as if they know everything about everything, even going as far as diagnosing the President of the United States, finding him unfit to Serve, as if they all have the Title, Doctor preceding their name.
Realville used to be a much larger place, you may be too young to remember that.
I'm merely pointing out that you seem to be fine with the delusions uttered by our leader, yet question the reality of those who won't accept a delusional, petty president as "normal."
Who is living in Realville? Certainty not Donald Trump.
Ask yourself this? Is Trump delusional? And yet successful in business, in TV, and now in politics?
Is it dumb luck or he knows something?
Are you delusional or wishful thinking?
You are doing exactly what he wants, being distracted by all this noise. Meanwhile, he is getting things done like passing the tax reform bill...
LOL, you seem to buy his claim that he is a "very stable genius." Time will yell, won't it?
Trump is a pathological liar, also he also still believes his inaugural crowd was bigger than Obama's and he regularly wonders out loud, in private meetings, whether he really said the access hollywood tape, or maybe somebody manipulated it to make it sound like something he did not actually say. So Senators are wondering if he is delusional after having meetings with him.
5 Bankruptcies, won't release his tax returns, current empire built on cheating contractors of 1/3 of their earnings as a business model, criminal enterprise laundering money for Russian Oligarchs in his casinos and real estate projects.
Honey Boo Boo is successful in TV (people seem to like freakshows)
His election was based on constituents' combined wishful thinking. Each person grabbed onto one or two impossibilities, like coal mine jobs are coming back, and those absurdities got him elected in spite of losing the popular vote. Continuing to insist he is doing a great job for this country, that other nations now have higher regard for the USA, is the definition of delusional.
Which nations does not have high respect for the US after Trump’s election?
I really like to know.
This is a myth put out by the elite media.
We were walked all over under Obama.
Now, we are respected again under Trump because he is a strong leader willing to call out Iran and North Korea...
He's done crap with N Korea. He makes threats and has done nothing. not.one.thing. to back up those threats, making him look like a dotard, in their words. China's leader calls him a buffoon. Angela Merkel says the EU must find its own way without America. UK will not give him a state visit.
Here he is talking to the Wall Street Journal about his upcoming tax plan. Then he digresses into his view of the US in world politics. Let's take a peek.
"BAKER: Repatriation rate.
WSJ: A repatriation rate. A 10 percent repatriation rate.
WSJ: What do you think is a reasonable corporate rate? We’ve heard 20 percent, but —
TRUMP: Well, you know, we’re going for 15 [percent]. We’re going to see, and we’ll see. But, you know, I don’t want to say anything about negotiation. I mean, we are asking for 15 percent, and we think we’re going to grow tremendously.
So I deal with foreign countries, and despite what you may read, I have unbelievable relationships with all of the foreign leaders. They like me. I like them. You know, it’s amazing. So I’ll call, like, major — major countries, and I’ll be dealing with the prime minister or the president. And I’ll say, how are you doing? Oh, don’t know, don’t know, not well, Mr. President, not well. I said, well, what’s the problem? Oh, GDP 9 percent, not well. And I’m saying to myself, here we are at like 1 percent, dying, and they’re at 9 percent and they’re unhappy. So, you know, and these are like countries, you know, fairly large, like 300 million people. You know, a lot of people say — they say, well, but the United States is large. And then you call places like Malaysia, Indonesia, and you say, you know, how many people do you have? And it’s pretty amazing how many people they have. So China’s going to be at 7 [percent] or 8 percent, and they have a billion-five, right? So we should do really well.
But in order to do that — you know, it’s tax reform, but it’s a big tax cut. But it’s simplification, it’s reform, and it’s a big tax cut, 15 –"
F'ing idiotic talk. Moronic. His administration understands that well. He talks like to to them all day long. He is so up on other world leaders, like, you know, that major country with lots of people in it that is run by either a president or prime minister but who really cares cuz everything is all about me.... And you know grrl, when ever presidents and what not call each other, they say I'm not so good; my GDP is all itchy...Can you recommend a good GDP cream?
You are a true TDS victim. Good luck this year. I hope you recover...
Wasn't that Obama Derangement Syndrome at one point? I guess one side of the spectrum had twitchy fingers waiting for the right time to spring that one.
No, we on the right never went crazy. We disagreed with some of Obama’s policies and worked at the grass root to elect TEA party candidates that over turned the majority. That is the big difference between the left and the right. We win on ideas while the left win by fiat.
Nobody on the right went crazy? Umm, I'm just going to leave this link without any further comments.
Who is this guy? gary Marx?
No idea and does not represent Conservatives like me. Name a conservative who qualifies for ODS?
There's nearly 2000 of them to choose from. Some of those names you may recognize; others maybe not. Still there are a few liberals and independents in there. But there's a lot on the right and very extreme right. Also, if you noticed on Marx, there's a few links to some others.
Now, the whole derangement syndrome thing has been around for a time. Here's the Bush Derangement Syndrome and touches upon the Obama one. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome
I don’t think you understand the term TDS and what qualifies...
I point to Brian Ross of ABC which is a classic TDS victim. He destroyed his own career going after Trump. That is a classic symptom of TDS.
Name someone on the right of comparable ODS? I can’t think of any.
No, I don't think you understand the whole derangement syndrome, at all. It has and always has been a deflection tactic meant to suggest that those that are critical of a president or leader are sick in the head or something.
I've known about this stuff way before any of you on this site started using it to defend Trump.
Also, you seem to have not read the passage clearly. ODS was actually a term created by Jon Stewart to refer to the birthers at the time (under this definition Orly Taitz and Trump would have this "affliction") He borrowed the term Bush Derangement Syndrome, which was created by a Fox News commentator to deflect criticism of Bush Jr.
Also, Brian Ross had nothing to do with TDS. He merely jumped the gun and didn't check his fact. Unfortunately, real journalists looking for a lead sometime get so caught up in what they are doing that they use information that wasn't fact checked. He was put on leave, the last I heard. But before you cheer such things, here's something to consider about this: The news sites you tend to criticize will react if they discover the information they are giving hasn't bee thoroughly fact checked. For all its problem, they still care enough to criticize and punish their own. I don't see that happening with the Breitbarts, The Federalists or TPNN. They'd probably give that person a raise!
