Invite Friends

Topic: US Politics

Trump slams tell-all book, defends mental health: 'I'm a stable genius'. Agree?

  • Comments: 146 |
  • Votes: 73
  • Share
Picture?type=square
Discussion started by Tok Staff:
Trump called himself a 'stable genius' and said the book was trash after sources questioned his mental health. Are the accusations unfair?
Background article: ... Read more
Results in this view: Y-book Is Trash 22% - Convince Me 13% - N-but He's Fine 0% - N-mentally Unfit 65%
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 3
Anonymous-user
  • 2
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 63
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Just another attempt to discredit the president . I sure Wolff is proud of his effort but but is light weight yellow journalism.
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
  • 3
Anonymous-user
  • 10
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 5
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 7
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Richard Gilbertson Actually he is a best selling author world wide and has several books that are still selling well today. Financially Trump is a panic about Mueller looking at Trump and his ties to Russian banks recently caught by the USA and EU for money laundering. Do you think a smart honest person would have financial ties to that? Or would a narcissistic known lair braggart be stupid enough to be used by Russia and never say anything bad about Russia explain this?
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey I don’t doubt Wolff financial success, there is a lot of money made in yellow journalism and fiction.
Mueller has nothin on Russian Collusion and is now just fishing around to try and find something, anything to hang on Trump. Russian banks money laundering does not implicate Trump, so what’s the link?
Picture?type=square
By Carolyn Ponté I always laugh when Trump supporters make excuses for Trump.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Wolff being a “Yellow Journalist” and cashing in on Trump hysteria is meerly naming Wolffs style of writing.
Mueller not finding any Russian collusion is pointing out a fact.
Russian banks laundering money is implying guilt by association.
All of which are used by Gilbertson to disparage Trump and now you accuse me of making excuses rather then pointing out the obvious facts? Which of those are incorrect?
Picture?type=square
By Carolyn Ponté There lies the problem, you are not pointing out obvious facts, you are pointing to your opinion which is way off base. You claim Yellow Journalism when in fact Bannon verified the comments, but nice try though. Oh and BTW, money laundering is a crime, so get your popcorn ready for the show.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Wolff certainly is cashing, yellow journalisum has long been profitable in times of political rivalries. Bannon may have confirmed some of the comments that made in his presence but he could not possibly verify the entire text of the book nor do we know the preceding or following words or events which give context to the the words or actions that could indicate a different situation.
In fact yellow journalisum take small kernels of truth and twists and embellishes them unto what is closer to fiction. Besides Bannon is not the best or reliable resource in this matter.
Yes, money laundering is a crime, am well aware of that. My point was a Russian bank that Trump has business associations with does not incriminate Trump if that bank is guilty of laundering money. If you had deposited money in a bank or taken a loan from a bank and that bank was found guilty of money laundering, are you guilty by that association as you imply Trump is?
Picture?type=square
By Carolyn Ponté Missing the entire point of the Money Laundering. He is being investigated for Money Laundering, with his association to the bank. You are just pis sed because someone wrote the truth about Trump and you cannot handle it. LMAO
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey One can be investigated for many things, Hillary has been investigated as well, Cattle futures scandle, White Water, Benghazi, Emails, Clinton Foundation funding. Has she indicted? Has she been charged? NO! Investigations are a way to punish ones political enemies.
Picture?type=square
By Carolyn Ponté That is because Hillary did nothing to be indicted for. It has always been the Republican witch hunt for Hillary and yet they cannot find anything, just waste a lot of taxpayer money. As for Trump it is almost a given that he is guilty or else why would he (and Pence, as well) be up to their necks in Layers and running scared, Mueller had to order tiny handcuffs that is what is taking so long.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Tiny hand cuffs?
Republicans can conduct a witch hunts and Democrats can’t ?
Is it a given that everyone is guilty even before evidence is found?
You view the world through partisan glasses.
Picture?type=square
By Carolyn Ponté This is not a Witch Hunt this is a Treason investigation, pay attention.
Picture?type=square
By Kurt David Steinbach I know. It's like saying just because I do business with members of the Mafia doesn't mean I'm a member of the Mafia myself. True, but it means that you're overlooking a whole lot of illegal stuff just to make a buck, and doing so is actually a felony. See what I did there. . . .
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Your assuming there was foreknowledge of the crimes. There was no felony, unless you some how know Trump was secretly charged.
Look, I don’t much care for Trumps personality, nor Hillary’s, but I don’t see th boogy-man around every corner or make up or twist and exaggerate issues. There are too many important things to discuss beyond Trump bashing.
Picture?type=square
By Kurt David Steinbach Actually, that just isn't true. According to Federal law, it was his campaign, and it was the actions of several people acting on behalf of him and his campaign. Willful blindness, where you didn't know and didn't want to know, is not an excuse, and the actions are still criminal. It's a felony called Facilitation, and it goes along with enterprise corruption, both Trump's businesses [where money laundering is concerned by Trump, his organization, or others he did business with] and his campaign. Also, in the conspiracy, it is not necessary for everyone to know what the others were doing. They were all doing it, meeting with Russians, accepting things of value, which are defined by statute as campaign contributions [like Opposition Research], and accepting things of value from a foreign government, many of the Russian Oligarchs that the campaign members met with were not only Russian [spelled foreign] citizens, they worked for the Russian Government or they worked for people who are members of or part of the Russian Government. That's called a conspiracy, and it is not necessary for everyone in the conspiracy to agree to the conspiracy, or to even know what others in on the conspiracy are doing. The left hand DOES NOT have to know what the right hand is doing. Donald Trump does not have to know what his campaign staff, volunteers, friends, or family members were doing. They were explicitly warned by the FBI that the Russians might seeks to influence and interfere in U.S. elections by co-opting a candidate or by recruiting a member of the campaign staff. What have George, Roger, Manafort, Flynn, and others told Mueller, and what will they and others say this year. Mueller will tell us when his investigation is done, sometime late this year or next year. One thing is pretty clear, they're not going to want to go to prison for Trump, so they'll talk. This is exactly what Watergate looked like before Nixon resigned, and over a dozen were indicted. And Watergate involved a bungled break in and burglary and cover up and obstruction, not collusion and money laundering and accepting bribes from foreigners and a foreign government. THIS is going to be so much fun, I'm gonna need some more popcorn!
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey You need more clarity on this point, who accused his campaign of what, when and if it was illegal why was no one charged?
Picture?type=square
By Kevin Basner Awww, Mark is butthurt even in 2018! Enjoy NOT your New Year..........! NOT!
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey This is what counts as a rebuttal? Is this the best you can muster?
At least I can count on Gilberson (above) to makes serious arguments.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey I wish you well and hope your coming year is wonderful!
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - do you really claim it is "yellow journalism"? Do you understand the definition of the term?
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey I believe words have meaning and I attempt to use the proper combination of them express my thoughts.
For those who aren’t familiar with the term,
“Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a US term for a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering or sensationalism.”
You can be outraged now...
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - I am not outraged. This is not worth the energy to become angry at all. I just find it preposterous with all of the claims being made.

