"I don't think there are any Russians
There ain't no Yanks
Just corporate criminals
Playing with tanks
~ The Call ~ The Walls Came Down ('80s)
Still poignant. Just shuffle the antagonists.
Printable View
"I don't think there are any Russians
There ain't no Yanks
Just corporate criminals
Playing with tanks
~ The Call ~ The Walls Came Down ('80s)
Still poignant. Just shuffle the antagonists.
I read today that WALL STREET has set the clock on a Republican House, and a Democratic Senate and Presidincessity. and go ahead and villianize them all you want, you haters, Wall Street has more visionaries than a Buddhist fan magazine. Wall Street earns its living by seeing the future a bit ahead of everyone else, good and bad.
Democrats like to be right and Republicans like to win, but trust me, Hillary is a Politician and a Lawyer and she is zeroed in on win.
We'll have Wall Street, Government, and Business.
Wall Street will play itself.
The part of Government will be played by the Democrats.
The part of Business will be played by the GOP.
Many people reading this may never have had a discussion with themselves about being a winner or a loser, but I'll bet every one of your bosses decided at some point they were going to be a winner.
https://s18.postimg.org/b29szcmu1/545409997.jpgimage url
Let's come to some common ground.
It's a terrible gamble, to think ,"Oh no, don't worry about it, just like the Jewish people in Russian empire,or the outsiders that always existed in older times in Europe or the West, they've always been absorbed". Maybe this time ,just once , the demographics in the west are actually making the situation worse. Maybe , with multiculturalists willful blindness to intolerance(Islam) through the mechanism of cultural relativism,coinciding with reduced population numbers are the perfect storm? Why not take some percussion while it's time? And yes, I don't like multinational oil companies, or arm's manufacturers ,doing the buidness with corrupt weasels in oil rich countries.(Sure , I don't like unregulated markets) . But that's a separate fight though .
Maybe the west should focus on limiting the trade with them ,thereby gaining the moral high ground for a change. But, also limit migration from cultures that are truly intolerant.If you are right wing, or left wing , here at least let's come to some common ground. .
Why should we be fighting (our community) for tolerance all over again, why should we even put our self's in a potential danger situation? Look around the world and see how intolerant to the gays the world actually is! For fuck's sake's!How long has it taken our community to even be tolerated in the West? ha, how long? And now to side with a bunch of fool's so that we run the risk of fighting all over again? For our vary existence ? No I say .
Surely, can't you folk's see the simple idea that for us at least , culturally wear our interests should lye . Preservation, simple naked survival?
Other countries limit there immigration/migration, now ,and in the past. Why can't we in the West do it now?And deal with demographic decline other than immigration from backward conservative- valued hell holes, is a good start.
https://s22.postimg.org/wvf8hexlt/image.gif
photo upload
https://s18.postimg.org/wbsibknyx/image.gif
windows 7 screen shot
https://s10.postimg.org/liaxwk93t/image.gif
screen shot on windows
https://s15.postimg.org/75md8wzej/image.gifcapture
https://s12.postimg.org/ua6l6ddjh/image.gif
screen shot windows 7
I said once that the black race is the only race that did not melt in the Great American melting pot, and Giovanni Hotel jumped on me for blaming blacks for racism.
My Mom grew up on a Mississippi farm during the Great Depression, and I'm not positive PROGRESS is going to take us to a brighter sun than the 1930s, but progress is all we have to work with.
My Mom's cook Leila had 10 times more soul than these Beyoncé wannabes they have now, black people have to lose their soul, and white people have to lose their pride.
There is common ground, yet people always want to own it.
Nobody owns common ground.
Hmmmm...
A common ground commie who follows the immortal philosophy of Mel Brooks & thinks the Oracle moved from Delphi to Wall St.
Wow!
So what is it you recommend? End religious tolerance? Politically disenfranchise all Muslims? Return to the prejudicial practices that discriminated against certain races and ethnicities? It’s a terrible risk to offer up for sacrifice our religious and political liberties and our protections against racial inequality in lieu of your recently gained sexual freedom, don’t you think? If it weren’t for enlightened and principled toleration we ‘faggots’ would not have gained the social and political progress toward equality that you and I now enjoy. We do not trade away our neighbor’s liberty to save our own. We stand for both.Quote:
Originally Posted by nitron
.Quote:
Originally Posted by nitron
I’m not certain what nation you are a citizen in of, but I would be very surprised if there are not already policies in place that limit immigration/migration that take country of origin into consideration.