Did you forget about the birthers? Or did you consider that normal behavior, since Trump was a prominent spokesman for that movement. He even sent his lawyers to Hawaii! LOL
Good run down on Trump.
I will remember Trump most for his world record laws suits. For the collapse of my sandcastle I built him by bankruptcy. His greed, con artist, and mobster genius
Most of the people who are saying the president is delusional are the same people who believe there are more than two genders. Let that sink in for a moment...
Aw, are you butt hurt that somebody expresses feelings about their gender that make you uncomfortable? So sorry for your delicate nature. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, but thank you for that tidbit. It is quite revealing.
I invite you to try this for yourselves. This is what our world wants to know
Now where is ahorseback when you need him! It's "group think!"
Yes, I hope he's okay and not ill or something bad. I miss being called immature.
He and colorfulone both just randomly disappear for weeks at a time and then spam the forums with a billion threads about essentially the same thing to make up for lost time once they’re back.
He and I got banned for a few days for our back and forth. Not sure if he is able to comment more in here or not. Perhaps Hubpages got tired of him claiming that all liberals were mental neanderthals.
Been there too. Called Don't Taze Me Bro an I****t and was banned for five days. About six month later he got banned for life. They took his hub away, too. He blames me for it, but I had nothing to do with that.
You do realize google is a left wing organization that tried to help Hillary in the last election... it was well documented how they try to hide her email scandal and hide her medical condition...
Everything you don't like seems to be a left wing organization, eh, Jack? What an awakening you are due soon...
Yes, and rightly so. I support our Constitution which the left hates. I support our Judeo Christian principles which the left hates. I support the family which is the bed rock of our society which the left distain.
I support the USA as the greatest country which the left deny and wants to establish the One World Order.
You have really been brainwashed by the faux news entertainment station. First, they are not a news channel, they call it news but they are registered as an entertainment channel. Like Disney, but darker.
Second, why would you think half of 'Merica disdain family? We all travel all lengths of the Earth at Thanksgiving and Christmas to see our families. We say Merry Christmas at Christmas time or Happy Hanukkah, or Happy Kwanzaa. Why? Cause we love our families, and we respect others loving their families. WTF. Why would anyone be against family? We voting against Trump, with his 3 wives and 5 kids from those unions, are for family.
They are against the traditional family of one man and one women. Are you so out of touch?
They created policies of welfare that destroyed the black family.
They are anti religion which is also an extension of the family.
They are for abortion which destroys a family.
Should I go on?
Thinking that all people deserve equality doesn't mean we're against man and woman relationships. It's your ignorance that thinks there's any hatred there.
Abortion will happen whether it is legal or not. You should go back and see what happened to women who were getting abortions prior to Roe vs. Wade and then try and tell me you're pro-life. You're pro-birth, not pro-life because the deaths from complications to women who chose to get abortions under sketchy conditions is a painful read.
We are not against the traditional family of one man and one woman - that's great, but we also include non-traditional families as well. Republicans are against any family that does not exactly suit their pulpit, in spite of the fact most of the uber Republican anti-gay guys are getting caught... being gay guys.
FDR created a safety net that saved millions from starving. That same safety net helped millions of affluent white families feed their kids during the last Great Recession, caused by Republican carelessness. Yes, people in half million dollar houses were holding on by the skin of their teeth and qualifying for food stamps, because they had no money in the bank and no income coming in. Racism put black families on the margin of society.
No one is anti-religion, but we are opposed to you shoving your brand of religion down our throats. That is what freedom of religions is; being able to worship your God, and not having to have the religious strictures of someone else's religion imposed on you, or your children, being forced to go to Catholic Mass or pray to Allah or Xenu.
How would you know if abortion destroys a family? I'd like to see you carrying babies to full term every year out of your wherever.
Show me how the left hates the Constitution, Jack. I own firearms and believe in Constitutional Rights as you claim you do, especially the 25th Amendment. How do you feel about it?
The left does not believe in the Constitution to govern. They do not buy into a limited government. They also use the courts to get what they desire when they can’t win in the ballot box. They also want to repeal the 2nd amendment because they think it is no longer needed in modern society...
They think the Constitution is a living document where they can interpret words to mean something else...
Give me some proof of this other than your opinion, Jack. Then we'll talk...
You can look it up. Check quotes by Nancy Pelosi and Ruth Ginsberg on the Constitution...
The ACLU and George Soros...
I'd rather you prove it to me Jack, if you can. This isn't Fox News where you can simply say shit.
Check this out in her own words...
http://www.dumbocratquotes.com/viewbype … ersonid=24
Here is Justice Ginsberg -
http://dailysignal.com/2012/02/08/justi … stitution/
Here is Obama -
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 … 15-edition
I know you are right and would like to add this. "Incredibly, the Democrats' disdain for the Bill of Rights includes even the 1st Amendment's protection of free speech. Party leaders are openly pushing to limit free speech rights when it conflicts with their own viewpoints."
https://www.investors.com/politics/edit … of-rights/
“the scenes in his columns aren't recreated so much as created — springing from Wolff's imagination rather than from actual knowledge of events.” -Michelle Cottle
This whole thread reminds me of a bunch of schoolgirls and schoolboys trading insults about their teachers: She has a runner in her stockings, he drinks too much coffee, Miss Brooks has a crush on biology teacher Mr. Boynton, she (or maybe he) is overly endowed in the bosom department, there is a coffee stain on his shirt, she uses too much blue hair dye, there is a mole on her neck with three hairs growing out of it, etc.
These may be matters of substance to schoolchildren, I suppose.
We are all familiar with the type of person who attacks others using innuendo, gossip, and often outright lies.
I've seen this happen to both high school kids and teachers: A high school boy wants to appear studly to his "posse" and spreads a story that some girl is "stalking" him. Kids spread a rumor that some other kid is gay, or that some girl looked at some other girl's tits in the locker room.
You're not in high school any more.
In the adult world, and in adult discourse, you are expected to deal in provable facts and apply reason to those facts so as to reach a conclusion.
Being an Adult view on life and events with a childlike attitude not to take it all too seriously. All this front phony facade of Politics and Religious hierarchy will be force ti come out in the wash in due time, Huge changes are coming soon.
Through my visual artwork I will give clarification of events of our darkest Trump of meaningless garbage.
Where words can not work or express.
