Thu 9 May, 2019 10:33 am
Trump is blaming the democrats for everything gone wrong with his administration. What's wrong with this picture? Why is it that Trump's approval rating is in the low 40's while his disapproval is in the mid 50's ? Can't blame that on Trump haters and democrats. But, Trump never did take any blame for all the things gone wrong under his administration. The high turnover rate during his first year is a good clue as to why his administration is still in chaos. Trump believes Putin more than the 17 intelligence agencies of our country, because Putin told him "strongly" that it wasn't him. We also learned that he's not a self-made man, and lost over $1 billion dollars. The "art of the deal" doesn't ring true! He skiffed workers and companies that worked on his projects, and refused to pay them. He's a con and a fraud.
Trump blames Democrats
for hurting farmers in requesting more ...
Trump blames Democrats
for hurting farmers and blocking disaster relief to states after requesting even more money be sent to Puerto Rico for fallout from Hurricane Maria.
Trump Blames Democrats
Over Deaths of Migrant Children in U.S ...
Trump Blames Democrats
Over Deaths of Migrant Children in U.S. Custody. Image. President Trump and the first lady, Melania Trump, during his surprise visit to American troops in Iraq this week.
Trump blames Democrats
for impasse on immigration reform ...
Transcript for Trump blames Democrats
for impasse on immigration reform. But it is the fallout from his oval office slur about immigrants that still has him under fire and now on the defensive ...
Trump Blames Democrats
for Failed Summit With Kim Jong Un ...
Trump Blames Democrats
for Failed Summit With Kim Jong Un President Donald Trump says Democrats undermined his meeting with the North Korean leader.
Trump again falsely blames the Democrats for his ...
President Donald Trump blamed Democrats
for the separation of families at the US border Friday, a response he's repeatedly made to criticism his administration has faced since it adopted a policy
How Donald Trump became Deutsche Bank’s biggest headache
Bumpy relationship began in 2008 when Trump refused to pay back much of a $640m loan
Thu, Feb 16, 2017, 13:05
Donald Trump once gave a personal guarantee to repay $640m to Deutsche and then refused to hand over more than half the cash. Photograph: AFP
The language was scathing, the tone sarcastic. “[Donald] Trump proclaims himself the archetypal businessman, a deal-maker without peer,” the memo said.
It mentioned Trump’s boast that he was worth “billions of dollars”. And it listed his interests in “numerous extraordinary properties” across the world, from New York to Panama, not to mention his latest golf course in Scotland.
Another document noted: “Trump is no stranger to overdue debt.”
The angry memos were written by lawyers acting on behalf of Deutsche Bank, Germany’s biggest lender, which was suing the billionaire.
It was November 2008. Three-and-a-half years earlier the bank had loaned Trump the cash to build one of his grandest projects yet: a hotel and mega-tower in Chicago.
Trump had given his personal guarantee he would repay the $640 million (€602 million). As per agreement, he was now due to hand over a large chunk, $40 million.
There was only one problem: the future 45th president of the United States was refusing to pay up. Deutsche initiated legal action. Trump responded with a blistering, scarcely credible writ of his own, a 10-count complaint in New York’s supreme court, in the county of Queens.
In it, Trump adopted a highly unusual defense, known as “force majeure”. He claimed that the 2008 economic crisis was a “once-in-a-century credit tsunami”, an act of God that was equivalent to an earthquake.
Since it couldn’t have been anticipated, and it wasn’t his fault, he wasn’t obliged to pay Deutsche anything. It wouldn’t get the $40 million or the outstanding $330 million, his writ said.
He went further. Trump claimed Deutsche Bank had actually helped cause the crunch. Therefore it owed him. Trump demanded $3 billion from Deutsche in compensation.
Its New York property division first loaned money to him in 1998 at a time when the bank was attempting to expand its commercial property portfolio. By that stage, other major banks were becoming cautious about Trump, in part, the Wall Street Journal has said, because of frustration with his business practices.
A decade later, Deutsche was to find out for itself quite how capricious and unpredictable he could be.
In the 2008 suit the bank’s unhappy lawyers quote from Trump’s book Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life. On his struggle with banks in the 1990s, Trump writes: “I figured it was the banks’ problem, not mine. What the hell did I care? I actually told one bank, ‘I told you you shouldn’t have loaned me that money’.”
