Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
The Truman show

Trump’s Mental Health is a problem

583 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hammerclaw
Just now, Farmer77 said:

Yet the fact remains that history will forever remember Trump as corrupt.

Honestly he had made enough noise in his life that history would have remembered him as a corrupt buffoon if he had never run for president.

Now however it is the kind of history that ties his name to corruption in the minds of schoolchildren as they learn about our Presidents year after year from K-12. From 2020 until the end of the American experiment, regardless of what else he or his kids do, the name Trump will be synonymous with corruption in the vast majority of Americans minds.

 

 

For Democrats; for Republicans that honor goes to the Clintons. History will not spare anyone and there's still a lot left in this chapter of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

Everything you got wrong about collusion--shall we count the ways?

Please do. I could be wrong but I dont recall ever making a hard statement on how I thought the investigation was going to turn out. I definitely argued repeatedly that the investigation was worthwhile and ill still argue not only the same but that with Trump all roads lead to Russia - BASED ON THE FACTS.

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Nah, or you Quid pro quo or bribery or whatever term du jour you think will get traction--that the victim denies?

That the victim denies? Zelibnsky???? :lol:  Ok I must confess I honestly thought you were a slightly deeper thinker than that.  Do you actually believe that statement is relevant? Have you ever read about imbalance of power in relationships? Give it a quick google and then place the US with her money,weaponry and military as one partner in the relationship and then place the Ukraine with the superpower beating down her door, the whole war thing and the desperate need for money, weaponry and military aid as the other.

Now tell me if you were Zelinsky, a man responsible for 42 million Ukranian lives, would you say ANYTHING to risk that money, weaponry and military aid?

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
9 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

For Democrats; for Republicans that honor goes to the Clintons. History will not spare anyone and there's still a lot left in this chapter of it. 

Oh youre kidding yourself. I mean sure some of every generation become political junkies but we're the extreme minority. And sure some will go to Christian colleges and get a right wing political education but the vast majority will take their public school educations to trade schools or a community college  and think nothing further beyond that K-12 teaching about past Presidents which taught them Trump was impeached for corruption. Same is true for Clinton but with BJ's.

Honestly If I had to guess when discussing legacy that may be the best case scenario for Trump at this point. You know the facts always (largely) come out eventually.

Edited by Farmer77
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

I'm sorry @Farmer77, but I'd have to agree with @Hammerclaw on this one. 

The New York Times article cites unnamed "officials". Now, it is common for newspapers to do this, but you have to trust that the newspaper really HAS had information from these "un-named officials". 

Sadly, in the case of the New York Times, I fear that trust is lacking. They have a record of vehemently opposing President Trump, to the point of distorting what sources have told them, of using single-source (e.g. uncorroborated) stories, or using sources with dubious credibility. 

As a consequence, I do not consider that they are a credible source of stories themselves. At least, not when it comes to President Trump, anyway. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, RoofGardener said:

I'm sorry @Farmer77, but I'd have to agree with @Hammerclaw on this one. 

The New York Times article cites unnamed "officials". Now, it is common for newspapers to do this, but you have to trust that the newspaper really HAS had information from these "un-named officials". 

Sadly, in the case of the New York Times, I fear that trust is lacking. They have a record of vehemently opposing President Trump, to the point of distorting what sources have told them, of using single-source (e.g. uncorroborated) stories, or using sources with dubious credibility. 

As a consequence, I do not consider that they are a credible source of stories themselves. At least, not when it comes to President Trump, anyway. 

As a consumer of both far right and left media I find this conversation hilarious.

The left says the same thing about the NYT and their "both sides" coverage.

Dont get me wrong, bias definitely exists and I can respect reading a particular report and deciding you dont find it credible,  but dismissing a source such as the NYT offhand due to perceived bias is just laughable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
45 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

As a consumer of both far right and left media I find this conversation hilarious.

The left says the same thing about the NYT and their "both sides" coverage.

Dont get me wrong, bias definitely exists and I can respect reading a particular report and deciding you dont find it credible,  but dismissing a source such as the NYT offhand due to perceived bias is just laughable.

 

I don't think it IS laughable, @Farmer77. I am interested to hear that the Times takes flack from the left wing; could you cite any examples ? Meanwhile, it's hatred of Trump is hardly a secret. 

In my opinion, the NYT goes WELL beyond a 'slight bias', and virtually into the realms of anti-Trump activism. Why SHOULD I give it any credence ? 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, RoofGardener said:

I don't think it IS laughable, @Farmer77. I am interested to hear that the Times takes flack from the left wing; could you cite any examples ? Meanwhile, it's hatred of Trump is hardly a secret. 