I loved reading the hypocrisy of Blueheron's post about using provable facts and it's not high school any more. You know someone else who deals in innuendo, gossip, and outright lies...Trump.
Cruz's father was involved in the Kennedy shooting.
Obama wasn't born here.
Morning Joe killed his aide.
Thousands of Muslims celebrated in the streets of NJ on 9/11.
If you're going to have partisan outrage, at least make sure the guy you're trying to defend doesn't do the same thing.
He did not hurt his career by attacking Obama. In fact, his radio and TV show is more popular now...
I watched Hannity defend Trump's N. Korea tweets the other night. He bloviated for 15 minutes about the hysterical MSM. Oddly though, he never once quoted the actual tweet he was defending...cause it was so puerile and shameful; he did not want to repeat it to anyone who might have missed it.
"My button is bigger than yours!" Followed by "I am a stable genius." Who says these things? Hang your heads in shame; he is an embarrassment. The whole world looks and says, "We feel sorry for the Americans."
Even Hannity, a seasoned professional bloviator, knows not to let that kind of trash be repeated on air. It would damage his credibility.
That alone is a sad commentary. People ate up horsesh!t by the shovelful, and made Hannity richer and more powerful. What could ever cause him to tell the truth...the bigger and more awful the lie, the more people will believe it. Wake up - that is a fake news channel. Rupert Murdoch owns that and the National Enquirer... they are on par with each other journalistically.
Which says as much about what stupid people are willing to believe. He peddled that birther conspiracy and idiots ate it up. Seth Rich conspiracy, again, stupid people ate it up. His credibility is shot.
Valeant, the matter under discussion is what's-his-name's book, which appears from excerpts I've read to be a mere collection of gossip and innuendo--likely sprinkled with untruths. It appears to be focused entirely personal traits: habits, mannerisms, and temperamental qualities. In other words, it is schoolboy/schoolgirl level stuff--not worthy of adult discussion.
The examples you cited of conservative "partisan outrage," such as Obama's citizenship (as required by the constitution), or somebody killing somebody, would be substantive issues, matters for serious investigation and prosecution in a court of law.
There is a distinction here that is apparently lost on you.
Proof established that settled both cases you list (citizenship and Morning Joe), and then Trump continued to promote both conspiracy theories. Untruths being pushed out by the guy the book criticizes seems fairly relevant to this discussion and an appropriate use of hypocrisy when you say that those that push untruths is schoolboy stuff. You're backing the biggest schoolboy out there and being critical of that the other side might be using the same tactics.
Solaras, to me, most of what you said in your last post appears to be a figment of your imagination.
I am not religious in any conventional sense (though I have to admit to a sentimental attachment to Catholicism), I am in favor of gay rights, and I'm opposed to abortion. Politically, I suppose I'd be a VERY old-school conservative along the lines of Albert Jay Nock. I am opposed to Statism. Hence, neither political party (the "uniparty") really suits me.
I live in the rural Bible Belt, where I see many deeply religious parents supporting gay rights, because they have gay kids. Quite a few of the deeply religious grannies in my area have black grandchildren and are strong believers in racial equality.
Most people in my area are conservatives who are very into Christianity (mostly protestant). We also have a liberal element around here.
Conservatives are not who they think they are.
My youngest daughter is quite the SJW--obviously strongly liberal. I have sometimes pointed out to her who our local liberals are--and started naming names (of people she detests).
Our local liberals consist mainly of people in the local power structure--the local "elites," if you will. They are the local elites because they have control of the federal and state government money that flows to the community. They funnel ALL of this money to themselves and their relatives and cronies. They decide who gets the jobs and the contracts for government work. Hence, they enjoy most of the community's wealth. They get their wealth by taxing struggling working people. They are in favor of MORE government, MORE taxes, and MORE punitive laws and regulations because it means more money and power for them.
Conservatives are generally people who work for a living, whose incomes are taxed away to support the local aristocracy.
"Our local liberals consist mainly of people in the local power structure--the local "elites," if you will. They are the local elites because they have control of the federal and state government money that flows to the community. They funnel ALL of this money to themselves and their relatives and cronies. They decide who gets the jobs and the contracts for government work. Hence, they enjoy most of the community's wealth. They get their wealth by taxing struggling working people. They are in favor of MORE government, MORE taxes, and MORE punitive laws and regulations because it means more money and power for them"
Just like Trump's Interior Secy, awards a no bid contract to his buddies to work in Puerto Rico?
Funny, all of this reminds of conservatives, I have "worked" for a living and have little if any in common with who it is you describe as conservatives. Run up deficits into the next decade, padding the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of working people. After this, then we can tackle 'entitlement reform'.
These are the 'conservatives' I know.
Hey Credence, just letting you that the person you're going back and forth on this thread has a tendency to use quotes from the Vanguard, a white supremacist that was an a splinter group from the National Alliance. She hasn't used it yet, but it gives an idea of her way of thinking if she's using that crap.
Typical liberal, doesn't even try to muster a viable argument, all character assassination.
Nobody needs to assassinate your character. You do that all on your own. Typical, non-thinking ideologist....btw, the original message wasn't for you. And if you care to know (even though I know you're intellectually challenged) the person tried to justify her argument from the site I mentioned. I happened to look it up (you know something you have no clue what to do) and discovered where it came from.
More ad hominem attacks. I can see why you relentlessly defend your liberal hero Wolff.
Yeah, coming from a person that not only believed in the Mayan Calendar, but believed it was off by two years.
You sure know how to stick it to the man...
Oh by the way, what do you see why I "relentlessly defend [my] liberal hero, Wolff," Last time I checked I wasn't into hero worshiping. So what grand vision is this?
Mayan calendar? What the hell are you talking about? I think you better come up for air every once in a while.
Does this look familiar? Or do you have instant amnesia?
Onusonus posted 7 years ago in reply to this
I just recalculated the Myan calender, if you carry the three, it appears that they were off by two years!!!!
https://hubpages.com/religion-philosoph … 69/the-end
Instant amnesia? That was satire from seven years ago. Gimme a break.
BTW that's pretty stalkerish. I'm starting to see a pattern with you creeper.
Yeah, satire....sure....ok. And the word is creepier . Besides, that comment is not hard to find in the forum section.
Actually I m mistaken it's supposed to be creepy. Boy, you can't even insult someone correctly.
