Trump Derangement Syndrome

[luutzu]

1) your opinion nothing else
2) business dealings are not illegal and actually promoted by previous admins
3) under investigation is no proof of guilt and Wiki is not a peer reviewed source of information

Correction: Wiki is a peer review source of info.

 

[SirRumpole]

The US is not there to keep the world stable. It's not their job to.

I disagree. As the country with the biggest collection of nukes and the biggest military in the world it acts as a constraint on the misuse of power by upstart totalitarian states who care little about individual rights etc that we take for granted.

If that power balance is upset, then nasty things will happen sooner or later.

 

[luutzu]

I disagree. As the country with the biggest collection of nukes and the biggest military in the world it acts as a constraint on the misuse of power by upstart totalitarian states who care little about individual rights etc that we take for granted.

If that power balance is upset, then nasty things will happen sooner or later.

While it does act to constrain other country's misuse of force, it does not necessarily constrain its own misuse, or those of its friends and servants.

Takes for example the French missions in north/west Africa. Or Israel's genocide on the Palestinians. Or Saudi Arabia's on Yemen. Or the US diplomatic tools of sanctioning countries whose leaders they don't like.

So yes, as long as a country do as they're told... peace be with them. If they don't... Iran, Venezuela, Libya, Syria etc. etc.

So your point being that, well... if an upstart were to challenge the status quo, things will be a whole lot worst. Wars will start all over again.

Maybe, maybe not.

Competition might do the ... yea, alright, you're right on that one.

We're so screwed.

 

[Smurf1976]

While it does act to constrain other country's misuse of force, it does not necessarily constrain its own misuse

A current non-military example is the US proposing to outlaw OPEC (the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries - basically the Arabs and a few others who meet periodically in Vienna) as an illegal cartel.

Now what on earth leads the US to think it has any right whatsoever to dictate to other countries how they do business?

If Saudi or the UAE or whoever wants to increase or reduce their production of oil then that's for them to decide not the US.

If the US thinks that's a good idea then they ought to be open to others doing the same. Eg they should have no problems if Australia informs the US that Australian gun laws will now apply throughout the US and likewise if somewhere like France decides that their labour laws now apply in the US. If it's good for the goose......

I seriously think that Trump is just going out of his way to upset anyone and everyone for the sake of upsetting them. Oddly that might just encourage peace since it puts pretty much everyone else in the same boat with a common problem.

Back to my seeing parallels with someone I've dealt with in real life, another common theme in both cases is the creation of chaos. In the case of Trump it seems that other world leaders have given up even pretending to know what's going on these days. Once the dust inevitably settles it will turn out that one or two knew all along what was going on and that the chaos was really just to divert attention and chew up the resources (time, money, lawyers, whatever) of those who might stand in the way.

 

[Tisme]

Correction: Wiki is a peer review source of info.

Yeah OK, in the absence of credentialed experts, it's peer reviewed.

 

[luutzu]

Yeah OK, in the absence of credentialed experts, it's peer reviewed.

An intelligent reader does not need the author's credentials to know if their content is worth anything

 

[moXJO]

While Trump has expressed an affinity for Putin, no evidence of a direct monetary link between Trump and the Kremlin has been presented. The question raised by the ABC report was the possibility that Trump might use the office of president to benefit his own finances, while the blog posts asserted that Trump’s relationship with Russia had less to do with business than with cozying up to the Kremlin — a claim that was not made by the original source of the story.

This is from snopes. It should be clear that he was selling condos to the Russians at one stage. After the sanctions in 2014 (I think) the sanctions stopped the money coming in.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russia-paid-donald-trump-millions-of-dollars/

Heres an article on Russian money sloping into the Clinton foundation and tony podesta

Ever since Watergate, the mantra of all major corruption investigations has been to "follow the money." Well, Americans of all political stripes should be outraged by the fact that both Democrats and Republicans in Washington are up to their eyeballs in Kremlin cash. Russian money found its way into the pockets of not only Trump advisers like Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — who were recently indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller —but also Democratic power lobbyist Tony Podesta, Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

This should suggest to objective observers that Russia was using its money to influence both sides in order to advance the Kremlin's interests. And it means that any full and impartial investigation of Russia's efforts to influence our political process needs to follow the Russian money flowing into the coffers of the Clintons, their foundation and their top associates.


Vladimir Putin-linked oligarchs and their Western business partners, do you think that his critics would be insisting there was nothing to see here?


A look at Hillary Clinton's time as first lady, U.S. senator, secretary of state and a Democratic candidate for president.

Then there is Tony Podesta. It is now front-page news that Podesta has been forced to step down from his soon-to-be-defunct lobbying firm, the Podesta Group, after being ensnared in the same scandal that led to the indictment of Trump campaign aides Manafort and Gates. The Podesta Group failed to register as a foreign agent for Russian interests while lobbying on behalf of the European Center for a Modern Ukraine — a front group that Mueller's indictment says was "under the ultimate direction" of Ukraine's Putin-backed president and his political party.