Yet their hating Clinton doesnt exclude you from dismissing any Foxnews stories offhand ....weird. :P

 

Here are a couple of quick examples.

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/why-the-left-cant-stand-the-new-york-times.php

The real problem with the New York Times op-ed page: it’s not honest about US conservatism

Quote

When the Times opinion page pretends that conservatism is David Brooks or Bret Stephens when it maintains the comforting illusion that American politics is a contest of ideas, it is not exposing its readers to uncomfortable truths — it is sheltering them.

Do NYT readers — who mostly read mainstream sources, mostly live in cities, mostly are not exposed to right-wing media — understand that the most active voices on the American right today are filled with paranoid rage, hopped up on lies and conspiracy theories, unmoved by reason, and devoted to their total destruction? Do they understand that the values and norms they assume safe and sacrosanct are in fact under heavy siege? Do they know that American democracy is in danger of coming apart?

I’m not sure they do; I think they still imagine Republican moderates gathered in a cave somewhere, ready to swoop in and take charge again at the sight of the David Brooks bat signal.

If the NYT wants to challenge their assumptions, it should challenge those.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
10 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

In my opinion, the NYT goes WELL beyond a 'slight bias', and virtually into the realms of anti-Trump activism. Why SHOULD I give it any credence ? 

Can you post an example of this anti trump activism from their news department?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Please do. I could be wrong but I dont recall ever making a hard statement on how I thought the investigation was going to turn out. I definitely argued repeatedly that the investigation was worthwhile and ill still argue not only the same but that with Trump all roads lead to Russia - BASED ON THE FACTS.

That the victim denies? Zelibnsky???? :lol:  Ok I must confess I honestly thought you were a slightly deeper thinker than that.  Do you actually believe that statement is relevant? Have you ever read about imbalance of power in relationships? Give it a quick google and then place the US with her money,weaponry and military as one partner in the relationship and then place the Ukraine with the superpower beating down her door, the whole war thing and the desperate need for money, weaponry and military aid as the other.

Now tell me if you were Zelinsky, a man responsible for 42 million Ukranian lives, would you say ANYTHING to risk that money, weaponry and military aid?

 

You mean out in the open where the whole world would know Trump was shaking them down and be humiliated and be forced by public opinion to cave? A President facing possible Impeachment? Everyone that doesn't back your twisted version of reality is either delusional or a liar, even a foreign head of state. You poor, pitiful sonuvab****.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Oh youre kidding yourself. I mean sure some of every generation become political junkies but we're the extreme minority. And sure some will go to Christian colleges and get a right wing political education but the vast majority will take their public school educations to trade schools or a community college  and think nothing further beyond that K-12 teaching about past Presidents which taught them Trump was impeached for corruption. Same is true for Clinton but with BJ's.

Honestly If I had to guess when discussing legacy that may be the best case scenario for Trump at this point. You know the facts always (largely) come out eventually.

I'm not worried about history books. That's your fallback smear for what the next five years have in store. Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

You mean out in the open where the whole world would know Trump was shaking them down and be humiliated and be forced by public opinion to cave?

So you'd stake the lives of the 42 million people you were in charge of on "public opinion" huh? You'd bet those lives that American public opinion would force a policy and or regime change? Have you looked at the polling for 2024 and beyond? Two of the top candidates have the last name Trump. You'd bet those 42 million lives that they wont be the ones to be elected?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

So you'd stake the lives of the 42 million people you were in charge of on "public opinion" huh? You'd bet those lives that American public opinion would force a policy and or regime change? Have you looked at the polling for 2024 and beyond? Two of the top candidates have the last name Trump. You'd bet those 42 million lives that they wont be the ones to be elected?

 

Oh, r-I-I-ight. No one in the world has any integrity but the wonderful American Democrats whose strength is that of ten because their hearts are pure. Anyone in the world that doesn't march in step with them are lying dirt. What other paranoid crap are you going to pull out of your backside? You're supply is endless. I mean, you think the people who stood up to Russia and Putin would grovel before a relatively impotent American President? Even Trump's own Party would turn against him, even more so Comrade Pelosi's House. Get a grip, dude. You're talkin' crazy.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Oh, r-I-I-ight. No one in the world has any integrity but the wonderful American Democrats whose strength is that of ten because their hearts are pure. Anyone in the world that doesn't march in step with them are lying dirt.

Sure thats what im saying.  :blink: (pssst the emoji thingy means that no im really not and your post is nutso) Not everyone who disagrees with your dear leader is in "the other cult".

