Trump's new Obama claims thrust him into uncharted territory

[Suradit69]

I hope the rest of Trump's supporters are less gullible than these 2 ignoramuses, who apparently still believe that Obama is a Muslim.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. "

Winston Churchill

[dick dasterdly]

I hope the rest of Trump's supporters are less gullible than these 2 ignoramuses, who apparently still believe that Obama is a Muslim.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. "

Winston Churchill

Unfortunately there is some truth to this saying, but more truth to thinking that it reflects the opinion of those convinced (often incorrectly) they have a superior intellect to everyone else.

[Suradit69]

Obama looked like a crybaby on National Television...trying to defend why he won't use the proper terminology. Hillary followed suit.

Disgracing behavior....and very unprofessional to chastise the Republican Nominee (presumptive).

In my opinion...far worse behavior and rhetoric from our incompetent president to cover up failed policies in places like Libya. Hillary is in the hate basket together with the failing Obama.

Shame on you Obama. get a grip. you too Hillary !!

Trying to deflect....over and over....when your policies are wrong...and you fail to listen to the public demand to just call a duck...a duck

final word....on this ! pathetic !

"Obama looked like a crybaby on National Television...trying to defend why he won't use the proper terminology. Hillary followed suit."

The "proper terminology" as defined by whom?

He, and many others, have made a point of describing those Muslims involved in terrorism as those who are perverting the religion to serve their purposes. Whether you choose to say 'radicalized" or extremists or perverted or misguided or militant or aberrant ... it doesn't change who they are or in any way reduce their threat.

You're just playing along with right-wing PC semantics that in no way contributes to making anyone safer. If anything is going to incentivize the terrorists, it's the maniacal rantings of people like Trump. Having him as president would shift Kim Jong-un to the number two spot on the list of moronic clowns who are heads of state.

[nealthewheel]

The problem is Trump calls it as he see it , he is correct on this but you cant change the PC crew they are so one eyed , They will one day regret their folly. 555

Scott Adams the cartoonist has an interesting take on Mr. Trump and even if some of his observations are correct - it puts many arguments about calling Mr. Trump caustic adjectives while venting dismay and anger by progressive liberals. This venting and misdirection shows just how much they don't wish to understand Trumps "acting" or his "master plan". You all conveniently forget he bested 17 contenders for the nomination. Anyway have a look at this link: <www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMERNoQm5DE>. Another thing I viewed on the net (and not Alex Jones) was another observation by a commentator that reckons this election has got men interested again in the political process - I think the tag was "men sit up and pay attention on the couch when Trump speaks" whereas their wives utter distain and leave the room! And the commentator is convinced that men will vote in record numbers in this election. As for myself I am enjoying the show and Obama's speech about Trump was out of order - a desperate man - and he won the Noble Peace Prize? There hasn't been anything like this since JFK took on tricky dicky in 1960. In those days the speculation was about whether Americans would put the first Catholic in the Oval office. Times were simpler then and the smiley was something for the future.

"men sit up and pay attention on the couch when Trump speaks" Really? It's got men more interested in politics? Apparently to you "men" means "white men". Because he sure isn't popular among Latino or Black Men. Or Jewish Men. Or Asian-American Men.

Or men with actual working brains.

Trump is disengenous at the least, and a bald faced liar at best. He constantly lies assuredly knowing that what he is doing doesn't matter to the majority of his so-called followers.....even when it is pointed out to them. Joseph Goebbels comes to mind....his philosophy was if you state a lie often enough eventually it will be believed. How disgusting that Trump says the President is a Muslim and wasn't born in America. This all smacks of Nazism and McCarthyism.....and a lot of Americans bought into the latter Communist nonsense. Hopefully in November Trump will return to being the horses ass we all know he is, and then leave us in peace.

Mansell - So by mentioning the colour of people you believe you hold the moral high ground. You posses information that non-white men aren't listening to and accepting Trumps campaign? Why is it left wing progressives always and I mean always resort to insults and name calling and putting a spin on things to suit their Fascist agenda (kill freedom of speech) and protect a president regardless of what proof you spout about his citizenship, you personally cannot know 100% for certain where he was born (were you there) people lie and can be bought you know just like Hilary is lost in her web of lies - you choose to believe the narrative where as others cast doubt. The choice to cast doubt is not blaspheme as you seem to indicate - what are you some kind of Stalinist? - he did a good job of getting rid of people who opposed his views. Look at the broader picture and the only thing I tried to do was put something out for discussion that can be researched. How do you know that men of another race or nationality don't take notice of what Trump says in a positive light and like his style? So if they do - they don't have a brain?? SJWs are sure delicate when it comes to argument - did you watch the Adam Scott video - probably not because you want to worship at the idol of progressive crooked lies. And you have all the answers - there can be not answers or sharing of ideas if there is no debate and insults are not an argument. The democrats spout just as much propaganda as Trump does but of course they don't lie because again you choose to believe perhaps, follow blindly. That is the choice in a democratic republic that people can believe as they wish - as long as it is not treasonous. I gave you 2 links for you to follow up on - I did not post this without doing some research - Trump hits a nerve that opposition voters cannot tolerate - do Trump supporters hate Bernie - not that I can tell. But the mutual loathing for each candidate is very unique from both sides. And Trump has gone against the grain so therefore people don't know who to react to him so they would rather criticise to the extreme instead of trying to fathom the phenomenon out.

[Jingthing]

Basically the vile monster can't be tamed.

