On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 1:01:06 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:26:51 -0700 (PDT),
lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 2:19:33 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:42:05 -0700 (PDT),
lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 12:35:57 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote:
> >> >> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> >> >> > My wife woke up in the middle of the night and invented this joke:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What does D.N.C. stand for?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Donald, Nancy, Chuck.
> >> >>
> >> >> I always wondered what would happen if Don ran as a Dem.
> >> >> Maybe in 2020?
> >> >> He gets full marks from me if he helps fix the DACA mess.
> >> >>
> >> >I'm not sure the Dems are dumb enough to vote in a guy who is so insecure, thin-skinned and undiplomatic. But stranger things have happened.
> >>
> >> Oh, if he switched to being a Democrat (which he once was) they would
> >> be praising his many virtues. Didn't Bill get away with harrassing
> >> women? How about the Kennedys?
> >>
> >I really don't think so. Remember all the people within his own party who were trying to prevent him from getting the nomination? That wasn't because they wanted it themselves (for the most part), it's because they genuinely believed he wasn't fit for office.
>
> Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because he threatens to drain
> their swamp, mess up the enormous money-and-power game that both
> parties play.
Nobody took his claim to be planning to "drain the swamp" any more seriously than they took his claim to be about to build a wall along the Mexican border.
Probably less seriously, since Trump is creature of that swamp, and always has been.
>
> > And also likely beleived he couldn't win. Well, he won, and a lot of those fears are playing out.
>
> Like tax reform. Politicians of both parties live on pay-for-play
> loopholes.
It is a feature of US politics, documented in the fact that US corporate tax rates are amongst the highest in the world, and the amount of tax paid by US corporations (as a fraction of profits) is one of the lowest around.
> > It doesn't take a psychiatrist to see this guy has some issues, or at least is behaving like he does. A president is supposed to be diplomatic, well-read, and open to new ideas. Is it any wonder his approval rating fell so low so early in his term, or that the turnover at the WH is so high? I mean really, this isn't a political issue. I didn't care for GW Bush, but he at least he didn't have all these personality issues. You can make up all the excuses you want about polls being wrong, "liberal media", but his behavior speaks for itself.
> >
> >And yeah, Bill and Kennedy were womanizers, but at least they weren't so overt about it and weren't the mental case Trump is.
> >
> >I honestly cannot understand anyone who thinks Trump is so great. It has nothing to do with his policies, it's his behavior that gets me.
>
> He may just turn out to be very, very smart. It's fundamental that
> can't be obvious.
Seems unlikely. If he were really smart, the people whom he lured into investing in all those projects that went bankrupt would have made money rather than losing it - that would have made it easier to recruit more suckers.
> Sometimes the best way to get what you want is to act crazy. Most
> people can't deal with that.
Sure they can. Back off and leave the crazy guy to talk to himself. That's why Trump ended up starring on "The Apprentice", away from people who knew what a fruitcake he was, then ran for president, where he was up against the kinds of fruitcakes that the Koch brothers (aka the Tea Party faction) happen to like.
> I should get his "Deal" book.
Sure you should. It's isn't actually sub-titled "Megalomania for fun and profit" and it was written by a ghost writer, but you do seem to exhibit much the same character defects, and you'd probably enjoy it.
What you ought to read is something closer to "How to live with megalomania" which would concentrate on dealing with the unrealistic convictions that you know best - as in you and Trump being convinced that you know better about anthropogenic global warming than the sane 290 of the 300 top climatologists.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney