This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: "https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr"

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
jump to last post 1-35 of 35 discussions (270 posts)

"Fire and Fury." Trump's downfall?

  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 4 months ago

    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!

    1. GA Anderson profile image82
      GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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?

      GA

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Yo GA, it remains to be seen how much of the book is actually true. I suspect most of it because of the Trumplike narrative.

        And Vegas odds are usually pretty close to the truth....  yikes

    2. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      “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.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        What's your prediction on when this goes away, Mike? When Trump gets impeached or resigns? lol

    3. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.  smile

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        That is a perfectly reasonable intro and gives credit to the reader to be able to understand and decide for themselves.

    4. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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...

    5. emge profile image72
      emgeposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image78
        Castlepalomaposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Cops and many troop love Trump. Anything with death and destruction he will attract.

  2. PrettyPanther profile image82
    PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago

    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.

  3. Marisa Wright profile image99
    Marisa Wrightposted 4 months ago

    I don't think it will make any difference because Trump supporters will simply label it "fake news".

    1. Ken Burgess profile image88
      Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

  4. Castlepaloma profile image78
    Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago

    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.

  5. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 4 months ago

    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.

    Yawn.

  6. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 4 months ago

    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.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

  7. Castlepaloma profile image78
    Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago

    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.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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...

    2. Aime F profile image84
      Aime Fposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

  8. abwilliams profile image24
    abwilliamsposted 4 months ago

    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".

    Alrighty then!!

    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.....

    1. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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."

      1. abwilliams profile image24
        abwilliamsposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image82
          PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          For people who have standards, true.

          Did Hillary state she is the smartest woman on the planet? I must have missed that. big_smile

          1. abwilliams profile image24
            abwilliamsposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Not that I recall, it was her fan base, the MSM.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image82
              PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Really? Got a quote? Got a link? I must have missed that, too.

              Let's make sure we're both living in Realville big_smile

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

  9. Onusonus profile image80
    Onusonusposted 4 months ago

    Hillary voters. So sad to see them grasping at straws.
    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26168489_1307136566086185_4550476759879813538_n.jpg?oh=0182ebaab074f0a5d81b5330f404d49d&oe=5AF30033

    1. Dean Traylor profile image95
      Dean Traylorposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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!

        1. Dean Traylor profile image95
          Dean Traylorposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Only fitting...it was the gossip column in new York papers that brought him to prominence in the 70s and 80s.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image82
              PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              As with most of Trump's problems, he brought them on himself. Whether one thinks that indicates  a "stable genius," well....LOL

        2. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Talk about snake oil salesmen!! Good point, Pro!

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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..."?

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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. tongue

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

            2. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              I'm just saying he didn't write what you posted.

              You can see his actual words in my post above.

          3. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Mike, I will work with you.  smile

              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.

              1. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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?"

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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".

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

      2. Onusonus profile image80
        Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        You are absolutely right. Here's an in context meme.
        https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26167655_1807843502607333_5364195086910771149_n.jpg?oh=dc06c5942a3e50d3ea585d131289d007&oe=5AB68A58

        1. Dean Traylor profile image95
          Dean Traylorposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

        2. PrettyPanther profile image82
          PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Solaras profile image98
            Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            LOL

          2. Onusonus profile image80
            Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Said the Hillary supporter.
            http://images.memes.com/meme/741481

            1. Dean Traylor profile image95
              Dean Traylorposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Again this not about hilary. Stop grabbing at straws

              1. Onusonus profile image80
                Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Totally relevant rebuttal. I wasn't addressing you, you aren't the moderator.