Whatever you say Creeper. Starting to get it yet Creeper?
Get what? That you're an insecure little a**h**e that loves to disparage anyone that doesn't agree with your ideology
Get what? That you act like pond scum to anyone who dares to question your sanity?
Get what? that you get bent out of shape when somebody flings back the BS you've demonstrated thus far?
Get what? That you're whole existence on this site is to troll people and to put crummy articles and memes on it?
Get what? That your sanctimonious attitude makes you look like a fool
Get what? Seriously, Get what? That you called me some stupid alt-right code word that seems more befitting of you than me.
It was fun and games in the beginning,But it's obvious that you just a mean and rotten to the core.
Get this. People like you have nothing to say. You're nothing more than a follower who drank the kool-aid a long time ago. But nobody here or in your life ever told you that.
So, take your meds and go to bed and start dreaming of Trump jumping over you....your pulling your strings.
Naw, ttat's what I call a terrible truth. So tell me what does being butt hurt feel like? I mean you must have a lot of experience in that. Is that why you're such a jerk on this site?
Hiya Dean, Happy New year!!
Tell me it ain't so!! I am sure many hard right conservatives have visited the site without necessarily becoming a member. Much of their philosophy uses some of this supremacist stuff as a girding. Look how much more prominent such groups have become during the Age of Trump, when they were relegated to the dungeon not so long ago.
True. And likely the person may not have realized it. It's unfortunate a lot of people are not checking their sources. They so want to win an argument that they'll download anything that seemingly fits their belief system. I wrote a hub about fake news and one tthing that stood out was that the articles were poorly written and done in mass because the creators of this stuff realized that most people just read the headline and that's it.
For Wilderness, Blueheron, Jacklee, and anyone else that is interested in what a brain specialist thinks when he observes Trump, here are the concerns of a neurologist, who has been observing the president's speech actions from afar. He makes his living day in and out diagnosing brain disorders, and his highly qualified as a neurologist. He does not diagnose him, but states that the POTUS should be examined for degenerative brain disease.
Note that he was in discussion with the AMA about this article prior to publishing it. They cautioned him, but ultimately told him to do what he felt was right. I have not pasted the entire article, but the link to it is at the end.
"I’m a brain specialist. I think Trump should be tested for a degenerative brain disease:
"When President Trump slurred his words during a news conference this week, some Trump watchers speculated that he was having a stroke. I watched the clip and, as a physician who specializes in brain function and disability, I don’t think a stroke was behind the slurred words. But having evaluated the chief executive’s remarkable behavior through my clinical lens for almost a year, I do believe he is displaying signs that could indicate a degenerative brain disorder.
As the president’s demeanor and unusual decisions raise the potential for military conflict in two regions of the world, the questions surrounding his mental competence have become urgent and demand investigation.
Until now, most of the focus has been on the president’s psychology. It’s now time to think of the president’s neurology — and the possibility of an organic brain disorder.
Every day of my working life, I evaluate people with brain injuries. It falls to me to make decisions about what is normal and what is not, what can improve and what will not, whether or not my patients can work, what kind of work they can do, and pretty much everything else.
In turning my attention to the president, I see worrisome symptoms that fall into three main categories: problems with language and executive function; problems with social cognition and behavior; and problems with memory, attention, and concentration. None of these are symptoms of being a bad or mean person. Nor do they require spelunking into the depths of his psyche to understand. Instead, they raise concern for a neurocognitive disease process in the same sense that wheezing raises the alarm for asthma.
Here’s the evidence on which I base my conclusion that it would be prudent for the president to be tested for a brain disorder.
Language and executive dysfunction
Language is closely tied with cognition, and the president’s speech patterns are increasingly repetitive, fragmented, devoid of content, and restricted in vocabulary. Trump’s overuse of superlatives like tremendous, fantastic, and incredible are not merely elements of personal style. These filler words reflect reduced verbal fluency. Full transcripts of the president’s interviews with outlets like the New York Times and Time reveal the extent of his disorganized thought patterns.
Related Story: Trump wasn’t always so linguistically challenged. What could explain the change?
The problem becomes especially apparent in the transcript format, where his thinking is no longer camouflaged by visual accompaniments to communication like facial expressions and gesticulations. Some outlets have sought to protect the president, forgiving his lapses by declining to publish full transcripts. When Politico published a leaked transcript of the Wall Street Journal’s July interview, we learned that the president’s intellectual curiosity rises to the level of introductory geography: “You call places like Malaysia, Indonesia, and you say, you know, how many people do you have? And it’s pretty amazing how many people they have.”
The president made that remark in response to a question about the ideal corporate tax rate, demonstrating the degree to which his thinking drifts. The problems with language expression extend to language interpretation, the likely source of the president’s gross misunderstanding of London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s message to his city in the wake of a terror attack in June.
Dysfunction of social cognition and behavior
Some of the president’s most concerning behaviors suggest a decline in social cognition: reduced insight and awareness into the thoughts and motivations of other people, coupled with symptoms like impulsivity and disinhibition that make him behave rudely and create needless controversy.
The decision to fire FBI Director James Comey in the middle of the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election is an example of an impulsive decision that was greatly damaging to the president himself, assuming he was not actually trying to cover up his own complicity in the matter under investigation. Contradicting his own communications staff by disclosing that the Russia investigation was one reason he fired Comey is an example of disinhibited behavior. Rashly threatening Comey with a recording he did not have is reflective of poor emotional control.
Trump’s easy Twitter trigger finger, most recently retweeting British far-right videos he apparently knew nothing about simply because the social media platform promoted these videos in his feed, reflects poor impulse control. Numerous problematic moments in the Trump presidency, such as his volunteering top secret Israeli intelligence to the Russian ambassador or volunteering that his immigration restrictions were indeed a “travel ban,” reflect an inability to contain himself.
We saw this most recently with his inability to make it through a simple White House ceremony honoring Navajo code talkers without making an ethnically derogatory reference to an opposition political figure.
The president’s decision to launch into a fight with a Gold Star wife and mother who lost their soldier in Niger is also reflective of impaired social cognition. It could also signal memory decline, since it seemed as though he had not learned from a similar imbroglio during the campaign.
