TRUMP is seriously dangerous

[Jerky]

I was addressing Sounder.

So moderators can't speak on the obvious now? They aren't allowed opinions, if those opinions don't jibe with yours? Even when it's THAT FUCKING OBVIOUS?

Or is it your contention that the sight of Trump, all puffed out and preening, touring his wall prototypes in Cali, was NOT the spitting image of a satirist's take on an idiot dictator? Because if THAT'S what you're saying...

Also, I know you've tried to claim you're "no Trump fan" in the past, but I propose that anyone who takes what 82 wrote above as some sort of affront would HAVE to have some sort of emotional or moral investment in the monster being mocked.

Or what... discussing Trump from this point forward, do we have to post every bad thing ever done by every President since Washington to avoid your peanut gallery sniping?

J.

Your post is immediately after Sounder's but seems to be addressing me. Please advise.

[Jerky]

"WAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!"
- Rory, March 14, 2018 (etc)

The default assumption is that's it's intended to be offensive to everyone, no least themselves

[Sounder]

So moderators can't speak on the obvious now? They aren't allowed opinions, if those opinions don't jibe with yours? Even when it's THAT FUCKING OBVIOUS?

people can say whatever they want. I did not take 'affront', I simply found it amusing being paired close together.

Your projecting J, as I enjoy hearing about all kinds of opinions.

I love yours especially. They are so revealing and juicy.

[minime]

Comment: I disagree with Sounder. As a moderator, 82's response was beyond the pale. And it was the form, not the content. Rather than discouraging polemic, he invited it. He should be replaced. It will end badly. Canadian Watcher badly. He can already feel the power of the dark side coursing through his veins.

Moreover, he's inviting slad to misbehave. She can already feel the yoke lighten. She will be even more insufferable in the future.

Consider the "Hillary is seriously dangerous thread". Of the 2000 posts, over 100 were hers, shifting the focus of the thread from Clinton to Trump, the Republicans, anything--long copypastas, vicious personal attacks, non-sequiturs, without a peep form anyone.

If the reverse had happened in this thread, it would have been met with insults (as indeed it was), criticism, warning, suspension and banishment in short order.

Dada and Sounder deserve better.

I am reminded of Heinlein's Fair Witness.

[Rory]

"WAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!"
- Rory, March 14, 2018 (etc)

The default assumption is that's it's intended to be offensive to everyone, no least themselves

If I was Minime, I'd say you have Muladhara Chakra problems and can only imagine the corporeal manifestations of that

[peartreed]

One of the many reasons that Trump is seriously dangerous is because he, as a person, believes he is his own persona. His narcissism has become megalomania as his power of position reinforces his inflated image of himself as all-powerful. Yet the lingering image he unintentionally projects is one of a man-child, immature, insecure and constantly overcompensating for his most vulnerable inadequacies.

So, for comparison to his self-inflated self, he always has to have an enemy, an opponent, an opposite to point to and to offload all his own failures upon. Trump is still fighting Clinton and Obama more than a year after the election, and now he’s demonizing his own appointments to office and firings as the cause of his demise.

Much like some of the participants on this board, the immature need to have a nemisis to blame for their own comparative weaknesses and social inabilities. So they spend their online activity whining, complaining, bullying, inciting, baiting and deriding others who they subconsciously and overtly resent for being dominant.

When the moderators dare to do their proper job enforcing forum rules and a higher code of conduct, the adolescently stunted targets take umbrage and decry a dearth of discussion over their complaints, criticisms, character assassinations and issues.

Meanwhile the main contributors of threads, news and posts initiating actual topical exchanges and conversations patiently await productive discussions - but carry on.

Trump could take a lesson from exactly those who find him, and his wannabe big boy buffoons with similar behavior, so pathetically transparent . Try growing up.

[Rory]

You never call out Jerky, or Slad - what's up with that. You're ok with their antics, clearly, so you just look biased and silly when you act all high and mighty, in your distinctly one sided manner

[seemslikeadream]

Nicolle Wallace just asked Stormy Daniels’ lawyer if sex tape exists. His answer is scandalous
BY BRIAN TYLER COHEN
PUBLISHED ON MARCH 14, 2018


Not only has Trump’s Stormy Daniels saga refused to go away, but America seems to find out more and more with each passing day. Today’s development, however, might just take the cake.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace spoke with Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels’ attorney, about the possibility of the existence of a sex tape.