He play acts being "presidential" occasionally but you can tell it's an act and he's BORED by it.

He's an entertainer!

So he's going to run his general election campaign in the same way he ran his primary campaign.

Happily, polls show this tactic is tanking him in the polls.

He's making the (hopefully) big mistake that what worked in the primaries with the right wing loonies will work the same way in the general.

The smart money says he's wrong.

Admittedly, the smart money has been wrong before about the vile monster.

So this is the big test now.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Jingthing

[Jiu-Jitsu]

Just some very weird comments here. Obama go into power as the first black president but it was a complete con trick. He has pursued liberal policies with a clear intention to dilute the core of American society and run the countries debt to the point of no return. He defaults to Islam.

Is mental illness really this pervasive in the United States? Do you actually believe that Obama is the sole policymaker in the USA? Do you actually belive that your presidents wish to harm the USA?

Indeed do you think any of Donald Trump's crackpot schemes will ever see the light of day if you idiots ever vote for him to become president?

The man is a shyster. A fake.....and if you actually believe any of the rubbish that you write, your life has been wasted.

[dunroaming]

One of the great things about Trump is that he never lets the truth get in the way of a good rant. Clearly most of his supporters feel the same way. This does keep his campaign rocking along and is very entertaining. Of course the more manic he gets the more he is shooting himself in the foot (possibly with the gun he has strapped to his ankle!). Don't stop Donald, we love your insanity over here in blighty!

[ilostmypassword]

The problem is Trump calls it as he see it , he is correct on this but you cant change the PC crew they are so one eyed , They will one day regret their folly. 555

Scott Adams the cartoonist has an interesting take on Mr. Trump and even if some of his observations are correct - it puts many arguments about calling Mr. Trump caustic adjectives while venting dismay and anger by progressive liberals. This venting and misdirection shows just how much they don't wish to understand Trumps "acting" or his "master plan". You all conveniently forget he bested 17 contenders for the nomination. Anyway have a look at this link: <www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMERNoQm5DE>. Another thing I viewed on the net (and not Alex Jones) was another observation by a commentator that reckons this election has got men interested again in the political process - I think the tag was "men sit up and pay attention on the couch when Trump speaks" whereas their wives utter distain and leave the room! And the commentator is convinced that men will vote in record numbers in this election. As for myself I am enjoying the show and Obama's speech about Trump was out of order - a desperate man - and he won the Noble Peace Prize? There hasn't been anything like this since JFK took on tricky dicky in 1960. In those days the speculation was about whether Americans would put the first Catholic in the Oval office. Times were simpler then and the smiley was something for the future.

"men sit up and pay attention on the couch when Trump speaks" Really? It's got men more interested in politics? Apparently to you "men" means "white men". Because he sure isn't popular among Latino or Black Men. Or Jewish Men. Or Asian-American Men.

Or men with actual working brains.

Trump is disengenous at the least, and a bald faced liar at best. He constantly lies assuredly knowing that what he is doing doesn't matter to the majority of his so-called followers.....even when it is pointed out to them. Joseph Goebbels comes to mind....his philosophy was if you state a lie often enough eventually it will be believed. How disgusting that Trump says the President is a Muslim and wasn't born in America. This all smacks of Nazism and McCarthyism.....and a lot of Americans bought into the latter Communist nonsense. Hopefully in November Trump will return to being the horses ass we all know he is, and then leave us in peace.

Mansell - So by mentioning the colour of people you believe you hold the moral high ground. You posses information that non-white men aren't listening to and accepting Trumps campaign? Why is it left wing progressives always and I mean always resort to insults and name calling and putting a spin on things to suit their Fascist agenda (kill freedom of speech) and protect a president regardless of what proof you spout about his citizenship, you personally cannot know 100% for certain where he was born (were you there) people lie and can be bought you know just like Hilary is lost in her web of lies - you choose to believe the narrative where as others cast doubt. The choice to cast doubt is not blaspheme as you seem to indicate - what are you some kind of Stalinist? - he did a good job of getting rid of people who opposed his views. Look at the broader picture and the only thing I tried to do was put something out for discussion that can be researched. How do you know that men of another race or nationality don't take notice of what Trump says in a positive light and like his style? So if they do - they don't have a brain?? SJWs are sure delicate when it comes to argument - did you watch the Adam Scott video - probably not because you want to worship at the idol of progressive crooked lies. And you have all the answers - there can be not answers or sharing of ideas if there is no debate and insults are not an argument. The democrats spout just as much propaganda as Trump does but of course they don't lie because again you choose to believe perhaps, follow blindly. That is the choice in a democratic republic that people can believe as they wish - as long as it is not treasonous. I gave you 2 links for you to follow up on - I did not post this without doing some research - Trump hits a nerve that opposition voters cannot tolerate - do Trump supporters hate Bernie - not that I can tell. But the mutual loathing for each candidate is very unique from both sides. And Trump has gone against the grain so therefore people don't know who to react to him so they would rather criticise to the extreme instead of trying to fathom the phenomenon out.

So much lunacy in so little space.

You posses information that non-white men aren't listening to and accepting Trumps campaign?

If you want to know how someone can assert that "non-white men aren't listening to Trump?" It's easy. Just look at the polling data. ?Acciording to the last Fox news poll that measured such thing, Trump had 23% support among Latinos. So even if all the Latino supporters were male, Trump still wouldn't have a majority. Among blacks according to the fox news poll it's 88-12. So even if every black supporter of Trump were male, he'd still be behind among males. And by a lot.

what proof you spout about his citizenship, you personally cannot know 100% for certain where he was born (were you there)

And you were present at the birth of how many presidents? I guess you can't really know if any of them were born in the USA either. Was Ronald Reagan actually born in Moscow?