So, Mark, specifically what sensationalism has the press used to exaggerate the actions of your hero, Mr. 45? What is inaccurate?
Picture?type=square
By Carolyn Ponté I imagine you will be waiting a long time for an answer to your question. :-)
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Carolyn - No doubt.

It seems so many people prefer to make accusations and yet refuse to back their caustic remarks with any justification.

It reminds me of the time when a news reporter asked people if they preferred ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act. Most said the latter, not even vaguely aware that they were one in the same.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Error? I think not,
Ross has a long history of being conveniently “wrong” steering stories in the wrong direction. Another master of yellow journalisum.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - I am still waiting for any specific examples of what you claim are "errors" or "yellow journalism".
Picture?type=square
By Carolyn Ponté Just like I said, it will be a long wait for the answer. :-)
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey You’ll just have to wait... I busy watching the Vikings take apart the Saints.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - don't bother. Obviously, if you had anything at all, you would have already offered it, with or without a football game.

Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Three other stories in the week following Brian Ross, one could be a mistake, two is stretching, three is unlikely and four is a clear effort to discredit.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454679/news-media-mistakes-trump-not-entirely-wrong-about-them

Contrary to what you believe I’m not a fan of Trump but do advocate for truth in media and respect for the President who ever it is.
Picture?type=square
By Carolyn Ponté Let me get this straight, you are moaning about thee errors the News Media made and corrected within hours when the errors were detected but say nothing about Fox News for spewing constant lies and distortions every day and never correcting when they are called out on them. Wow what a hypocrite.
Picture?type=square
By Carolyn Ponté Dan, it sounds a lot like Trump doesn't it? Always has an excuse for his lies and distortions or blames Obama, Hillary or Bill.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Unless Mark actually states some specific examples and not just giving a link which half-conflicts his story, I think he deserves little to no attention.