                1. Dean Traylor profile image95
                  Dean Traylorposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Onusonus profile image80
                    Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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? lol
                    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26167655_1807843502607333_5364195086910771149_n.jpg?oh=dc06c5942a3e50d3ea585d131289d007&oe=5AB68A58

        3. Solaras profile image98
          Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

      3. Onusonus profile image80
        Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        And here's another one for the snake oil comment;
        https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26219974_2014120095528564_9038233192996671100_n.jpg?oh=b6db7c4d70500b770bac439e7a7d058c&oe=5AEA0E5E

        1. Dean Traylor profile image95
          Dean Traylorposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          A cherry-pick meme? That's new.

  10. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 4 months ago

    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."  roll

  11. Castlepaloma profile image78
    Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago

    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

  12. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 4 months ago

    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.

  13. Castlepaloma profile image78
    Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago

    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.

  14. Solaras profile image98
    Solarasposted 4 months ago

    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.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Thank you for speaking up about Trump's unfitness to serve as president.

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. Solaras profile image98
        Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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. .

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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).

        2. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

  15. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 4 months ago

    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."

    1. Solaras profile image98
      Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Who would even say that about themselves.

  16. GA Anderson profile image82
    GA Andersonposted 4 months ago

    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.

    GA

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      I haven't read the book yet GA, only saw a few portions of it online and on TV. It is interesting though.

  17. abwilliams profile image24
    abwilliamsposted 4 months ago

    Wolff has stated that this book is, "his version of the truth."

    I cannot fathom this alternative universe, I choose to live in Realville.

    1. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Can you please offer a link to a credible source where he says what you quote?

      1. abwilliams profile image24
        abwilliamsposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        '99'.... wow impressive.....
        Would it matter?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Is that a no?

        2. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. abwilliams profile image24
            abwilliamsposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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?

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. jackclee lm profile image81
                jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. jackclee lm profile image81
                    jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Realville?

      Largest inauguration crowd size in history

      A very stable genius

      I know more about taxes than the greatest CPA

      I alone can fix it

      That Realville?

  18. abwilliams profile image24
    abwilliamsposted 4 months ago

    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.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. jackclee lm profile image81
        jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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...

        1. PrettyPanther profile image82
          PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          LOL, you seem to buy his claim that he is a "very stable genius." Time will yell, won't it?

        2. Solaras profile image98
          Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. jackclee lm profile image81
            jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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...

            1. Aime F profile image84
              Aime Fposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              *raises hand on behalf of Canada*

            2. Solaras profile image98
              Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                LOL

                But he's a very stable genius.

              2. jackclee lm profile image81
                jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                You are a true TDS victim. Good luck this year. I hope you recover...

                1. Dean Traylor profile image95
                  Dean Traylorposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image81
                    jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

          2. Castlepaloma profile image78
            Castlepalomaposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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

      2. Onusonus profile image80
        Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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...

        1. PrettyPanther profile image82
          PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Onusonus profile image80
            Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            I don't understand, butt hurt means being unjustifiably offended. How did you get that out of anything I said? Oh wait, you're a liberal, you already know everything everyone is thinking.
            https://www.thecollegefix.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/campusadslider-370x277.jpg

  19. Solaras profile image98
    Solarasposted 4 months ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13856004.jpg

    I invite you to try this for yourselves.  This is what our world wants to know

    1. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      I bit, and it's true. Amazing!

      1. GA Anderson profile image82
        GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Now where is ahorseback when you need him! It's "group think!"

        GA

        1. PrettyPanther profile image82
          PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, I hope he's okay and not ill or something bad. I miss being called immature.

          1. Aime F profile image84
            Aime Fposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              There does seem to be a pattern......

              1. Valeant profile image95
                Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Been there, done that, Val. smile

                2. Dean Traylor profile image95
                  Dean Traylorposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    I can top that, Dean. I received an "accidental ban" one time while disagreeing with some HP "elite" a few years ago. Go figure! yikes

    2. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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...

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Everything you don't like seems to be a left wing organization, eh, Jack? lol What an awakening you are due soon...

        1. jackclee lm profile image81
          jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Solaras profile image98
            Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. jackclee lm profile image81
              jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. Valeant profile image95
                Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

              2. Solaras profile image98
                Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

          2. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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?  tongue

            1. jackclee lm profile image81
              jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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...

