Englebert

I had to stop reading when the author claimed that social welfare programs have "lifted people out of poverty". What a joke. Where do you find these authors? And more importantly, why do you feel the need to spread their propaganda to others?

Why do you feel the need to post blatant lies?

Michael Flynn lied to the FBI and has been charge with that crime. That's all we know. I've heard two theories on this. One, this is a sign that the special prosecutor has nothing and could only muster this charge. If he had anything more significant he would have charged Flynn with the greater crime. Or second, Flynn cut a deal with the prosecutor, agreeing to plead guilty to a lesser charge and other charges dropped, in exchange for testimony implicating someone else. Or third, Flynn is guilty as sin, but has dirt on Mueller, thus Mueller agreed to just charge him with only lying to avoid Flynn spilling the beans on him. What are your thoughts?

Please explain how you think stevenash's post is a lie. I'm curious to hear your well thought out analysis.

I don't know...I scored in the top 98th percentile on the analytical portion of the GRE. Don't ask about the other two sections. I did not say the term was new, I said it was brought about by TDS...meaning it was brought to the surface, not created. I guess I could have been more clear. I readily admit I use condescension when "debating" with some folks on this site. It's a tactic I learned from the Liberals, and employ when the debater uses like tactics or personal attics. It seems to be very effective, but not something I would consider using in a real debate. I've noticed you employ the same tactic. Your analytical skills are again showing their deficiencies on this point. If I keep displaying the "whataboutism" silly phenomenon, will I ever be able to reach Obama level? I'm aiming for the pinnacle. (Did you really just compare Trump with Stalin? Might as well through in Hitler and Mao.)

I was just having fun...and was fairly certain you were also. That's why I kept going with this. One thing I find offensive (and hilarious at the same time), is the wealth and abundance of "armchair psychologists" offering a diagnosis of someone based on very limited knowledge...knowledge that is usually cloaked in biased reporting. Never in my life have I heard/seen so many people accuse a person of being mentally unstable, only to cut and run when asked for evidence of this contention. Can you imagine if this many people, including many members of Congress, constantly questioned the sanity of Obama...and offered very little to zero evidence for this diagnosis. This behavior is so abundant that it has been informally given a catchy name: Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). And I know how you like little catchy names, including "God Complex". Since you believe that Trump suffers from the God complex syndrome (which is not a clinical term and is not included in the DSM V or any previous version) based on his use of grandiose statements and an overinflated opinion of himself, would you describe Obama as suffering from the same complex? I don't think there is a measurable (or even a smidgen...to use his words) of difference between the two egos. But I have a feeling the diagnosis will be different based on political affiliation. By the way, the clinical term probably closest to the God Complex is the Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and no psychologist worth his salt would diagnose Trump with this disorder, especially with such scarce and tainted data. Frankly, no psychologist/psychiatrist worth his salt would label/diagnose a person without prolonged personal interaction. I have a feeling you are just using exaggerated terms for effect, and don't really consider Trump mentally unstable...but I'm not certain of this based on the number of Liberals who I feel really believe their own insanity (i.e. grandiose diagnostic skills).

You've already shown in the other post that your diagnostic skills are severely lacking, and you try to disguise that fact with personal jabs with a condescending flavor. I don't mind...it's an all too familiar tactic that I begrudging learned from Liberals. You seemed well-versed in it, but overuse it to the point of comedy. You spoon fed nothing. I took your insinuations and turned them back to you. And as expected you come with this post...totally ignoring the topic of discussion. I think we can all "guess" why. Whataboutthetopic? (How's that for a cute little word. Maybe it will someday be used to call out Liberals who attempt to "debate" (deflect) a topic by deflecting to personal comments.) Shall we continue with the Russia theme? Obama called, he said the 80s want their cold war policies back. And I never said the word was new. I guess that's something we have to deal with when analytical skills are not up to par. It's a fairly common tactic used when one has to twist actual words to conform to their stereotyped architects...make up something and attribute it accordingly. Shall we continue with the Russia theme? Obama called, he said the 80s want their cold war policies back. On second thought, it would probably not be in your best interest to pursue this line of discussion. Your side is not looking very good right now.

