I really believe we have traded one president with sociopathic tendencies for another president with sociopathic tendencies. I think the former may have developed these tendencies over time. I believe the latter has been honing these tendencies for many years. Ray S.
"I really believe we have traded one president with sociopathic tendencies for another president with sociopathic tendencies."
What sociopathic tendencies did President Biden exhibit? A serious deficit of empathy? Biden is extremely - maybe excessively - empathetic. A serious deficit of introspection? While he didn't display introspection, he didn't display a lack of it. He was in denial of dementia (at least publicly), but it's common for people with dementia to lack this self-awareness. Trying to build himself up by putting others down? I saw none of that. Blowing smoke up his backside? I saw none of that either.
Resisting exiting the stage isn't specifically sociopathic. Unlike Seinfeld, a lot of people don't know when to fold 'em. :)
I get it that maybe you thought Biden was a bad president, but that's different from having sociopathic tendencies.
I generally liked the job Biden did as President. He seriously lapsed on the Afghanistan withdrawal and bobbled on immigration. But he signed into law - and I think played a substantial role in getting passed through Congress and even of creating - a slew of bills, many bipartisan, serving to move the country forward. Internationally, he was effective at coalition building. He was slow on aiding the Ukraine war effort, but here he was generally good.
I get it. Many think some or all of these bills were bad for the country and that Biden was a bad POTUS. Even if so, that doesn't make Biden inept or corrupt or egotistical.
Because of his apparent dementia and frail demeanor, Biden often gave the appearance of being inept. But he held it together enough to get solid results.
You have to be at least somewhat egotistical to win the presidency. You can cherry-pick instances of Biden being egotistical and I can cherry-pick instances of him being humble and reverent.
RE: this "The Biden Crime family" nonsense. There is no hard evidence of his being on the take as VP or as Pres.
You have a point. I was thinking, however, of the comprehensive immigration bill - the one previously negotiated on a bipartisan basis by both D's and R's - that President Biden offered to Congress soon after he assumed office. He should have pushed that bill harder and used his bully pulpit to try to make an issue of it. If and when that failed, he should have enacted the EO's that he signed at the end of his term.
No "self-respect"- bingo. Too many "What abouts" from childish immature adults who view this as two opposing sports teams. One outdoing the other; and not easing off any time soon.
I wish these Democratic Senators - some of whom were once litigators - would learn to ask questions. It's not hard. From the part of RFK Jr.'s testimony I heard today, Democratic Senators struggled to pin him down. Fox example, a senator could quote a wholesale anti-vax statement he made, give the context (when and where) and then ask him why he made that statement. Then the same thing with another wholesale anti-vax statement. And then another. And then another. If he evades the question, the senator should sternly interrupt and say "Mr. Kennedy, why did you make that statement?"
Then he should quote his adamantly pro-vax statements in his introductory remarks today and say "How did you come to reverse your position on vaccinations?"
Cross-examination 101 is to avoid questions within questions. Certainly they know that
I hope a senator did this during the part of the testimony I didn't see. This could be done in the 5 minutes they're given.
Bernard - you and whatshisname continue to be hyper-concerned about J6 activists, you raise the J6 subject EVERY week - particularly drawing your ire are those who scuffled with Capital armed police, even though no police were killed, only the AF veteran activist was murdered. In the 1700’s, these activists were PATRIOTS. You two largely ignore the BLM and Antifa rioters that almost completely escaped justice and many had guns? And they actually KILLED people. The Canadian Cackler VP Kamala Harris (who looked presidential per BG) was actually raising bail money for BLM rioters. You draw no distiction between real rioters, day after day burning neighborhoods, destroying businesses, and killing people. But one day political scufflers, they deserve Federal prison sentences. Talk about credibility.... BR
Would it make your programmer feel better if we pardoned hundreds of criminals who beat up cops, and let convicted seditionists serving 20-year sentences out of prison?
>>particularly drawing your ire are those who scuffled with Capital armed police,
Yes, we believe that assaulting police officers is worse than not assaulting police officers.
>>even though no police were killed,
One died of a stroke the next day. Four later committed suicide. Close to 150 were injured, some with batons, flagpoles, chemical agents, and tasers -- and several so badly that they had to retire from the force. I'm sorry not enough of them are dead to make your programmer care.