[Linzz]

The problem is Trump calls it as he see it , he is correct on this but you cant change the PC crew they are so one eyed , They will one day regret their folly. 555

Scott Adams the cartoonist has an interesting take on Mr. Trump and even if some of his observations are correct - it puts many arguments about calling Mr. Trump caustic adjectives while venting dismay and anger by progressive liberals. This venting and misdirection shows just how much they don't wish to understand Trumps "acting" or his "master plan". You all conveniently forget he bested 17 contenders for the nomination. Anyway have a look at this link: <www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMERNoQm5DE>. Another thing I viewed on the net (and not Alex Jones) was another observation by a commentator that reckons this election has got men interested again in the political process - I think the tag was "men sit up and pay attention on the couch when Trump speaks" whereas their wives utter distain and leave the room! And the commentator is convinced that men will vote in record numbers in this election. As for myself I am enjoying the show and Obama's speech about Trump was out of order - a desperate man - and he won the Noble Peace Prize? There hasn't been anything like this since JFK took on tricky dicky in 1960. In those days the speculation was about whether Americans would put the first Catholic in the Oval office. Times were simpler then and the smiley was something for the future.

"men sit up and pay attention on the couch when Trump speaks" Really? It's got men more interested in politics? Apparently to you "men" means "white men". Because he sure isn't popular among Latino or Black Men. Or Jewish Men. Or Asian-American Men.

Never mind about what sort of men, he has galvanized a lot of non voters apparently with the largest number of primary votes for a Rep candidate in history. Why? Nealthewheel might have a point regarding why Trump holds attention, and becomes the focus and center of attention.

It's an interesting view

TVF members often call Trump an ignoramus and low on facts and info and they may well be right, .but his branding his opponents and hogging the limelight and outrageous un p.c. behavior is so very successful in garnering attention, publicity and infamy. Some members here (perhaps the Donald Trumps of TVF) too use the same techniques of rhetoric, repeating over and over Benito Trump, the Unique American Mussolini ad infinitum and we hear it almost every posting. But too bad it's wasted here because if they were politicians it might have taken hold in a similar way because I can't recall any slogan aimed at Trump that's taken hold out there on the hustings.

[smotherb]

Trump is branding Obama and Clinton, just like he branded his Republican opponents. Come November, most Americans will agree with Trump 100 percent.

I don 't doubt Trump will be elected; the candidate with the greatest number of ignorant voters usually wins.

[up2u2]

This is not news on the internet cause we've been reading this rightwhingenut crackpot racism for years.

The people writing the Obama is a traitor garbage are the biggest fans of the Uniquely American Mussolini who's apparently taken control of the Republican party in this election cycle, The Ignoramus Billionaire Donald Trump.

It was not us right leaners that made Obama photoshop the birth certificate that he eventually(after much screaching and whining by his fans) showed. I could have told you that his being named Hussein, hailing from Kenya that a fake birth certificate was not going to make this issue disappear. His actions since coming to office which basically eroded the democratic christian way of life in favor of islam also do not help those that do not believe the MSM and suspect he is a secret admirer or even member of a hateful ideology.

wheeel golllllllie as i live and breath an actual 'birther' and a 'thanks Obama'. Do you sincerely believe all that far Right Wing Fox News, Rush Linbauer stuff? Do you actually believe it or do you just hate Obama and the Left of politics so much it is just what you say to attack it but don't actually believe it is actually factual?

[up2u2]

JT as an informed observer I think Trump's personal attacks and the looney fat right wingers on Obama are 'uncharted territory'. Even as, failed a President as W Bush was, lets face it the man was an absolute fool totally incapable of being a President, there was always a line that the majority of Americans and politicians didn't cross. He is referred to as President W Bush and his short comings, although well known globally simply weren't mentioned in 'polite company'. A little 'nod and a wink' you know what I mean. The man was a total disaster but , well, you know, he is a President so lets leave it at that. The hatred and vitriol that the far right wing loonies direct towards President Obama, who is actually one of the most respected Presidents America has had since JFK. It is quite 'uncharted territory' for most who are accustomed to the basic respect that American Presidents are afforded even when they are as bad as W Bush. This 'uncharted territory' becomes VERY bizarre when it is directed at a VERY good President like Obama. It is very odd to watch.

[ilostmypassword]

"men sit up and pay attention on the couch when Trump speaks" Really? It's got men more interested in politics? Apparently to you "men" means "white men". Because he sure isn't popular among Latino or Black Men. Or Jewish Men. Or Asian-American Men.

Never mind about what sort of men, he has galvanized a lot of non voters apparently with the largest number of primary votes for a Rep candidate in history.

Galvanizing non-voters. Not so much. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-polling-turnout-early-voting-data-213897

Sorry about using data and not enthusiasm to support my rebuttal.

And there's also this:

"White men are among Trump's strongest demographics. But even there he's not showing as much strength as the party's last nominee, Mitt Romney, who beat Obama in 2012 by 62 percent to 35 percent among white men, according to exit polls."

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-14/bloomberg-politics-national-poll-june-2016

Edited June 16, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Publicus]

Just some very weird comments here. Obama go into power as the first black president but it was a complete con trick. He has pursued liberal policies with a clear intention to dilute the core of American society and run the countries debt to the point of no return. He defaults to Islam.