At the same moment Trump was suing Deutsche he was telling the Scotsman newspaper he was a very rich individual, with a “billion in cash”. He was willing to spend it on his latest project: a golf course and hotel near Balmedie in Aberdeenshire. Controversially approved by then Scottish first minister Alex Salmond and the Scottish government, it would be the “world’s greatest golf course”, Trump said.
It was what happened next that strikes many in the banking world as unusual – bizarre, even. In 2005 Trump had borrowed money from Deutsche’s commercial real estate division. In 2010 the parties settled their legal differences.
But rather than walking away, the bank’s private wealth division then resumed lending to Trump, the troublesome four-times bankrupt client who had defaulted on a major loan.
Why? It is unclear what assurances Trump offered. He had given his word before, only to break it.
Deutsche has refused to discuss its lending arrangements to the first family. Its clients also include Trump’s daughter Ivanka, her husband, Jared Kushner, and Kushner’s mother, Seryl Stadtmauer. Kushner is a senior White House adviser.
Just before the US election Deutsche refinanced $370 million he owes against commercial property in Manhattan belonging to Kushner’s company.
Sources inside Deutsche say the investment banking side of the business is entirely separate from the private bank that handles the Trumps. Personal relationships also play an important role in private banking.
Even so, banking experts have said it is unusual for a private bank to take on such loans, and unbelievable that a bank would continue to deal with a man who had refused to pay his debt, and then countersued using force majeure.
One former Deutsche employee, based in New York, said: “Real estate refused to deal with him [Trump]. Only the private bank is willing to accept personal guarantees.”
In the years since then, Deutsche Bank has been hit by scandal after scandal. It was fined more than $630 million for failing to prevent $10 billion of Russian money laundering – and has paid $7.2 billion to settle a decade-old bond mis-selling scandal.
No wonder, then, that the bank that likes to say yes to Trump thought it best to have a proper review of its arrangements with him following his unexpected win in the US presidential election.
Deutsche has carried out a close internal examination into its lending to the president. The aim: to see if there were suspicious and potentially embarrassing connections to Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
The review began last year, when Trump became a politically exposed person (PEP). In recent weeks Deutsche has fielded numerous calls from the media on a possible financial trail to Moscow.
The examination failed to find any evidence of this, according to a person familiar with the matter. Deutsche’s links to Russia have been under the spotlight since a money-laundering scheme was exposed last summer by the New Yorker magazine.
The “mirror trades” scandal saw Deutsche brokers in Moscow buy stocks in roubles on behalf of a Russian company. Simultaneously another firm, registered offshore, would sell the same amount of stock in dollars, pounds or euros. The scam allowed the bank’s Russian clients to turn money in roubles, much of it dubious, into dollars abroad.
The scheme’s alleged mastermind was Tim Wiswell, an American trader subsequently fired by Deutsche. According to an FCA report Wiswell, who was head of the Russian equities desk in Moscow, received about $3.8 million in bribes via his girlfriend. These were paid into offshore accounts in Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands.
Deutsche has not identified the Russian customers who used the scheme. Wiswell’s lawyer, Ekaterina Dukhina, refused to comment.
Under its former chief executive, Josef Ackermann, Deutsche Bank developed close connections with the Russian state. In 2006 Deutsche’s Moscow branch hired Andrei Kostyn, the son of Andrey Kostyn, the head of VTB, Russia’s state bank. Kostyn Jr generated much of the bank’s Moscow profits until his death in 2011 in a snowmobile crash. Deutsche carried out an internal investigation into the “mirror trades” scandal codenamed Project Square. The bank scaled down its Moscow activities and transferred some clients to VTB.
To what extent – if any – was Deutsche’s Moscow operation compromised? Did the clients have Kremlin connections? We don’t know.
Meanwhile, Democrats are piling on the pressure.
Joe Crowley, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, said: “President Trump’s web of global financial entanglements are of serious concern. When a foreign-owned bank that is under investigation by the Department of Justice holds hundreds of millions in personally guaranteed debt for the president, that is problematic for ethical, diplomatic, and judicial reasons. This is why we must know more about all of Donald Trump’s business ties.” Crowley also said he wanted the president to release his elusive tax returns.
Deutsche has not explained why it continued to bankroll Trump and his real estate deals. Even before the 2008 legal dispute, Trump’s chequered business record was infamous. Other financial houses in New York refused to give him credit, following a string of failed ventures including an airline and a casino empire in Atlantic City.
