Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump - misc

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by KC View Post
    Donald Trump Is Not Well - The Atlantic
    Accepting the reality about the president’s disordered personality is important—even essential.

    SEP 9, 2019 by Peter Wehner

    “...I responded to a pro-Trump caller who was upset that I opposed Trump despite my having been a Republican for my entire adult life and having served in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations and the George W. Bush White House....”

    “When asked about Trump’s feelings for his fellow human beings, Trump’s mentor, the notorious lawyer Roy Cohn, reportedly said, “He...”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...t-well/597640/


    Ivanka Trump’s Fight for the Trump Dynasty - The Atlantic

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ynasty/596674/
    Thanks for posting. I read those articles also. I found the dynasty one particularly interesting and well written. However, on his mental health, one part of me says is this a surprise? I mean really, I think the only one who really believes he is a "stable genius" is possibly Trump himself, although I am uncertain whether he believes most of his own stories or not.

    However, the bigger problem is not that he is unstable and not a genius, but that the country put him in power anyway with some idea that he was somewhat unstable and definitely not a deep thinker. Has it got worse? Perhaps. Frankly its hard to tell, but what does this all say about the state of mental health of the American people? They are the ones who (sort of) put him in power.

    Comment


    • What is more worrisome is the tens of millions of his followers who blindly support him and the Republican part who threw their oath to the US Constitution into the firepit.

      Many of his followers are heavily armed and I see no easy out that will not lead to civil war. Many still believe that Obama was born in Kenya and other conspiracies and will see Trump as a martyr no matter if he shoots someone on 5th Avenue on live TV or if there is undeniable proof that he took money from the Russias and is in Putin's pocket. Mike Pence would rapidly pardon him from prison even as a convicted traitor.

      They will blame the Democrats and as Trump said, not relinquish power.
      Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

      Comment


      • For a "oh, more of the same" perspective: check out this book from the 90s:


        Trumped!: The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump-His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall

        https://www.amazon.com/Trumped-Insid.../dp/067173735X

        to see that he's not a lot different from what he was in the 80s after he'd burned up a half-billion dallars of his Daddy's money. Written by one of the executives of one of the 4 casinos he bankrupted,

        An entertaining read, and you'll see his current irrational and random behaviour is just Bigly More of what he's done since he got to Manhattan.
        I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
          What is more worrisome is the tens of millions of his followers who blindly support him and the Republican part who threw their oath to the US Constitution into the firepit.

          Many of his followers are heavily armed and I see no easy out that will not lead to civil war. Many still believe that Obama was born in Kenya and other conspiracies and will see Trump as a martyr no matter if he shoots someone on 5th Avenue on live TV or if there is undeniable proof that he took money from the Russias and is in Putin's pocket. Mike Pence would rapidly pardon him from prison even as a convicted traitor.

          They will blame the Democrats and as Trump said, not relinquish power.
          I don't see the geographic basis for a civil war. There is a division, but its more of a rural/urban divide in the US. I'm not sure if the Trump supporter in Wisconsin would have a great deal of common cause with the Trump supporter in Alabama.

          I think to some degree being President is a mixed blessing for Trump. Yes, it gives his the attention and sometimes the adulation he wants, but he also faces tremendous scrutiny and criticism daily. I think if he doesn't get re-elected he will just "go back to where he came from", as he likes to say about others. Will he be a bit bitter? Probably. He will also likely hint the election was rigged and go around saying to anyone he can get to listen that he was the greatest President ever or some variation of that, but I think at some level he will be glad to be out of the White House, its fish bowl scrutiny and restrictions, so I don't think he will make a big fight of it.

          However, the problems and challenges of the Trump supporters do not go away, even if he does. It will be a big challenge for whoever takes over after him to try somehow bring the country back together again. It was divided before Trump and even more so now.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
            What is more worrisome is the tens of millions of his followers who blindly support him and the Republican part who threw their oath to the US Constitution into the firepit.

            Many of his followers are heavily armed and I see no easy out that will not lead to civil war. Many still believe that Obama was born in Kenya and other conspiracies and will see Trump as a martyr no matter if he shoots someone on 5th Avenue on live TV or if there is undeniable proof that he took money from the Russias and is in Putin's pocket. Mike Pence would rapidly pardon him from prison even as a convicted traitor.

