Bodigger

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    354

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bodigger

  1. Posted

    2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    That is a conservative way to frame it. Another way to frame it is medical care for all.

    This isn't a conservative frame work.  Warren has made it part of her platform and yes, this is a turn from her statements in 2012.  Many people do not want their tax money going toward certain things for what ever reason.  Taxes are forced upon people and when they are forced to pay for things they do not like, then most likely there will be uprising's.  The more things people are forced to do, the more uprising's there will be.  IMO, I find the Dems doing more of the forcing and less empowering.

  2. Posted

    How can someone only see things from one point of view?  Most likely, the answer is due to what is being viewed.  If we don't flip the channel or read the other sides articles, our vision becomes more and more narrow, thus narrow minded.  Keep in mind that 63 million people voted for Trump and yes, many are narrow minded, but not all.  If it is a struggle to understand how people could vote for Trump, maybe we need to do more searching.....on the other side.  If we do this, truth will stare back at us, and if our ego is tamed, we will acknowledge what is truth.

  3. Posted

    15 hours ago, Emerald said:

    Warren is not left of Bernie. She's quite a bit more toward the center, by comparison.

    One example is; Warren is saying that imprisoned transgender surgeries should be paid for by taxpayers.  I don't think Bernie is saying this, and I would consider this left of him.  This statement is nowhere near the center.

    17 hours ago, Emerald said:

    Also, an Obama-like figure would just be Hilary part 2. The base is really skewing more toward those with progressive policies, and not someone who will try to target this non-existent center and capitulate to the Republicans and the establishment.

    Huh, Hillary is not an Obama-like figure.  I don't recall people flocking to watch her speeches.  I do agree that the base is moving toward more progressive policies but that only accounts for 43%.  The Dems will be able to pick off about 5% of the centrist's by convincing them that Trump is not good for them, but it will take authentic personality skills like Obama to get over the hump.

  4. Posted

    It depends on what the Dems put out for a candidate.  I think it's anyone's race at this time.  Biden is falling hard due to his corrupt past catching up with him, as well as other things.  Bernie has had a heart attack and I think this will slow him down significantly.  I like Bernie because he truly believes in his policies.  Warren gets caught in pretending things and it is catching up with her.  I think she is actually left of Bernie and I don't think it will fare well for her if she is the candidate.  Clinton has been interesting to listen to lately.  I think she is throwing stuff out there to see what kind of response she will get.  The Dems need an Obama like figure in my opinion.  Someone who doesn't have a long voting record and can speak.....with conviction like Bernie.  If had to place a bet today, it would be Trump.

  6. Posted

    19 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

     

    I'm not a constitutional lawyer, yet I read that the House does not need to vote for an impeachment inquiry to begin an impeachment inquiry. I don't think that is in the constitution or was done during any of the three previous impeachment inquiries.

    Yes, a vote took place in each of the three previous impeachment inquiries.  Again, making changes for others also changes things for ourselves in the future.  I recall when the Dems changed the requirement vote for judges to a 51 vote majority and the Republicans said it would come back to haunt them.  And, it did...

  7. Posted

    23 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    To her credit, she learned and changed strategy.

    Does Trump get any credit for playing smart?  According to many he is an idiot, and the people who voted for him are idiots.

    25 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    To me, the demand for an impeachment inquiry vote is a procedural power play by Trump

    Plus, the WH just sent the House a letter saying the entire impeachment inquiry is illegitimate. Does anyone really think Trump will comply with subpoenas because the Dems held a vote like he demanded?

    The way I understand it is once the vote for an impeachment inquiry is approved, the inquiry begins and the accused prepares a defense.  Keep in mind, the defense has the same rites as the accuser.  they also need to comply with subpoenas and if the rules get changed for one, they change for all.  I don't think that kind of change is what the Dems are looking for.

    It is probably going to be an interesting couple of months.  I always like it when the truth gets out there for everyone to see.  Everyone has the ability.....few utilize it.

  8. Posted

    2 hours ago, abrakamowse said:

    I think the democrats have a stronger case for impeaching Trump in his denial to provide documents to the senate than in this case of Biden possible case of corruption.