Bloomberg reported that Deutsche was now trying to restructure Trump’s $300 million debt, which is guaranteed by four of his properties.
The difficulty is obvious: conflict of interest. The president owes the bank money. At the same time the Trump administration and its Department of Justice is investigating Deutsche over its Russian money laundering scheme.
Trump remains the bank’s most high-profile client. He is also, increasingly, its biggest PR headache.
Trump follows his script - Kim follows his script - Putin, maduro, may, merkel, netenyahu, assad, etc - ALL FOLLOW THEIR SCRIPTS!
Mary Sidney (Shakespeare) - All the world... stage... blah... actors...
Thank bunnies for eggs:)
They certainly do follow their scripts, and most of us knew about Trump's history of bigotry, lies, scamming, and cheating on all his wives. Since he won the election, we're stuck with this fraud and con. Too late to complain. At least some 200 political scientists declared Trump "worst president in history." Small comfort.
Trump’s “art of the deal” is a oxymoron. He can’t deal with Iran, Syria and North Korea. He wants them to call him. Otherwise, it’s my way or the highway. His tariffs started a trade war that ends up costing more for consumers. The turnover rate in his administration is the highest in 40 years. What’s wrong with this picture?
Donald Trump: The Greatest Victim in the History of the World
While Trump brandishes his "star" status as a weapon against those with less power, in the next breath he claims to be taking abuse for the good of America.
BY ANN JONES | NOVEMBER 1, 2016
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump addresses supporters at a Charlotte, North Carolina rally on Oct. 26, 2016. With less than two weeks to go until Election Day, Trump continues to campaign in North Carolina and other battleground states. (Photo by Brian Blanco/Getty Images)
Donald Trump grabbed a new lifeline. Speaking at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Oct. 15, he raised a hand as if to take an oath and declared: “I am a victim!” The great business tycoon, the one and only man who could fix America and make the place great again (trust me, folks), was laying claim to martyrdom — and spinning another news cycle. “I am a victim,” he declared, “of one of the great political smear campaigns in the history of our country. They are coming after me to try and destroy what is considered by even them the greatest movement in the history of our country.”
“I am a victim.” That pathetic line echoed in my head, which is why I’m writing this. In my long life, I had seen a large white man stand up in a public arena and proclaim those words — the shrill, self-pitying complaint of the remorseless perpetrator — only once before. That was in a courtroom in lower Manhattan in 1988. The man was Joel Steinberg, a New York lawyer who, over a 12-year period, had brainwashed and beaten into oblivion a woman named Hedda Nussbaum, once a successful young editor of children’s books. In the early years of their relationship, she had run away several times, seeking help, and every time a doctor or friend had called Steinberg to come and get her. At that point — time and again — Steinberg would administer “punishment,” breaking her bones and her spirit. She took on what police would later describe as “a zombie-like quality.”
Some years earlier, a teenage girl had hired Steinberg to arrange an adoptive home for her baby. Instead he kept the child, Lisa, until one evening when she was 6 years old and “stared” at him in a way he didn’t like. He responded by striking her repeatedly in the head. After which he went out to dinner with his cocaine dealer, leaving the child unconscious on the floor. Nussbaum, by then so traumatized, so absent from anything like life, thought vaguely of calling a doctor, but she was not allowed to use the phone in Steinberg’s absence. Instead, she sat on the floor and watched over the girl as she lay dying.
On trial for the child’s murder, Steinberg blamed everyone but himself. “I’m the victim here,” he whined in court. He swore that he had “never hit anyone,” not anyone, even though he was known to have assaulted a business associate and three other women before he settled into the single-minded, single-handed demolition of Hedda Nussbaum.
Judge Harold Rothwax observed that Steinberg was “a man of extraordinary narcissism and self-involvement” who had “an extreme need to control everyone in his ambit” while he lived a “life of self-gratification.” Yet Steinberg could not see in himself the man Judge Rothwax described. He thought people should feel sorry for him. He had been disbarred and had lost a child (not to mention his Greenwich Village apartment). He railed at those who had conspired to bring him down: the police, the neighbors, the judge, the prosecutor, the expert medical witnesses, his defense attorney, the jurors, the press and Hedda Nussbaum. “I’m the victim here,” he claimed.