We should all be deeply concerned by how much Russian cash was sloshing around Washington, and how much of it found its way into the bank accounts of the Clintons and those around them. And we should all, Democrats and Republicans alike, want to get to the bottom of it.

As Americans, it goes against our sensibilities to encourage the Justice Department of one party to investigate the vanquished candidate of the other party. But does the fact that Clinton lost mean Americans don't deserve to know the full extent of Russia's efforts to influence our political process?

None of this absolves the Trump campaign or calls into question the intelligence community's conclusion that "Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help ... Trump's election chances." But it does underscore that the Russians were smart in what the intelligence community calls their efforts to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process." They played both sides, and in so doing preyed on the singular weakness of the Clintons and those around them — greed.

Any impartial investigation of Russia's efforts to meddle in our democratic process needs to include a full inquiry of the Russian money flowing into Clinton world. Such an inquiry is not a distraction. It is critical to restoring public faith in American democracy.

Washington Post

https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.c...-investigation-russia-20171120-story,amp.html


The Clinton foundation has a lot of rumors mixed with facts. But the Clintons are political beasts. They hide it well.

 

[moXJO]

I knew little about Trump prior to him being elected as US President.

He's some sort of businessman with a hotel tower carrying his name in Las Vegas which is notable as being the only one to apply for and be permanently refused a license to operate a casino and he was on a TV show. That's literally all I knew about him indeed I wouldn't have recognised him in a photo since I've never watched the TV show.

Since him becoming President, well all I can really say is I see an awful lot of similarities with something I witnessed first hand from another individual and the similarities are ongoing to this day. It's the same crap just in a different context but it's the same thing yes.

Those with the best social intelligence will already have gotten well out of his way very quickly.

Those with the best intellectual intelligence will be getting out of his way one by one and all wishing they'd done it sooner.

Those who dare express a different view and who haven't got out of the way will be removed one way or another.

What remains will be a group that dares not challenge the almighty leader. The ultimate in group think, enforced by fear, and an incredibly dangerous situation since nobody is infallible.

I would most definitely like to be proven wrong on this one. I hope I've misinterpreted and that Trump isn't what I think he is. If I am right however then I'll give you one prediction and that is that it will end dramatically.

The details are impossible to predict but years will be spent picking up the pieces.

As I said, I'm hoping to be proven wrong but I sure don't like what I'm seeing so far as the man's personality is concerned.

Toxic personalities are great for burning it all down though. Trump is the endgame to a long line of political shtbags.

 

[PZ.]

Grab 'em by the history book

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/10/1.../?xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter

 

[Darc Knight]

I knew little about Trump prior to him being elected as US President.

He's some sort of businessman with a hotel tower carrying his name in Las Vegas which is notable as being the only one to apply for and be permanently refused a license to operate a casino and he was on a TV show. That's literally all I knew about him indeed I wouldn't have recognised him in a photo since I've never watched the TV show.

Since him becoming President, well all I can really say is I see an awful lot of similarities with something I witnessed first hand from another individual and the similarities are ongoing to this day. It's the same crap just in a different context but it's the same thing yes.

Those with the best social intelligence will already have gotten well out of his way very quickly.

Those with the best intellectual intelligence will be getting out of his way one by one and all wishing they'd done it sooner.

Those who dare express a different view and who haven't got out of the way will be removed one way or another.

What remains will be a group that dares not challenge the almighty leader. The ultimate in group think, enforced by fear, and an incredibly dangerous situation since nobody is infallible.

I would most definitely like to be proven wrong on this one. I hope I've misinterpreted and that Trump isn't what I think he is. If I am right however then I'll give you one prediction and that is that it will end dramatically.

The details are impossible to predict but years will be spent picking up the pieces.

As I said, I'm hoping to be proven wrong but I sure don't like what I'm seeing so far as the man's personality is concerned.

Your experiences seem to reflect mine and others people's. Others would be well served to reflect on your words. Most people don't recognise a sociopath until it's to late and the damage is done.

 

[Tisme]

An intelligent reader does not need the author's credentials to know if their content is worth anything

Intelligent people don't use Wiki as proofs.

 

[Tisme]

Grab 'em by the history book

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/10/1.../?xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter

Being an avid watcher since it started, family guy is a great vehicle for Seth McFarlane to employ innuendo as a way of revealing many industry secrets. Archer also drops a few hints now and then.

The way they mercilessly pisstakes his fellow Rhode Island friend friend James Wood, who encourages the skits is funny as.

 

[Junior]

Intelligent people don't use Wiki as proofs.

What do you deem to be an acceptable source of factual information? There have been links to a wide range of sources in this thread, and you have dismissed all of them, clearly because they don't paint Trump in a positive light.

