This is not normal nor should it ever be accepted as such.
Your version of normal only ever existed in your head; it is not "reality" in anyway.
Welcome to what some of us have thought about every presidency ever examined.
It's a fun feeling isn't it?
Why are you defending the indefensible?
You again show your hand...
what do you think I am defending, are you even reading what I write or just viewing it through your left/right filters?
I'm saying you've been deceived and no-presedent has ever been good nor what we thought them to be.
govern-ment my dear.. Control Mind.
do you control yours, or is your repetition of talking points written by others indicative of "govern ment" in effect?
Trumps biggest fault is that he is not a politician and doesn't know how to act like one. He doesn't think before speaking, and someone should take his phone away from him.
On the other hand, what choice was there? Clinton or Trump is no choice at all. Time for more parties!
Trump's personality might be objectionable but not as objectionable as Clinton's policies plus personality.
I am just happy that Obama is gone and his policies can be rolled back. No mandatory Obamacare. Enforce our immigration laws as written until changed by congress. Stop using the US as a cash-cow for feel-good UN policies, like the GCF.
No trump's biggest flaws are a desire for sadistic vengeance for perceived slights to his petulant fragile ego in addition to the need for self aggrandizing thru outright lies and obfuscation. In addition to his ignorance,
and complete lack of morals and ethics.
He can dish it out but he can't take it.
All presidents have dealt with the same type of hyperbole from those opposing their presidency. NONE have ever stooped so low as this Trumplemeantweetingthinskin sham of a president.
You've never seen any other president attack their detractors in such a disgusting, disgraceful, indefensible, DEPLORABLE manner unbecoming and unbefitting the office of the presidency which must be held to higher standards.
Classless, tasteless, vile, narcissistic, bullying, misogyny should not be tolerated even from this unfit, unqualified, misanthropic, pathologically lying charlatan.
One more thing, I am not personally attacking nor making fun of any of you that happen to like this administration. I don't see why I should be the subject of any rude comments and attitudes. It's very disappointing to see such pettiness come from some members of this forum just because you don't like and agree with what I've posted. Show some class.
John F. Kennedy was among the most charming of all the presidents, but his successor, Lyndon Johnson, was something of a lout. He had an enormous ego and tended to overpower and intimidate people to get his way. Kennedy was constantly concerned about his vice president, unwilling to give him extra powers but desperate to keep him from becoming an enemy. Referring to Johnson, he once told a White House aide, “You are dealing with a very insecure, sensitive man with a huge ego. I want you literally to kiss his fanny from one end of Washington to the other.”
In his memoirs, longtime Johnson aide George Reedy painted an ugly portrait of LBJ, accusing him of being a womanizing, perverted drunkard who delighted in having conversations with people while he sat on the toilet for the sole purpose of making them uncomfortable and bullying his staff to the point of sadism. Johnson was especially fond of whipping out his manhood, which he’d dubbed “Jumbo,” in mixed company. There is even a story, possibly apocryphal, that he urinated on a Secret Service agent’s leg, claiming it was his “prerogative.” Johnson’s behavior could be so reprehensible that it has been suggested that he was likely mentally ill, possessed of more “‘grandiose narcissism” than any other president in history.
So far, Trump has not pulled out his penis in an interview with reporters like LBJ did. But then LBJ was a liberal president so I guess it's ok.
And that's justification?
No. But it refutes what you said. Trump is no worse than LBJ.
A lewd, crude Master
Elections are often more about policies rather than personalities. Trump was elected to be the anti-Obama President. His mandate was to roll back Obama's policies. Obama care, immigration, climate change, etc.
Trump may be described as a con man, a narcissist, crude, a bully and a whole lot more
unpleasant labels and then compared with this or that US President or other historical figure (Mussolini anyone), but sadly all those character flaws are shall I say trumped by the
plain to see fact that the man is mentally deranged!
His behavior taken as a whole in the last year is not that of a rational being. He is not Machiavellian as some would have it. He is not tactical as some pundits try to call it. He is behaving like a victim of a prefrontal brain lesion with loss of impulse control and any sense of normative behavior. Any temptation to normalize all this with something like Trump is just being Trump is just plain foolishness.