    It is my understanding that the documents are ready to be released once the impeachment proceeding's begin.  Not sure when the vote for the impeachment inquiry is to take place. 

  10. Posted

    35 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    ... if you don't mind.. for comparison, perhaps you would like to provide some evidence that rises to this level of narcissism that you suggest Obama is guilty of. 

    Are you saying that Obama was not narcissistic, or at a lower level of narcissism than Trump?  If Obama were to say similar things and carry out the progressive agenda would we be talking about how he is not well?

  11. Posted

    16 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @Serotoninluv It seems like Trump himself is rather adept at deflection as well.  He's great at giving 'non-answers' and changing the narrative.  I'm not sure why so many people do not notice this.. perhaps I'm hyper sensitive to it, having lived with and having been a victim of an extreme narcissist.  To me, it's completely obvious when someone is engaging in this type of behavior, which is a huge red flag for me when it comes to Trumps mental state. It's a classic sign of 'self-delusion' that you will notice easily in many 'religious' people when confronted with contradictions in their beliefs.. they instantly go into deflection mode.  And you're right.. we all do it, to some extent or another, as long as there is some form of 'ego' which is trying to preserve itself. Projection is another classic defense mechanism of the ego .  I'm not engaging in 'x behavior'.. you are. 

    Allow me to show what it looks like on the other side of the topic title....

    @Serotoninluv It seems like Obama himself is rather adept at deflection as well.  He's great at giving 'non-answers' and changing the narrative.  I'm not sure why so many people do not notice this.. perhaps I'm hyper sensitive to it, having lived with and having been a victim of an extreme narcissist.  To me, it's completely obvious when someone is engaging in this type of behavior, which is a huge red flag for me when it comes to Obama's mental state. It's a classic sign of 'self-delusion' that you will notice easily in many 'religious' people when confronted with contradictions in their beliefs.. they instantly go into deflection mode.  And you're right.. we all do it, to some extent or another, as long as there is some form of 'ego' which is trying to preserve itself. Projection is another classic defense mechanism of the ego .  I'm not engaging in 'x behavior'.. you are. 

    I am sure there are people reading this and saying, how dare he.....LOL.  Yes, we all do this, and this is where I am going with it.  The scale is even depending on the perspective you have.  I do not buy into the idea of right and wrong in this matter.  Only different.  Maybe Trump isn't well, only different in the way he presents himself.  We are kidding ourselves if we don't see it from, and on, both sides.

  12. Posted

    8 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    As far as setting new standards, I'm not sure this is anything new.

    It's not new, but what we set as new, we then must live by these new standards.  Such as the me too movement....it's you too and us too.  This did not fare well for many of the people who originally supported this.  In my opinion it is important to play the tape forward and give thought to what may become of things in the future.  For instance, is it now the norm for any candidate for the Supreme Court to experience what Justice Kavanaugh has in the future?

  13. Posted

    5 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    Bodigger, ^Notice the 'what-about-ism' that's going on in your thought process here.. 'but then I thought, [what about] people such as'.. and notice that this is not really related to the topic at hand, which is Trump's mental health.  The thread on which you are replying is literally titled 'Trump is Not Well', yet instead of offering up any defense of this assessment, or adding any insight to it, your default move is to think (and say), 'yes, but what about..' which only appears (to me anyway) as an attempt to distract from the topic at hand. 

    Perhaps....just showing that I can laugh at myself....as we should be able too if we are comfortable in our own skin (Incidentally, this new skin of mine is something I am enjoying).  I laugh at myself quite often when I read this forum because I can identify with what is being said.  As far as adding something to the topic......okay, go ahead and take Trump to task.  Again, I laugh because what we do unto others will be done to them in the future.  Setting new standards on others will apply to everyone thereafter.

  15. Posted

    1 hour ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @giglio also, let's not distract from the topic of this thread, which has everything to do with Trump's mental state.   We have plenty of evidence which suggests Trump is suffering from some type of mental decline on top of any personality disorders/mental illness (giant ego) he might be experiencing. His inability to form complete coherent sentences without rambling from topic to topic. His unprecedented use of 'twitter' to announce policy, as well unleash barrages of often times confused, confusing, and self contradicting statements.  His slurred speech. His mispronouncing or inability to pronounce certain words. His bizarre 'wandering' around.  And the list goes on and on. 

