10
   

Are the presidential election results real? Or simply a simulation?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2017 04:54 am
@camlok,
camlok wrote:
Still unable to address the facts.

There were no facts in your post. It was just embittered Leftist whining.


camlok wrote:
At least we both agree that Trump is a serial liar.

I don't know (or care) whether he is or isn't a serial liar. I just care that he halts the horrible attempt by the Democrats to violate the Second Amendment.

Most politicians do lie. But it does seem evident that Trump means to try to carry out all of his campaign promises.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2017 10:01 am
@oralloy,
"I don't know (or care) whether he is or isn't a serial liar. "

------------------------

Supporting a serial liar in such a vociferous fashion illustrates a propensity to engage in those same things.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2017 10:56 am
@camlok,
camlok wrote:
Supporting a serial liar in such a vociferous fashion illustrates a propensity to engage in those same things.

Your habit of making up falsehoods about other posters is irritating.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2017 11:46 am
@oralloy,
"Your habit"

You reply with a lie to defend your unflagging, overwhelming support for a serial liar.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2017 03:34 pm
@camlok,
camlok wrote:
You reply with a lie to defend your unflagging, overwhelming support for a serial liar.

Not a lie.

You'd be a more pleasant debate opponent if you stopped worrying about the characteristics of other posters and instead focused on justifying your points.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2017 05:21 pm
@oralloy,
and instead focused on justifying your points.

===========

That's really hilarious.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2017 09:15 am

INDEPENDENT
:

Quote:

Mental health professionals warn Trump is incapable of being president


'We fear that too much is at stake to be silent any longer', say psychiatrists

Katie Forster @katieforster 2 days ago

Psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers have signed an open letter warning Donald Trump’s mental state “makes him incapable of serving safely as president”.

The 35 mental health professionals said Mr Trump’s “words and behaviour suggest a profound inability to empathise”.

The President’s tendency to “distort reality” to fit his “personal myth of greatness” and attack those who challenge him with facts was likely to increase in a position of power, they added.

It is usually frowned upon among psychiatrists to give a professional opinion of the mental state of a public figure they have not examined in person, as dictated by a passage in the American Psychiatric Association’s code of ethics known as the Goldwater rule.

But in a letter to the New York Times, the doctors said they had decided it was necessary to break their silence on the matter because they feared “too much is at stake”.

“This silence has resulted in a failure to lend our expertise to worried journalists and members of Congress at this critical time,” they wrote. “We fear that too much is at stake to be silent any longer.”

The letter continued: “Mr Trump’s speech and actions demonstrate an inability to tolerate views different from his own, leading to rage reactions. His words and behaviour suggest a profound inability to empathise.

“Individuals with these traits distort reality to suit their psychological state, attacking facts and those who convey them [journalists, scientists].

“In a powerful leader, these attacks are likely to increase, as his personal myth of greatness appears to be confirmed. We believe that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump’s speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president.”

Among the letter’s signatories were Lance Dodes, a retired Harvard Medical School assistant clinical professor of psychiatry, and Joseph Schachter, who has held a senior position in the International Psychoanalytic Association.

A growing number of mental health professionals and Senators of both parties have expressed concern over Mr Trump’s psychological state.

Conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan said the media should be seriously discussing the President’s mental health.

“To have such an unstable figure, incapable of accepting reality, at the centre of the world, is an extremely dangerous thing,” he told CNN.

“I know we're not supposed to bring this up — but it is staring us brutally in the face.”

Mr Sullivan, who recently penned an article entitled 'The Madness of King Donald' in New York Magazine, justified his comments by citing the President’s incorrect claims of “thousands” of illegal voters and inaccurate crime statistics.

Republican colleagues of Donald Trump have also expressed concern about his mental health, a Democratic senator told Associated Press.

Minnesota senator Al Franken said there is concern among “a few” Republicans “that we all have this suspicion” that “he lies a lot”. He added: “He says things that aren't true. That's the same as lying, I guess.”
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2017 10:21 am

Quote:

To The Editors of the New York Times

To the Editor:

Charles M. Blow (column, nytimes.com, Feb. 9) describes Donald Trump’s constant need “to grind the opposition underfoot.” As mental health professionals, we share Mr. Blow’s concern.