He is dangerous to the country and needs to go before he completely melts down.
Alana, I'm not trying to be mean, I was trying to get a laugh I guess. I apologize if it hurt your feelings.
However, there are many people on this board that weren't pleased with President Obama or his policies but didn't resort to calling him the same list of names every day. He is the President and he has been treated unfairly by many of the news organizations you constantly link too.
Their credibility is in the toilet and probably will not recover. I'm tired of politicians so it doesn' t bother me. The mess that they have gotten us into will take some work to get us out of. Call him all the names you want its better than Hillary finishing off what Obama started. Our Country
From another forum:
This Forth of July weekend, I wanted to say something about both the promise, and the peril, of this great country. I will start with a true story from our nation's founding.
The Continental Army would often, when engaging the British Army, use sharpshooters to systematically take out British officers. Cornwallis eventually was so distraught with this tactic that he sent an envoy to General Washington, with a message that said, "This tactic of systemically aiming munitions at officers must end. Imagine an army devoid of officers in which the men are free to roam as they naturally do, without officers of noble birth to restrain them. Surely you agree that the common man must at all times be controlled."
Unfortunately for Cornwallis, General Washington was fighting a revolution not only against English tyranny, but also against the notion that a moral and intellectual elite (the 'nobility' in that day) needed to control everyone else.
You see, the economics that had been employed up until that time was almost universally one in which government, through a king and noble lords (representing a moral and intellectual elite), owned and operated the means of production collectively. The noble Lords quite literally owned everything, including the people, on their lands, and they took everything their people produced, to do government things, on the promise that enough would trickle back down to the people who produced it for them to survive.
In the late 1700s, as a result of this, 90% of the population of England (the richest nation on Earth at that time) lived in conditions not materially different from those of a Roman slave.
For 90% of the population, life was brutal and short. They were at all times only one bad harvest from starvation, and populations always grew faster than food supplies, ensuring that this miserable system of poverty and hunger would continue forever.
Then something changed.
Suddenly the notion that the commoner needed a moral and intellectual elite to manage their life for them came into question. For the first time in human history, the king was told he did not own his subjects - the feudal lord did not own the people who lived on his property - and the people were free to do as they wished with their productive capacities.
They generally sold their labor to the highest bidder.
This shift in looking at regular people as being in charge of their own lives, with a government whose primary role was to protect them against aggression and to ensure that all exchanges are voluntary, led to the greatest expansion in the living and working conditions of workers, and especially the lowest skilled laborers, who saw their living and working conditions grow at the fastest pace in human history.
The growth was even more dramatic in the United States, after the ratification of the US Constitution created the first libertarian Republic in world history. It was an imperfect libertarian Republic, which allowed Southern states to maintain an anti-libertarian system of slavery, for another 80 years.
Interestingly, all of the per capita GDP growth for that first 80 years was in the North. All of it. The South stayed as poor, per capita, as it had been in 1789, until after the end of the Civil War, when slavery ended.
There is a reason the North exploded into an economic power during that time period and the South did not: the South largely still used a system of lords and laborers, while in the North everyone was free to sell their labor to the highest bidder.
After the end of slavery, the South began to expand, and though they have not yet caught up with the North, we became, by the start of World War One, the largest, richest, most powerful country the world has ever seen, with the highest standards of living across the board.
Had you told General Cornwallis that the United States would be, in just over 100 years, stronger economically than not only England, but all of Europe combined, he would have had a good laugh. And yet, it happened.
That is the growth and the promise of the United States. This is why so many people have, and continue to, immigrate to our shores.
Just as the United States emerged as the world's preeminent economic power, progressivism emerged with the idea that if we could only create a moral and intellectual elite, and through the tax system, give them control over the incomes of all the people, we could do even better. The amount of the national income government spent has since grown from less than 3% of GDP to more than 40% (including federal, state, and local spending). The notion has been that, if we just give government more of what we earn, then after government spends what it wants to spend on itself, including on its own wages and pensions, enough of it will trickle back down to the rest of us to give us better lives than we could have had we not been taxed so heavily.