At the time, nearly 30 years ago, the public blamed Hedda Nussbaum. The district attorney, the police, the doctors and psychiatrists who treated her intensively for more than a year before the trial all agreed that, on the evening in question, she was too physically and mentally “incapacitated” either to cause the girl’s injuries or take action to save her. Nonetheless, she was tried and condemned by the press and public opinion, including women who called themselves “feminists.” In court, the jurors were merciless. When they began to deliberate, only four thought Steinberg guilty of murder as charged, five were “in the middle,” and three held out for lesser charges, feeling certain that Hedda Nussbaum had somehow been responsible for killing the child.
They finally agreed upon a verdict of manslaughter. Even then, a woman juror assured the press that Nussbaum was “a very sick woman” who should have been charged and convicted of “some crime.” Another juror, also female, expressed popular opinion this way: “I just feel that she was to blame.” And a third woman juror, who claimed that “certain others” agreed with her, said, “Poor Joel. Joel’s a victim. We have to send a message to the system: ‘You don’t make victims out of nice men like Joel.’”
Judge Rothwax sentenced Steinberg to 8 1/2 to 25 years. Released after 17 years, Steinberg, now in his 70s, still claims to have done nothing hurtful to anyone. He has not paid a civil court-ordered settlement of $15 million to the birth mother of the dead child, nor has he ever been charged with any crime for what he did to Hedda Nussbaum.
Two lessons lurk in this story, one old and one very up to date. First, it’s a reminder of how much women at that time, even after a great wave of feminism, still blamed women (including themselves) for whatever happened to them at the hands of men. Second, a man with a character like Steinberg’s is not the kind of guy you want to choose for high office — or any office at all.
Joel Steinberg stalked a far tinier stage than Donald Trump and he did more deadly damage, but the two men seem to be brothers under the skin, sharing common character defects well described in psychiatric texts: extreme narcissism, a taste for sexual predation and very similar views of the women on whom they prey. Like Steinberg, who was incapable of seeing himself as the judge accurately described him, Trump seems blind to the real nature of his own behavior. (His current wife describes him as a “boy.”) Neither man seems capable of taking responsibility for the harm he’s done, and when their own actions finally call down retribution, branding them as losers — ah, then come the conspiracy theories and the vindictive wail of the victim.
Men Who Use Women
Last June, I published a piece at TomDispatch venturing to explain why candidate Donald J. Trump was getting “rock-bottom ratings” in the polls from women voters. Nearly 70 percent of them reportedly couldn’t stand the guy. I pointed out what seemed to me to be the obvious: “Trump’s behavior perfectly fits the profile of an ordinary wife abuser.”
In a sworn deposition introduced in divorce proceedings, his first wife, Ivana, swore under oath that he had torn out her hair and forcibly raped her, raging at her because he didn’t like the results of a “scalp-reducing” procedure (meant to remove a bald patch) performed on him by a plastic surgeon she had recommended. (Before she collected a $14 million divorce settlement, she toned her story down, saying the assault was not “criminal.”)
About 1 in 3 American women are survivors of some version of such treatment, euphemistically called “domestic abuse.” That’s roughly 65 million women voters who “know a tyrant when they see one.”
About 1 in 3 American women are survivors of some version of such treatment, euphemistically called “domestic abuse.” That’s roughly 65 million women voters who, as I wrote last June, “know a tyrant when they see one.” I raise this subject again because the now-infamous tape of Trump’s open-mic Access Hollywood bus ride in 2005 added a new page to the rap sheet of this particular abuser.
In that piece, I traced the history of the principal tactics of coercion used by controlling men like Trump. Some of those tactics, including Steinberg’s favorites, involve physical force, but most, when used by a skilled abuser, require no force at all. Trump applies the handiest tools to his targeted victims regularly, leaving no physical marks behind: threats, intimidation, degradation, put downs, humiliation, insults, trivial demands, occasional indulgences (a flash of charm, for example, or a bit of feigned reasonableness). The lesson is simple and clear: The mind can be bent and the spirit shattered without battering the body.