6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

What other paranoid crap are you going to pull out of your backside? You're supply is endless. I mean, you think the people who stood up to Russia and Putin would grovel before a relatively impotent American President? Even Trump's own Party would turn against him, even more so Comrade Pelosi's House. Get a grip, dude. You're talkin' crazy.

Dude it happened and his party didnt blink after seeing Trump's own words in black and white (the word though really is pretty self explanatory btw) . Why would anyone, Zelinsky included, think that Zelinsky's words would make the sycophants all of a sudden decide to turn on the dear leader?

You'd stake the lives of the 42 million citizens you were in charge of on sycophants like Gaetz and Graham turning on their dear leader?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
14 hours ago, simplybill said:

You’re partly right. By supporting President Trump, those of us who are too old to serve our country can leave the younger generation with the strongest economy in history. That’s very important to us old folks.

It was the same thing in Vietnam.  Those who didn't have to fight were all for getting the younger folks killed.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simplybill
49 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

It was the same thing in Vietnam.  Those who didn't have to fight were all for getting the younger folks killed.

That’s quite a stretch. The general public supported the war when we were there in an advisory capacity, but when (Democrat) President Johnson escalated our involvement to full-scale warfare public opinion began to change. Then of course the Tet Offensive was the big turning point for public opinion.

I’m probably in the minority, but I believe the long-term results of the war accomplished our goal. Russia’s support of Hanoi, plus Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan followed by the nine-year war, and then the Chernobyl incident, all combined, lead to the bankruptcy of Russia and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That ended Russia’s communistic colonialism.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
9 minutes ago, simplybill said:

That’s quite a stretch. The general public supported the war when we were there in an advisory capacity, but when (Democrat) President Johnson escalated our involvement to full-scale warfare public opinion began to change. Then of course the Tet Offensive was the big turning point for public opinion.

I’m probably in the minority, but I believe the long-term results of the war accomplished our goal. Russia’s support of Hanoi, plus Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan followed by the nine-year war, and then the Chernobyl incident, all combined, lead to the bankruptcy of Russia and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That ended Russia’s communistic colonialism.

 

 

Johnson (D) sent in the troops.  Nixon (R) expanded it into Cambodia and Laos.

One of the costs of that war is that my generation doesn't trust the government.

If you think Russia's colonialism has ended, take another look at Putin.

Communism under the Soviets was corrupt; whatever-it-is under Putin is also corrupt.  Not much has changed in Russia.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
13 hours ago, and then said:

Anyone who works for a corporation and has a 401K is "in the stock market"  

Yes, instead of a real retirement plan we let someone put our money in a stock plan, sometimes we get to pick and choose and sometimes we don't depending on the employer's choice of money vendor.  And you get to choose whether you participate or not.  When I had employers who put 1% of my annual salary into a pension plan I got a lot more money saved up than when I had an employer who would match up to 3% of my 401k contribution.  And the pension plan was stable, not subject to the games that wall street plays.  My current employer will match only up to 2 % and I do it because I can afford it now, but I have seen some on this forum chastise people for not saving when they are young, people (men) who obviously had higher paying jobs by the time they were 25 and maybe no family. Not everyone has spare money to save, much less give to wall street with the hope that it will increase over time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
11 hours ago, Kismit said:

One more question if this is all part of Trumps plan, to interfere with Mossad and the CIA why did he wait until now to do it?

Didn’t he withdraw from the deal over two years ago?(almost 3)

Did he give Mossad and the CIA time to be able to counter his move, perhaps offer them a sporting chance? 

I really don’t buy the deep state stuff. Donald Trump appears to have been elected fairly and in accordance with the American political system, surely the all powerful deep state would have stopped it if they were really that influential but they did not. And if they were already that ineffectual before Donald was elected, why is it taking him all of this time to get rid of them?

 

The appearance of a fair election is because your binoculars are not strong enough and you don't understand our politics and election system as well as you think.  We have not had a fair election in over 100 years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor Witness
6 hours ago, simplybill said:

This is exactly what I predicted in my earlier post: Donald Trump recognized that he was operating outside of his area of expertise (business), and he humbly listened to the wise counsel of his military advisers. He’s learning to be a Statesman.

“For by wise guidance you will wage war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory.”    Proverbs 24:6 NASB

I don’t mind that Trump is a Washington outsider, or a successful businessman, or even an entertainer. Obama bored me to tears, so much so that I was mentally fatigued by the end of his Administration, but I admired his grace as a human being.

However, Trump is far from a humble man. That’s simply not an honest view of his behavior on this earth.

As for him seeking righteousness and counsel, that’s not what I see. I see an unhinged, loose lipped person, who likely hasn’t read a word of Proverbs, except in casual passing.

