holfresh wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

holfresh wrote:With the shots I have taken at Trump, I have to say I'm no fan of Hilary either..Definately an election of lessor of two evils..

The thought of having someone with Hillary Clinton's record of incompetence and dishonesty leading this country. Commander in Chief Hillary Clinton is a total nightmare. A very frightening scenario that will put all our innocent lives at risk

Yesterday Trump said he would abandon NATO allies, specifically those that border Russia and wouldn't defend them. That type of policy, similar to when George Bush I signaled to Saddam that the US wouldn't do anything if Kuwait was invaded is FAR MORE dangerous than anything Hillary has ever even imagined. Putin surely heard that loud and clear and as when he invaded a sovereign European nation recently and annexed land by force you should be positively frightened by the prospect of Trump abandoning the NATO alliance.

Trump is a pathological liar and yet you blame Hillary for dishonesty. I feel like I'm living in la la land. And I'm no Hillary fan and she surely is cagey probably because she's been slandered incessantly for 30 years (By the way a Trump advisor called on her to be shot in front of a firing squad and or locked up for Benghazi when TWO republican lead congressional committees absolved her of any wrongdoing --that kind of talk is beyond the pale and disgusting).

So sure, Hillary is cagey and dishonest about stuff but Trump is literally a pathological liar and probably a sociopath who cares only about himself and who is also wholey ignorant about world and domestic issues. Dangerously ignorant.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/756151451005640705

And this is coming from a Republican...

MAtthew Yglesias is NOT a Republican. He is a Harvard grad, who worked for the Atlantic and now Vox. This is a typical hit piece.

Fair enough.

Substantively, what do you think Yglesias got wrong, specifically?

I am reading the Times article now.

What first strikes me as funny is how a Liberal paper is now worried about a US presence throughout the globe to protect us. In the past this would be denoucned by the same paper as US imperialism.

Trump is talking money here. He is saying we have gotten ourselves into MASSIVE debt with all these programs and perhaps it is worth looking at pulling back some in order to get our house in order. That is how I read his comments. He even says it would be cheaper to just deploy rather than maintaining the presence the whole time. I don't know but perhaps he is right. I am not saying I agree but his answer is not lunacy as was portrayed by Yglesias.

I'll keep reading.

The operation in Afghanistan is a NATO operation but Trump doesn't know that...

Afghanistan is not mentioned once in the NYT article. Source please.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bill is likeable, its not just me.

I don't think it is just you.

That's the point.

Philandering (be in Bill or Trump) - that's cool.

But she didn't leave him - what'd a hypocritical shrew.

You're tapping into a very real and very common standard in terms of gender roles in this culture.

I've asked you to address the issue and all you've said it, "it isn't just me".

And I agree with you.

GWB

Of course you do. Give me some specifics about his intellect. Facts, please.

Sure. I said it was a belief and I'll tell you what it's based on, independent of the facts about this relative academic achievements.

I've never seen George Bush express a nuanced thought. And I'm not exaggerating. He speaks in single thoughts ... almost exclusively in single sentences strung together. I've never witnessed him explain a complicated idea. I've never witnessed him introduce a new idea or cast any ideas in a new light.

Try to picture thinkers you admire speaking in public, engaging in expressing their ideas. Does this describe Bush at all?

Even his supporters recognize this and call him a "plain spoken." But I think it's perfectly fair to question whether a plain speaker is a plainer thinker.

I made a point to question his relative intelligence. I'm not saying he's stupid, but I've never seen evidence he is a deep thinker - that ideas are a passion for him, and it is plainly recognizable in those who it is a passion.

I also don't think there is evidence of an active intellect before, during (he took record vacations) or post-presidency. IN his post-presidential life, he has not gravitated towards a signature cause as many presidents do.

I just don't see any evidence of an active, curious mind.

Paul Ryan has a mind. John Kasich has a mind. Gingrich is a thinker. I don't like many of their thoughts, but I don't dismiss anyone on he right as being stupid. George Bush simply doesn't present as a serious thinker.

He is socially intelligent? Clearly and that's a legitimate form of intelligence. Connecting people is hard. He could clearly do it better than Gore, who could and did run circles around him intellectually.

And on that note...

Satire? No Way! That is pure hatred for the man shrouded in artistic expression.

SNL savaged Al Gore. Many thought the famous SNL debate skits played worse for him than they did for Bush. "Lock box" was as much a buzzphrase as "strategery."

You're reaching here.

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bill is likeable, its not just me.

I don't think it is just you.

That's the point.

Philandering (be in Bill or Trump) - that's cool.

But she didn't leave him - what'd a hypocritical shrew.

You're tapping into a very real and very common standard in terms of gender roles in this culture.

I've asked you to address the issue and all you've said it, "it isn't just me".

And I agree with you.

GWB

Of course you do. Give me some specifics about his intellect. Facts, please.

Sure. I said it was a belief and I'll tell you what it's based on, independent of the facts about this relative academic achievements.

I've never seen George Bush express a nuanced thought. And I'm not exaggerating. He speaks in single thoughts ... almost exclusively in single sentences strung together. I've never witnessed him explain a complicated idea. I've never witnessed him introduce a new idea or cast any ideas in a new light.

Try to picture thinkers you admire speaking in public, engaging in expressing their ideas. Does this describe Bush at all?

Even his supporters recognize this and call him a "plain spoken." But I think it's perfectly fair to question whether a plain speaker is a plainer thinker.

I made a point to question his relative intelligence. I'm not saying he's stupid, but I've never seen evidence he is a deep thinker - that ideas are a passion for him, and it is plainly recognizable in those who it is a passion.