I neglected, however, to mention one of the most insidious tactics of such abusers, perhaps because it’s so obvious that it regularly hides in plain sight. In the military, it’s called “pulling rank.” High status is itself a powerful coercive force that can stifle resistance in a lower-status victim and so silence him or her. Status is Trump’s brandished weapon, his open carry. On this, he couldn’t have been clearer in boasting of his pussy-grabbing skills on that Access Hollywood tape: “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”
The most chilling moments on that tape, however, occur after Trump emerges from the bus in all his orange splendor, followed by his escort Billy Bush — now a former NBC “personality” — who could be heard on that tape laughing as Trump recounted his compulsive assaults. Bush then greeted his television colleague Arianne Zucker, who like so many women on American TV was less fully clothed than the men around her, and whom Trump had been ogling from the bus while sucking Tic Tacs to freshen his potty mouth for a possible kissing attack. Billy Bush “asked” Ms. Zucker, “How about a little hug for The Donald?”
In that short bus trip across the parking lot, Bush had learned just what to do to get in good stead with his high-status guest, and so, without missing a beat, he threw his lower status co-worker to his peppermint-salivating pal. He then collected a hug from her, too, as Trump is heard exonerating himself with the bizarre remark, “Melania said this was okay.”
It hardly seemed to matter what Arianne Zucker wanted or believed to be okay. Billy Bush’s question wasn’t actually a question, but a notice of what was expected. Clearly, she wanted to keep her job and, just as clearly, hugging predatory, high-status stars and co-workers had never been part of her job description, but was a little instant add-on of coercion from her colleague. Setting the star power aside, all of this amounts to commonplace harassment in what appears to be a hostile workplace, and it just happens to be against the law.
One in three women between the ages of 18 and 24 say that they have been harassed at work. Yet 70 percent of all workers (women and men) harassed on the job do not report the offense, often for fear of disbelief or reprisal. Think of all the women in television who were subjected to harassment and worse by Roger Ailes — the charges now reach back 50 years — fired at last by Fox News, only to become official media adviser to — who else? — presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Some in the media glossed over Trump’s bragging as just so much “lewd conversation” — or as Trump himself put it “locker room talk” — while his wife, Melania, dismissed it as “boy talk.” In fact, Trump’s unwanted kissing and groping — his self-described M.O. substantiated by one victim after another — can be classified in his home state (under New York Penal Law, Article 130, Section 130.52: forcible touching) as a Class A misdemeanor. That may not sound serious, but it’s punishable by a maximum fine of $1,000 (chump change for The Donald) and a more sobering potential year behind bars.
It was that tape, all over the media on Oct. 7, that prompted Anderson Cooper during the second presidential debate to ask Trump three times if he had actually done the sort of things he described to Billy Bush, which Cooper correctly named “sexual assault.” Trump finally answered: “And I will tell you, no I have not” — and women who had lived for 5, 10, 20, even 30 years with nagging memories of a Trump assault and humiliation had to restrain an immediate impulse to smash the TV set and instead called a news outlet or a lawyer.
As of this writing, more than a dozen women have gone public with reports of Trump’s sexual attacks since the release of that Access Hollywood tape. They join a list of women and girls who had previously reported offenses ranging from outright sexual assault to crashing dressing rooms at beauty contests where nude and semi-nude women and girls were preparing to compete for the titles of Miss Universe or Miss Teen America. That brings the number of Trump’s accusers, as I write, to at least 24. Journalists and lawyers have generally managed to verify their accounts.
Of course, Trump has repeatedly denied the women’s allegations, saying before, during and ever since the third presidential debate that he had never seen those women before, had no idea who they were, found them insufficiently attractive to warrant his attention and that their stories had, in any case, been debunked. None of his claims were true. (And, for good measure, he announced during his version of a Gettysburg Address that he would sue every one of them after the election is over.)
Trump’s behavior perfectly fits the profile of an ordinary wife abuser — but with one additional twist… Trump has not confined his controlling tactics to his own home(s).
In my June post, I wrote:
“Trump’s behavior perfectly fits the profile of an ordinary wife abuser — but with one additional twist… Trump has not confined his controlling tactics to his own home(s). For seven years, he practiced such tactics openly for all the world to see on The Apprentice, his very own reality show, and now applies them on a national stage, commanding constant attention while alternately insulting, cajoling, demeaning, embracing, patronizing and verbally beating up anyone… who stands in the way of his coronation.”
In this fashion, he humiliated his male Republican primary opponents, demeaning them with nicknames — Little Marco, Lyin’ Ted, Low-Energy Jeb — and denigrated his only female primary opponent, Carly Fiorina, by unfavorably appraising her appearance. (“Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?”) More recently, of course, he’s disparaged “Crooked Hillary” in a similar fashion. (“Such a nasty woman!”)