In the U.S. the annual influx of permanent immigrants from a single country cannot exceed 7% of the total influx. A brief synopsis of the U.S. immigration policies can be found here https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...n-system-works .
Butt butt butt...
It's just no fun if you can't be as fucked up as the people you're griping about. Being discourteous (or worse) is how we show our loyalty to mono cultural superiority. After all, they/those/them must be inherently inferior to we/us, irrespective ("irregardless" if you're a Trumpeteer) of who anyone is. Gotta have that "vs" between us and them or nobody will want to play the game. Think we'd be able to tolerate ourselves if we become tolerant of others? Is it possible to drop enough acid to figure all this out without going catatonic?
I love immigration debates as they are a prime example of arguing without recourse to any evidence.
Immigrants flood across borders, steal jobs, are a burden on taxpayers and threaten indigenous culture. Or is it the opposite, that immigration boosts economic growth, meets skill shortages, and helps create a more dynamic society.
Evidence shows that immigrants provide significant economic benefits. But, there are local and short-term economic and social costs. As with debates on trade, where protectionist instincts tend to overwhelm the longer term need for more open societies, the core role that immigrants play in economic development is often overwhelmed by defensive measures to keep immigrants out.
Around the world, there are an estimated 230 million migrants, making up about 3% of the global population. This share has not changed much in the past 100 years. But as the world’s population has quadrupled, so too has the number of migrants. And since the early 1900s, the number of countries has increased from 50 to over 200. More borders mean more migrants.
Of the global annual flow of around 15 million migrants, most fit into one of four categories: economic (6 million), student (4 million), family (2 million), and refugee/asylum (3 million). There are about 20 million officially recognized refugees worldwide, with 86% of them hosted by neighbouring countries, up from 70% 10 years ago.
In the US, over a third of documented immigrants are skilled. Similar trends exist in Europe. These percentages reflect the needs of those economies. Governments that are more open to immigration assist their country’s businesses, which become more agile, adaptive and profitable in the war for talent. Governments in turn receive more revenue and citizens thrive on the dynamism that highly-skilled migrants bring.
Yet it is not only higher-skilled migrants who are vital. In the USA and elsewhere, unskilled immigrants are an essential part of the construction, agriculture and services sector.
If immigrants play such a vital role, why is there so much concern?
Some believe that immigrants take jobs and destroy economies. Evidence proves this wrong. In the United States, immigrants have been founders of companies such as Google, Intel, PayPal, eBay, and Yahoo! In fact, skilled immigrants account for over half of Silicon Valley start-ups and over half of patents, even though they make up less than 15% of the population. There have been three times as many immigrant Nobel Laureates, National Academy of Science members, and Academy Award film directors than the immigrant share of the population would predict.
Research on the net fiscal impact of immigration shows that immigrants contribute significantly more in taxes than the benefits and services they receive in return. According to the World Bank, increasing immigration by a margin equal to 3% of the workforce in developed countries would generate global economic gains of $356 billion. Some economists predict that if borders were completely open and workers were allowed to go where they pleased, it would produce gains as high as $39 trillion for the world economy over 25 years.
In the future, it will become even more imperative to ensure a strong labour supply augmented by foreign workers. Globally, the population is ageing. There were only 14 million people over the age of 80 living in 1950. There are well over 100 million today and current projections indicate there will be nearly 400 million people over 80 by 2050. With fertility collapsing to below replacement levels in all regions except Africa, experts are predicting rapidly rising dependency ratios and a decline in the OECD workforce from around 800 million to close to 600 million by 2050. The problem is particularly acute in North America, Europe and Japan.
There are, however, legitimate concerns about large-scale migration. The possibility of social dislocation is real. Just like globalization – a strong force for good in the world – the positive aspects are diffuse and often intangible, while the negative aspects bite hard for a small group of people.
Yes, those negative aspects must be managed. But that management must come with the recognition that migration has always been one of the most important drivers of human progress and dynamism. In the age of globalization, barriers to migration pose a threat to economic growth and sustainability. Free migration, like totally free trade, remains a utopian prospect, even though within regions (such as Europe) this has proved workable.
As John Stuart Mill forcefully argued, we need to ensure that the local and short-term social costs of immigration do not detract from their role “as one of the primary sources of progress”.
Hats off to the great Gene Wilder, he was a funny man.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
HippieFried, if you don't think the wisemen on Wall St have you figured out, you're still living in the sixties.
You think what they want you to think. My proof is your checkbook.