Avenatti’s response has piqued the interest of a curious nation.

Kyle Griffin

@kylegriffin1
NICOLLE WALLACE: Is there a sex tape?
MICHAEL AVENATTI, Stormy Daniels' attorney: I'm not going to answer that.
WALLACE: Could there be a sex tape?
AVENATTI: There could be, might be, would be, could be. Who knows?

Despite the fact that nothing seems to stick to Trump, the Stormy Daniels saga – in all of its sordid controversy – is the perfect one to take down a president whose constant barrage of sophomoric foolishness has thus far baffled the political arena and stymied myriad political attacks. But when faced with a scandal worthy of reality television– well, Trump may have finally met his match.

Add your name to millions demanding Congress take action on the President’s crimes. IMPEACH TRUMP & PENCE!



The remark comes on the heels of Daniels’, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, decision to sue Trump amid claims that his team is attempting to silence her despite the fact that her “hush agreement” is invalid because Trump never signed it.

The civil suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court and outlines that fact that while Daniels and Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, signed the NDA, Trump himself did not.

Per NBC News, “According to the lawsuit, Clifford and Trump had an intimate relationship that lasted from summer 2006 “well into the year 2007.” The relationship allegedly included meetings in Lake Tahoe and at the Beverly Hills Hotel.”



The 2016 hush agreement mandated that Daniels was to be paid $130,000 in exchange for not disclosing any information about the sexual relationship between her and Trump. Clifford argues that while the contract is invalid, given the absence of Trump’s signature, that hasn’t stopped Cohen from his continued attempts to silence her.

“To be clear, the attempts to intimidate Ms. Clifford into silence and ‘shut her up’ in order to ‘protect Mr. Trump’ continue unabated,” says the suit. “On or about February 27, 2018, Mr. Trump’s attorney Mr. Cohen surreptitiously initiated a bogus arbitration proceeding against Ms. Clifford in Los Angeles.”
Stormy Daniels and her attorney, Avenatti, are asking court to formally declare that the hush agreement and accompanying agreements “were never formed, and therefore do not exist, because, among other things, Mr. Trump never signed the agreements.”

Trump is further implicated because, per the rules of the New York bar, Cohen is required to keep his client, Trump, informed at all times. As such, Trump should be aware – and is duly complicit – in the illegal activity.



“[I]t strains credulity to conclude that Mr. Cohen is acting on his own accord and without the express approval and knowledge of his client Mr. Trump.”
The lawsuit is only the latest move in a string of incredible developments. In a previously published In Touch Magazine interview, Daniels claimed that Trump had an affair with her in 2005 shortly after Melania gave birth to their child.

“I actually don’t even know why I did it, but I do remember while we were having sex, I was like, ‘Please, don’t try to pay me,’” Daniels told the magazine.

“We hung out for a little while, and he just kept saying, ‘I’m gonna call you, I’m gonna call you. I have to see you again. You’re amazing. We have to get you on The Apprentice,’” she added.
Trump, for his part, has been accused of sexual harassment or misconduct by a staggering 22 women. He has neither confessed to these crimes nor taken any degree of responsibility for them. Even in the face of damning evidence – such as the Access Hollywood tapes – the president has refused to address the issue.

It seems that Trump’s vile treatment of women is finally catching up with him– and while he usually wants all eyes on him, this is one instance where the president may regret his unquenchable thirst for the nation’s attention.
https://washingtonpress.com/2018/03/14/ ... candalous/

[seemslikeadream]

Russia and Vladimir Putin clearly exercise some control over Donald Trump.

Trump’s Dangerous Allegiance Threatens Every One of Us
By Josh Marshall | March 14, 2018 5:43 pm

Steffen Kugler/Bundesregierung
Yesterday, after news broke that Rex Tillerson had been fired and replaced by Mike Pompeo, I heard some voices reassuring themselves that unlike many in the Trump world Pompeo is fairly hostile to Russia. At least, they say, he views Russia through a more traditional Republican prism. This raises a general point that is critical and we all must address. We don’t need more hostility toward Russia or more hawkishness. What we need is an un-compromised policy toward Russia. Most specifically, we need an uncompromised President, something we currently do not have.