Growing Up in America
Hillary Clinton, as Trump himself has acknowledged, is a fighter who will not quit — unperturbed even by his stalking her on stage throughout the second presidential debate and body shaming her afterward. “She walked in front of me,” he said of a moment in that debate when she crossed the stage to speak to a questioner in the audience. “Believe me, I wasn’t impressed.” In the third debate, she called him out directly on his behavior. “Donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger,” she said. “He goes after their dignity, their self-worth — and I don’t think there is a woman anywhere who doesn’t know what that feels like.”
Here was something new under the sun: a woman on a presidential debate stage calling out an insufferable man — a serial predator, at that — on behavior so common among men for so long that the vast majority of women in this country have experienced it and learned to call it “life.”
Some women still see it that way. The New York Times, for instance, interviewed a 62-year-old woman voting for Trump who said that other women offended by his “banter” should “grow up.” I like to think that hers is a good description of what’s happening nationally at the moment, though obviously not in the fashion that she imagined. After all, grown-up womenled the way, among congressional representatives, in calling Trump out. Republican Reps. Barbara Comstock of Virginia and Martha Roby of Alabama both asked him to withdraw from the race. Kay Granger of Texas, Mia Love of Utah and Ann Wagner of Missouri said they could not vote for him. Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Deb Fischer of Nebraska and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia withdrew their support. Susana Martinez, Republican governor of New Mexico, said she would not support Trump, while former Republican presidential candidate Fiorina said that Trump should step aside. Republican former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice wrote on her Facebook page: “Enough! Donald Trump should not be president. He should withdraw.”
Still, don’t expect a serial abuser to be a quitter, either. Faced with accusations of abhorrent and criminal acts he can’t acknowledge, plus impending incomprehensible defeat at the polls and the very real possibility of becoming one of those people he so despises — a loser — Trump casts about for others to blame. Given his character, it’s not surprising that he follows, as if by instinct, what we might call the Joel Steinberg path to self-exoneration — painting himself and himself alone as the ultimate innocent victim of abusive others in a world whose every aspect is “rigged” against him.
In his own telling, he, not the women he’s demeaned or assaulted, is the abused one and he’s taking it for us, for America. It’s quite a self-portrait when you think about it, and should make us appreciate all the more those women who stepped before the cameras, reported his sexual assaults and left themselves open to further abuse from Trump and his supporters. They have done something rare and brave. It’s one thing for a woman to say publicly that she has been sexually assaulted or battered or raped. Feminist speak-outs taught us decades ago to support our sisters by sharing our experience in this way. But it’s another thing to name the perpetrator and call him to account. That’s what these women have done. And wonder of wonders, most women and a whole lot of men believe them, and more than 60 percent, in the tepid language of the pollsters, “have some concerns” about the issue. Count that as a positive change of recent years — a light in dismal times.
On the dark side, you never know what a sore loser and his loyal, bullying, misogynist followers might do. Say, for example, followers of the type who show up outside Hillary rallies with banners reading “Trump that Bitch!” The moment the trial of Joel Steinberg ended, armed guards surrounded him and hustled him off to prison. Unfortunately, when this election is over, whether Trump wins or loses, he’s not likely to go away.
Yes, some 200 political scientists declared Trump, "worst president in history." His approval rating is the lowest in 40 years. Trump has a history of bigotry, lies, and scamming people for money. over 20 women charged Trump with sexual assault. What else can possibly go wrong during the remaining years of his presidency?
Trump, Cic, is a figurehead.
The more you analyse him - The less you analyse his puppetmasters.
Look behind the 'curtain' (Wiz of oz).
ALL ends Well, Sir!
My gift to you.
I know of no human, Ever, that wasn't 'unstable'.
And psychiatry is the 'treatment' of 'disorder', not the 'Study' of 'it'.
Psychiatry (Hand out pills)
A psychiatrists' view is as valuable as a dried plum - When it comes down to 'actual' mental analysis.
I'm an ontologist, Cic.
I Study Everything.
Trump follows a script - Do you believe otherwise?
If you do - that's fine.
I don't care - I just say it as it is.
Btw - "They" ALL follow a script - Else they're replaced by 'scriptfollowers' (New word)?.