            They will blame the Democrats and as Trump said, not relinquish power.
            The so-called right is already heavily armed. I suspect the so-called left isn’t.

            Gun control under Trump might just limit the access of the left to guns should the extremist right move to seize power. Game over. Might makes right.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post
              Originally posted by kcantor View Post
              Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post
              And Donald Trump will be totally on board with this.

              Netanyahu vows to annex West Bank's Jordan Valley if re-elected

              The prime minister also reiterated his intention to annex Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank if re-elected, though in coordination with U.S. President Donald Trump, whose long-awaited peace plan is expected to be unveiled sometime after the vote.


              Those moves could effectively kill any remaining hopes for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, long the focus of international diplomacy.


              The Jordan Valley accounts for around one-third of the West Bank and Israeli right-wing politicians have long viewed the strategic area as a part of the territory they would never retreat from.

              https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/netanya...cted-1.4586352
              while i don't think there will ever be unanimity on a middle east peace solution, that doesn't mean a negotiated solution is impossible.

              unilaterally imposing something that simply doesn't need to imposed outside of a negotiated solution acceptable to most of those affected is not likely to be an effective move towards a long-term peace.

              that doesn't mean there might not be some non-negotiable conditions from some of those parties at least at the beginning of those negotiations but there's a potential difference between opening positions and closing positions in a negotiation that this action precludes, at least to the extend that any current government decision is not open to renegotiation by subsequent governments. what this does is likely make a negotiated solution with this government - if it is elected and if it does proceed in this fashion as opposed to this being a negotiating salvo to forestall it - that much harder to achieve.
              Right, because Israel is now going to give up land that they claim as part of Israel as opposed to the occupied territories.

              Might as well just give them the biblical version and be done with it.

              Biblical Boundaries of the Land of Israel

              https://theisraelbible.com/biblical-boundaries-land-israel/
              TAKING IT LITERALLY:
              THE BIBLICAL BOUNDARIES OF ISRAEL


              The Lord makes them perfectly clear. Like any modern-day land purchase, the deed indicates the boundaries of the land given: from the Nile river (which is mainly modern Egypt and Sudan) to the Euphrates (modern-day Iraq).


              To ensure that there is no doubt about the land’s boundaries, Scripture also indicates the different groups of people that occupy it: “…the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.” We know that these peoples lived in what is today Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, part of Asian Turkey, and of course all of Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank.


              This fact adds another dimension to the promise: the Lord is giving to Abram’s descendants land that is currently occupied by other nations!


              The question arises of how Israel will acquire this land – will she have to invade and conquer other countries?


              The text in Genesis 15 offers no indication that Israel will have to fight and conquer; therefore, the logical answer is that the Lord will see that the promise is fulfilled.

              https://www.chosenpeople.com/site/th...daries-israel/
              you would think i would learn...

              why don't you read what i post and respond to that instead of responding to those voices again?
              "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

              Comment


              • Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post
                Yeah, the Saudis are totally trustworthy folks.

                Khashoggi was strangled as soon as he entered Saudi Consulate: Turkish prosecutor

                Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was strangled as soon as the journalist entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul as part of a premeditated killing, and he was dismembered before being disposed of, a top Turkish prosecutor said Wednesday.


                A statement from chief Istanbul prosecutor Irfan Fidan's office also said that discussions with Saudi chief prosecutor Saud al-Mojeb have yielded no "concrete results" despite "good-willed efforts" by Turkey to uncover the truth.


                The statement is the first public confirmation by a Turkish official that Khashoggi was strangled and dismembered after he entered the consulate on Oct. 2 to collect paperwork needed to marry his Turkish fiancée. It also points to a lack of co-operation from Saudi officials in the investigation of the slaying.

                https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/khasho...gled-1.4885595
                ...


                Jamal Khashoggi 'murder recording transcript' is published
                35 minutes ago (September 11, 2019)

                What does the newspaper say?

                The Sabah has consistently made international headlines by carrying details - including some that have been disputed - about the journalist's mysterious death.

                The newspaper published two new reports this week into Khashoggi's death at the hands of a group they label a "hit squad".


                https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49657908
                Last edited by KC; 10-09-2019, 06:41 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by kcantor View Post
                  Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post
                  Originally posted by kcantor View Post
                  Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post
                  And Donald Trump will be totally on board with this.