Is mental illness really this pervasive in the United States? Do you actually believe that Obama is the sole policymaker in the USA? Do you actually belive that your presidents wish to harm the USA?

Indeed do you think any of Donald Trump's crackpot schemes will ever see the light of day if you idiots ever vote for him to become president?

The man is a shyster. A fake.....and if you actually believe any of the rubbish that you write, your life has been wasted.

Is mental illness really this pervasive in the United States?

No, of course it is not.

It is not a mental illness.

Foreigners, to include the Anglophone world -- but in or of Europe especially and in particular -- sometimes need to settle down in their own concerns.

Kindly look at (the late) Prof. Richard Hofstadter of Columbia University and his classic The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1964) for the view of it as political, not personal, and as a disturbance in socio-political terms rather than as an individual matter.

Prof. Hofstadter developed his widely respected book thesis from his Herbert Spencer Lecture presentation at Oxford several decades ago. It applies to the politics of the extremist (lunar) political right at any given time of US history up to the present and going forward....

"When I speak of the paranoid style, I use the term much as a historian of art might speak of the baroque or the mannerist style. It is, above all, a way of seeing the world and of expressing oneself. Webster defines paranoia, the clinical entity, as a chronic mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions of persecution and of one's own greatness. In the paranoid style, as I conceive it, the feeling of persecution is central, and it is indeed systematized in grandiose theories of conspiracy.

"But there is a vital difference between the paranoid spokesman in politics and the clinical paranoiac: although they both tend to be overheated, oversuspicious, overaggressive, grandiose, and apocalyptic in expression, the clinical paranoid sees the hostile and conspiratorial world in which he feels himself to be living as directed specifically against him; whereas the spokesman of the paranoid style finds it directed against a nation, a culture, a way of life whose fate affects not himself alone but millions of others.

Insofar as he does not usually see himself singled out as the individual victim of a personal conspiracy, he is somewhat more rational and much more disinterested. His sense that his political passions are unselfish and patriotic, in fact, goes far to intensify his feeling of righteousness and his moral indignation."

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/what-does-richard-hofstadter-mean-by-paranoid-style-history-essay.php#ixzz43QWGOAKa

ALSO: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79524680/The-Paranoid-Style-in-American-Politics-Richard-Hofstadter#scribd

Prof. Hofstadter and his subsequent researchers form a sound basis for examining and analysing the extreme radical fringe American lunar right over the course of US history right to present, and in the truly most spectacular instance of it, i.e., Donald Trump.

Highly recommended toward a fundamental understanding of much of what has occurred, especially since the McCarthy Era forward to the Trump Thrombosis in American politics, culture of politics, society.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Publicus

[up2u2]

Really interesting Publicus. I will have to check that out. The only way I could see myself understanding the far right looney brigade was to give myself a lobotomy.

[Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere]

Just shows how far to the left the US has swung, when a dose of realism is referred to as "uncharted territory". You couldn't make this stuff up. Obama had his chance and blew it worse than I expected - and fair critique is allowed - this is politics guys.

You should get your seat on The Trump Train before it derails on November 16th. 2008 Republicans bet on Grandpa McCain and Sarah Hockey Mom Palin who enegized the party like a bottle of Ambien. Even a double-ply Depends couldn't hold the crap in that was kicked out of the GOP on election night. 2012 Mit Ronney was The White Great Hope who turned out to be The Great White Dope. GOP...Lost again. Oh Nelly! Now they are embracing Crazy Donald or not embracing him. One thing is for sure is that on November 16th this nut will find the same fate as previous Republican nominees.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere

[Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere]

 

Trump is branding Obama and Clinton, just like he branded his Republican opponents. Come November, most Americans will agree with Trump 100 percent.

 

Amazing how desperate Republicans have become just to win back the White House. The Republicans and their bastard child (The Tea Party) did more destruction to America because of their hatred for Obama. Now they are all in with principality that embraces their hatred. They deserve more than anytime in polictical history the ass kicking they will get, not only in the Presidential Election, but in the elections in the House and Senate also.

[slipperylobster]

Basically the vile monster can't be tamed.

He play acts being "presidential" occasionally but you can tell it's an act and he's BORED by it.

He's an entertainer!

So he's going to run his general election campaign in the same way he ran his primary campaign.

Happily, polls show this tactic is tanking him in the polls.

He's making the (hopefully) big mistake that what worked in the primaries with the right wing loonies will work the same way in the general.

The smart money says he's wrong.

Admittedly, the smart money has been wrong before about the vile monster.

So this is the big test now.

Play act ?

You mean like how Hillary play acts that she is telling the truth, when everyone in the world knows she is a liar?

[Linzz]

Just some very weird comments here. Obama go into power as the first black president but it was a complete con trick. He has pursued liberal policies with a clear intention to dilute the core of American society and run the countries debt to the point of no return. He defaults to Islam.

Is mental illness really this pervasive in the United States? Do you actually believe that Obama is the sole policymaker in the USA? Do you actually belive that your presidents wish to harm the USA?

Indeed do you think any of Donald Trump's crackpot schemes will ever see the light of day if you idiots ever vote for him to become president?

The man is a shyster. A fake.....and if you actually believe any of the rubbish that you write, your life has been wasted.

Is mental illness really this pervasive in the United States?

No, of course it is not.

It is not a mental illness.