It is clear your diagnostic skills are severely lacking. I'm not lost in "A", I'm just waiting for you to expose your skills at diagnosing a disorder. And I'm still waiting. Your interpretation that I'm "defending" someone is a pretty clear example of said skills. You keep deflecting to me instead of answering a simple little question, which is a "time honored" tactic of the looney Liberals. I very much hope you are just employing their tactics (as am I) and not actually falling to the dark side. Many a good man have fallen victim to TDS. The path to get to "B" is very, very simple. All you have to do is answer the question, "What leads you to believe that Trump has a God complex". Surely you must have some clue considering you made the accusation. I know, I know, let's talk more about me. Classic.

Yes, you should read up on that history. More and more evidence is being discovered that exonerates Trump and implicates the Hillary camp, including ol' Bill who took exorbitant amounts of money from his Russian "friends", conveniently at the same time his wife was contemplating the pros (not cons) of selling out this country. Let's not forget her side "buying" a fake dossier to use as evidence to spy on a political rival. In fact, the more we dig into this storyline, the more it seems that the "collusion" was propagated from Democrats...the same Democrats screaming Trump should be impeached for his nonexistent role. Yes, let's research this...but I'm fairly confident the evidence will lead to a place you don't want it to. And some will read this and say I'm defending Trump, or that I'm trying to excuse his bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior...in the form of a cute but irrelevant little word. That line of thinking would be a stark and glaring symptom of TDS.

You've learned well from the loons that stole your party. Make unsubstantiated, baseless and bloviated claims then attack anyone that disagrees as unstable, out-of-touch, and brainwashed...instead of debating the issue. I've learned that tactic also, although I will still debate the issues. Tell me again...wait, tell me firstly what sentences have emanated from Trump's mouth that would obviously lead one to believe he has a "God complex"? (And I hope you don't sink forehead level into the cesspool of the Liberal camp by claiming I'm somehow defending Trump by having the audacity to question a claim.)

Didn't you just say that a person was unqualified for his nominated position because of lack of experience, then render a diagnosis for which you have no training or experience? Did I get that right? And I noticed, as did everyone else, you failed to offer any evidence or symptoms for which you based your amateur analysis. Let me guess...you started writing these points of emphasis, then realized how silly they were before the submit button was pressed. That's understandable. On many occasions making an unsubstantiated statement with little forethought often loses it's luster immediately after a little introspective meditation.

He presumably would be a step up even if he didn't know a law if it hit him over the head. The previous ones are proving they have a "God complex" and should act as judges as well as lawmakers. Is seems the "whataboutism" line is just pestilence brought "about" by TDS.

With knowing nothing about him, I would still prefer him over most of the previous administration's picks. Maybe this potential judge will refrain from trying to write law.

I guess you missed the poll I put on here before the election that asked if you were voting for Trump or voting against Hillary. If I remember correctly, I think everyone that said that they were voting for Trump was doing so not as a vote for him, but as a vote against Hillary. Many, almost assuredly most, have restated this on many occasions on this board. So your attempts to smear, malign, and denigrate the actions of the board members judgment just falls flat, and are a prime symptom of the disease known as Trump Derangement Syndrome. And please share with us your psychoanalysis skills in assessing this phenomenon you attribute to Trump. I would love to critique the "symptoms" you value (and the ones you conveniently ignore) when rendering your diagnosis.

Just because he is not a far, far, far, far, far, far Left Liberal looney does not make him unqualified. I will take inexperience over insanity any time. Having said that, I can't imagine there not being more qualified people available for this position.

