The "Amazing Feats" Of The Mentally Deranged Dotard Predisent

I know words. I have the best words ~ DJT claim during a campaign stop in SC on 12/30/2015.

If I only told you the name, "American Liberty Report", I think you'd be able to guess that the're a Right-wing "news" source. Conservative news sources often use the words "liberty" and "patriot". The implication being that the Left is opposed to liberty and Lefties aren't patriotic.

Anyway, as per an email I received today, "Trump is curing some of America's deepest problems". Without clicking on the link and reading the story, my guess is that the "deep problem" Trump has cured is that a Black man was president.

After clicking the link I see that the problem Trump has solved is "extreme sensitivity". Sensitivity to what, you ask? The fact that Trump is an inarticulate buffoon who refers to countries that don't exist (Nambia) and uses words that don't exist ("unpresidented" and "covfefe").

Trump isn't America's first idiot president (gwb), but he is, due to his use of Twitter (the article says) accomplishing the amazing feat of curing the "extreme sensitivity" of people who realize that Trump is completely unqualified for the job of president.

This feat is accomplished by Trump keeping up a constant barrage of moronic tweets. According to the "American Liberty Report", "he has deliberately used Twitter to onslaught leftist ideology so relentlessly that they can't help but become desensitized to his words". So, people are getting used to Trump's idiotic tweeting, and for that he deserves praise?

America is suffering from oversensitivity. It is crippling our once unparalleled institutions of higher learning. Trump saw the issue, and he has already flipped the script on several classic battles. (How Trump Is Curing Extreme Sensitivity in the US).

Trump is exhibiting "real leadership on a level we haven't seen in ages" by using Twitter to "push buttons", forcing the Left to "get over their sensitivities". Remember when Obama was criticized for being "professorial". Yeah, that was awful, right? What we really needed, according to the Right, was a moron.

Now we have a moron, and he's shaking things up with his stupidity. Way to go dotard Trump! Can you f*cking believe it?! I know I sure as hell can't.

Image: The dotard Trump claims he has the "best words". "Dotard", btw, means "an old person, especially one who has become weak or senile". The dictator Kim Jong Un recently said (re Trump's threat to destroy North Korea), "I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard with fire". Yeah I doubt it. The "tame with fire" part, and not the part about Trump being a mentally deranged dotard (he is). BTW, I am not saying that Kim isn't mentally deranged... this might be a case of "it takes one to know one".

SWTD #391

Bill Clinton Predicted Trump Presidency. Then He & Obama Helped Bring It About

Angry people have become the middle of the political spectrum ~ Geert Wilders (dob 9/6/1963) a Dutch nationalist politician and fan of DJT who has been criminally accused of inciting hatred and discrimination.

Progressive Radio host Thom Hartmann has stated his belief many times that "whichever party first reinvents itself successfully will begin winning elections the way the Democrats did in the 1932-1968 era" [1]. The "reinvention" he refers to is to be pro-worker by opposing sending our jobs overseas.

Unfortunately this past potus election has proven that Thom Hartmann was right. I did not disagree, but I did hope that it would be the Democrats who reinvented themselves. The Democratic potus candidate should have been Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders has proven that he is pro-worker by opposing job killing free trade agreements. Bernie Sanders votes against them.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, championed the job killing free trade agreement known as the TPP. This was after suggesting that he might renegotiate NAFTA during his first campaign. Hillary Clinton (viewed by many as a 3rd Obama term) was initially in favor of the TPP. I say that if Bernie had not run that she wouldn't have flipped. She would have run as the pro-TPP candidate.

Trump, an outsider, was the right candidate at the right time. He ran against the TPP, which White Rust Belt Blue-collar voters knew would cost them their jobs. Trump also promised he'd stop brown people (here) and yellow people (overseas) from stealing their jobs (he played the race card). I'm not saying everyone who voted Trump did so because they're racist, but a LOT of them did.

The Trump presidency was, btw, predicted by former president Bill Clinton. He predicted the ascendency of a Trump-like leader with his New Covenant speeches (a series of speeches WJC delivered "at his alma mater, Georgetown University, in late 1991 to outline his political philosophy at the start of his campaign for the presidency").