Foreigners, to include the Anglophone world -- but in or of Europe especially and in particular -- sometimes need to settle down in their own concerns.

Kindly look at (the late) Prof. Richard Hofstadter of Columbia University and his classic The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1964) for the view of it as political, not personal, and as a disturbance in socio-political terms rather than as an individual matter.

Prof. Hofstadter developed his widely respected book thesis from his Herbert Spencer Lecture presentation at Oxford several decades ago. It applies to the politics of the extremist (lunar) political right at any given time of US history up to the present and going forward....

"When I speak of the paranoid style, I use the term much as a historian of art might speak of the baroque or the mannerist style. It is, above all, a way of seeing the world and of expressing oneself. Webster defines paranoia, the clinical entity, as a chronic mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions of persecution and of one's own greatness. In the paranoid style, as I conceive it, the feeling of persecution is central, and it is indeed systematized in grandiose theories of conspiracy.

"But there is a vital difference between the paranoid spokesman in politics and the clinical paranoiac: although they both tend to be overheated, oversuspicious, overaggressive, grandiose, and apocalyptic in expression, the clinical paranoid sees the hostile and conspiratorial world in which he feels himself to be living as directed specifically against him; whereas the spokesman of the paranoid style finds it directed against a nation, a culture, a way of life whose fate affects not himself alone but millions of others.

Insofar as he does not usually see himself singled out as the individual victim of a personal conspiracy, he is somewhat more rational and much more disinterested. His sense that his political passions are unselfish and patriotic, in fact, goes far to intensify his feeling of righteousness and his moral indignation."

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/what-does-richard-hofstadter-mean-by-paranoid-style-history-essay.php#ixzz43QWGOAKa

ALSO: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79524680/The-Paranoid-Style-in-American-Politics-Richard-Hofstadter#scribd

Prof. Hofstadter and his subsequent researchers form a sound basis for examining and analysing the extreme radical fringe American lunar right over the course of US history right to present, and in the truly most spectacular instance of it, i.e., Donald Trump.

Highly recommended toward a fundamental understanding of much of what has occurred, especially since the McCarthy Era forward to the Trump Thrombosis in American politics, culture of politics, society.

No mention of Left wing paranoia then?

But I guess that could not possibly exist in the heady stratosphere where exists a Local International Watchdog Against the Far Right found talking with a Liberal Left Wing Progressive Social Justice Warrior! Are these rather elevated credentials self inflicted I wonder, or were they bestowed upon each other?

The simplistic Left/Right distinction is too flawed to be helpful to any useful dialogue because the definitions are too inadequate. If I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal does that make me left or right? On this forum I often agree and disagree with the so called opinions from both the "left and right." For example members take up a predetermined position and everything that is "acceptable" to that leaning and end up talking past each other with closed ears and minds to any possible validity of an opposing view. Orlando is a case in point. Either it was Islamic terrorism or it was a gun accessibility problem. Neither will make any concessions and completely deny the other. Actually IMO both are right. It was a self confessed jihadist who obtained weapons all too easily.

So we have Right wing paranoia, fear of big government, abuse of power and the tyranny of an imposition of prescriptive new world order politics, and we have Left wing paranoia, fear of big business, corporations and exploitation which can only be solved by a matrix devised by bureaucrats and academics which every one is subjected to.

Is that it? No not really it's a lot more complex.

The idea that an academic writing about right wing paranoia in the 1950's has been represented as a light bulb moment in 2016 without addressing left wing paranoia, speaks to me of imbalance, bias and uses social class as a step up for it's own vanity. The embellishments inserted of "extreme radical fringe lunar right" are not his, and illustrates personal (mis)appropriation of another's intent.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Linzz

[Redline]

I knew the responses to this would be entertaining. Look, Trump is an idiot, self adsorbed ass. Nuf said

[nealthewheel]

Just some very weird comments here. Obama go into power as the first black president but it was a complete con trick. He has pursued liberal policies with a clear intention to dilute the core of American society and run the countries debt to the point of no return. He defaults to Islam.

Is mental illness really this pervasive in the United States? Do you actually believe that Obama is the sole policymaker in the USA? Do you actually belive that your presidents wish to harm the USA?

Indeed do you think any of Donald Trump's crackpot schemes will ever see the light of day if you idiots ever vote for him to become president?

The man is a shyster. A fake.....and if you actually believe any of the rubbish that you write, your life has been wasted.

Is mental illness really this pervasive in the United States?

No, of course it is not.

It is not a mental illness.

Foreigners, to include the Anglophone world -- but in or of Europe especially and in particular -- sometimes need to settle down in their own concerns.

Kindly look at (the late) Prof. Richard Hofstadter of Columbia University and his classic The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1964) for the view of it as political, not personal, and as a disturbance in socio-political terms rather than as an individual matter.

Prof. Hofstadter developed his widely respected book thesis from his Herbert Spencer Lecture presentation at Oxford several decades ago. It applies to the politics of the extremist (lunar) political right at any given time of US history up to the present and going forward....

"When I speak of the paranoid style, I use the term much as a historian of art might speak of the baroque or the mannerist style. It is, above all, a way of seeing the world and of expressing oneself. Webster defines paranoia, the clinical entity, as a chronic mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions of persecution and of one's own greatness. In the paranoid style, as I conceive it, the feeling of persecution is central, and it is indeed systematized in grandiose theories of conspiracy.