Reducing the name and location in the signature to simple initials was a good move too. Still needless, of course, but it at least comes across a little less artificial. #babysteps
And that's why people like "Bob" desperately feel the need to rewrite the events of that day, and parrot any right-winger grifter who helps shape an alternative face-saving reality.
The objective facts of that day, and the two months leading up to it, are indefensible for Donald Trump and his loyalists. Thus, they pervert the facts and distract with endless whataboutism.
But seeing I need to pick a side in this all or nothing world of politics, I'll go with President Trump, even though J6 and his promotion of false electoral votes hangs over his head like a noose.
But you don't need to pick a side in it. No one does. If you feel that 'voting' is a "binary choice," that's fine. It's perfectly defensible to vote for the viable candidate you think will do the least amount of damage.
But a vote is not a blood oath. Once that person's in office, it's perfectly appropriate (I believe crucial) to oppose them at times when they do something dead-wrong.
I agree, but I can always find something wrong with any candidate. Ya, President Trump did try to steal the election, while blaming it on Biden. (But I still think the J6er's are 100% responsible for the riot. They didn't have to go to DC any more than I have to vote. I get emails everyday from Team Trump, asking me to go to the inauguration or a rally etc. But I feel I should vote, as someone died for my right to vote.
As Chair of the Intelligence committee overseeing Tulsi Gabbard's nomination hearing, Republican Senator Tom Cotton committed a mortal sin, akin to being a wife beater. In calling the hearing to order he was politically incorrect and unwoke when he twice called the Democratic Party the Democratic Party. I've noticed lately that many national GOP elites - even President Trump - have committed this sin. But Tulsi Gabbard did NOT commit this sin in her testimony.
I didn't vote for Trump because I agreed with everything he's ever done, I voted for him mainly because he was our GOP candidate and his (flamboyant) policies are closer to basic GOP policies than Democratic policies. I think it would have been better if he'd recommended the cop attackers get full sentencing for attacking the cops. President Trump's J6 pardons didn't put him well with law enforcement and that may turn around and bite him in the ass one day. But how much of this goes on in Democratic Administrations? How many have had their secret service protection removed because they criticized Biden? We'll never know because the press protects any Dem.
If Biden had pulled Secret Service protection from people who criticized him (or for any reason for that matter), we'd know about it. This stuff is public record. And again, Bolton and Pompeo ARE vocal Biden critics -- harsh ones. Biden renewed their Secret Service protection anyway.
However, that info wouldn't have been readily available because of a press that says everything Biden did was okay, but If Trump does the same thing; President Trump is evil. I don't need to go into the evidence against Hunter Biden and it's connection to President Biden; who the special counsel decided wasn't enough evidence to convict mentally declining Joe Biden.
Yes, it would have been readily available. Even if the mainstream press ignored the public information (which I think is highly unlikely since it would be public record), the people whose security was pulled would not be silent about it, and the right-wing media would of course broadcast it to the heavens.
There are PLENTY of legitimate criticisms of Joe Biden. None of them excuse what Trump did here, just like no legitimate criticism of Trump excuses the bad things that Biden did.
Or Scorched Earth policy. That didn't work in Vietnam and it won't in the political arena either. Because soon enough, you won't have anything left worth defending.
I really believe we have traded one president with sociopathic tendencies for another president with sociopathic tendencies. I think the former may have developed these tendencies over time. I believe the latter has been honing these tendencies for many years. Ray S.
The parties won't let us have nice things.
It's like the USA is cursed with a recurring nightmare of the least popular options every election, at least recently. Same as the UK and Australia.
"I really believe we have traded one president with sociopathic tendencies for another president with sociopathic tendencies."
What sociopathic tendencies did President Biden exhibit? A serious deficit of empathy? Biden is extremely - maybe excessively - empathetic. A serious deficit of introspection? While he didn't display introspection, he didn't display a lack of it. He was in denial of dementia (at least publicly), but it's common for people with dementia to lack this self-awareness. Trying to build himself up by putting others down? I saw none of that. Blowing smoke up his backside? I saw none of that either.
Resisting exiting the stage isn't specifically sociopathic. Unlike Seinfeld, a lot of people don't know when to fold 'em. :)
I get it that maybe you thought Biden was a bad president, but that's different from having sociopathic tendencies.
Let's just settle on the fact they are both chronically inept and corrupt egotists and leave it at that.
