Trump goes bonkers. Tweets about Psycho Joe and Crazy Mika.

a reply to: Jubei42

The thing I don't understand is this, why can't Trump see that tweets like these are never going to help him.

You and other normal people would. Normal, mentally healthy people know when a line has been crossed. With T's depth and breadth of mental dysfunction, Trump cannot stop trying to protect his ego. And T's world is all his ego. He will do whatever it takes to protect himself. He sees his tweets as helping him, at the core protecting his ego, which is his world.

With T there are no lines of decency or rational behavior to stop him, because, with his irrational dysfunction, lines are always to be moved. He came from a family controlled business, where he was in control. Now, he cannot get away with what he was able to do as a private citizen, and his dysfunction then kicks in and prevents him from acting rationally.

If T had stayed as a private citizen, what he does would be no big deal for each of us. But he holds the highest office of individual power in the US, and what he does matters. His temperament, judgement and knowledge of govt matter.

Sarah H Sanders really was correct when she told us, 'America knew what they were getting'. Some people tried to warn us, but they were ignored.

Trump is so easily trolled and triggered.

Yes. And Putin, that cagey ole KGBer, knows this and knows how to perfectly control the man who cannot control himself.

How far can he take this before something is done?

Who around is willing to stop him? T rules by FUD. And we all saw the unbelievable kowtowing his Cabinet did. No one close to him can or will stop him. At least fellow Republicans could approach Nixon to give him the bad news, and Nixon was rational enough to see the writing on the wall and act rationally.

What kind of reputation damage is this causing the office of the president? the us government? USA as a country? Trump the brand?

Doesn't matter to T at this point, and that's all that matters to him at this point.

Actually, IMO T knows he is in deep doodoo with his Russian business money connections, and those he will protect. To hell with office, govt, country.

a reply to: desert

Yup, straight out of the old KGB textbook of how to wreck havoc on a democracy...

Read and weep.

originally posted by: carabao
a reply to: alphabetaone

I'd say it's just the continuation of what has already been going on for years.

But... Yeah...

Yes, you're right. It just hasn't been as pronounced nor as overtly vicious and without any remorse in sight.

Donald Trump thinks he has only Donald Trump to protect which is precisely what make him such an ineffective leader...he needs to protect the whole of the USA, not start hitting the USA back "10 times harder".

a reply to: Jubei42

The thing I don't understand is this, why can't Trump see that tweets like these are never going to help him.

He literally cannot help it. Not only is he an egotistical narcissist he is also obsessive compulsive.

He can NOT control his urges, which is one reason why it's so concerning and dangerous.

a reply to: desert

Yes. And Putin, that cagey ole KGBer, knows this and knows how to perfectly control the man who cannot control himself.

And if Vlad doesn't deliver, other Deep States will. The Neverlands second!

originally posted by: snuffie

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Jubei42

The thing I don't understand is this, why can't Trump see that tweets like these are never going to help him.

He literally cannot help it. Not only is he an egotistical narcissist he is also obsessive compulsive.

He can NOT control his urges, which is one reason why it's so concerning and dangerous.

Trump is 12 steps ahead of you.

Thanks Texas/Endtimez/Steve/Zane/etc, but that wasn't the point.

Read my reply again: it's the fact that Trump cannot control his urges (obsessive compulsive). That is a bad thing.

Keep up.

a reply to: alphabetaone

In Europe the people of the US has been held in high regard and continues to do so.
On the other hand the US government keeps swinging back and forth.
It is now at an all time low, Bush 1 and 2 set the precedence obviously, but check how Europe is regarding the US president now....
I think it's 20% on Trump vs 60% on Obama....
Too lazy to link giyf.

And remember, it's just your child president we loath, not the US population. Big difference.

Ok, here's a link.

a reply to: alphabetaone

he needs to protect the whole of the USA, not start hitting the USA back "10 times harder".

Another recent read was Hitler's Last Courier by A.D. Lehmann. At the point when Germany was being attacked on both borders, here is a quote from the author about Hitler's thinking at that time:

"He thought the German people had failed because they were not worthy of his aims." In Hitler's mind, he was not the problem, the problem was that the German people were not worthy.

I can see this thinking with Trump: The problem is with the American people, even my followers, who do not recognize how great I am, totally unworthy of me, if only they believed.

At the very end, as Berlin was under attack, Hitler continued to broadcast and lie to his military and people about how Germany had a miracle weapon that would turn the tide. There was no miracle weapon, but he felt compelled to lie to his people.

Ego protection and lies go together. Delusional dysfunction and blame others even to the end. It has gotten T this far in 71 years, he will not change.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

If you can't tell the difference in jobs a comedian has vs a president and the weight they carry yout should check your understanding of reality.

Are you saying celebrity movie stars should be taken seriously like the president?

He has the same rights as any other citizen.

And a hell of a lot more responsibility. I know its unfashionable, even among some self-proclaimed conservatives, but that's important.

originally posted by: carabao
a reply to: desert

Yup, straight out of the old KGB textbook of how to wreck havoc on a democracy...