"But there is a vital difference between the paranoid spokesman in politics and the clinical paranoiac: although they both tend to be overheated, oversuspicious, overaggressive, grandiose, and apocalyptic in expression, the clinical paranoid sees the hostile and conspiratorial world in which he feels himself to be living as directed specifically against him; whereas the spokesman of the paranoid style finds it directed against a nation, a culture, a way of life whose fate affects not himself alone but millions of others.

Insofar as he does not usually see himself singled out as the individual victim of a personal conspiracy, he is somewhat more rational and much more disinterested. His sense that his political passions are unselfish and patriotic, in fact, goes far to intensify his feeling of righteousness and his moral indignation."

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/what-does-richard-hofstadter-mean-by-paranoid-style-history-essay.php#ixzz43QWGOAKa

ALSO: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79524680/The-Paranoid-Style-in-American-Politics-Richard-Hofstadter#scribd

Prof. Hofstadter and his subsequent researchers form a sound basis for examining and analysing the extreme radical fringe American lunar right over the course of US history right to present, and in the truly most spectacular instance of it, i.e., Donald Trump.

Highly recommended toward a fundamental understanding of much of what has occurred, especially since the McCarthy Era forward to the Trump Thrombosis in American politics, culture of politics, society.

No mention of Left wing paranoia then?

But I guess that could not possibly exist in the heady stratosphere where exists a Local International Watchdog Against the Far Right found talking with a Liberal Left Wing Progressive Social Justice Warrior! Are these rather elevated credentials self inflicted I wonder, or were they bestowed upon each other?

The simplistic Left/Right distinction is too flawed to be helpful to any useful dialogue because the definitions are too inadequate. If I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal does that make me left or right? On this forum I often agree and disagree with the so called opinions from both the "left and right." For example members take up a predetermined position and everything that is "acceptable" to that leaning and end up talking past each other with closed ears and minds to any possible validity of an opposing view. Orlando is a case in point. Either it was Islamic terrorism or it was a gun accessibility problem. Neither will make any concessions and completely deny the other. Actually IMO both are right. It was a self confessed jihadist who obtained weapons all too easily.

So we have Right wing paranoia, fear of big government, abuse of power and the tyranny of an imposition of prescriptive new world order politics, and we have Left wing paranoia, fear of big business, corporations and exploitation which can only be solved by a matrix devised by bureaucrats and academics which every one is subjected to.

Is that it? No not really it's a lot more complex.

The idea that an academic writing about right wing paranoia in the 1950's has been represented as a light bulb moment in 2016 without addressing left wing paranoia, speaks to me of imbalance, bias and uses social class as a step up for it's own vanity. The embellishments inserted of "extreme radical fringe lunar right" are not his, and illustrates personal (mis)appropriation of another's intent.

Bravo! Linnz and Publicus have entered into a sensible debate and it makes great reading. Whether one is leaning left or right this American election will be one to remember for our lifetime. After extensive research on line and listening and reading many views about Mrs. Clinton and her antics - she may well answer to the American judiciary system before November 5th either before a grand jury or trial by "mainstream media" once the FBI leak their findings if a grand jury isn't convened. Now that is something to be seriously paranoid about.

[Publicus]

@nealthewheel:

Linnz and Publicus have entered into a sensible debate and it makes great reading.

Hold yer horses there because the other guy spends almost all of his time attacking the libtards while giving the radical right a free ride. He focuses on the liberal progressives yet he claims for himself balance, independence, moderation, all of which fabricate his own self-virtuous circle.

And if he'd seriously read or considered anything by Prof Hofstadter he'd know the professor included paranoia of the Left as well as of the Right, but chose to focus on the right, and that subsequent researchers have carried Prof Hofstadter's work forward to the present.

Here is but one....

From the vantage point of 2016, what is striking about Hofstadter’s essay is how precisely it describes Donald Trump—so much so that many passages in the essay could be read as commentary on Trump’s foreign policy speech yesterday. In a key passage in the book version of The Paranoid Style, Hofstadter writes:

The central image is that of a vast and sinister conspiracy, a gigantic and yet subtle machinery of influence set in motion to undermine and destroy a way of life. ... The distinguishing thing about the paranoid style is not that its exponents see conspiracies or plots here and there in history, but they regard a “vast” or “gigantic” conspiracy as the motive force in historical events. History is a conspiracy, set in motion by demonic forces of almost transcendent power, and what is felt to be needed to defeat it is not the usual methods of political give-and-take, but an all-out crusade

.

Trump, with his insinuation that Obama may be a covert ISIS sympathizer, is exhibiting the paranoid style in full plumage. In Hofstadter’s terms, what makes Trump paranoid is the grandiosity of his claims, the framing of politics in terms of vast apocalyptic stakes.

For the first time in American history, the paranoid style has a chance of gaining control of the full levers of power.

https://newrepublic.com/article/134257/donald-trumps-united-states-conspiracy

Here's a bit more from Ron Pruessen of the University of Toronto and the LSE US Center on Politics and Policy....

The 2016 election is seeing the return of the ‘Paranoid Style’ in American politics

In the end, though, Hofstadter probably bent a little too far backwards. “We are all sufferers from history,” he wrote, “but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.”

As strident Republican pledges portend for the aftermath of the 2016 election, however, remembering the fates of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities who were among “anti” targets in other times makes it clear that paranoid fantasists have also inflicted multiplied suffering on others too.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/02/25/the-2016-election-is-seeing-the-return-of-the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

Edited June 16, 2016 by Publicus

[Linzz]

"Hold yer horses there because the other guy spends almost all of his time attacking the libtards while giving the radical right a free ride. He focuses on the liberal progressives yet he claims for himself balance, independence, moderation, all of which fabricate his own self-virtuous circle.