Episodes like these often occur because of impaired frontal lobe brain systems. These typically provide some degree of restraint from saying the first thing that crosses your mind. In a healthy brain, these ideas must make their way through multiple layers of checks and balances that take into account the social propriety and appropriateness of the audience for a given remark. Such frontal impairment often does not stop at troublesome communication, but has physical manifestations such as childlike facial expressions and physical restlessness, both features we see in Trump.
Dysfunction in memory, attention and concentration
The integrity of other primary cognitive domains like memory, attention, and concentration are tied up in all of the problems I mention above. Memory impairment is specifically implicated in episodes like forgetting to sign orders — not once, but twice — that were the purposes of the press events the president was attending. Attention and focus are key to forming memory; the lack of either makes it more likely to forget why one was in a room in the first place.
The persistence of fixed beliefs about the crowd size at his inauguration, President Obama having a fraudulent birth certificate, or millions of undocumented people voting for Hillary Clinton suggest either a shocking willingness to lie, which falls into the behavioral dysregulation category, or a memory disorder that hobbles the president with fixed delusions that cannot be swayed by contradictory information. The New York Times opinion section has catalogued an astounding collection of the president’s lies so extensive that such lying implicates the cognitive systems that undergird one’s hold on what has happened in one’s life.
If the president is questioning whether the “Access Hollywood” videotape of himself celebrating a lifestyle rife with misogyny and sexual assault is really him, that worries me more about a memory disorder than a particularly poor effort at gaslighting.
Related Story: Trump’s New York Times interview is a window into his psyche
The clinical task is to distinguish the president’s symptoms from normal aging. Typically, that’s accomplished with standardized neuropsychological testing that would help compare the president to peers of similar age and education. It’s perhaps useful to think of how many 71-year-olds in your life display similar behaviors, thoughts, and speech patterns as the ones we are witnessing in Trump.
If I were to make a differential diagnosis based on what I have observed, it would include mild cognitive impairment, also known as mild neurocognitive disorder or predementia. About 16 percent of people the president’s age fall into this category. Mild cognitive impairment comes in various flavors as the precursor to a variety of different full-blown dementias. The key distinguishing characteristic between mild cognitive impairment and dementia is whether the decline is starting to interfere with essential daily functioning. In a billionaire typically surrounded by assistants, who is now the president surrounded by more assistants, whether Trump can perform his necessary daily tasks on his own may be difficult to assess.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/12/07/don … t-disease/
Wow...talk about TDS. You take the cake. TDS squared. To append such a long post, you mist hold the record for the longest forum posting...
Well, at least this "expert" hasn't made a diagnosis without an exam and then made the results public - something we see so much of on the web from people that have no training at all. He is at least giving the appearance of maintaining his ethics even if he's walking a very fine line with them.
I would tend to agree that what he is hypothesizing could very well be true, if you go back to interviews he conducted some 20 or 30 years ago, he was a more polished speaker, able to articulate his points better and without the use of repetitive or aggrandizing words.
Any positive accomplishments and meaningful course changes he can make will have been made within his first three years. I expect the entirety of political forces within D.C. (all sides) and the media at large to make a full out effort the likes of which we have not seen in our lifetimes against him during his final year before re-election.
Despite what is accomplished during his first term, his fitness needs to be reassessed, if there is any type of degenerative disorder it will only worsen with the stress of the job as he ages into his late 70s.
Yes, but I would hope sooner if he is going to be making nuclear threats and potentially war with N. Korea.
It would be iniquitous to blame Trump for the war with North Korea, as it has been ongoing for more than 65 years.
This is the problem with our education system, as well as our media, they teach little these days about our history, or about the world we live in. While almost every American can tell you who won last year's Super Bowl, I would bet almost none of them can tell you about the Korean War, I daresay a good percentage of them could not give an accurate definition for the word 'armistice'.
Trump cannot "potentially" start a war with North Korea, we have been at war with North Korea since 1950. And while today just about every American is ignorant of this reality, I can assure you every North Korean is not, as their nation's entire existence is built around being at war with America.
You realize then that we do not even have an Ambassador to South Korea, because Trump sees no reason for one, "It's all about me anyway." Rex Tillerson is a eunuch, with no reinforcement from a fractured administration. A real negotiator would find a way to end the armistice once and for all. But we have no professionals running foreign policy, just Trump blustering and undermining all diplomatic efforts with his repugnant tweets.
And we have had no "real negotiators" in Korea, the middle east or Israel for the past 50 years? Negotiation is not the answer to every problem, and some people aren't interested in talking. Kim is one of them and the leadership of ISIS is another.
That appears to be a deflection, for what I am not sure, as I am not arguing a point, merely pointing out that Trump cannot start a war with North Korea, as we (USA) have been at war with what is now North Korea since 1950, it never ended, certainly not in the eyes of North Korean leadership.
Any effort to blame the current leadership for the state of affairs with North Korea is really nonsensical, as the Presidents that came before Trump allowed the situation to escalate to the point where it is today, to include supplying them with the nuclear technology required to build nuclear weapons, past administrations were willing to accept North Korean promises not to use that technology for weapons, which of course America had no way of enforcing or supervising without direct military confrontation, so as soon as that technology was handed over to North Korea they did what they pleased with it, as anyone with even a pinch of common sense would have been able to conclude would be done prior.
Currently, Trump has started no new hostilities against any nation. Syria and Libya were instigated by the Obama Administration, Iraq and Afghanistan by the Bush Administration, North Korea's access to nuclear technologies necessary for weapons production by the Clinton Administration, Trump is just stuck with the mess prior Presidents created for our country.
Absolutely he could have changed in 20-30 years. Few people don't. I know, for instance, that I "suffer fools" far less gladly now than I did 30 years ago. And a close relative went from a vibrant, active person to one with advanced dementia that rarely leaves the home.
Hadn't thought about upcoming efforts to demonize the president, but I strongly suspect you're right. Every soul on the hill will be out to end his career - Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian - it won't matter. The outsider must go, and if trumped up, unsupported charges of mental illness are effective, then use them with abandon.
It became a thin line, thanks to Dr. Oz, who concerned the medical community with his half baked cure alls. Prior to that, the Goldwater rule only applied to psychiatrists and psychologists.
A new AMA rule makes this thin ice, but he is NOT diagnosing, just saying that the medical report provided by his personal physician was absent of most data, and as an expert he sees reason to investigate further. They do have drugs and treatments that can improve cognitive function and slow decline. This is not a witch hunt, anyone could benefit, but in my experience, they don't want to admit to an issue or receive the therapy, because they have no problem.