 

[Tisme]

What do you deem to be an acceptable source of factual information? There have been links to a wide range of sources in this thread, and you have dismissed all of them, clearly because they don't paint Trump in a positive light.

I'm not going to get into an argument about wiki. You should know that wiki is editable, even by yourself and relies on others correcting your fictions. It is not a source you can use in, say a Uni thesis because is not a reliable, peer reviewed encyclopedia. The best it can be is a prompt to find out the facts.

If you can't find original author facts after seeing it on a wiki article you would have to ask yourself why that is. If you do find that article you have to then objectively breakdown the content to eliminate the subjective content and then find at least two other collaborative works to make a reliable conclusion on the supposed facts.

That is why I can easily dismiss the nonsense of posting opinion piece links thinking members are gullible enough to actually believe them. I know I don't expect people to blindly swallow links I post and in fact when they are about anything pro white male I'm reminded of that.

 

[moXJO]

Wiki is a general overview. Its not exactly fact checked. Even some of the "fact checked" sites are dubious. Even a lot of peer reviewed stuff is rubbish. Cigarette/oil companies, political biased hit pieces etc.

 

[luutzu]

A current non-military example is the US proposing to outlaw OPEC (the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries - basically the Arabs and a few others who meet periodically in Vienna) as an illegal cartel.

Now what on earth leads the US to think it has any right whatsoever to dictate to other countries how they do business?

If Saudi or the UAE or whoever wants to increase or reduce their production of oil then that's for them to decide not the US.

If the US thinks that's a good idea then they ought to be open to others doing the same. Eg they should have no problems if Australia informs the US that Australian gun laws will now apply throughout the US and likewise if somewhere like France decides that their labour laws now apply in the US. If it's good for the goose......

I seriously think that Trump is just going out of his way to upset anyone and everyone for the sake of upsetting them. Oddly that might just encourage peace since it puts pretty much everyone else in the same boat with a common problem.

Back to my seeing parallels with someone I've dealt with in real life, another common theme in both cases is the creation of chaos. In the case of Trump it seems that other world leaders have given up even pretending to know what's going on these days. Once the dust inevitably settles it will turn out that one or two knew all along what was going on and that the chaos was really just to divert attention and chew up the resources (time, money, lawyers, whatever) of those who might stand in the way.

The road to freedom and greatness is a one-way street Smurf

 

[luutzu]

Intelligent people don't use Wiki as proofs.

Yes they do. It's a lot more reliable than just about anything on the mainstream media.

 

[Junior]

It's funny how Trump fans yell about fake news and denounce a wide range of sources as being untrue, yet the only source they do believe in are words from the mouth of Donald Trump (proven serial liar) or posted on his Twitter feed.

 

[wayneL]

I knew little about Trump prior to him being elected as US President.

He's some sort of businessman with a hotel tower carrying his name in Las Vegas which is notable as being the only one to apply for and be permanently refused a license to operate a casino and he was on a TV show. That's literally all I knew about him indeed I wouldn't have recognised him in a photo since I've never watched the TV show.

Since him becoming President, well all I can really say is I see an awful lot of similarities with something I witnessed first hand from another individual and the similarities are ongoing to this day. It's the same crap just in a different context but it's the same thing yes.

Those with the best social intelligence will already have gotten well out of his way very quickly.

Those with the best intellectual intelligence will be getting out of his way one by one and all wishing they'd done it sooner.

Those who dare express a different view and who haven't got out of the way will be removed one way or another.

What remains will be a group that dares not challenge the almighty leader. The ultimate in group think, enforced by fear, and an incredibly dangerous situation since nobody is infallible.

I would most definitely like to be proven wrong on this one. I hope I've misinterpreted and that Trump isn't what I think he is. If I am right however then I'll give you one prediction and that is that it will end dramatically.

The details are impossible to predict but years will be spent picking up the pieces.

As I said, I'm hoping to be proven wrong but I sure don't like what I'm seeing so far as the man's personality is concerned.

Regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of this post, it could well describe any number of leaders and politicians od every political stripe.

Symptomatic of Trump Derangement Syndrome, is the believe that Trump is somehow unique in this regard, withour any virtues, and with inferences that the alternative was somwhow less toxic.

Notwithstanding Trump's many foibles, his persona has been carefully crafted by the media, a classic strawman.

If you want to bitch about fair dinkum toxicity, look no further than the current iteration of the Democrats, eg Maxine Waters, the gender agenda and race baiting politics of the Marxists that have taken over that party and infected the once truly virtuous left.

 

[moXJO]

It's funny how Trump fans yell about fake news and denounce a wide range of sources as being untrue, yet the only source they do believe in are words from the mouth of Donald Trump (proven serial liar) or posted on his Twitter feed.

I'm not sure anyone here has quoted him as factual?