And if he'd seriously read or considered anything by Prof Hofstadter he'd know the professor included paranoia of the Left as well as of the Right, but chose to focus on the right, and that subsequent researchers have carried Prof Hofstadter's work forward to the present."

Well the poster is indeed correct that I have my political bias but I think it more of a mixture as I already described. For instance I could talk about "loony left wing nut jobs from left winge wingenuttia" but prefer to leave that kind of damning rhetoric to the politically submerged who never come up for air.

The good prof. may well have addressed left wing paranoia as I suspected he might being so lauded, but my point is therefore confirmed that this aspect was never aired because it did not suit the poster to include, hence my point about imbalance which consists of cherry picked ideas to suit a political construct. We all do it to a more or less degree which best suits out particular version of "truth" and makes for reasonable exchange of ideas. But when the debate shifts into name calling and smear, credibility and virtue disappear because it's a descent into vulgar personal venting which enlightens and respects no one and only serves as jollies for the poster.

My own personal bias is more often than not a response to what I see as intellectual dishonesty, snobbery, a platform for class warfare and self elevation to the moral high ground and for some unknown reason that kind of vanity seems to come more often from the "intellectual" left. Perhaps being economically better off they have more time on their hands.

It is easier to tolerate unfettered bigotry from the right in my view than to tolerate intellectual pretentiousness from the left

The former is often a vulgar and visceral reflex and very easily criticized but is often less calculating and more honest in it's response. Both perfectly expressed on TVF which is a microcosm of the general electorate. This also may explain a little of why Trump gets the support that he does from an anti intellectual, disenchanted, yes paranoid but more importantly and forgivably, an economically repressed voting public with little hope of improvement in their lives.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Linzz

[ilostmypassword]

"Hold yer horses there because the other guy spends almost all of his time attacking the libtards while giving the radical right a free ride. He focuses on the liberal progressives yet he claims for himself balance, independence, moderation, all of which fabricate his own self-virtuous circle.

And if he'd seriously read or considered anything by Prof Hofstadter he'd know the professor included paranoia of the Left as well as of the Right, but chose to focus on the right, and that subsequent researchers have carried Prof Hofstadter's work forward to the present."

Well the poster is indeed correct that I have my political bias but I think it more of a mixture as I already described. For instance I could talk about "loony left wing nut jobs from left winge wingenuttia" but prefer to leave that kind of damning rhetoric to the politically submerged who never come up for air.

The good prof. may well have addressed left wing paranoia as I suspected he might being so lauded, but my point is therefore confirmed that this aspect was never aired because it did not suit the poster to include, hence my point about imbalance which consists of cherry picked ideas to suit a political construct. We all do it to a more or less degree which best suits out particular version of "truth" and makes for reasonable exchange of ideas. But when the debate shifts into name calling and smear, credibility and virtue disappear because it's a descent into vulgar personal venting which enlightens and respects no one and only serves as jollies for the poster.

My own personal bias is more often than not a response to what I see as intellectual dishonesty, snobbery, a platform for class warfare and self elevation to the moral high ground and for some unknown reason that kind of vanity seems to come more often from the "intellectual" left. Perhaps being economically better off they have more time on their hands.

It is easier to tolerate unfettered bigotry from the right in my view than to tolerate intellectual pretentiousness from the left

The former is often a vulgar and visceral reflex and very easily criticized but is often less calculating and more honest in it's response. Both perfectly expressed on TVF which is a microcosm of the general electorate. This also may explain a little of why Trump gets the support that he does from an anti intellectual, disenchanted, yes paranoid but more importantly and forgivably, an economically repressed voting public with little hope of improvement in their lives.

It is easier to tolerate unfettered bigotry from the right in my view than to tolerate intellectual pretentiousness from the left

The former is often a vulgar and visceral reflex and very easily criticized but is often less calculating and more honest in it's response. Both perfectly expressed on TVF which is a microcosm of the general electorate.

If the electorate was mostly male, white, and old.

[spidermike007]

Corn hair will say or do anything to get elected, or get attention. It does not matter if it is true, or not. He just makes stuff up as he goes along. He has no compunction for truth, reality, morality, or ethics. There is no level that is too low, to which he will stoop. That is simply who he is. A worm is very comfortable crawling on the ground. He is a man that embodies the Woody Allen syndrome. He has everything he needs to be happy and content in life, and he wakes up every day and finds a way to be miserable. That is who this man child is. There is not even one molecule of dignity within this goon.

Mr. Barnum & Bailey.

Mr. Schuckster.

Mr. snake oil.

Corn hair Don.

I could go on and on all day long. He invites this kind of ridicule.

Edited June 17, 2016 by spidermike007

[Pinot]

"Hold yer horses there because the other guy spends almost all of his time attacking the libtards while giving the radical right a free ride. He focuses on the liberal progressives yet he claims for himself balance, independence, moderation, all of which fabricate his own self-virtuous circle.

And if he'd seriously read or considered anything by Prof Hofstadter he'd know the professor included paranoia of the Left as well as of the Right, but chose to focus on the right, and that subsequent researchers have carried Prof Hofstadter's work forward to the present."