WJC: ...we're offering a new radical approach to economics. Economics as if people were really important. If we offer these hard-working families no hope for the future, no solutions to their problems, no relief for their pain, then fear and insecurity will grow, and the politics of hate and division will spread. If we do not act to bring this country together in common cause to build a better future, David Duke and his kind will be able to divide and destroy our nation. (Excerpt from then-Governor Clinton's 11/20/1991 New Covenant speech).

Donald Trump offered "hope for the future, solutions to their problems, and relief for their pain" in the form of his rejection of the TPP. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law, which is why we got gwb [2]. And Obama and Hillary both spoke favorably of more job-killing free trade. Hillary reversed herself on the TPP, although she was pushed/forced to do so by Bernie Sanders.

Now, most of us know that Donald Trump is a con-man who just said what he needed to in order to get elected. But enough people were fooled. Previously middle class workers (White people in the flyover states, by and large) saw their jobs go overseas due to the Bill Clinton-signed NAFTA. And they feared that it was going to happen again. Obama (for some bizarre reason that baffles my mind) tried to sell the same snake oil [3].

He thought he could ram it though before his administration ended, I guess. Hillary Clinton reversed course because of Bernie Sanders. "I've got to be more like Bernie" she decided (because the voters were responding to Bernie's anti-TPP stance). But the damage was done. Nobody believed her. The White middle class who lost (or could lose) their good paying jobs because of job killing free trade didn't believe her (btw, I thought the bill would pass before the Obama administration came to an end, Obama would sign it into law, HRC would be elected, then she'd put the blame on Obama).

She wanted it, but wouldn't touch it (if she were elected and it had not passed) because it would damage her politically. This is why I blame Obama and I blame both Clintons for the Trump presidency. Trump hijacked the Republican Party and "reinvented" it. Thom Hartmann knew whichever party was first to come out against job killing free trade would win. Bill Clinton PREDICTED what would happen if he failed to offer these workers "relief for their pain". But he went ahead and signed NAFTA anyway.

According to Thom Hartmann, "Donald Trump lead a full-scale war against the Republican establishment and elites, particularly through his attack on both their military and their trade policies". Trump, as president, chucked the TPP. An easy campaign promise to fulfill. The military situation we're in is another story.

He strongly opposed continuing the futile fight in Afghanistan as a candidate. Now he sends more troops? Did that disillusion some of the #trumpdupes? I suspect some were disillusioned. Others will continue to believe that anything Trump does is great. Because he's White. According to the racist blogger Rusty Shackelford.

Rusty Shackelford: Now, now WD... even you would have to admit DJT is so much stronger then the moolie. We are fine with the Pres changing his mind after having all the information presented to him... that's the sign of a strong leader... not a limp wristed dufuss. (8/21/2017 at 9:44pm).

"David Duke and his kind will be able to divide and destroy our nation", Bill Clinton warned. Now it has happened. At the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville David Duke said "the event represented fulfilling the promises of President Trump". He was talking about White racists "taking our country back" after a Black guy got elected president twice.

Regarding Trump's hardcore base, Jamelle Bouie writes (in a 9/1/2017 Slate article) "it's become harder to deny that people support the president not just for being president, but for his core message of White resentment and grievance" (visit the WYD blog and you'll see what I mean).

Bill Clinton both predicted and helped bring this disaster about. His signing of NAFTA and Obama's championing of the TPP lead directly to Trump. Trump was the "white resentment and grievance" candidate. Of course the majority of us realized that Trump was a huge liar and saying whatever he needed to to get elected (except for the racism stuff. Trump IS a racist). This is why he lost the popular vote (the smart people voted for Hillary).

Trump did get rid of the TPP, however. But Bernie Sanders would have done that. Then go on to champion programs to help people harmed by decades of job-killing free trade agreements. Unlike Trump, who wants to kill such programs (the ACA, for example). Additionally Trump wants to hurt poor people by cutting Social Safety net programs drastically and push through enormous tax cuts for the benefit of the wealthy (he's a typical Republican in this regard).