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Give me some proof of this other than your opinion, Jack. Then we'll talk...

                1. jackclee lm profile image81
                  jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  You can look it up. Check quotes by Nancy Pelosi and Ruth Ginsberg on the Constitution...
                  The ACLU and George Soros...

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    I'd rather you prove it to me Jack, if you can. This isn't Fox News where you can simply say shit. tongue

  20. Onusonus profile image80
    Onusonusposted 4 months ago

    “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

  21. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 4 months ago

    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.

  22. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 4 months ago

    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.

  23. Castlepaloma profile image78
    Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago

    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.

  24. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 4 months ago

    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.

  25. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 4 months ago

    Hannity.  Easy.

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      He did not hurt his career by attacking Obama. In fact, his radio and TV show is more popular now...

      1. Solaras profile image98
        Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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.

      2. Solaras profile image98
        Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Hannity is an ex carpenter for goodness sakes, not a real journalist by any means.  What a joke he is! lol

  26. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 4 months ago

    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.

  27. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 4 months ago

    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.

    1. Valeant profile image95
      Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

  28. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 4 months ago

    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.

    1. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

      "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.

      1. Dean Traylor profile image95
        Dean Traylorposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Onusonus profile image80
          Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Typical liberal, doesn't even try to muster a viable argument, all character assassination.

        2. Dean Traylor profile image95
          Dean Traylorposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Onusonus profile image80
            Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            More ad hominem attacks. I can see why you relentlessly defend your liberal hero Wolff.

            1. Dean Traylor profile image95
              Dean Traylorposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. Onusonus profile image80
                Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Mayan calendar? What the hell are you talking about? I think you better come up for air every once in a while.

                1. Dean Traylor profile image95
                  Dean Traylorposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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

                  1. Onusonus profile image80
                    Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

        3. Credence2 profile image79
          Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Dean Traylor profile image95
            Dean Traylorposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

  29. Solaras profile image98
    Solarasposted 4 months ago

    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
    Moving forward
    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/

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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...

      1. Solaras profile image98
        Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        I mist hold it.  It is a good read, and to truncarte it would only blunt its impact.

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image88
        Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Solaras profile image98
          Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, but I would hope sooner if he is going to be making nuclear threats and potentially war with N. Korea.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image88
            Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Solaras profile image98
              Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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.
              .

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

              2. Ken Burgess profile image88
                Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

      2. Solaras profile image98
        Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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?

    3. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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!

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Oh. I was not aware you were a medical professional. My bad.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Solaras profile image98
                  Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  ++++

                2. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          "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."

          http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

          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.

          1. Solaras profile image98
            Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Solaras profile image98
                Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                "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.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  And that makes it alright for health professionals to perform the same action.

                  Great thinking!

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Again, lax standards for the president, higher standards for everyone else.

                    You have it backwards.

      2. Solaras profile image98
        Solarasposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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.

  30. Onusonus profile image80
    Onusonusposted 4 months ago

    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.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image88
      Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Onusonus profile image80
        Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Sure, American culture is developing into a mode of outrage, drama, and sensationalism. All based in supply and demand.

  31. livetech profile image72
    livetechposted 4 months ago

    Remains to be seen!

  32. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 4 months ago

    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.

    1. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. jackclee lm profile image81
        jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Credence2 profile image79
          Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. jackclee lm profile image81
            jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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...

          2. jackclee lm profile image81
            jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Credence,
            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...

      2. GA Anderson profile image82
        GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        GA ;-)

  33. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 4 months ago

    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.

  34. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 4 months ago

    You two need a timeout.

    1. Aime F profile image84
      Aime Fposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      No doubt. That was super cringey to read through.

    2. Onusonus profile image80
      Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      LOL!

  35. Solaras profile image98
    Solarasposted 4 months ago

    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.

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

 
working