This is no mere rhetorical point. Russia is a threat. But it is largely a threat because of its weakness, its status as a declining power with cultural and geopolitical ambitions far out of sync with its current reality and most future realities we can credibly envision. That is the centerpiece of Putinism, the aim to reclaim Russia’s 20th-century preeminence and exact revenge against those he blames for Russia’s precipitous collapse in the 1980s and 1990s. Putinism is a textbook revanchist worldview and policy agenda. Indeed, we can see it playing out in the crises of the last handful of years. The effort to destabilize Ukraine and seize the Crimean Peninsula speaks for itself. The 2016 election tampering campaign is an even deeper example.

There is a fascinating debate going on now about whether there is such a thing as a “Gerasimov Doctrine,” a theory of full-spectrum warfare aimed at countering the West. Here’s a good introduction to that debate here. What is beyond debate is this: Russia is geographically vast but economically a modest player at best in the scale of the world’s great powers. Russia’s GDP ranks somewhere between that of Italy and Mexico. It’s jarring to recognize that but it is true. Russia’s military and political leaders realize they simply lack the economic or geopolitical heft to remain a world power in conventional military terms. They simply can’t afford it. To maintain the great power or major power status to which Russian elites believe Russia is entitled it must mobilize unconventional tools to do so. Whether this is a doctrine or a more ad hoc strategy of necessity growing out of the experience of last decades ‘color revolutions’ in Eastern Europe and the Arab Spring, it is the impetus behind Russia’s increasingly pervasive and aggressive focus on information warfare, subversion, hacking and various efforts to destabilize potential adversaries it cannot dominate or engage with in conventional economic or military terms. (As I wrote way back in August 2016, this Gerasimov Doctrine, growing out of Russian perceptions of the Color Revolutions and the Arab Spring is oddly comparable to conservative perceptions of liberal media hegemony and the creation of Fox News. No really.)

The key danger we currently face is not Russia itself. It is the success of the 2016 campaign. I’m not talking about the fact that President Trump won the election. We don’t know the impact of the disruption campaign and in any case, that fact is in the past. I’m talking about the fact that Russia and Vladimir Putin clearly exercise some control over Donald Trump. Now. I know that is a dramatic accusation. Perhaps to some, it will appear hyperbolic. But after a year I think there’s no longer any way to doubt that this is true. On every front, he resists taking punitive measures against Russia, even when mandated to do so by US laws. He goes to great lengths never to criticize Russia. In the exceedingly rare cases in which he does, it is in prepared statements written for him by others. In other words, when it’s not really him. He finds himself spilling highly classified intelligence to top Russian government officials. He seeks out private meetings with Vladimir Putin where no other Americans are present. The latest instance with this chemical weapons assassination attempt in the UK is just the latest example. Some members of the administration have been outspoken. But President Trump has done his very best to keep his criticism to an absolute minimum, always leaving open the possibility that others are involved. It’s just like he does when he’s asked about Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign.

I don’t know why this is. Does Vladimir Putin have something on Trump? Is there money involved? Is it simply that in the nature of things Putin can expose the collusion that took place during the 2016 campaign. Perhaps it’s just an on-going arrangement freely engage in on both sides. Of course, we can speculate that President Trump simply has a profound admiration and attraction to Putin which makes any criticism impossible. But that would if anything be worse than kompromat and bribes. Something is clearly wrong, very wrong. The President is not able to act in America’s interest with regard to Russia. And that unexplained subservience sends shockwaves across numerous critical US alliances, particularly in Europe.

It is important to note that there is no single policy that is in America’s interest. There is a range of policies and ways of dealing with Russia, some more aggressive than others. Those are different policies each rooted in different strategies and interpretations of statecraft. But they are united by a calculus that puts the interests of the United States first without any conflicting allegiances, corrupt alliances or compromised intentions. For now, we simply don’t have that.