Bernie Sanders should have been the Democratic potus candidate. I'm not saying I think he would have won, only that I KNOW he would have had a better shot. Hillary Clinton was the wrong candidate (even though I'd have liked to see a woman elected president, and YES, I did vote for her). But Bernie Sanders (with his record of opposition against job-killing free trade agreements) was the better candidate. He'd still of had to contend with the Russia meddling. And, instead of misogyny and Clinton-hate, he'd have faced antisemitism and bullshit about him being a Commie who was trying to buy votes with "free stuff".

Bernie Sanders would have won the votes of previously Democratic-voting Rust Belt Blue-collar workers (people who were with him in the primary, but switched to Trump when Bernie didn't secure the nomination). And that, I think, would have made the difference. There would have been no sabotage from James Comey either.

Footnotes
[1] "From 1932 to 1968, the Democratic Party was obviously the majority party. During that time period, the Democrats had won seven out of nine presidential elections, and their agenda gravely affected that undertaken by the Republican Eisenhower administration" (source: Wikipedia/Timeline of modern American conservatism). This period of time is know as the New Deal coalition. As per Wikipedia, "FDR forged a coalition that included the Democratic state party organizations, city machines, labor unions, blue collar workers, minorities (racial, ethnic, sexual and religious), farmers, white Southerners, people on relief, and intellectuals".
[2] "...it was the 1993 fight over the North American Free Trade Agreement that saw the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party stick the knife deep into the back of its longtime ally, organized labor". (Source: How the Democrats Lost Touch on Trade by Thomas Frank. Politico, September/October 2016).
[3] As per a 4/23/2015 CBS News article, "in 2008, then-Sen. Obama ran as a skeptic of free trade agreements and even vowed during the primary to renegotiate NAFTA"... according to the former president "I think that we had a stretch of a couple of decades where, in part because of globalization, you had manufacturing moving to other places in search of low wages, no environmental standards, no labor standards. So trade deals haven't always worked for us".

SWTD #390

Trump Will Be Impeached For Getting A BJ In The White House Oval Office (A Prediction On Which I Will Be Proven Correct, Mark My Words!)

Perjury about a blowjob is not nearly as serious as perjury about a Russian attack on our democracy ~ Laurence Tribe (dob 10/10/1941) a professor of constitutional law at Harvard who has argued before the Supreme Court 36 times (6/11/2017, CNN).

I am predicting that the Russia nonsense will go nowhere. Mueller (if Trump doesn't fire his partisan ass) will find nothing. Because Trump did not collude with Russia (according to Trump and his deluded trumpanzees). Which isn't to say that I think trump won't be impeached. He will. But it will be for receiving oral sex in the Oval Office. Mark my words!

BTW his wife Melania isn't the one who has (or will) blow him in the Oval. According to what I've read, "Melania is fully aware... not bothered [and] was planning on leaving the marriage until Trump's unexpected victory". What she was not bothered by is that Trump has a mistress.

The mistress's name? Hope Hicks. A 29 year old bimbo who currently serves as the White House Director of Strategic Communications. Hicks, a 28 year old former model, has no previous experience or interest in politics. Now she travels everywhere with him. BTW, rumor has it that Melania is also cheating. Her beau is "Henry Siemers, head of security at Tiffany's in Trump Tower".

Despite these rumors not being confirmed, I think we can be fairly certain that they are completely true. A cheater cheats, and Trump is a proven cheater. When he bragged to Billy Bush that he can kiss women without their consent and even sexually assault them (grab them by the privates) just because he is a celebrity, he was married to Melania.

Donald and trophy wife #3 were married the same year (1/22/2005) that he told the Bush cousin that he considers women to be mere sex objects, and he can do whatever he wants to a woman he finds attractive (this was sometime in September of 2005). What woman wouldn't want him, given the fact that he's an alpah male?