Read and weep.

That wasn't what the KGB did. That was the Comintern.

But, hey, why start learning about history now?

It's just hard to accept that the president of one of the largest democracies in the world has to behave and express himself in this manner.
Look, if a president gets the boot for fooling around in the oval office and lying about it I think Trump should have his moral suitcases packed and ready to go.

When the criticism is constructive you work with it to improve yourself, when it stops being constructive you ignore it. But you don't start "hitting back ten times harder" when people start calling you names. It's not smart as a normal person but as POTUS it's just a disgrace.

originally posted by: Jubei42
It's just hard to accept that the president of one of the largest democracies in the world has to behave and express himself in this manner.
Look, if a president gets the boot for fooling around in the oval office and lying about it I think Trump should have his moral suitcases packed and ready to go.

When the criticism is constructive you work with it to improve yourself, when it stops being constructive you ignore it. But you don't start "hitting back ten times harder" when people start calling you names. It's not smart as a normal person but as POTUS it's just a disgrace.

When did a President get the boot for fooling around in the oval office? Not even close....

a reply to: toolgal462

The impeachment process of Bill Clinton was initiated by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, against Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.[1] These charges stemmed from Clinton's extramarital affair with former White House Intern Monica Lewinsky and his testimony about the affair during a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones. Clinton was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 12, 1999.[2] Two other impeachment articles – a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power – failed in the House.

This article is part of
a series about
Bill Clinton
Family
Electoral historyPolitical positionsSexual misconduct allegations

Governor of Arkansas
Governorship

President of the United States
Presidency Timeline

First term
1992 Campaign Election 1st inauguration
NAFTAHealth Security Act1994 midterm electionsEconomic policyTravelgateWhitewaterAmeriCorpsDayton Agreement

Second term
1996 Campaign Election 2nd inauguration
Operation Infinite ReachBombing of YugoslaviaBalanced Budget
Monica Lewinsky scandalImpeachment
One America InitiativePardon controversy

Policies 
[show]

Post-Presidency
Presidential LibraryPublic imageMy LifeActivitiesClinton FoundationClinton Bush Haiti Fund




vte
Leading to the impeachment, Independent Counsel Ken Starr turned over documentation to the House Judiciary Committee. Chief Prosecutor David Schippers and his team reviewed the material and determined there was sufficient evidence to impeach the president. As a result, four charges were considered by the full House of Representatives; two passed, making Clinton the second president to be impeached, after Andrew Johnson in 1868, and only the third against whom articles of impeachment had been brought before the full House for consideration (Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency in 1974, while an impeachment process against him was underway).
The trial in the United States Senate began right after the seating of the 106th Congress, in which the Republican Party began with 55 senators. A two-thirds vote (67 senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. Fifty senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no member of his own Democratic Party voted guilty on either charge. Clinton, like Johnson a century earlier, was acquitted on all charges.

I would say 50 out of 67 votes to impeach, is pretty darn close.

Impeachment of Bill Clinton

a reply to: alphabetaone

Are you kidding me? He most certainly didn't get "the boot" in fact, he got 4 more years. Jesus H. why do you all have to lie? He was impeached but remained President.
Do any of you even understand what "impeachment" actually is and what it actually means? I doubt it very much from what I see.


OH YEAH!!! One last thing, he was IMPEACHED for lying under oath. Not for the disgusting, un Presidential behavior with Monica Lewinsky.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: carabao
a reply to: desert

Yup, straight out of the old KGB textbook of how to wreck havoc on a democracy...

Read and weep.

That wasn't what the KGB did. That was the Comintern.

But, hey, why start learning about history now?

Yeah, where did Putin come from again...

Meh... Why even try right....

a reply to: toolgal462

He most certainly didn't get "the boot"

Quite right! Removal from office requires two steps: first, impeachment in the House, followed by conviction in the Senate. Only then is a POTUS removed from office.

a Time article that explains

Right now, the political party of the POTUS is in control of the Legislative Branch (Congress), and IMO I don't see them willing to broach removal.

Right now, we have a de facto parliamentary form of govt (reasons for which are beyond this post), with no means to force compromise, and one party holding all the power.

I know someone who sat in a local jail for one year before being released with no trial. Imagine how long any investigation at the POTUS level will take due to the scope of possible impeachable offenses, then the length of the impeachment process, then a conviction process. No, we are all stuck with the bugger for awhile. Real life is neither a movie nor a tv show, where all must be accomplished in a definite time.

originally posted by: toolgal462
Are you kidding me? He most certainly didn't get "the boot" in fact, he got 4 more years.

I know that. But you said "Not even close"......it was damn close.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Since he was acquitted of all charges, I stand by my original comment. Not even close. Impeachment was not, "the boot". It was simply charges brought against a President for his actions while in office and the crime of lying under oath.

These are not the same things.

a reply to: desert
Thanks for that clarification. I understand it, but other people really need to read it.