Silence from the country’s mental health organizations has been due to a self-imposed dictum about evaluating public figures (the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 Goldwater Rule). But this silence has resulted in a failure to lend our expertise to worried journalists and members of Congress at this critical time. We fear that too much is at stake to be silent any longer.

Mr. Trump’s speech and actions demonstrate an inability to tolerate views different from his own, leading to rage reactions. His words and behavior suggest a profound inability to empathize. Individuals with these traits distort reality to suit their psychological state, attacking facts and those who convey them (journalists, scientists).

In a powerful leader, these attacks are likely to increase, as his personal myth of greatness appears to be confirmed. We believe that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump’s speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president.

Lance Dodes, M.D.

Joseph Schachter, M.D., Ph.D.

Susan Radant, Ph.D.

Judith Schachter, M.D.

Jules Kerman, M.D., Ph.D

Jeffrey Seitelman, M.D., Ph.D.

Henry Friedman, M.D.

Babak Roshanaei-Moghaddam, MD

David Cooper, Ph.D.

Dena Sorbo, LCSW, BCD

Joseph Reppen, Ph.D.

Ernest Wallwork, Ph.D.

Judith E. Vida, M.D.

Richard Reichbart, J.D., Ph.D.

Joseph Abrahams, M.D.

Leslie Schweitzer-Miller, M.D.

Cheryl Y. Goodrich, Ph.D.

Lourdes Henares-Levy, M.D.

Alexandra Rolde, M.D.

Dr. med. Helen Schoenhals Hart

Eva D. Papiasvili, Ph.D.

Mali Mann, M.D.

Phyllis Tyson, Ph.D.

Era A. Loewenstein, Ph.D.

Marianna Adler, Ph.D.

Henry Nunberg, M.D.

Marc R. Hirsch, Ph.D.

Lora Heims Tessman, Ph.D.

Monisha Nayar-Akhtar, Ph.D.

Victoria Schreiber, M.A., L.M.S.W.

Penny M Freedman, Ph.D.

Merton A. Shill, JD. LLM., PhD.

Helen K. Gediman, Ph.D.

Michael P. Kowitt, Ph.D.

Leonard Glass, M.D.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2017 11:11 am
@oristarA,
We fear that too much is at stake to be silent any longer.

... Individuals with these traits distort reality to suit their psychological state, attacking facts and those who convey them (journalists, scientists).
----------

Is Trump any different than Bush or Obama? There have long been attacks on scientists, journalists and others pointing out that the scientific facts that illustrate that the government's version of 911 isn't accurate.

A two year in depth study at the University of Alaska - Fairbanks has led to the conclusion that the NIST conclusions on the collapse of WTC7 have zero chance of being true. Not a partial chance, not a 10% chance, a zero chance of being true.

Where were all these people five, ten or fifteen years ago?

Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2017 12:59 pm
@camlok,
You are a 9-11 Truther? Classic!
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2017 02:06 pm
@Baldimo,
Actually, I'm an individual who believes strongly in science, like many of the people described below.

The University of Alaska, Fairbanks study of WTC7 says the chances of the NIST report on WTC7 being true are ZERO.

FEMA, a US government agency describes, with pictures, the molten steel beams/columns from WTC7 and from eithe WTCs 1 0r 2. They even describe eutectic steel - Arab hijackers had no access to US developed, US patented, high grade military explosives.

RJ Lee Group, a top US forensic engineering firm says in its report about 911,

“Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust … but are not common in ‘normal’ interior office dust.”

How common were the iron particles?

"whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted an enormous amount of the WTC dust: 5.87 percent (meaning that there was almost 1,500 times more iron in the dust than normal)."

How hot were temperatures at WTC?

"... the earlier report indicated that the temperatures were not merely high but extremely high, because for lead to boil and hence vaporize, it must be heated to 1,749°C (3,180°F)."

There is no legitimate fuel source that could have caused those temperatures, Baldimo. Jet fuel and office furnishings can't do it.

"Still more remarkable, the Jones group reported, was a spherule found in the dust that was not mentioned in USGS’s “Particle Atlas,” and which was obtained only through an FOIA request, namely, “a molybdenum-rich spherule,” which had been observed and studied by the USGS team. This information is remarkable, because molybdenum (Mo) is “known for its extremely high melting point”: 2,623°C (4,753°F)."

