monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Directly across the street from the WH, or maybe the capitol.
You will have to take it from here, and see what you can dig up.

OMG Blatham. That website is frightening. It screams out pure hatred of brown people, black people, and Jews.

I'm sure. I've never visited it because I suspect it would be like licking the floor of a rendering plant.

There's vacuous and then there's Trump. There's emotional appeals and then there's Trump. Obama serves his masters as well as Trump does. Words, even if not intended to be followed by proper action, are important as well. They set an atmosphere, they embolden. They can be destructive or helpful. If you cannot see the difference in their rhetoric, the kind of world that is implied and added to on that psychic plane, I don't know what to tell you..


Every once in a while Trump would hit on something real. However, it was known to me that he would do nothing to change what he hit on. So, yes, he did scold politicians, correctly, sometimes for injustices/bad policies. But so much of his time was spent talking about: "how can you walk down a street in the ghetto without getting shot" or to that effect. Yes, he 'created' a world in disaster so he could offer himself as the savior. This simply isn't true though. The world is not 100% disaster, not even by a majority. But that cuts into his hyperbole and his 'offerance' of himself as redeemer.

As he pointed our numerous times: "Only he can save us". Really? Again, words matter..this is so obvious I cannot believe we have to defend this. It matters what I say in my household. I create harmony or discord by what I say and as a responsible adult, I should be clear and helpful with what I say. This micro doesn't go away because its now on a national stage human relations are the same no matter what our situation. Manners count. Conciliation as an option counts. In fact its even more important. All I can do is damage a family, Trump can damage a nation.

I would also like to know what corrective actions he pointed out that don't include war and banning religious groups and the like. His policies have no nuance, they reflect the intellect of the man..


I just don't know what to say about you believing this..

The bottom line for me is that Trump is a typical politician, but on steroids. He is the embodiment of a party (the business party) that sacrifice all on the altar of money. If Hillary won, its business as usual, but at least some people who don't have economic power have the potential for a break. With Trump that potential goes further down hill.

In psychology/sociology, this man is a known quantity. It is true that other politicians are similar but they hide it. Trump comes out and wears his psychopathology on his sleeve. There's gradations of danger in politicians, Trump screams to us how dangerous he is and I believe, at first, was shocked by how many people bought what he was selling. If you turn off the sound after he states stupid stuff and watch his reactions, you can see that he's looking at people sideways as if to say "You're actually applauding me for this?"

There is nothing I've seen in this man that shows empathy, sympathy, a good heart. Everything about him is against this. His words, his vicious tweets. Its silly to say all I care about is how he does with the economy. Whose economy? The same one that the rest of the politicians prop up!


What is this? Hilary gets dinged by the vacuity of the plan, but Trump strikes resonant chords? I believe what you said about Hillary and it goes without saying what you are saying about Trump. But that's just simple observation. You could also substitute Trump for your statement about Hillary (however, non-specific doesn't sound correct for either - they had a specific audience - I changed this below..)

I believe the recent campaign amply illustrated the vacuity of Trumps plan and program which consited mostly of vague, specific pandering to various groups.

Folks agreed to pick the scorpion up, don't be surprised when..

At this moment, there's a big wind coming off the ocean, hitting the bluff below our house and there are four eagles soaring in the updraft. They don't seem to be hunting, just having fun. Very loud chirping.

They are majestic. Clearly Canadian eagles.

We respect Canadian eagles.

Here's a patriot
video here

I believe you are attempting to read far to much into the mind and psyche of Mr. Trump and making speculations that reach far beyond any available evidence and which, perhaps conveniently, can't be verified. You are certainly entitled to these impressions and expectations - we all form them, almost without thinking about the process of doing so, or of how our own psyches influence the result. However we should stop short of declaring these insights as known truth - that is something that only future actions will reveal.

What we have now are Trump's words, and, as you noted, they are often blunt, brief and repeated in episodic bursts. Moreover they do indeed often involve hyperbole and vague exaggeration, often needing, and sometimes getting, subsequent amplification and modification. However, Trump's actions so far in assembling his team suggest a remarkable consistency with the policy directions indicated in those words. All of this suggests, for example a determination for action to limit/cancel excessive Federal regulations; reduce the size of several department bureaucracies; foster more local contrrol and parental choice in public education; enforce immigration law and control our borders; encourage investment in new economic enterprises, and, possibly through some new, as yet undefined form of public private partnership, stimulate a major investment in public infrastructure; and finally take a stronger leadership role in our foreign relations. That's not a bad or unneeded agenda.

By contrast Hillary's words generally consisted of vague non specific pandering to favored groups, and evasive Clintonian phrases about raising employmen, eliminating the income gap, advancing the causes on women and minorities, etc. I was left with little insight as to what she might actually do in office, as I think most voters detected.

I can think of few Presidents who were as divisive for the country as is Obama. By contrast Trump is reaching out to his opposition within the Republican party and to a lesser extent beyond it. He is selecting strong, independent deputies for his cabinet and top posts in the executive branch - something that in my experience is suggestive of a strong, confident leader ( weak internally conflicted neurotics, by contrast usually choose only followers of unquestioned loyalty, anf get rid of any who speak out or disagree ( any names come to mind here?)