Well the poster is indeed correct that I have my political bias but I think it more of a mixture as I already described. For instance I could talk about "loony left wing nut jobs from left winge wingenuttia" but prefer to leave that kind of damning rhetoric to the politically submerged who never come up for air.

The good prof. may well have addressed left wing paranoia as I suspected he might being so lauded, but my point is therefore confirmed that this aspect was never aired because it did not suit the poster to include, hence my point about imbalance which consists of cherry picked ideas to suit a political construct. We all do it to a more or less degree which best suits out particular version of "truth" and makes for reasonable exchange of ideas. But when the debate shifts into name calling and smear, credibility and virtue disappear because it's a descent into vulgar personal venting which enlightens and respects no one and only serves as jollies for the poster.

My own personal bias is more often than not a response to what I see as intellectual dishonesty, snobbery, a platform for class warfare and self elevation to the moral high ground and for some unknown reason that kind of vanity seems to come more often from the "intellectual" left. Perhaps being economically better off they have more time on their hands.

It is easier to tolerate unfettered bigotry from the right in my view than to tolerate intellectual pretentiousness from the left

The former is often a vulgar and visceral reflex and very easily criticized but is often less calculating and more honest in it's response. Both perfectly expressed on TVF which is a microcosm of the general electorate. This also may explain a little of why Trump gets the support that he does from an anti intellectual, disenchanted, yes paranoid but more importantly and forgivably, an economically repressed voting public with little hope of improvement in their lives.

Cough, sputter, gulp, spits...politically submerged? How dare you, sir!

"Trump gets the support that he does from an anti intellectual, disenchanted, yes paranoid but more importantly and forgivably, an economically repressed voting public with little hope of improvement in their lives."

It is pathetic isn't it? Believing Donald Trump is going to be your savior. As if he actually gives a rat's ass about them. At least you admit who is peeps are (you forgot low-info). The YUGE problem for the Republicans is that there ain't enough of them and there won't be any new ones. He continues to alienate everyone including dedicated Republicans who have come to the realization that the Donald has become toxic.

A dumpster fire of a campaign, just like I knew it would be. Maybe better. 5 months till the Donald goes back to reality TV and the Republican party finishes it's self-immolation.

I hope when HRC is elected with the congressional majority, she doesn't waste time trying to work with the Republicans like Obama did. Pedal to the metal, day one. See ya.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Pinot

[JakeSully]

Conservaterrorists abound in the United States and abroad longing for a return to gas chambers and absolute control under Trump. Seems pretty clear even the posters on this forum who back Trump will not accept anything less than the final solution to the non-white problem.

[smotherb]

I knew the responses to this would be entertaining. Look, Trump is an idiot, self adsorbed ass. Nuf said

Surely those credentials do not disqualify anyone from public office

[Publicus]

"Hold yer horses there because the other guy spends almost all of his time attacking the libtards while giving the radical right a free ride. He focuses on the liberal progressives yet he claims for himself balance, independence, moderation, all of which fabricate his own self-virtuous circle.

And if he'd seriously read or considered anything by Prof Hofstadter he'd know the professor included paranoia of the Left as well as of the Right, but chose to focus on the right, and that subsequent researchers have carried Prof Hofstadter's work forward to the present."

Well the poster is indeed correct that I have my political bias but I think it more of a mixture as I already described. For instance I could talk about "loony left wing nut jobs from left winge wingenuttia" but prefer to leave that kind of damning rhetoric to the politically submerged who never come up for air.

The good prof. may well have addressed left wing paranoia as I suspected he might being so lauded, but my point is therefore confirmed that this aspect was never aired because it did not suit the poster to include, hence my point about imbalance which consists of cherry picked ideas to suit a political construct. We all do it to a more or less degree which best suits out particular version of "truth" and makes for reasonable exchange of ideas. But when the debate shifts into name calling and smear, credibility and virtue disappear because it's a descent into vulgar personal venting which enlightens and respects no one and only serves as jollies for the poster.

My own personal bias is more often than not a response to what I see as intellectual dishonesty, snobbery, a platform for class warfare and self elevation to the moral high ground and for some unknown reason that kind of vanity seems to come more often from the "intellectual" left. Perhaps being economically better off they have more time on their hands.

It is easier to tolerate unfettered bigotry from the right in my view than to tolerate intellectual pretentiousness from the left

The former is often a vulgar and visceral reflex and very easily criticized but is often less calculating and more honest in it's response. Both perfectly expressed on TVF which is a microcosm of the general electorate. This also may explain a little of why Trump gets the support that he does from an anti intellectual, disenchanted, yes paranoid but more importantly and forgivably, an economically repressed voting public with little hope of improvement in their lives.

The post contains a memorable Campaign 2016 quote at TVF which can strike one as similar to another memorable quote....so here's from yours to his....

It is easier to tolerate unfettered bigotry from the right in my view than to tolerate intellectual pretentiousness from the left

Linzz in 2016 speaks his truth as does the Unique American Mussolini who is reducing the disastrous 1964 candidacy of the Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater to a footnote.

There is nothing to overlook or to forgive in Donald Trump in this election year or cycle. Those who focus their attention elsewhere are oblivious to the fact.

Trump The Ignoramus is a direct threat to the Bill of Rights and to the Constitution in its entirety. Those who disagree are entitled to dissent from the view held by the vast majority of Americans, however, in doing so they ensure their own political demise. So go for it.

[easton]

I wish many states in the Southern US would just leave the Unites States because a lot of the people that live there make the rest of us look like fools.