                  Netanyahu vows to annex West Bank's Jordan Valley if re-elected

                  The prime minister also reiterated his intention to annex Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank if re-elected, though in coordination with U.S. President Donald Trump, whose long-awaited peace plan is expected to be unveiled sometime after the vote.


                  Those moves could effectively kill any remaining hopes for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, long the focus of international diplomacy.


                  The Jordan Valley accounts for around one-third of the West Bank and Israeli right-wing politicians have long viewed the strategic area as a part of the territory they would never retreat from.

                  https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/netanya...cted-1.4586352
                  while i don't think there will ever be unanimity on a middle east peace solution, that doesn't mean a negotiated solution is impossible.

                  unilaterally imposing something that simply doesn't need to imposed outside of a negotiated solution acceptable to most of those affected is not likely to be an effective move towards a long-term peace.

                  that doesn't mean there might not be some non-negotiable conditions from some of those parties at least at the beginning of those negotiations but there's a potential difference between opening positions and closing positions in a negotiation that this action precludes, at least to the extend that any current government decision is not open to renegotiation by subsequent governments. what this does is likely make a negotiated solution with this government - if it is elected and if it does proceed in this fashion as opposed to this being a negotiating salvo to forestall it - that much harder to achieve.
                  Right, because Israel is now going to give up land that they claim as part of Israel as opposed to the occupied territories.

                  Might as well just give them the biblical version and be done with it.

                  Biblical Boundaries of the Land of Israel

                  https://theisraelbible.com/biblical-boundaries-land-israel/
                  TAKING IT LITERALLY:
                  THE BIBLICAL BOUNDARIES OF ISRAEL


                  The Lord makes them perfectly clear. Like any modern-day land purchase, the deed indicates the boundaries of the land given: from the Nile river (which is mainly modern Egypt and Sudan) to the Euphrates (modern-day Iraq).


                  To ensure that there is no doubt about the land’s boundaries, Scripture also indicates the different groups of people that occupy it: “…the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.” We know that these peoples lived in what is today Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, part of Asian Turkey, and of course all of Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank.


                  This fact adds another dimension to the promise: the Lord is giving to Abram’s descendants land that is currently occupied by other nations!


                  The question arises of how Israel will acquire this land – will she have to invade and conquer other countries?


                  The text in Genesis 15 offers no indication that Israel will have to fight and conquer; therefore, the logical answer is that the Lord will see that the promise is fulfilled.

                  https://www.chosenpeople.com/site/th...daries-israel/
                  you would think i would learn...

                  why don't you read what i post and respond to that instead of responding to those voices again?
                  Once Netanyahu goes through with this plan, assuming he's reelected, what do you think the odds are that Labour could get elected running on a platform of "Let's give some of Israel to the Palestinians?". Do you honestly believe that that could be a winning strategy? All Likud has to do claim that giving up the annexed land is making Israel less safe and that the land is needed as a buffer against aggression and the new border would be basically carved in stone. Particularly if the Americans decide to recognize the land grab. It's much harder to unscramble an egg than to not scramble it at all. Simply saying "Well, we can always change it back later" is simply naive. What's most likely to happen if this goes through is the West Bank Palestinians will end up in much the same situation as Gaza, surrounded by a wall and totally beholden to Israel for their survival.

                  If Likud frames it as a security matter, then the US will basically fall in line and once that happens, any hope of a negotiated settlement is utterly, totally dead. And as the US has given up and pretext of being a neutral negotiator, who could possible challenge them?

                  But sure, just treat it as a bump in the road that can easily be undone at some point in the future.

                  Comment


                  • ^

                    as i said, maybe you should read my post instead of responding to your voices.

                    that's pretty much what i said.

                    until the last sentence. which should be addressed to that voice of yours that wants me to have said otherwise and not me.
                    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                    Comment


                    • It's going to, in your words,
                      what this does is likely make a negotiated solution with this government - if it is elected and if it does proceed in this fashion as opposed to this being a negotiating salvo to forestall it - that much harder to achieve.
                      , it's going to make it impossible. For one reason, Netanyahu has no desire to negotiate with the Palestinians. Noe, zip, zero, zilch. This is the man who said 'Israel Is the Nation-state of Jews Alone'. Does that sound like someone who's got the slightest desire to negotiate for anything?