I generally liked the job Biden did as President. He seriously lapsed on the Afghanistan withdrawal and bobbled on immigration. But he signed into law - and I think played a substantial role in getting passed through Congress and even of creating - a slew of bills, many bipartisan, serving to move the country forward. Internationally, he was effective at coalition building. He was slow on aiding the Ukraine war effort, but here he was generally good.
I get it. Many think some or all of these bills were bad for the country and that Biden was a bad POTUS. Even if so, that doesn't make Biden inept or corrupt or egotistical.
Because of his apparent dementia and frail demeanor, Biden often gave the appearance of being inept. But he held it together enough to get solid results.
You have to be at least somewhat egotistical to win the presidency. You can cherry-pick instances of Biden being egotistical and I can cherry-pick instances of him being humble and reverent.
RE: this "The Biden Crime family" nonsense. There is no hard evidence of his being on the take as VP or as Pres.
"bobbled on immigration" that's a rose colored glasses take!
More like unmitigated disaster!
You have a point. I was thinking, however, of the comprehensive immigration bill - the one previously negotiated on a bipartisan basis by both D's and R's - that President Biden offered to Congress soon after he assumed office. He should have pushed that bill harder and used his bully pulpit to try to make an issue of it. If and when that failed, he should have enacted the EO's that he signed at the end of his term.
No "self-respect"- bingo. Too many "What abouts" from childish immature adults who view this as two opposing sports teams. One outdoing the other; and not easing off any time soon.
Thanks for the scolding. I’ll think about that.
It's called an opposing argument. "Scolding" would be demanding that you "get over" something.
Perhaps it's not too soon to review the character traits of megalomania?
I wish these Democratic Senators - some of whom were once litigators - would learn to ask questions. It's not hard. From the part of RFK Jr.'s testimony I heard today, Democratic Senators struggled to pin him down. Fox example, a senator could quote a wholesale anti-vax statement he made, give the context (when and where) and then ask him why he made that statement. Then the same thing with another wholesale anti-vax statement. And then another. And then another. If he evades the question, the senator should sternly interrupt and say "Mr. Kennedy, why did you make that statement?"
Then he should quote his adamantly pro-vax statements in his introductory remarks today and say "How did you come to reverse your position on vaccinations?"
Cross-examination 101 is to avoid questions within questions. Certainly they know that
I hope a senator did this during the part of the testimony I didn't see. This could be done in the 5 minutes they're given.
Bernard - you and whatshisname continue to be hyper-concerned about J6 activists, you raise the J6 subject EVERY week - particularly drawing your ire are those who scuffled with Capital armed police, even though no police were killed, only the AF veteran activist was murdered. In the 1700’s, these activists were PATRIOTS. You two largely ignore the BLM and Antifa rioters that almost completely escaped justice and many had guns? And they actually KILLED people. The Canadian Cackler VP Kamala Harris (who looked presidential per BG) was actually raising bail money for BLM rioters. You draw no distiction between real rioters, day after day burning neighborhoods, destroying businesses, and killing people. But one day political scufflers, they deserve Federal prison sentences. Talk about credibility.... BR
>>you raise the J6 subject EVERY week
Would it make your programmer feel better if we pardoned hundreds of criminals who beat up cops, and let convicted seditionists serving 20-year sentences out of prison?
>>particularly drawing your ire are those who scuffled with Capital armed police,
Yes, we believe that assaulting police officers is worse than not assaulting police officers.
>>even though no police were killed,
One died of a stroke the next day. Four later committed suicide. Close to 150 were injured, some with batons, flagpoles, chemical agents, and tasers -- and several so badly that they had to retire from the force. I'm sorry not enough of them are dead to make your programmer care.
>>only the AF veteran activist was murdered
Nope. https://www.bernardgoldberg.com/p/in-ashli-babbitt-maga-has-found-their
>>In the 1700’s, these activists were PATRIOTS.
*ba-dum-tshh*
>>You two largely ignore the BLM and Antifa rioters
And by "largely ignore," your programmer of course means, "have written several columns about". Ask your programmer to give Google a try.
>>The Canadian Cackler
?
>>VP Kamala Harris (who looked presidential per BG) was actually raising bail money for BLM rioters.
We've both written about this. Your programmer doesn't care.
>>You draw no distiction between real rioters, day after day burning neighborhoods, destroying businesses, and killing people.
?
>>But one day political scufflers,
*ba-dum-tssh*
>>they deserve Federal prison sentences.
Yes, we believe federal crimes warrant federal sentences.