Did you read the article? How was Project Veritas trying to plant fake news? According to the article, Project Veritas was giving the Washington Post a fake story to see if the paper would publish it without confirming the story first. That's pretty much like the FBI (or whoever) smuggling contraband into airports to see if the airport security would catch the prohibited items. It seems the Washington Post broke character and actually found the story to be false before publishing it. This is news for the sole reason that we are surprised that the Washington Post actually followed the long established protocol for journalism...for once. Kudos to them for doing what the public expects them to do.

Are you referring to me? If so, what do you mean I give him too much credit? Credit for what?

I'm assuming (duh) that "Whataboutism" is just a made-up term in an attempt to dismiss the real disease affectionately known as Trump Derangement Syndrome. I didn't get to the point in the video where this term was used...I didn't want to lose any more brain cells by subjecting myself to that dribble. I would have to lose a lot more brain cells to even watch an Emmies show. I'm also assuming the term came about from someone who wildly mistakes a situation in which one is exposing the obvious hypocrisy of the Liberals who show fake outrage solely based on political affiliation. The hypocrisy is apparently evident to anyone with more than two functioning brain cells, but not to Liberals...thus having to be repeated so often. When it comes to giving a pathway for Liberals to expose their true colors, there has never been anyone more brilliant than Trump. I'm not a big fan, but his brilliance is undeniable in this area. I don't think anyone can hold a candle to his brilliance in achieving the shocking meltdown by the Liberals. That is brilliance you can take to the bank. The evidence is abundant and overwhelming, and doesn't take brilliance to recognize his brilliance. I guess I should now throw in a comparison to Obama, but can't seem to use that term in the same sentence. Oh wait, yes I can. Obama is brilliant at getting Republicans elected.

I went back and tried to watch this. Where you able to sit through the whole thing? Me neither. I got all the way to the 2 minute mark...and that was enough. Does anybody find this funny? I mean, with Hillary, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and scores of others running around, the comedic material is more than abundant than the trite stuff that this wannabe concentrates on. I guess this is what happens when one is blinded by hate. Just feed them what they want to hear and ignore the real material.

I didn't watch the video, just read the comments posted. My post was a comment on them. I know nothing about Jon Oliver. I'm assuming he is some kind of wannabe comedian that has been given an undeserved platform on some Liberal network for the sole purpose of bashing Trump. I would have to do a Bing search to find out, and that seems like too much work for someone so insignificant. Trump is just the impetus for the Liberal meltdown. I'm to the point where I'm beginning to think his antics are more pointed for the sole purpose of driving the Liberals insane, instead of just being his natural character. He is brilliant at getting the Liberals to expose their true hateful and childish nature. The "Scream at the Sky" thingy was just absolute comedic gold, but somehow the "comedians" ignore these antics from the Liberals. Luckily we have FoxNews (and setxsports) to expose these acts which would otherwise get buried by the Liberal media. What do you find funny on Fox & Friends that even comes close the loony antics of the Liberals? I hear the Liberals constantly saying "Fox Lies" and "Faux News", but I never hear any examples that leads to this conclusion. Could this be just another case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, or do you really have some evidence backing your statement? (I must admit I don't really watch Fox & Friends, so I'm not really up to speed on their programming. Maybe I should start watching it now.) Do you feel the need to attempt to delegitmize Fox & Friends because Trump said it was a great show?

It sure is fun watching the self-labeled elitists having aneurysms over the Trump presidency. I never thought I would see so many undocumented psychiatrists giving their unsubstantiated gloom and doom predictions based on such faulty and/or made up (and trite) "facts". Thanks for the laugh with this link. Those Liberals sure do know how to do spot-on impressions of children who just got their candy stolen.

One of the few things California did right...they never let that mongrel out of prison. Of course they could have waited until they fried him before rescinding the death penalty. [Hidden Content]

Big Girl will be back in full force the second a Republican makes the news for the wrong reasons.

I'm hoping that same standard will apply to new tobie also (and everyone on both sides). After all, one shouldn't engage about practicing double standards while practicing double standards.

lf we can get government out of the healthcare business then we wouldn't have to worry about politicians being paid off by pharmaceutical companies.