Those 'wisemen' on Wall Street be jumpin' out of windows the next time I take a step in an unexpected direction.
I just want the Hispanic immigrants to clean up after themselves when they are done having a party in a public park. Is that too much to ask.
No it's not too much to ask. I'd like everyone to clean up after themselves.
"People generally litter when they don’t feel a sense of ownership of an area, like along roads, in parks, and in abandoned areas. Research has shown that the most likely person to litter, regardless of race, income, and education level is a male between the ages of 18-25." ( http://www.gwinnettcb.org/resources/...facts-figures/ ).
"Who litters?
- Young people are more likely to litter when they are in a group.
- Older people are more likely to litter when alone.
- Men litter more than women.
- Women use bins more than men.
- In a group of ten people in a public place, three will litter and seven will do the right thing.
- More smokers will litter their butts than use a bin.
- People are more likely to litter in an already littered or unkempt location.
- The most common reasons for littering are "too lazy" (24%), "no ashtray" (23%) or "no bin" (21%).
- Less than one third of older people who were seen littering admitted their behaviour when questioned.
Why they litter
- Unaware - Littering is not always a deliberate act, and may result from uncertainty as to who is responsible for disposal, or just viewing their littering as an inconsequential thing to do. For instance, householders and businesses may dump at the front of their property, thinking it is the council's responsibility to clean it up.
- Careless - Some people litter because it is too much trouble for them to do otherwise, or litter is something they simply don't think about.
- Convenience is often the driving factor here, hence well located and designed disposal units and bins have a good chance of improving behaviours.
- Premeditated - Individuals may be well aware that littering and dumping are illegal, but find it more convenient (and cheaper if not caught) to find a hidden dumping spot, or simply dispose of smaller litter items irresponsibly. Here, the thinking is that they are unlikely to be caught or shamed. Enforcement and education play a primary role in improving these behaviours." ( http://www.litter.vic.gov.au/about-l...ring-behaviour )
Oh yeah. Them Wall Streeters saw the last bank panic coming a mile away, didn't they? That's why nobody lost any money in the crash. Right? Oh wait... There wasn't any crash because the prognosticators saw it coming and headed it off. Everyone was fully insured anyway, so AIG was able to cover all bets with no problems. Same thing with ENRON. And the dot com bubble didn't swell and burst because the market soothsayers knew it was all just a bunch of bullshit.
So now we can all rest assured that the same seers and sibyls will be able to predict the obvious when it comes to politics. Or maybe consumer trends too.
The exchange gamblers haven't got me figured out at all. Or anybody else really, outside their own clique. The reality is that for the most part, they can't see past the current quarter. They just follow whatever trend is happening at the moment. Like a flock of sheep or a school of fish. Ooooh, shiney!
I don't even have a checkbook. When I changed banks a few years ago, I didn't even bother to order any. I'm retired. Completely paperless. No debt. Just plastic and a phone. I can do all my banking by text messages nowadays. I don't live large, but I get by okay, despite losing a pension and mutual funds to the so called wise men of Wall Street who couldn't find their asshole with a funnel.
Don't try to blow smoke up my ass, Buttslinger, unless it's laced with something real good. I've been around a little. Mostly, I think you're alright though. I have plenty of salt. Help yourself to as many grains as you need when reading my shit.
Look West Coast.......
I will step back and admit that I do not understand the 1% that own 50% of everything.
It's like a maze that includes my eyes.
I really don't even know where to go to find out about it.
Every one you ask will give you a different answer.
I do know that a billion dollar corporation can hire people that know more about me than I do. What I'll buy, what I won't.
Trash me all you want Hippifried, but don't give Wall Street the benefit of the doubt because they sure don't deserve it. Their blatant stealing of everything that wasn't chained down before an election they knew they were going to lose was a winner for them, they dropped everything they were set to lose anyway. They see the bad and the good. And Profit from both.
[QUOTE=nitron;1715605]
A brief comment to follow Martin's brilliantly argued post.
Let's come to some common ground.
It's a terrible gamble, to think ,"Oh no, don't worry about it, just like the Jewish people in Russian empire,or the outsiders that always existed in older times in Europe or the West, they've always been absorbed". Maybe this time ,just once , the demographics in the west are actually making the situation worse. Maybe , with multiculturalists willful blindness to intolerance(Islam) through the mechanism of cultural relativism,coinciding with reduced population numbers are the perfect storm?
--It may be natural to predict the future on the basis of what we know now, but history shows this to be the gamble that does not pay off if the terms of the bet change to make it meaningless.