Everything in quotes is from,

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

Are the scientists at the University of Alaska, at FEMA, at the USGS, all truthers?



Baldimo
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2017 04:45 pm
@camlok,
You are a 9-11 Truther.

I hope you enjoy your time here at A2K, but it should be pointed out that you aren't going to get much traction on this board if every conversation turns to the events of 9-11. Try to and at least stick to topic. Also I won't be delving into this with you as I don't believe what the Truthers claim. Don't pester about it either, some on this board will place you on ignore, I won't but I won't answer you either.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2017 04:57 pm
@Baldimo,
You didn't answer my question,

Are the scientists at the University of Alaska, at FEMA, at the USGS, all truthers?

It's a very simple question and one that is highly pertinent. Why? Because all the issues I raised are based on the information that came from these sources.

Try this. Don't address the issues I raised, just address the issues FEMA, NIST and the Uof A Fairbanks raised.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2017 02:48 am
Trump's Spiritual Attempt to Victory

An American Ah Q* Is in Making

*The True Story of Ah Q


################################################

Donald Trump’s Alternative-Reality Press Conference

By John Cassidy (The New Yorker)

February 16, 2017

For more than an hour, President Trump demonstrated, again, that he long ago escaped the bounds of reality that restrict most mortals.

It was “insane,” a “marathon rant” at the media, and “a press conference for the ages.” Before you accuse me of liberal bias, these were the terms that Fox Business Network’s Charles Gasparino, the home page of the New York Post, and Fox News’s Shepard Smith used, respectively, to describe the performance that Donald Trump put on during a lengthy press conference in the East Room of the White House on Thursday.

Nominally, the White House had hastily scheduled the press conference so that Trump could announce he was nominating Alexander Acosta, the dean of Florida International University College of Law, for the post of Labor Secretary. But it was clear something strange was afoot when Trump walked in alone—without Acosta. Then, when the President started to talk, his tone was one of thinly suppressed fury.

After briefly lauding Acosta’s credentials, Trump thanked Paul Singer, a conservative Wall Street billionaire who used to oppose him and now supports him, for paying him a visit. (One of the few things Trump seems actually to like about being President is having supplicant rich guys come and pay homage to him.) Then he changed tack and said, “I’m here today to update the American people on the incredible progress that has been made in the last four weeks since my Inauguration . . . I don’t think there’s ever been a President elected who in this short period of time has done what we’ve done.”

What Trump has actually done, of course, is demonstrate his manifest unsuitability for the job he now holds. He has also signed a bunch of papers, most of which have had little immediate effect, and one of which—his anti-Muslim travel ban—plunged America’s airports into chaos before being put on hold by a federal judge. For the past week, his Administration has been consumed by damaging stories about his ties to Russia, and his firing of his national-security adviser, Michael Flynn.

Four weeks into its first term, the Obama Administration had already passed the biggest economic stimulus since the Great Depression and a sweeping fair-pay act. It had also announced a troop surge in Afghanistan. By comparison, Trump has achieved virtually nothing, except scaring the bejeezus out of the world.

In his mind, of course, things are very different. For more than an hour on Thursday, he stood at a White House lectern, the yellowness of his hair accentuated by the gold drapes hanging behind him, and demonstrated, again, that he long ago escaped the bounds of reality that restrict most mortals. He talked about his various executive orders, his meetings with the leaders of the United Kingdom and Canada, and his fifty-five-per-cent approval rating in the latest Rasmussen poll. (For some reason, he didn’t mention his forty-per-cent approval rating in a Gallup poll, the lowest on record for a President in his first month in office.) “I’m keeping my promises to the American people,” he said.

Much of his time, however, Trump spent berating the press. He singled out the New York Times, the BBC, CNN, and, particularly, “CNN Tonight with Don Lemon,” which he described as “a constant hit.” Breaking new ground, he also criticized the Wall Street Journal, saying it “did a story today that was almost as disgraceful as the failing New York Times’ story, yesterday.” (The report in question said U.S. intelligence agencies have grown so distrustful of Trump that they are holding back from him some of the sensitive information they have gathered.) He even admonished a reporter from a Jewish magazine, Ami, who had the gall to bring up the recent rise in anti-Semitic attacks, telling him to “sit down,” and adding, “I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life.”