It is still very early in the game and we have only indicators of what may follow: few facts. Not all of the hopeful indicators I have indicated will likely be fully expressed and the pace of external events can change things in unplanned, unanticipated ways. However the country is divided and directionless now. We are beset by foreign challenges in every direction including disintegration in the Middle east; a continuing wave of Islamist terrorism; new challenges in East Asia; a Troubled European Union confronted with growing threats from both the South and East; etc. Our national debt has risen from about 67% of GDP in 2008 to about 105% now, and GDP growth is slowing. Investments in new enterprises and the associated job creation are very low, and the income gap is growing as a result. Indeed it seems to me that some decisive action in the areas Trump has identified is required, that we're not likely to get it from the narcisist Hamlet occupying the White House now, and would be equally absent with Clinton.

So, what's the criterion Trump is looking for in his cabinet postings? Glad you asked.
A Very Deep and Serious Man To Lead America To Greatness

Jamison Foser
‏@jamisonfoser
IDEA: Create an investment fund consisting of stocks held by Trump cabinet secretaries and top advisers.
|
|
v
LOLGOP ‏@LOLGOP 22m22 minutes ago
LOLGOP Retweeted Jamison Foser
Swamp Holdings

Sounds like a beautiful scene.

We had a lot of steady (and much needed) rain last week that was followed by a front of cold dry air a few days ago. The last few days have brought chrystaline, clear air, unlimited visibility and bright warming sunlight. I was hiking up in the Marin Headlands ( tall, bald hilltops and forested valleys overlooking the north shore ot the Golden Gate} last Sunday and saw several eagles soaring and diving near the shore. Also a beautiful sight. Undoubtedly they have Canadian cousins.

What would Jesus do?
Oh for gods sake, shut up you whiny little wimp. You sound like your mother. Get a little bump and scream bloody murder. Be a man, dammit. Davy Crockett had his arms chewed off by a bear and then he built a log house the next day plus killed him some damned injuns. I'll buy you some pink underwear tomorrow.

For beauty, SF has this place beat all to hell.

Another Trump mouthpiece tries to cover up for the constant lies and incoherent thoughts voiced
Geniuses as far as the eye can see
Yes, "literally" and "symbolically" are different. We see that now.

That tweet and others related to this he wrote at the time have now been deleted. Because HONESTY.

Oh, and because symbolics. And non-literals.

They're going to twist the English language into another language.

Though my siblings and I never learned German, it was spoken around us regularly by my mother and all in her family. And as I had blonde hair and blue eyes, let me just say how absolutely delighted I am that Steve Bannon is pushing into Germany to forward the far right white nationalist movement there which as been absent far too long.

All that wonderful racial and ethnic pride was out of favor for 70 years and why? Because of political correctness.

Make Germany Great Again!

Yes. And that other language they are twisting it into is the one noted in my post just above.

Ya vol.
I visited the old Sony Center in Berlin. They now have a new one I wouldn't mind visiting.

OK. I really liked what you were saying and it did make me think a lot.

"What about fat people? Could religious people refuse to serve fat people on the grounds that they are (presumed) gluttonous, gluttony being a sin and thus offensive to their Christian morality?

What about people who curse?

In the choices of whether or not the religious person chooses to exercise their 'moral' authority, what we have is selected attention. We can't do black people because that would make us look racist (at one time it was ok though - and we didn't serve them) and its not a choice (though what choice has to do with this, I'm still fuzzy on)..

We can't do fat people, because, Lordy! My ministers as fat as they come, he never skips a meal!"

God I wish I knew how to use the box thing. But my answer to you is yes, indeed they should be able to do that. It's not even necessarily about religious freedom at this point, but even freedom in general. I wish to live in a free society.

While I do understand what you are saying and allowing the "religious freedom " argument to do as one pleases can cross a fine line, allowing business owner to refuse service for all sorts of silly things, I'm OK with that line being crossed. The line should stop at gender/ race/ disability. Here's why.

It's not because I am racist, homophobic, or intolerant, I simply think that people should have the right to make their own decisions. Every time we allow our government to intervene and make another law saying what we can or can't do, we give up a freedom and the right to make our own minds with OUR stuff. I wouldn't want to allow people into my house because Uncle Sam said so, I don't want to allow someone in my car because Uncle Sam said so. Why should I be REQUIRED to provide a service for ANYONE because Uncle Sam said so? For me, it always comes back to its not Uncle Sams business.

So yes, if an owner wants to refuse service to fat people, gun owners, catholics, Christians, people wearing a buttoned shirt, KKK enthusiasts, politicians, NRA, police officers, people using naughty words etc, they should be able to do so. And they shouldn't even have to use religion to do so.

I will say gender/ disability/ race are a whole different category, because these are not decisions. Who you choose to sleep with belongs one paragraph up.