Thin ice indeed - while he does say there has not been an examination, he also seems to indicate that he sees problems that he will diagnose as a mental problem. You can't get much thinner. And no, no one is going to make the kinds of statements that he did because another physician did not report what you wanted to hear about. He makes it crystal clear that he thinks there is a problem, and does it without ever saying it "out loud". Wonder if he has experience in politics somewhere? Or advertising?
Solaras, when medical diagnosis by viewing media becomes an acceptable standard in the medical profession, I'll believe you've written something worth reading. A trained physician should know better. Shame on you!
Yesterday, I met an old friend who I had not seen since college. Her mother and father stopped by for about 30 minutes. When they left, I turned to my friend and said, "Alzheimer's?"
My friend's 78-year-old mother has Alzheimer's. She said no more than 4-5 sentences, but I was able to detect the problem. I did not assume, but I asked the question I am not a doctor, but I spent many months caring for my mother, who had Alzheimer's.
The idea that we cannot appropriately wonder about the health of our president based on observation is just his supporters protecting him.
People speculated Reagan had a problem. It turned out to be true. Trump is worse than Reagan ever was during his presidency.
I think it is important to take into account the reasons people easily buy into such speculation. Concern for another individual is one thing. I doubt that is what drives this.
Trump's behavior is not, by my estimation, the result of dementia.
Maybe, but there is nothing inherently wrong with a medical professional expressing concern about the fitness of a president. If it is purely politically motivated, it will go nowhere.
Oh. I was not aware you were a medical professional. My bad.
Lol, I'm not and never said I was. Why did you feel compelled to state the obvious?
The medical professional quoted in this thread is the subject here and he has every right to express his concerns as a neurologist.
And, to both you and wilderness, he did not make a diagnosis. He laid out a case for extensive testing. A perfectly acceptable thing to do.
That IS what I said as well; he did not make a diagnosis, but DID indicate that he felt testing was probably necessary. While he seems within the "letter of the law" such a statement is on extremely thin ice as he's made it very, very plain he thinks there is a mental problem and made that opinion known. Not something ANY health professional should ever do, and quite contrary to the spirit of the guidelines from both the AMA and the APA.
Unless they think the person in question could be dangerous, in which case a citizen who is also a health professional might think it is their duty to speak out. It is reasonable to assume that those surrounding the president might be slow to publicly acknowledge a problem, since it is in their interests to maintain the status quo.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
"The idea that we cannot appropriately wonder about the health of our president based on observation is just his supporters protecting him."
You are correct; you can ethically wonder all you like. You can even express the question all you like. You cannot, however, ethically make a medical diagnosis, and publish it, without having the training to do so (it's called libel if nothing else).
And if you DO have the training, well, from the APA guidelines:
"Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions."
"Psychologists have a primary obligation and take reasonable precautions to [b]protect confidential information obtained through or stored in any medium, recognizing that the extent and limits of confidentiality may be regulated by law or established by institutional rules or professional or scientific relationship."
Simply put, a professional psychologist does not make a diagnosis without an exam thorough enough to provide for that diagnosis. These quacks giving their opinion that Trump has dementia, alzheimers or any other mental disease have not made an examination at all, let alone one sufficient to support their "diagnosis". In addition, that diagnosis may not be revealed to anyone but the subject...certainly publicly blatting out private, confidential information as to mental state is far outside the ethical guidelines of the APA (American Psychological Association).
Bottom line is that no one can, ethically or legally, make a diagnosis without having the training to do so or without a thorough examination. And no one can ethically make such diagnosis public without Trumps permission.
Those citizens making claims as to mental illness are not only committing a crime (libel, slander) but a gross ethical "mistake" as well. It is one thing to say "Gee, he seems to show the same traits as my grandmother who had alzheimers" and quite another to say "Trump has dementia". Or "Trump is a narcissist", or any of the other dozen or so claims seen across the web.
The so-called "professionals" doing so have set their ethical standards aside far enough that they should never practice psychology again.
You are quoting the APA, which is not the same as the AMA, to which neurologists belong.
Libel can only be prosecuted if the statements made are untrue. Trump would have to submit to extensive neurological testing and imaging in order to prove that he is NOT experiencing significant mental decline or neurological disease beyond what is normal for a 71 year old. He will not do that, so the point is moot. We can say anything we want about him, because he cannot and will not offer us his medical history, tax returns or financial records regarding where the Trump Org obtains its funding.
You are correct; it was from the APA and does not specifically apply to medical physicians. So let's look at AMA guidelines:
" Doctors base their professional judgement regarding a patient’s medical management on the full and frank disclosure of the patient’s personal information. It is imperative that patients remain confident that their personal information is protected by their doctor"
"Doctors have a general ethical and legal duty to protect the privacy of their patients’ personal information, including their medical records. "
https://ama.com.au/sites/default/files/ … s_2010.pdf
Says pretty much the same thing, doesn't it? A physician requires "full and frank disclosure of the patient’s personal information" in order to make a judgement. That is not possible from watching a TV news cast. And certainly "medical records" includes a diagnosis, which "Doctors have a general ethical and legal duty to protect the privacy" of.
I'm not so sure that you can make libel-free claims as you wish without proving the truth of them. Not a legal beagal, but it would seem that if Trump says it's false and you should be jailed for lying you would have to show the truth of the statement. Not the other way around.
But even if I'm wrong, it still leaves the ethics of making claims you haven't the foggiest notion whether true or not. This is not the action of a grown, reasonable adult, but rather the actions of a child who doesn't care if statements carry truth or not if they can but relieve their own stress or anger.
It's like saying you can do anything you want to others as long as you think you can get away with it. It's OK to steal...if you don't get caught. It's OK to burn down your neighbors house, it's OK to sell drugs; if you don't get caught it's all OK. A concept I don't agree with.
"This is not the action of a grown, reasonable adult, but rather the actions of a child who doesn't care if statements carry truth or not if they can but relieve their own stress or anger. "
Precisely describes Trump.
And that makes it alright for health professionals to perform the same action.