That isn’t just a massive indictment of President Trump. It’s a great danger for the United States and every American citizen. Because on this critical front – not an existential threat, not the only or even necessarily the greatest threat – our government is decapitated at the top. We don’t know how far this goes. This mini-chemical weapons attack, again, is instructive. My greatest fear with Trump is not so much that he would ‘sell out’ the US as that his subservience and public lickspittledom would lead Putin to be so aggressive that it would set in motion a chain of events that would be difficult to stop. What if one of those Russian planes buzzing US ships crashes into one? What if Putin kills someone with nerve gas on American soil? What happens then? At some point, inevitably, the U.S. snaps from Trump accommodation to aggressive response. How much of a hold does Russia have over Trump? Can he be driven to inflict willful damage on the United States? We don’t know. But our ability to act, in critical decisions and engagements implicating our most essential alliances, is crippled.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/tr ... -one-of-us

[minime]

Much like some of the participants on this board, the immature need to have a nemisis to blame for their own comparative weaknesses and social inabilities. So they spend their online activity whining, complaining, bullying, inciting, baiting and deriding others who they subconsciously and overtly resent for being dominant.

When the moderators dare to do their proper job enforcing forum rules and a higher code of conduct, the adolescently stunted targets take umbrage and decry a dearth of discussion over their complaints, criticisms, character assassinations and issues.

1. Boowya
2. Ha! 82's code of conduct is abysmal for a moderator.

Trump is a moron, something, something... Got it. I assume he's worse than anything we've been told. Obsessing over him ignores the real problem, which was here before him, and will be here when he is long gone. Namecalling, 82's stock in trade, is just past infantile, and diminishes the forum. As a moderator it is unacceptable. Approaching the problem tangentially as dada tried to do offers more in one post than slad and the rest of you have offered in years.

nemesis...

Your alliteration is tiresome and sophomoric, but more importantly it compromises meaning. Just saying. Try meter in verse, if you are able, as it adds meaning rather than diminishes.

[norton ash]

O minime you are a piece of work. (Iambic pentameter.)

[seemslikeadream]

tiresome and sophomoric

I don't think it is ever a good idea to call 82_28 a petulant child

82's code of conduct is abysmal for a moderator

gees only a mod for less than a week ....way to go that must be some kind of record

[82_28]

minime, this will "end badly". Problem is, you're the person who is about to lose his privileges.

A: Your commentary is not topical.
B: If I were not moderator I would be requesting a warning or penalty be meted.

Earlier today our other mod PMed me asking about you and another member's conduct and was prepared to give you "the week off". I told him to hold off as I thought it might be harsh. Then, I happened upon the last few pages of this thread.

What this means is, I gave you a pass today out of the goodness of my heart even though all you really seem to do is disrupt. I think I might have been being naive. I will wait to see if he's still keen on his initial idea.

Another thing, being a mod is the only reason I am responding to you civilly.

[minime]

minime, this will "end badly". Problem is, you're the person who is about to lose his privileges.

A: Your commentary is not topical.
B: If I were not moderator I would be requesting a warning or penalty be meted.

Earlier today our other mod PMed me asking about you and another member's conduct and was prepared to give you "the week off". I told him to hold off as I thought it might be harsh. Then, I happened upon the last few pages of this thread.

What this means is, I gave you a pass today out of the goodness of my heart even though all you really seem to do is disrupt. I think I might have been being naive. I will wait to see if he's still keen on his initial idea.

Another thing, being a mod is the only reason I am responding to you civilly.

Bye.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

minime, this will "end badly". Problem is, you're the person who is about to lose his privileges.

A: Your commentary is not topical.
B: If I were not moderator I would be requesting a warning or penalty be meted.

Earlier today our other mod PMed me asking about you and another member's conduct and was prepared to give you "the week off". I told him to hold off as I thought it might be harsh. Then, I happened upon the last few pages of this thread.

What this means is, I gave you a pass today out of the goodness of my heart even though all you really seem to do is disrupt. I think I might have been being naive. I will wait to see if he's still keen on his initial idea.

Another thing, being a mod is the only reason I am responding to you civilly.

Bye.

Oh no, please, minime, allow me to say bye to you! If you do decide to grace us with your presence next week, you might consider taking the time to read the rules Jeff so wisely laid out, particularly this one:

Please refrain from personal attacks, and keep arguments issue-based.