For example, the UK passed the Aliens Act in 1905 in an attempt to halt the immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe, and the US passed the Immigration Act of 1924, again to put a halt to -mostly Jewish- immigration from Eastern Europe, and also immigration from 'southern Europe' -code for Italy. In addition, in both the 1905 Act and the 1924 Act the 'fear' was that a) too many people were coming, b) they were 'not assimilating', c) they were the direct cause of crime in the areas where they lived, and d) that they tended to work for low pay depressing wages for other workers. In the British case, Jews arriving in Britain were expected to 'assimilate' and told how to do it, for example, by not speaking Yiddish or German in public, a harsh task for those living in small areas of London like Bethnal Green and Shoreditch where most of their neighbours would have spoken Yiddish, Russian and some German.
It is also worth pointing out that when the British Brothers League was campaigning against the Jews in London all the arguments against the Jews were there -their abundance, their uncontrolled breeding, their criminal tendencies and the 'fact' that they were dirty. At rallies when speeches raised the temperature crowds would chant 'Wipe them out!'. The League did not survive long after the Aliens Act, but many of its members remained fixated on the Jews and migrated into Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists by which the time the Protocols of the Elders of Zion had added to the mix a co-ordinated conspiracy of world domination, of which the Bolshevik Revolution was just one part. Finally note too that then as now there was an obsession with the way Jews dressed, just as that moment in Vienna when Hitler saw an Orthodox Jew in his frock coat, the Hat and the curls and asked himself 'Is this a Jew' and then 'Is this a German?'. We have this today with the desperate attempt of the French to 'protect' their secular constitution that makes it illegal for a Jewish male to wear a Yarmulka in school, ditto a Sikh male with his Turban (some Sikh males have also been told to remove their Turbans when having a passport photo taken) and Christians not being allowed to wear a crucifix if others can see it. And this in a country where the Roman Catholic faith never dissipated that much in rural areas in spite or because of the Revolution.
But neither those two laws cited above nor the politics behind them could predict that up to 70% of the Jews living in Europe at the time would not be there in 1945 because most of them -approx 67%- were murdered, the rest surviving to leave the continent for somewhere else. All of the fears generated by 'mass immigration' in Britain and the USA turned out to be false. And just as the trend in the first half of the 20th century was for migration within the US to be dominated by south-to-north flows, in the second half the trend reversed with migration moving from north to south and south-west, and I could predict a new wave of south-west to north-west over the next 25 years as the south-west runs out of water, but it is just a prediction. And predictions have a tendency to be wrong.
I do have a limp grasp on why Martin and Stavros applaud clear thinking and facts over my dogfight mentality, but when it comes to immigration, bile is the motivator, not clarity of thought.
My fore-fathers that died in the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War, and WWII where all WHITE.
Mostly WASP.
American Indians and Mexican immigrants can't say that.
When you see a gorgeous front lawn, subconsciously you have to account for the extermination of countless species of flora whose only crime was they wanted to live.
If, ....in the USA, .....White, Black, and Hispanic Americans ever all get on the same page and see a clear path to Glory as One, I guarantee you it will come at the expense of Middle Easterners and Asians everywhere.
I think it is possible that in my lifetime you have a President that makes the WHITEMAN wait outside his office.
That's the way these things work.
Romans attack Gaul.
Gaul attacks Romans.
Gauls get named "Barbarians" just because of the way they dress......
People get power by strength of number and they lose power by strength of number.
Clarity of thought and Wise Decisions will be the death of us all.
Personally.
Everything has an expiration date.
https://s18.postimg.org/qb4sabf55/Ex...r_Front_Ya.jpgpicture sharing
My thought for today is that the 20 richest Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 160 million people.
Did they all get together over martinis and decide what percentage crosses the line from rich to gawdy?
Bet the 160 million pay more tax than the 20
I miss W.............. at least he had balls..........too much pussyfooting around the issues with the Republicans these days
My sermon, I mean,.......my thought for the day is........
If the top 600 people in the Government of the USA......
I'm talking Prez, vice-Prez, Supreme Court, House ..Senate, and 65 top bananas from the military, CIA. NSA, ETC..........
Were forced by LAW to be sworn in under oath every 60 days and answer any questions the FBI and Justice Dept have concerns about......
while in one of those MRI lie detectors............
no lawyers.......
I'm not really sure if I would vote for that law or not.
It would most certainly cure the CORRUPTION of American Politics......
but I think as Erika was trying to say,
The glandular testicular "no gloves" side of politics...
that we've all cum to no and love,......
would be replaced with the election of tiny dick/clit civil servants....