Trump puts himself before everyone else, which led to his impeachment. You can’t play U.S. for fools after seeing this Administration on the world’s stage, stumbling towards another war in the Middle East.

Trumo is a loser in my book. He’s made U.S. all look like losers too, not winners. The need to constantly lie about everything is a sign of weakness, not strength. Most children go through a lying phase, but outgrow it. The fact that Donald Trump never outgrew his lying tongue means that he has a serious character flaw, or is developmentally disabled. I suspect both in his case.

Trump has scared and scarred the American people, deeply.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simplybill
11 minutes ago, Raptor Witness said:

Obama bored me to tears, so much so that I was mentally fatigued by the end of his Administration, but I admired his grace as a human being.

The most important thing to me that came from the Obama administration is when Michelle Obama wore a sleeveless dress in public and showed us her toned, muscular arms. If I had been there, I would’ve run up to her and given her a hug if the Secret Service didn’t shoot me first. Obesity has become a plague in our country. It breaks my heart to go to the grocery store and see 300-lb. people riding around on electric scooter/carts. Michelle showed the world that fitness is possible even for people in their mid-50s. Same with Barack: those videos of him playing basketball were an inspiration. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

The appearance of a fair election is because your binoculars are not strong enough and you don't understand our politics and election system as well as you think.  We have not had a fair election in over 100 years.

So the deep state wanted Donald Trump to be President then? I am confused.

or as my earlier post stated “in accordance to the American system”

The system itself may not be great but it is the American electoral system 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ian hacktorp
13 hours ago, Kismit said:

One more question if this is all part of Trumps plan, to interfere with Mossad and the CIA why did he wait until now to do it?

Didn’t he withdraw from the deal over two years ago?(almost 3)

Did he give Mossad and the CIA time to be able to counter his move, perhaps offer them a sporting chance? 

I really don’t buy the deep state stuff. Donald Trump appears to have been elected fairly and in accordance with the American political system, surely the all powerful deep state would have stopped it if they were really that influential but they did not. And if they were already that ineffectual before Donald was elected, why is it taking him all of this time to get rid of them?

Considering that Syria, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, North Korea, Iran, and others, have ALL been infiltrated during the past decades by globalist deep-state corruption, it seems like a fairly enormous task to purge them from those countries.  But that is what Trump is doing.

I can understand your impatience, but do you have a better plan?  If so, I would very much like to hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
25 minutes ago, Kismit said:

So the deep state wanted Donald Trump to be President then? I am confused.

or as my earlier post stated “in accordance to the American system”

The system itself may not be great but it is the American electoral system 

Maybe you could define what you call "the deep state".  I don't have a problem believing you are confused.  It is one thing I am curious about, how New Zealanders participate in conversation about everyone else's politics but not a peep about their own. 

As for "in accordance with the American system", first, America is a continent that includes many countries, North America includes Canada, The U.S. and Mexico; then there is South America, look on a map to see what countries that includes.  second, what system are you talking about?  Do you know what the system is in the U.S.? 

  The election fraud comes from the democratic and republican party closing ranks to keep any other party candidates or independent candidates from running and keeping all non party voters from voting for their candidates in the primaries; they sell their candidates to the highest bidder and have no real political platform except money.  Any republican or democrat that gets elected to a federal position is owned by some corporation or group.

Edited by Desertrat56
spelling
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
22 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I suppose you must be surprised every morning when you wake up and find these deep state globalist entities are tolerant enough to let you do your conspiracy ranting and not take you out in your sleep.

Seriously hacktorp, if this globalist deep state exists, how is it that we are free to say what we want?

Because our words are essentially powerless ?   Economics rule this world.  It's always been that way basically ?

     Most,if not all, of  our foreign and military policies have easy to spot economic motives. . If we but Look.

i dunno if I'd call it a "globalist " deep state ,so much as an economic/corporate deep state . ?  

        Changes in the White House usually have little overall effect on the persistent and powerful economic Entities basically running things.   

           President chump just says things.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Festina

 

Peeps....

Gore Vidal -1975  

“There is only one [political]  party in the United States, the Property [money, real estate, war, Israel] party ... and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-fairecapitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt – until recently ... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.” [emphasis mine] 

Vidal was wise. 

Seems to me most — perhaps all — presidents are selected [not elected] for one reason or another, Kennedy’s election was an anomaly but they had LBJ, also selected, just in case.  They are all puppets.  

Woodrow Wilson and FDR were two of their most useful playthings.  They got “things” named after them for their dirty deeds.  

 
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.