He returned, yet again, to the subject of the election. After pointing out that he got three hundred and six votes in the Electoral College, he added, “I guess it was the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan.” It wasn’t anything of the sort—Obama, for one, received higher vote counts—but Trump didn’t let that bother him. He spoke of the campaign-style rally he is scheduled to attend on Saturday, near Orlando, Florida—many observers suspect his handlers organized the event to cheer him up—and said that he had “heard that the crowds are massive that want to be there.”

About the only bit of real news came when Trump confirmed, from his own mouth, that he didn’t have a problem with the fact that Flynn had discussed U.S. sanctions with the Russian Ambassador to Washington three weeks before the Inauguration. The reason he fired Flynn, he said, was because he subsequently misled Vice-President Mike Pence.

In a more fractious political setting—the British Parliament, say—Trump would have been shouted down by howls of derision. There in the East Room, the members of the White House press corps sat meekly as the President offered them up as chum to conservative talk radio and other redoubts of alternative-reality Trumpery. “I turn on the TV, open the newspapers, and I see stories of chaos,” he said, striking a note of incredulity. “Chaos. Yet it is the exact opposite. This Administration is running like a fine-tuned machine, despite the fact that I can’t get my Cabinet approved.”

Evidently, Trump was so pleased with that bit of Newspeak—“fine-tuned machine”—that he used it twice. He also dismissed a Times report that said some of his campaign aides were in regular touch with Russian intelligence officials. “The three people that they talked about all totally deny it,” he said. “And I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don’t have any deals in Russia. . . . Russia—this is fake news put out by the media.” Speaking more generally, he declared, “The press, honestly, is out of control. The level of dishonesty is out of control.’’

Nobody can argue with that last sentence—but not in reference to the press. When Trump finally wrapped up his soliloquy and took questions, a reporter pointed out that both Obama and George H. W. Bush got more Electoral College votes than he did, and asked why Americans should trust him when he peddles blatant falsities. “I was given that information,” Trump replied blithely. “I’ve seen that information around.” Another reporter asked Trump whether he was concerned that, by labelling stories he didn’t like as “fake news,” he was undermining public faith in the First Amendment. He threw the question back. “The press—the public doesn’t believe you people anymore,” he said. “Now, maybe I had something to do with that. I don’t know. But they don’t believe you.”

As far as many of Trump’s core supporters are concerned, that may be true. When he walked out of the room, some of his aides appeared to be delighted. Rush Limbaugh, another Palm Beach resident who has made his career by going loco on the mainstream media, was busy hailing what he had just seen. In parts of Trumpland, then, this was seen as a big win. Practically everywhere else, the reaction was: Wow! He really is a nut.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2017 03:15 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
You are a 9-11 Truther? Classic!


So that makes you a 9-11 denier.

We'll have a special box in museums for your kind.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2017 08:41 am
@Builder,
Not really a 9-11 denier, Baldimo, Farmerman and some others are, or seem to be science deniers.

The temperatures that have been recorded at all WTC sites were simply not possible for the alleged hijackers to have caused. It shouldn't have to be spelled out to sentient adults what that means.

Everyone knows this. Why still such silence? From the most open and honest debaters on the planet. This stunning silence is all much too totalitarian to fathom.

I understand that people are reluctant to discuss things that they know little about but why are these people then so forward with their attacks on people who simply advance science?

It just doesn't follow any logic known to sensible man. It's all so 1500's when people attacked Galileo Galilei.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2017 04:29 pm
@camlok,
It's actually deeply disturbing for people to think that their own government considers them to be disposable pawns in political games.

When in doubt, follow the money trail.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2017 05:04 pm
@Builder,
I agree with you. What kind of people will frame others accusing them of heinous crimes that they couldn't possibly have committed?
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2017 05:42 pm
@camlok,
Fear-based control works. The reds under the beds is coming back in a big way.

Imagine what the world could be like, without all this fear.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2017 05:59 pm
@Builder,
So true, Builder.

Have you ever heard this Rumsfeld lie? It's as bad or much worse than the lie he told to that lying reporter, what's his face Timmy something or other about the Huge fortress caves in Afghanistan.

How low can a body go to make a lifetime of lying and murdering people?

It's only a 54 second video.

Building what?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhRlucyKt8
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 09:51:52