Obviously the Trumpster never considered staying loyal to his new (3rd) wife. Cheating, like grabbing pussy, is something he is entitled to. And, if (as a wealthy real estate magnate and reality TV star) he thought he was irresistible to women, why the hell would that change now that he's the most powerful man in the world? In addition to cheating with Hopie AKA "The Hopester" another rumor says "Trump has a regular girlfriend in Florida that he sees at Mar-a-Lago".

So maybe he isn't screwing Hope in the WH oval (or any room in the WH), given the fact that it's a dump, but, really, all that needs to happen is for him to lie about under oath about the extra-marital affair. When Trump was "elected" potus he was facing an unpresidented 3500 lawsuits. Some of them have been resolved in the 6 months of his illegitimate predisency, but new ones have been filed.

Get him under oath in regards to ONE of these lawsuits. Then, when the plaintiff's counsel asks him if he's cheated on Melania and he answers "no" (which any cheating man would do)? Then we've got him! The only problem would be that Trump would likely decline to answer and his lawyer would probably object. But a good lawyer could find a way to make the question relevant, I think. Maybe not, but it's worth a try.

Additionally, Trump might testify under oath in regards to the Robert Mueller investigation. Trump declared that he was "100 percent willing" to testify under oath about his conversations with former FBI directer Comey. Trump says Comey's characterization of their conversation was not accurate. "I didn't say that" Trump insisted when Comey testified that the predisent asked for loyalty. Also, "to let Flynn investigation go".

As we all know, Trump has not testified, but that does not mean that he won't be asked to. Trump could be asked to testify about his conversations with Comey, or for some other reason. Although Trump would likely refuse (and no law could compel him to appear before Congress under oath). And we all know he lied about being "100 percent willing". Because DJT is a pathological liar.

Trump will likely actively avoid testifying under oath. In regards to any kind of lawsuit or in regards to the Trump-Russia investigation. But, back before Trump was sworn in and Trump University lawsuit was still active, NBC news reported that "yes, Trump can be compelled to testify". Because "The US Supreme Court settled that question in 1997 when it ruled unanimously that a sexual misconduct lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against President Bill Clinton could proceed".

So, if Trump testifies under oath and lies about his affairs? Then the Republicans (once proof of the affair/affairs is presented), will be obligated to impeach. Because, as we all know, lying under oath about cheating on your spouse is an impeachable offense. Although he might not be removed from office, as the last guy who was impeached for a BJ wasn't. Which is why I think that the plaintiff's lawyer should ask as many questions as possible that Trump might answer with a lie.

Lying about threatening James Comey's job if he did not drop the investigation into Mike Flynn, or lying about his involvement in spinning a lie for Donald Junior (re his answer to an offer to collude with a Russian lawyer re the Russian government's support for candidate Trump) might not be as bad as lying about a BJ, but the argument still could be made that lying under oath is lying under oath. Couldn't it? Also, remember that Trump has a record of lying under oath, so it should be easy to catch him in a lie if he has no choice but to testify.

(Image: DJT smooches his alleged mistress, Hope Hicks).

Honestly, though, I think it's financial crimes that will be Trump's downfall. It's my understanding that Mueller has brought on a lot of people specializing in these kind of crimes. Mueller isn't just looking into collusion. Just as the investigation into Bill Clinton started with White Water, moved on to other things, then finally settled on lying about a BJ, Mueller doesn't have to make his case on collusion.

Not that I think there wasn't collusion (as there was nothing to White Water), only that Mueller can nail Trump on something else. Which I think he will. Looks like it's going to be money-laundering for Russian criminal elements. For which NY AG Eric Schneiderman might file charges. Against Paul Manafort - applying pressure to force him to flip on Trump (SWTD #386). If Manafort flips (because Trump can only pardon him for federally filed charges, not charges filed in NY) it could get really ugly for Trump. Bring on the popcorn.

Video: Ladies Man Leon Phelps (Tim Meadows) welcomes Monica Lewinsky to help take calls about dating at work and phone sex, followed by a call from Linda Tripp (5/8/1999). Note that this is the actual Monica Lewinsky, but not the actual Linda Tripp - who was portrayed by John Goodman (6:33).

SWTD #389