    I laughed when I read this because this sounds like me at times....No chance for me to run for any political position.  But then I thought about people such as Clinton, Bernie, Warren, and Biden......

  16. Posted

    16 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    "What-about-ism" is becoming more and more prevalent in Trumpian reality. 

    This is what I am getting at........"What-about-ism".  My question about Obama's involvement was to escape this until more FACT's come out and attempt to change the course of the discussion.  Huh, just when I think I am making some progress I slip into a trap.  I guess that's why I am learning and not teaching LOL.  Love you all.

  20. Posted

    3 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @samedm9 which rule was changed? 

    "Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute." - ICIG ( the inspector general of the intelligence community)

    "In fact," the ICIG's statement continues, "by law the Complainant...need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law."

    Sooooo.......why was the whistle-blower rule changed?  Are you saying that it was unnecessary?  Does this not seem questionable?  I do...

  21. Posted

    2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    Notice how there are nuggets of truth within their narrative. It's a key part of the game they are playing. Those nuggets of truth provide grounding for the devilry. Without those nuggets of truth, grounding would be lost and the whole thing collapses. Many Trump opponents think Trump is 100% lying and delusional. He isn't. He needs a small percentage of truth as grounding for deflection and obfuscation. 

    What if the accuser isn't about the truth?  Does this make a difference in the nuggets of truth Trump is claiming?

    I do not think Adam Schiff is truthful.  In fact, he has shown his lack of truth consistently during the Russia investigation and lead many people to believe he had hard evidence against Trump.  Maybe Schiff should be on trial as well.

     

  24. Posted

    46 minutes ago, SerpaeTetra said:

    He is asking for dirt on Biden, his possible future opponent in the 2020 election, on the phone call.  The transcript is long, but one quote from Trump is -"The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."

    This sounds horrible.....?  It sounds to me like an after thought at the end of a conversation.  Are you not interested in what transpired here with the Bidens?

    50 minutes ago, SerpaeTetra said:

    **  He also has his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani ask Ukranian officials for dirt.  This is just one of the Ukranian officials that have made similar comments.

    *Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine's former prosecutor general, told the Los Angeles Times that President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was "obsessed" with potential misconduct on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden or his son, Hunter.

    *Lutsenko said he repeatedly pushed back on Giuliani's requests to investigate the Bidens.

    *Lutsenko and Giuliani met in person twice this year, he told the LA Times, in addition to "numerous" phone conversations.

    *Lutsenko's comments are linked to broader concerns tied to a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — a conversation at the heart of a whistleblower complaint that sparked an impeachment inquiry. 

    These statements seem to be falling apart as we discuss this.  You may want to be patient until things settle and the actual truth gets out there.

  25. Posted

    7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    @Bodigger An aspect of Adam Schiff is a nugget of truth used as grounding for broader deflection and obfuscation. Part of this framing is to create a binary construct of honesty. Schiff is either honest or dishonest. If Schiff is dishonest, then one can extrapolate that the charges against are dishonest. As well, if Schiff is dishonest then one can create a deflection in which Schiff should be the one undergoing a criminal investigation, not Trump. This is a simple blue-level binary message Trump is using and it resonates with a certain percentage of people. . . At Orange, we would add in nuances - like a continuum of honesty, degrees of honesty, a mosaic of honesty. As well, critical thinking enters at orange and orange is able to see how dots are connected. Yet not nearly at the Yellow level, yellow is a master at connecting dots. Green becomes aware of underlying emotional energies driving behavior as well as cultural relativity. Green has a more expansive meta view relative to blue and orange, since green has evolved through blue and orange. Yet the meta view of green is nowhere near the expansive meta view of Yellow.  

    You had me at obfuscation.....LOL

    So, do you see Schiff as being truthful?  For two years I was lead to believe that he had hard evidence and when it all came out with the Mueller report and testimony, it wasn't anything like he had made it out to be.  In this case, I am reserved and patient with what Schiff is alleging.  I hope it doesn't take two years....