We started at 3% of GDP going to government, and we were told that more prosperity required that government take 13%. That climbed to 20%. Now it is at 40% of GDP.
The more government has taken, the more growth has slowed, and the more growth slows, the more progressives blame free markets for the slowdown, telling us that the problem is not that we give 40% of everything we make to government, but that we give only 40% of everything we make to government.
To make matters worse, when World War Two ended we had tax rates as high as 92%, and, being the only industrial power in the world that had not been bombed into oblivion, our economy had robust growth anyway. Progressives point to this post-war boom as proof that their policies, which failed miserably until after the war and then began to fail again in the 1970s and 1980s (as the rest of the world began to compete with us again), as proof that it can work if only government takes more.
How much 'more' is enough for the progressive? I have never heard an answer to that. Historically, economies always collapse before the progressive has taken 'enough'.
The promise of America is still found in our founding principles of limited government and maximum liberty. The peril to America is that many of us no longer believe in these ideals, but instead want to return to the world General Cornwallis grew up in, in which a moral and intellectual elite control the rest of us, like oxen plowing fields.
To the progressive, you are either a lord or a serf, and there can be only so many lords.
Remember that come this next election.
Haven't you ever taken an American History class and paid attention?
The revolutionary war was all about tobacco and taxes.
The founding fathers, including George Washington, were almost to a one direct descendants of English landed gentry. They were the progeny of younger children who were pushed out of land inheritance in England. The English government awarded those who moved to agrarian colonies 100 acres parcels free of any charge to grow products for English consumption.
The English government tried to increase taxation on the American colonies to pay for the French and Indian War. That was not well received and the rest is history.
Feudalism ended long before the American revolution. Prior to the Civil War, the South was a wealthy system based on the harvest and sale of tobacco and later cotton. Ownership of slaves provided great and recognized wealth. Slaves were not serfs, they were slaves with monetary value. The end of slavery took away wealth from the South - slave were high value assets and families were immediately impoverished at the end of the Civil Way. The deep South has never recovered.
The truth is so much more interesting than that libertarian fairy tale.
well said Rotor.
This sums it up for me.
There is NO Low too low for this depraved, disgraceful, disgusting, DEPLORABLE, spiteful, incompetent parasite to sink.
This sums it up for me.
There is NO Low too low for this depraved, disgraceful, disgusting, DEPLORABLE, spiteful, incompetent parasite to sink.
He could always switch parties.
Then he'd hit bottom
He stated that republicans are ignorant which is why he chose to run under their banner (Bannon).
A couple other adjectives come to mind with regards to this classless, attention seeking, parasitic, intellectual midget:
Unhinged, desperate, ineffectual, depraved, bullying, cruel, ignorant, distasteful, disingenuous, fascist, racist, xenophobic, sexist, misogynistic, misanthropic, sycophantic (all things Russian/dictators,) inhumane, narrow minded, short sighted, self-serving, dishonest, conning, conniving, treacherous, traitorous, thieving, shameful...to name a few!
If anyone is still bleating (34%) about what a great president he is, I sincerely hope that they'll find psychological help.
Better do it soon, while you can afford it.
President Barack Obama took a lot of hits, insults to himself, his wife, his extremely young daughters, his policies He was vilified in every conceivable way but he never stooped to the lowest levels that we've been handed with this fallacy of a presidency.
The Bush administration's left us reeling in huge deficits.
Wars for profit, making enemies where there might have been another option. Remember Iraq?
President Obama brought us out of that, got the economy back, sought protections for clean water, air, lands energy, wildlife, attempted to put usury with banks and wall street taking advantage to and end or at least, limited. He created a healthcare system, that was scrutinized, went thru numerous hearings, Senate reviews, bipartisan amendments to help Americans have Affordable Healthcare. If you had a preexisting condition prior, forget about it.
Trump has had a tick up his ass from the beginning about President Obama He lied continuously to denounce, discredit him while he was working for all Americans, our environment and planet with grace, dignity and honor while being obstructed and demonized at every turn.
Meanwhile, y'all seem to love this self-serving, hypocritical pathologically LYING puddle of disgraceful disgust..
Think I'm done here. No use trying to educate what a sows ear you've gotten in exchange for your silk purse.