Making for a very boring election process.
Like a high school test, or something.
bệnh hoàn vl @@
Hello and welcome to the boards xhakaboom, the accountant from Vietnam who's first post and thought of the day is something on the order of, "full of disease."
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Could some one have another thought, please?
First reasonable thing I've heard mentioned on this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by xhakaboom
uh....I don't know.......
maybe it was when the two NYC Hoboes found a terrorist bomb in a suitcase................
and stole the suitcase.....
Now that Trump has turned the GOP into a bad Richard Dawson Family Feud episode.......
Maybe Hillary can Use her Up-cumming Juice to destroy Conservative Talk Media.
C'mon....that shit they pull can't be legal in an NYC courtroom, can it?
I think even Trump was amazed at how many of them there are!!!!!!!
They've been getting spoon fed Trump-like Bullshit for the past twenty years...
then THAR GENERAL showed up!!!
They would follow that guy into a Hamlin Mountain!!!!
I don't doubt Hillary has the next 8 years storyboarded already,
but I hope she sics the FCC on these Rush Limbaugh shows that are ten times sleezier than a Billie Bush busride.
Did you know that little vagina billie bush is Jeb Bush's first cousin?
Don't discount the power of FAMILY.
Trump is toast.
Who could relish a vote for trump's dick??@#~!!!
If Trump wants to fight this all the way to the bunker we can start finding lots of other access Hollywood outtakes, they tell me.
As Winnie said,
"we should bomb them until the rubble bounces"
ha ha ha
Somewhere John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson are laughing about how much of a joke the 2016 Presidential Election is.
person of colour......dopeyarse pC term.
is this how the spanish and portuguese first enslaved black people, since they could nab them since they were invisible and didn't have any colour? is any human being "colourless"?
when arsene wenger leaves, the perfect scenario:
- beat Tottenham to the league on the last day, with an Aguero-esque ending
- beat the "specialist in success" to win the champions league vs. Man United
"Colored" was a common term for a "black person" going all the way back to the U.S. Civil War. It's usage as such is even older. It can be found with this meaning in the 1796 Oxford Dictionary. At the time the French actually used the term "gen de couleur" which translates "people of color". In the US the meaning of the phrase in was expanded in the mid-twentieth century to include anyone who wasn't considered "white." It's usage competed with the hyphenated word "non-white." Words move to reflecting the habits and thoughts of those who use them. Eventually "non-white" fell out of usage and today we have "people of color."
It would be interesting to know if there will ever be a time or a place when (or where) we need make no distinction. But currently, we need to demarcate those we're allowed to jail and shoot without cause from those we're not.
how guilt by association is Trump's major campaign tactic...."oh, i groped women? what about slick Willy? he's not running for POTUS and constitutionally never can again, but it's her husband, it makes Hillary look bad!"
How some old woman thinks her story of Trump putting her hand up her skirt on an aeroplane, without any real evidence to back her up, is newsworthy.
Trump should sue her arse in bankruptcy.
Both are stupid terms. i am black. call me black, since compared to most other people, i DO have darker skin! not PC bullshit like people of colour.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I have been wondering what it is that some people, apparently quite a lot of people, find so attractive in the 'strong leader'. Two of my Ts friends from the Philippines, neither of whom live there now, have defended the Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte on the grounds that the drug problem in the Philippines is now so out of control that only desperate measures can deal with it, and Duterte is the 'strong man' who will deliver results.
I have also noted the volume of people writing comments on the grim reports from Aleppo in the press, and they can't all be Russian trolls, who extol the virtues of strong man Vladimir Putin, who they seem to think is 'getting results' by doing what strong men do in power - making bold decisions that are executed without compromise.
Typically, these strong men are contrasted with the weak ones, where the strong man is individual and decisive, the weak man a hostage to his liberal faith and a collegiate decision-making process. Or to put it another way -Dictators produce results, Democrats produce problems. I wonder if in fact it is the other way round. The short-to-medium impact of Napoleon's dictatorship of France was war and its ruin, not least in France itself, following as it did a destructive revolution that retarded the development of the French economy.
Bismarck may have been a strong leader and a major force in the creation of the German Empire, yet he left a unified Germany whose ambitions when transferred to another strong man, Caesar William II led that Empire to ruin through the catastrophe of the First World War, and one need hardly debate the truly dismal impact of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Mobutu, Saddam Hussein and Mu'ammar Qadhafi.