Well Mike,you don't know what you are talking about, so shame on you. The Goldwater rule does not apply to physicians at large; it is specific to Psychiatry. And what he has written is a request that the President be examined for Neurological disease, and if any is found, that he receive treatment for it. Do you really want a mentally diseased president at all costs to our nation?
Try reading it if you want to have a legitimate discussion. Or maybe your reading skills are on par with POTUS, who can't stay focused long enough to utter a single complete sentence.
I think one can surmise from the available data that Michael Wolff, although a brilliant writer, is also a cunning con artist capable of weaseling his way into any conversation under the guise of honest reporting. His books are by his own admission conflations of the truth for the singular purpose of turning heads and increasing sales, and ought to be taken as the works of fiction that they are lest the reader be taken for an ideologue grasping for straws against their chosen political adversary.
I don't know why anyone would buy it, it is all over the internet as a free pdf download. I typed it in yesterday and there it was, the full book, free for the taking.
Credence2, in response to my comment that liberals make up our "local elites"--who basically control federal and state funds flowing into our community, and use these fund to enrich themselves and their cronies, you replied:
"Funny, all of this reminds of conservatives."
The actual position of conservatives (as opposed to RINOs) is that we need to greatly reduce the size of government. Most Trump supporters are very much in favor of doing away with (or a least greatly reducing) almost all government agencies. One good place to start would be the Department of Education. We should also end all agricultural subsidies.
If we want a lower tax burden and a reduction in government money funneled into the pockets of elites, we need to end the programs that do this. Basically we have a system in which you and I are taxed, and our tax dollars are spent to subsidize corporate agriculture, big corporations like Amazon (and I think Wal-Mart), failing public schools, a failing health care system, militarized police forces, highway departments, housing and urban development projects, etc.
We are to the point where large corporations are so heavily subsidized by government that they have achieved monopolies in almost all areas of commerce, and many areas of production. Small businesses are further strangled by onerous taxation, regulation, and licensing requirements.
This is why, if you want "a job," you have to go hat-in-hand to some big corporation and beg them for "a job." You don't have the option of starting a business as a tradesman, selling your farm products, producing or purchasing manufactured items and selling them, etc.
As an example: Why do you suppose that it's possible to order manufactured goods from China with FREE SHIPPING? This is because the USPS heavily subsidizes shipping from China. If you, as an American business person, sold a $10 item and shipped it to someone 20 miles away, your shipping cost could easily be $10. Because of USPS subsidies to Chinese sellers/manufacturers, you cannot compete on price. Your potential customer will buy from China and save ten bucks on shipping.
I could give many other examples.
True conservatives are AGAINST all this.
For politicians on both sides of the aisle, accepting bribes for tax breaks, subsidies, and the conferring of monopolies to big corporations is their stock in trade.
Thanks for the reasoned reply, Blue Heron
Well, from the left, it depends on what is being reduced and to what extent. If it is about clearing out waste, fraud and abuse in how the Government administers its programs, I can support that.
It is a big country with many facets, much which needs regulatory oversight to insure that interests other than that of those with the money and influence rule the day. I don't have problems with "government" in principle. I would probably use a scalpel rather than a meat ax to pare the functions of government. I am not qualified to speak of the appropriateness of agricultural subsidies without studying the topic further. I would have to visit the pros and cons of having a Dept. of Education to speak on that as well.
While living in Southern California during the 1970’s, I recalled a system of restaurant inspection that included a requirement that the establishment prominently display a placard with A, B or C that reflected the result of the inspection, and reflected on the level of clean practices within the establishments. I am sure that if the practice remains, Dan could probably attest to it. I remember reading the papers in Riverside County where there were lodged many complaints about the process. Many of these establishments accused the Government of being overbearing and bureaucratic in the administration of this program. Conservatives would say let the customers and marketplace decide a good restaurant verses a bad one. The problem with that is that people are left to the possibility of food poisoning. I guess they won’t come back then, they will then make the consumers choice with their feet, at this point? I say that if you want to operate in the public domain, you had better be running a clean place in the first place or you don’t deserve to be in business. If this is “big government”, then I am all for it. I don’t trust the private sector and individuals to monitor their own behavior, why should I? We take so much for granted in our society from the milk we drink to the planes we fly. Who do you think makes this possible?
When I look at the “Citizens United” Supreme Court Ruling, I find that the conservatives are the more supportive of giving the fat cats, or as you say, large corporations and their lobbyists far too much sway in how the government operates, making it more certain that what they want is what becomes law. So, ‘what is good for General Motors being good for America’ is a thing of the past. The things that the corporations are pining for are certainly not likely to be neither to my benefit as a modest citizen nor to those owning small businesses. But the conservatives seem to be the ones backing up the fat cats, why is that?
I have written articles that support the minimum wage insuring that Corporate America does not pay so little to its labor that the tax payer has to subsidize people who otherwise work full time. As I have told many right wing advocates within this forum that the minimum wage has been adopted by virtually every industrialized society and many developing countries for a reason. Do they really claim to be smarter than the combined experience of everyone around the globe? Such arrogance..
Because I am a progressive, what the conservative may consider as waste, I consider a benefit, and vice versa. Despite these outrageous subsidies, conservatives allow these corporations to help themselves to the trough or the federal treasury while blaming the little guy for being little. Megabusiness has put the “mom and pops” out of business, but is this not capitalism and the American way? The Capitalist is amoral and only interested in promoting his or her own advantage. All the other concepts such as patriotism is a smoke screen for which they couldn’t care less, but is a great tool for distracting the gullible.
I don't see Trump in the revolutionary vision as this new type of conservative. They are all the same to me, and most are getting in line with Trump. The moderate conservative, a virtually extinct species has not weighed in much.
Credence, take the minimum wage issue for example. Red Robin just announced today they are letting go of bus boys in their restaurant chain as a result of minimum wage increases law.
Which do you prefer, a job that pays less than minimum wage or no job?
Also, as more and more cities decide to go down that road... companies are replacing workers with robots. They work hard and does not complaint and cost very little in the long haul...
The minimum wage is a perfect example of a progressive good intentions gone bad.
By the way, the minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.
Happy New Year, Jack
So Jack, why does the entire world adopt the concept of minimum wage, are you really smarter than all these other nations over the entire planet?