                      In an address to congress on May 24, 2011 he said In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. Judea and Samaria is the term for the West Bank. He's always claimed the totality of the West Bank as Israeli territory. This is just the next step in the process.

                      He'll claim the land. He'll declare that it's necessary for the security of Israel. Republicans will back him 100%. If he does this just before the 2020, election, they can claim that Democrats are supporting "Palestinian terrorists". American politics being what it is, even mild criticism of Israel is seen as being next to treason.

                      So yeah, it's going to be a bit more than "that much harder to achieve."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post
                        It's going to, in your words,
                        what this does is likely make a negotiated solution with this government - if it is elected and if it does proceed in this fashion as opposed to this being a negotiating salvo to forestall it - that much harder to achieve.
                        , it's going to make it impossible. For one reason, Netanyahu has no desire to negotiate with the Palestinians. Noe, zip, zero, zilch. This is the man who said 'Israel Is the Nation-state of Jews Alone'. Does that sound like someone who's got the slightest desire to negotiate for anything?

                        In an address to congress on May 24, 2011 he said In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. Judea and Samaria is the term for the West Bank. He's always claimed the totality of the West Bank as Israeli territory. This is just the next step in the process.

                        He'll claim the land. He'll declare that it's necessary for the security of Israel. Republicans will back him 100%. If he does this just before the 2020, election, they can claim that Democrats are supporting "Palestinian terrorists". American politics being what it is, even mild criticism of Israel is seen as being next to treason.

                        So yeah, it's going to be a bit more than "that much harder to achieve."
                        which is really just another way of saying "unilaterally imposing something that simply doesn't need to imposed outside of a negotiated solution acceptable to most of those affected is not likely to be an effective move towards a long-term peace" isn't it? which voice is it that edits out what you don't want to read and eliminates context at will and then substitutes (yet again) arguing against a bunch of stuff that i didn't say and that i didn't defend.

                        as i said, you'd think i'd learn how powerful those voices are and just leave you to them and vice versa.
                        "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by kcantor View Post
                          Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post
                          It's going to, in your words,
                          what this does is likely make a negotiated solution with this government - if it is elected and if it does proceed in this fashion as opposed to this being a negotiating salvo to forestall it - that much harder to achieve.
                          , it's going to make it impossible. For one reason, Netanyahu has no desire to negotiate with the Palestinians. Noe, zip, zero, zilch. This is the man who said 'Israel Is the Nation-state of Jews Alone'. Does that sound like someone who's got the slightest desire to negotiate for anything?

                          In an address to congress on May 24, 2011 he said In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. Judea and Samaria is the term for the West Bank. He's always claimed the totality of the West Bank as Israeli territory. This is just the next step in the process.

                          He'll claim the land. He'll declare that it's necessary for the security of Israel. Republicans will back him 100%. If he does this just before the 2020, election, they can claim that Democrats are supporting "Palestinian terrorists". American politics being what it is, even mild criticism of Israel is seen as being next to treason.

                          So yeah, it's going to be a bit more than "that much harder to achieve."
                          which is really just another way of saying "unilaterally imposing something that simply doesn't need to imposed outside of a negotiated solution acceptable to most of those affected is not likely to be an effective move towards a long-term peace" isn't it? which voice is it that edits out what you don't want to read and eliminates context at will and then substitutes (yet again) arguing against a bunch of stuff that i didn't say and that i didn't defend.

                          as i said, you'd think i'd learn how powerful those voices are and just leave you to them and vice versa.
                          I think it’s a case of “inherent bias”, “seeing red” or whatever it’s called.


                          “reactive devaluation”



                          Tribalism in Politics | Psychology Today Canada


                          “A high school valedictorian recently gave a graduation speech in which he shared an inspirational quote:

                          “Don’t just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table.”

                          The student attributed the quote to a beloved political figure. The audience cheered.


                          Then he corrected himself and attributed the quote to a leader from the other political party. The cheering “quickly died” (accompanied by “some collective groaning”)
                          (Novelly, 2018 ).


                          What appeared to happen is called ...”