And yet, whether it is 'the Iron Lady', or the 'Great Communicator', that is, leaders operating in democracies or dictatorships, the end result does not appear to confirm that only strong leaders can get things done. And that is because in most cases, what they 'got done' was either a disaster or less radical change than their supporters like to think.
And still people want to believe in the strong man, as if he were a redeemer, a messiah whose entry into office will end the pain, and make everything great again. And no matter how hard I try to convince people that Duterte is one such disaster, the support for him is solid, and I am unable to persuade them to change their minds.
"And still people want to believe in the strong man, as if he were a redeemer, a messiah..."
Alas , when will we ever learn... these very same issues have been much on my mind lately . Prompted , no doubt , by the US and Philippine elections .
I am not prepared at this time to address the first issue , that being where this need for a redeemer is coming from . It would be glib to blame our Judo-Christian mind set since history shows that it predates that and is seen across many cultures even tribal hunter-gatherers. Good subject for further reading.
However , with regard to the psychology that drives these 'strong men' to me the answer is plain.They are text book psychopaths. I addressed the issue of these personality in post # 31 of this thread . So rather than getting back on that soap box here are a few interesting links.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/masters...-world/5383706
http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_so...influence.html
Perhaps by the time we are all dead and gone governments will require a personality test for office holders.
Than there is Evolutionary Leadership Theory:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_leadership_theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by sukumvit boy
Here it is ....
I re-read post#31 but I do not agree that all political leaders are psychopaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by sukumvit boy
If we set aside the kinds of 'strong men' I named in my earlier post, I do think that there have been political leaders who may be classified as liberal and collegiate, in the sense that they canvassed opinion from advisers and others before making decisions, who did not make rash or risky decisions involving life or death for thousands if not millions, and who entered public office out of a genuine belief that public service for the good of all is a positive thing for humans to do. It may relate to the comment Aristotle makes somewhere about the meaning of being a 'citizen' where by definition it means someone who acts in the public good, bearing in mind that in his day, a 'citizen' was someone distinct from others in Athenian society, such as women, slaves and 'barbarians'.
For example, however flawed he might have been, I don't think most people would class Nelson Mandela as a psychopath, and I don't think the label applies to the assassinated Swedish Prime Minister, Olaf Palme; President Jimmy Carter; the former President of the Irish Republic, Mary Robinson; or the Labour leader and Prime Minister Clement Attlee -to name a few politicians of note. Indeed, I would suggest that in politics these individuals offer a counter-example to those supreme egos who cannot be wrong no matter what damage they cause. And consider Ronald Reagan who, for all his Cold War rhetoric, was pragmatic enough to see that a deal could be done with Gorbachev that would make real, and positive changes to international politics. By contrast, in 2001 when John Bolton was the USA's Ambassador to the UN he rejected out of hand an appeal by Iranian President Khatami for a rapprochement between the USA and Iran, indeed in 2003 supported a proposal by Israel to bomb Iran's emerging nuclear facilities.
I don't think Obama is a psychopath, he inherited a long-established policy on the Middle East that dates back at least to the Johnson administration, or that murky period between the intervention in Lebanon in 1958 and the support for the Saudi Arabians in their war in the Yemen in the early 1960s; and until the US engages in a deep and serious review of its policy and in particular, asks who its allies in the region are and what they can achieve together, the military option whether it is overt or covert will always be on the agenda. I don't see psychopathology being an element in this so much as politics.
Trump is just a foul-mouthed jerk who has no business being in politics, and is lucky to still be in business.
Yes , I whole-heartedly agree that not all political leaders are psychopaths . And thank you for that excellent enumeration of counter -examples.
No , I don't think Obama is a psychopath . I did notice that the first link I posted in post # 116 above suggested that Obama was and using that link was a mistake . I went ahead and used it anyway because I liked it's scholarly approach to the subject and wanted to "stir the pot" a bit . Must be my psychopathology showing through.
However , based on what I have been able to gather from various sources , I still think Trump is a text-book psychopath.
Those sources include the excellent New Yorker article / interview with Tony Schwartz who was the ghostwriter for Trump's "The Art of the Deal" and spent 18 months with trump starting in 1985 . Schwartz opined that the prospect of a President Trump terrified him. He said that it wasn't because of Trump's ideology , he doubted that Trump even had one, the problem was Trump's personality which he considered pathologically impulsive and self-centered.
Schwartz said that if he were to write "The Art of the Deal" today it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, "The Sociopath" .
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...iter-tells-all