>>Talk about credibility.... BR
Talk about nonsensical. Not your programmer's finest work, "Bob."
I do like the new software patch that removes the comically ironic closing line "let the insults begin".
Reducing the name and location in the signature to simple initials was a good move too. Still needless, of course, but it at least comes across a little less artificial. #babysteps
Ummm, Bob, JAN 6 was a very serious event in our nations history, maybe that is why?
And that's why people like "Bob" desperately feel the need to rewrite the events of that day, and parrot any right-winger grifter who helps shape an alternative face-saving reality.
The objective facts of that day, and the two months leading up to it, are indefensible for Donald Trump and his loyalists. Thus, they pervert the facts and distract with endless whataboutism.
But seeing I need to pick a side in this all or nothing world of politics, I'll go with President Trump, even though J6 and his promotion of false electoral votes hangs over his head like a noose.
But you don't need to pick a side in it. No one does. If you feel that 'voting' is a "binary choice," that's fine. It's perfectly defensible to vote for the viable candidate you think will do the least amount of damage.
But a vote is not a blood oath. Once that person's in office, it's perfectly appropriate (I believe crucial) to oppose them at times when they do something dead-wrong.
I agree, but I can always find something wrong with any candidate. Ya, President Trump did try to steal the election, while blaming it on Biden. (But I still think the J6er's are 100% responsible for the riot. They didn't have to go to DC any more than I have to vote. I get emails everyday from Team Trump, asking me to go to the inauguration or a rally etc. But I feel I should vote, as someone died for my right to vote.
As Chair of the Intelligence committee overseeing Tulsi Gabbard's nomination hearing, Republican Senator Tom Cotton committed a mortal sin, akin to being a wife beater. In calling the hearing to order he was politically incorrect and unwoke when he twice called the Democratic Party the Democratic Party. I've noticed lately that many national GOP elites - even President Trump - have committed this sin. But Tulsi Gabbard did NOT commit this sin in her testimony.
A different perspective: https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/01/24/a-new-age-begins/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CapitolBell&mkt_tok=ODI0LU1IVC0zMDQAAAGYSG_qhNUbK8qoDsY4iofEn-pLXVn5FsFPywh09MYSP_aI0smviHe8Y9mAA86Yt7fxTFNofhu6CpdHH5BDnWRmITXabNCZUUEnVU743CmnR5_lXoaswg
Sharing this this with everyone with comment who was aware of this about the Donald Trump: https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/01/28/trumps-visit-to-north-carolina-means-more-than-many-understand/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CapitolBell&mkt_tok=ODI0LU1IVC0zMDQAAAGYTZYGgDxfEmNfxkdABCO_jnn9sXdt00CMbrABa1JYd6iGDmGTcqvEQXZsRU3sOmQmC8LDxWhjmQZRbXVBOEXqybW19ir_LtK1yb6WAHqfQ6acLBwxOg
I didn't vote for Trump because I agreed with everything he's ever done, I voted for him mainly because he was our GOP candidate and his (flamboyant) policies are closer to basic GOP policies than Democratic policies. I think it would have been better if he'd recommended the cop attackers get full sentencing for attacking the cops. President Trump's J6 pardons didn't put him well with law enforcement and that may turn around and bite him in the ass one day. But how much of this goes on in Democratic Administrations? How many have had their secret service protection removed because they criticized Biden? We'll never know because the press protects any Dem.
If Biden had pulled Secret Service protection from people who criticized him (or for any reason for that matter), we'd know about it. This stuff is public record. And again, Bolton and Pompeo ARE vocal Biden critics -- harsh ones. Biden renewed their Secret Service protection anyway.
However, that info wouldn't have been readily available because of a press that says everything Biden did was okay, but If Trump does the same thing; President Trump is evil. I don't need to go into the evidence against Hunter Biden and it's connection to President Biden; who the special counsel decided wasn't enough evidence to convict mentally declining Joe Biden.
Yes, it would have been readily available. Even if the mainstream press ignored the public information (which I think is highly unlikely since it would be public record), the people whose security was pulled would not be silent about it, and the right-wing media would of course broadcast it to the heavens.
There are PLENTY of legitimate criticisms of Joe Biden. None of them excuse what Trump did here, just like no legitimate criticism of Trump excuses the bad things that Biden did.
It's called WIN at any cost.
Or Scorched Earth policy. That didn't work in Vietnam and it won't in the political arena either. Because soon enough, you won't have anything left worth defending.