(Do you think he is attempting to comb his hair like Mr. 45 when he is alone at home?)
Picture?type=square
By Carolyn Ponté Maybe, he could be so mesmerized by him that he would lower himself to looking like an Orange Buffoon too. :-)
Picture?type=square
By Kurt David Steinbach Actually, part of the point that Mark misses is that a story can seem very sensational and still be accurate and true. Watergate was very sensational at times, yet Woodward and Bernstein were very accurate, including the time they said that Sloan named Haldeman as the 5th man to control funds to the grand jury. They were correct that Haldeman was the 5th man to control CREEP funds; however, Sloan did not name Haldeman to the Grand Jury because he was never asked about Haldeman by that Grand Jury. Woodward and Bernstein were still right, and so is Wolff. So far, Mueller is getting it right, too. . . .
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Not sure why they even try to discredit rump. He does a fine job doing that all by himself.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Some of what he does is ridiculous, but some of what he has done while in office is in the appropriate, those things never get acknowledged. Still better then Hillary....
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - Yet you have not given any reason to believe your claim. How about some actual evidence?
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey I’m certain you know both sides of this question, so for the uninformed I will list a few of what I consider positives with full knowledge that you will disagree . The nomination and appointment of Gorsuch to the Supream Court, the substantal reduction of ISIS in the Middle East, massive overturning of government regulations, overturning of the ACA mandate, and tax reform passage. That should keep you busy with responses for a day or two.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - How does this relate to your claim that Mr. 45 is better than Ms. Clinton?

Regarding ACA, are you saying it would be better to lose coverage for more than 10 million people.

Tax reform? Are you saying that putting the US in many more debs with fewer dollars to enter the coffers is a good thing?

You do not like the regulations which protect the people from polluted air and water? Really?
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey The answer to your first question is obvious, none of those listed events would have been a completed under Clinton, the country would still be in an economic malaise and the Supreams would be in the hand of the Left for the next decade.
The ACA is not a viable long term scheme and what ever changes are made, a certain percentage of the population will have to adjust. With the change there are also new options, many of the 10 million you mention wanted to self fund their own coverage the others will have new and less expensive options.
Tax reform is an economic stimulus, the difference being the money is returned to the taxpayer, and not funneled to the Crony interests of the administration, as in Solindra or in the teachers unions, and were did all the money for the “shovel ready ” infrastructure projects go?
The majority of the regulations removed do not involve significant public safety issues but rather restrictive regulations on business with little or no cost benefit anylisis. I’m sure you will be the first to point out a specific issue of significance regarding public safety
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - Just because Mr. Gorsuch was nominated does not make the Supreme Court any better or less than it already was.

The reduction in ISIS was already under way created by Mr. Obama. This is nothing new, but you wish to dismiss any credit to whom actually created it. Just like the improved economy, you refuse to accept it was Mr. Obama, who created the turnaround. Again, if you wish to not have a healthy environment to live in, then the reduction in regulations is good. If you want to live with fewer chances to get cancer, tuberculosis or other diseases, then go with your hero, Mr. 45. The same applies to the tax changes. It only takes away money from the government, causing that much more of a major deficit.

The ACA was never meant to be long-term, but just enough to get people insured until a better plan could be developed.

How quickly you forget your past in favor of backing a misogynistic and lying POTUS, far more than any previous president.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey With out Gorsch the court would have no conservative balance, and you are intelligent enough to know that, Clinton would never have nominated him.
Well you are correct in a backwards way, Obama did foster the creation of ISIS by removing all US troops from Iraq creating a vacuum of contro that was quickly filled by ISIS. He also began the move to remove ISIS , but in a rather tentative way. The force of conviction was not present until Trump was president.
You right again, sort of... The ACA was sold as the way of the future for healthcare when the Democrats knew all along it would fail and give them the chance to push a a
Single payer (government paid) plan. I better less expensive, less intrusive, free market plan is now going to evolve from the changes pushed by Trump.
As I stated, in the previous post there is no significant risk to the population by regulation reduction the majority have nothing to do with health and safety, I offered the chance to show an example, yet you keep beating the same old dead horse.
The first point I made at the beginning of this thread was that Trump had flaws which have been pointed out and exaggerated endlessly and there was no acknowledge ment of his successes, some of which I have pointed out.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - it is not an issue of "conservative balance" but conservative majority. So what? Remember, what they work on is being constitutional issues, not political parties.