"less than minimum wage or not job". The philosophy of the sweat shop, do you know the history of this country prior Progressive Reforms, spearheaded by T. Roosevelt enacted needed reforms during the early part of the 20th Century. Entire families worked for wages, which were inadequate for survival if only the family head worked for them. You say you are all for the family, but advocate the philosophies of the piece work factories?
Technology is going to replace these workers in any case, why pretend that paying slave wages now will prevent that?
And I think that the minimum wage is quite valid as the vast majority being paid under its tenets are not children...
If the marketplace and competition brought the minimum down to $3.00 an hour what do you think would happen? Corporate America is not going to act in a responsible way, have they ever?
I recommend you a book to read called Free to choose by Milton Friedman. It explains the nature of capitalism and free enterprise and supply and demand that determines prices and labor. It is the best explanation I have come across. It makes total sense. It is called the “hidden hand” of the market.
Once you understand the whole picture, perhaps you will have a different view of Corporations. Most of these are good and tries to do good by their customers and employees. The ones that don’t in the short run may benefit but in the long run looses. They exist to benefit themselves and for their investors and stockholders but they also exist to provide jobs and produce products that benefit all of us. They are not there to provide a good living for any workers or healthcare for that matter...
It is a business and they live by a set of rules. Unlike a country which can make up their rules and live beyond its means and tax and spend as if there is no tomorrow...
Anyway, happy new year to you and your family. The reason I am able to enjoy my retirement is because of corporations I worked for. They provided me with a good income and a good pension and put my kids through college and become productive menbers of society. I did not need government assistance luckily...
Here is a great video on the secret of happiness -
https://www.themaven.net/pursuit-of-hap … 7l7KSHzZHA
I found this on the Maven site -the company that bought HubPages...
Here I am, weighing in Cred, that nearly extinct moderate Conservative - a Purple.
Except for the tone and inferences of some of your statements concerning corporations, I think you might have some purple in your blood too.
Liberals have also weirdly morphed into the "war party." Back in the day, liberals opposed the Viet Nam War, and we anti-war in general.
Today, it is liberals who favor wars and are eager to exacerbate tensions with Russia. Back at the time the Iraq War first began, our local liberal-stronghold church came out OFFICIALLY in favor of the Iraq War. This was the Presbyterian Church. The local congregation was basically informed that the decision to support the war "came down from church headquarters."
I know these people (though not intimately). The supporters of these senseless wars are predominantly the local liberal elites--the same people who are using our tax dollars to line their own pockets and hire the their relatives. They profit from wars, as well as from many other government programs. How? Through their connections with military contractors and their power to confer jobs in the MIC industry.
No thin ice. It is what it is, legal to make these observations and morally correct as millions, if not billions, of lives are affected by his presidency.
Wilderness you are stubbornly persistent in refusing to look critically at the POTUS, and how he presents himself. I find you to be a very intelligent and perceptive man in all other discussions. Studies have shown that when an individual's beliefs are challenged, the part of the brain responsible for flight or fight , the amygdala, (which can't distinguish between a real threat and a perceived threat) is activated.
Trump supporters have believed in him and his many falsehoods, and now are faced with the ugly truths about him, which they cannot bear to see named and spotlighted. Name calling, fighting off logical arguments with tenuous defenses such as, "he has no right to point out what is obvious to 70% of the population," will not change the fact that he cannot focus long enough to complete a full sentence, his responses to simple questions drift over a myriad of topics before, if ever, returning to the subject at hand, he is mean spirited, he lies in order to aggrandize himself and demean other simultaneously. He is bad for this nation as a role model. His language and meaness of spirit are inelegant to say the least.
His lack of personal fortitude dictates that he must remain on the campaign trail to hear the cheers of his supporters in order to be able to carry on his part time duties as POTUS.
He sits in his bedroom til 11:30 am watching TV and eating cheeseburgers and finishes dinner at 6:30, and then back to bed to call his friends, "How did I do today?"
He is a traitor, and a has enriched himself and his family as a member of a criminal syndicate laundering Russian money.
Solaras, I am going to have to diagnose you with having a serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). There is help. I provide this for you as a way for you to seek help and lead a happier life. You don't seem to be a happy person.
http://www.newsweek.com/how-liberals-ca … ome-698554
And with that rant the debate ends, for it is not about Trump and it certainly isn't about your low opinion of the president. That you think he lies, that you think he has dementia or even (gasp!) eats cheeseburgers at 6:30 and then goes to bed to phone his friends is completely irrelevant. It isn't even about your ridiculous claim of treason (do you even know the legal definition of the term?).
It's about a professional health care worker making strong insinuations about the health of another person, and doing so without ever having examined the "patient". That's counter to every oath they've taken or guideline of their profession and such quacks should not be in the business at all.
I'll just add that if you find public statements, from health care professionals about another person, - ANY other person - whether they've examined that patient or not, to be moral and ethical then we have very different opinions of what IS moral or ethical.
by crankalicious 5 months ago
Seriously, is this something anyone cares about?This was something President Trump engaged in before he was President, so it shouldn't factor into anything other than another indictment of his character.Remember, he cheated on his first wife with his second wife, so having sex with a porn star...
by Mike Russo 20 months ago
I don't think Trump cares about anything except protecting his image as he wants it perceived by the world. If he perceives it is being threatened, he will pull out the counter punches and attack anything or anybody that is threatening his image. He will even lie about his lies to protect himself....
by Scott Belford 3 weeks ago
General Mattis, Secretary of Defense, resigned in protest over the actions of an out of control president. A CNN opinion piece by Stephen Collinson starts of this way -"The defense secretary's decision to quit Thursday was a warning that will ring through history about an impulsive...
by Scott S Bateman 23 months ago
One of the most widely folllowed political polls just issued the results of a new survey on Trump and found that:1. Trump's disapproval rating dropped again -- to 38%.2. 63% said he is not level headed.3. Voters disapprove 61 - 35 percent of the way Trump talks about the media.4. 52% of voters...
by Randy Godwin 13 months ago
A recently released poll shows Trump is losing ground among several groups. Women only approve of him by 25% and he's lost evangelical Christians favor down by 17%. The truth is catching up to his many lies.
by Randy Godwin 33 hours ago
The NYT today reported the FBI launched an investigation into whether Trump was working on behalf of Russia after he fired James Comey. It isn't yet known what the investigation revealed nor if it's ended at this time.This in conjunction with the reports of Mueller looking to use Trump's public...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|