                          “A 2003 study titled “Party over Policy” showed that liberal college students changed their tune about a generous welfare policy when they were told it was supported by congressional Republicans but not Democrats (Cohen, 2003).” ...


                          “When it comes to ego protection, it’s easy to misperceive or reinterpret a good idea as bad.”...


                          “This is part of the ad hominem fallacy—devaluing an argument not on its merits but because of perceived negative qualities of those who proposed it.”



                          https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/b...sm-in-politics








                          General Discussion

                          Four studies demonstrated the impact of group influence on attitude change. If information about the position of their party was absent, liberal and conservative undergraduates based their attitude on the objective content of the policy and its merit in light of long-held ideological beliefs. If information about the position of their party was available, however, participants assumed that position as their own regardless of the content of the policy. The effect of group information was evident not only on attitude, but on behavior (Study 4). It was as apparent among participants who were knowledgeable about welfare as it was among participants who were not (Study 2). Important alternative explanations for the obtained results, such as effects of heuristic processing and shifts in scale perspective, were ruled out (Studies 3 and 4).

                          Considerations of Underlying Process

                          Attitude change did not result from mindless conformity. No evidence was found that ...


                          Source:
                          Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs
                          Geoffrey L. Cohen Yale University

                          https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4ec...9f64e1172f.pdf
                          Bolding mine
                          Last edited by KC; 11-09-2019, 09:42 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by kcantor View Post
                            Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post
                            It's going to, in your words,
                            what this does is likely make a negotiated solution with this government - if it is elected and if it does proceed in this fashion as opposed to this being a negotiating salvo to forestall it - that much harder to achieve.
                            , it's going to make it impossible. For one reason, Netanyahu has no desire to negotiate with the Palestinians. Noe, zip, zero, zilch. This is the man who said 'Israel Is the Nation-state of Jews Alone'. Does that sound like someone who's got the slightest desire to negotiate for anything?

                            In an address to congress on May 24, 2011 he said In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. Judea and Samaria is the term for the West Bank. He's always claimed the totality of the West Bank as Israeli territory. This is just the next step in the process.

                            He'll claim the land. He'll declare that it's necessary for the security of Israel. Republicans will back him 100%. If he does this just before the 2020, election, they can claim that Democrats are supporting "Palestinian terrorists". American politics being what it is, even mild criticism of Israel is seen as being next to treason.

                            So yeah, it's going to be a bit more than "that much harder to achieve."
                            which is really just another way of saying "unilaterally imposing something that simply doesn't need to imposed outside of a negotiated solution acceptable to most of those affected is not likely to be an effective move towards a long-term peace" isn't it? which voice is it that edits out what you don't want to read and eliminates context at will and then substitutes (yet again) arguing against a bunch of stuff that i didn't say and that i didn't defend.

                            as i said, you'd think i'd learn how powerful those voices are and just leave you to them and vice versa.
                            You're saying it's going to make it "that much harder to achieve". I'm saying it's going to make it pretty much impossible. For you, it's just a bump in the road. Something that can be negotiated away at a later date. A bump but not an insurmountable one. What exactly are the Palestinians supposed to use as a negotiating point? They've lost any chance of having East Jerusalem as their capital, due to Netanyahu and Trump. They are now going to lose a huge chunk of the west bank.

                            Netanyahu doesn't want to negotiate. He wants to dictate terms and have them all accepted without question. And that's not just making something "harder to achieve". That suggests that a settlement could still be negotiated. Even if Netanyahu loses the election, Likud will call any attempt to roll back the annexation as being soft of the defense of Israel.

                            Comment


                            • ^

                              there you go again earning full marks for consistency...

                              how is "unilaterally imposing something that simply doesn't need to imposed outside of a negotiated solution acceptable to most of those affected is not likely to be an effective move towards a long-term peace" construed to be classifying something as being "a bump in the road"?
                              "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by kcantor View Post
                                ^

                                there you go again earning full marks for consistency...

                                how is "unilaterally imposing something that simply doesn't need to imposed outside of a negotiated solution acceptable to most of those affected is not likely to be an effective move towards a long-term peace" construed to be classifying something as being "a bump in the road"?
                                Because
                                "that much harder to achieve."
                                means that there's something still possible to achieve.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X