No, Mr. OBAMA did not foster any creation of ISIS. He had nothing to do with the founding of ISIS. Where did you get that idea, beside from the liar Mr. 45.

The ACA did not fail. It was growing quite well. How is ACA intrusive? Free Market plan is what we had before, with HMO organizations reaping profits by the fistful.

No significant risk with the elimination of EPA regulations? So, you have no problem with oil spills off of the coastlines of the US? You have no problem with increased smog and other pollutants in the air? You have nothing against chemical safety being thrown out of the window when it comes to soaps, cleaning agents and even food? Sorry, but you have offered nothing to prove your point.

Here are a few minor issues with your Mr. 45 being in charge, and what he has done so far:

He rolled back on the Clean Power plan.
He stepped the US OUT of the Paris climate agreement.
He eradicated Wetland and Tributary protection.
He got rid of car and truck fuel-efficiency standards.
He got rid of the protected status of national monuments and 12 marine areas.
He got rid of the limits on toxic discharge from power plants.
He got rid of coal ash discharge regulations.
He dismissed emissions standards for new, modified and reconstructed power plants.
He also got rid of the emissions rules for power plant start-up and shutdown.
He got rid of Sage Grouse habitat protections.
He took away the fracking safety regulations on public lands.
He dismissed regulations on oil and gas drilling in some national parks.
He got rid of oil rig safety regulations.
How about the protection regulations regarding drilling in the arctic wildlife refuges?
Did you not know about the hunting method regulations in Alaska?
How about the requirement for tracking emissions on federal highways?
He got rid of the limits on methane emissions on public lands.

There are many more he has done to cause harm to our environment. If you think these are no big deal, then you are completely blind to your own environment.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Reguarding Constutionsl issues, it often comes doewn to a matter of interpretation of the law. Conservatives tend to interpret strictly by the document as written, Progresive liberals tend to read in more into the words then is there in very loose interitation.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey No, Obama did not create ISIS , poor choice of words on my part. What he did do was create a power vacuum in which ISIS quickly grew to fill by removing the small number of US troops remaining, the only stabilizing force in the region. It was an open invitation for Islamic radicals fill.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey The ACA was not solvent and several large insurers want to pull out, causing the cost to consumers to rise another 20%+ depending on your state. What happened to Obama’s promise of saving everyone $2500 a year? He was pedaling snake oil.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Let’s began with the Clean Power Act.
“the absurdity of the Clean Power Plan on its own terms — it did virtually nothing to affect global warming. As Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute points out, the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan (which includes the Clean Power Plan) would reduce the global temperature by 15 one-thousandths of a degree by 2100. The point wasn’t to fight climate change per se, but to signal our climate virtue in the hopes of catalyzing action by other nations and, not incidentally, hobble the U.S. coal industry in favor of more politically palatable sources of energy, namely wind and solar.”Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452475/clean-power-plan-rollback-scott-pruitt-starts-good-work

This along with the Paris Accords punish the US enonomy, cost trillions and in the end have insignificant impact on climate change. A good law or regulation should at least be effective and somewhat cost effective. All most of these regulations were virtue signaling and pandering to Obama’s political base and not truly impactful, or even moderately effective , just window dressing .
Along with the other regulations it was not voted on or approved by Congress, but rather dictated policy by Executive Order or mandates by facesless bureaucrats in various government agencies
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - Then, why was it that the Republicans were complaining that Mr. Obama was keeping the war going too long and that he should have pulled the troops out that much earlier? Talk about conflicts!
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - Regarding the ACA, when a new program begins, there are always burps in the system. The good news is that with most people enrolled in it, they DID save a lot of money. A small percentage did have their rates go up, but darn few. Had he remained in charge, the rates would have continued to drop with more people signing up for it.

Remember, too, that one did not HAVE to sign up for ACA. They could have purchased their own insurance.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - you are mixing problems. The Clean Power Act had nothing to do with Climate Change. It was about air and water pollution from these plants.

Regarding the Paris Accord, do you even know what the term "non-binding" means?

Oh, so you have a problem with Executive Order now? How many EOs have your hero signed compared to Mr. Obama? Why is it okay for him to sign many more than Mr. Obama and that is okay, but Mr. Obama signed a handful and he is, according to you, doing an end run around Congress?
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris ^^^^^ Man, I cant stand Trump, but Dan has made me like him more. ^^^
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Trump has a flawed character and his politics and policies are not consistent at all with conservitive or libertarian ideas . But even a broken clock, Trump, is right at least twice a day.