I also don't think there is evidence of an active intellect before, during (he took record vacations) or post-presidency. IN his post-presidential life, he has not gravitated towards a signature cause as many presidents do.

I just don't see any evidence of an active, curious mind.

GWB is an avid reader and has taken up art in his post presidency. He also has had the respect for the office and stayed out of the way and not commented on issues that BO deals with unlike what WJC did to him.

Paul Ryan has a mind. John Kasich has a mind. Gingrich is a thinker. I don't like many of their thoughts, but I don't dismiss anyone on he right as being stupid. George Bush simply doesn't present as a serious thinker. BUsh Doctrine is attributed to him. There is some thought there, agree or disagree

He is socially intelligent? Clearly and that's a legitimate form of intelligence. Connecting people is hard. He could clearly do it better than Gore, who could and did run circles around him intellectually. OPINION

And on that note...

Satire? No Way! That is pure hatred for the man shrouded in artistic expression.

SNL savaged Al Gore. Many thought the famous SNL debate skits played worse for him than they did for Bush. "Lock box" was as much a buzzphrase as "strategery."

You're reaching here.

As for your GWB diatribe, those are all your opinions, not facts. I'll add the opinion of someone who has spoken to him.

http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bill is likeable, its not just me.

I don't think it is just you.

That's the point.

Philandering (be in Bill or Trump) - that's cool.

But she didn't leave him - what'd a hypocritical shrew.

You're tapping into a very real and very common standard in terms of gender roles in this culture.

I've asked you to address the issue and all you've said it, "it isn't just me".

And I agree with you.

GWB

Of course you do. Give me some specifics about his intellect. Facts, please.

Sure. I said it was a belief and I'll tell you what it's based on, independent of the facts about this relative academic achievements.

I've never seen George Bush express a nuanced thought. And I'm not exaggerating. He speaks in single thoughts ... almost exclusively in single sentences strung together. I've never witnessed him explain a complicated idea. I've never witnessed him introduce a new idea or cast any ideas in a new light.

Try to picture thinkers you admire speaking in public, engaging in expressing their ideas. Does this describe Bush at all?

Even his supporters recognize this and call him a "plain spoken." But I think it's perfectly fair to question whether a plain speaker is a plainer thinker.

I made a point to question his relative intelligence. I'm not saying he's stupid, but I've never seen evidence he is a deep thinker - that ideas are a passion for him, and it is plainly recognizable in those who it is a passion.

I also don't think there is evidence of an active intellect before, during (he took record vacations) or post-presidency. IN his post-presidential life, he has not gravitated towards a signature cause as many presidents do.

I just don't see any evidence of an active, curious mind.

GWB is an avid reader and has taken up art in his post presidency. He also has had the respect for the office and stayed out of the way and not commented on issues that BO deals with unlike what WJC did to him.

Paul Ryan has a mind. John Kasich has a mind. Gingrich is a thinker. I don't like many of their thoughts, but I don't dismiss anyone on he right as being stupid. George Bush simply doesn't present as a serious thinker. BUsh Doctrine is attributed to him. There is some thought there, agree or disagree

He is socially intelligent? Clearly and that's a legitimate form of intelligence. Connecting people is hard. He could clearly do it better than Gore, who could and did run circles around him intellectually. OPINION

And on that note...

Satire? No Way! That is pure hatred for the man shrouded in artistic expression.

SNL savaged Al Gore. Many thought the famous SNL debate skits played worse for him than they did for Bush. "Lock box" was as much a buzzphrase as "strategery."

You're reaching here.

Also, that is weak. AL Gore and his lock box on one show compared to hundreds of shows and references to GWB. Not the same. You are reaching hard.

As for your GWB diatribe, those are all your opinions, not facts. I'll add the opinion of someone who has spoken to him.

http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

re posting so you see some facts..

holfresh wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:Meanwhile in Dwayne Wade's old town and still prehistoric raptor Bosh's current town...

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/wsvn/status/755896679476244480

Yeah...saw this. F'n unbelievable. I just don't understand the mindset of some people.

That image of him on the ground with his hands up before being shot is going to be all over the nation and world.

CashMoney...where are you. You're an officer...what would you do in that situation?

I was the Head Dean in my HS for a number of years, and I worked with cops all the time, and considered some my friends. I am not anti-police, and always point out that I wouldn't want to be living in a society without them, BUT this is simply getting out of hand.

This story is insane. You would think officers would err on the side of NOT shooting a guy with hands up and back on the ground, Yes even with cops being attacked the last 2 weeks. This is incredible. The officer should lose his gun and be suspended and re-trained.

But when people protest the police for such actions, they get shouted down as an attack on the police..Over 100 unarmed African Americans were killed by police last year..With almost no repercussion..I think one officer out of 100 had to spend a year in jail on weekends...

I guess as officers are armed killing them is always justified.

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bill is likeable, its not just me.

I don't think it is just you.

That's the point.

Philandering (be in Bill or Trump) - that's cool.

But she didn't leave him - what'd a hypocritical shrew.

You're tapping into a very real and very common standard in terms of gender roles in this culture.

I've asked you to address the issue and all you've said it, "it isn't just me".

And I agree with you.

GWB

Of course you do. Give me some specifics about his intellect. Facts, please.

Sure. I said it was a belief and I'll tell you what it's based on, independent of the facts about this relative academic achievements.

I've never seen George Bush express a nuanced thought. And I'm not exaggerating. He speaks in single thoughts ... almost exclusively in single sentences strung together. I've never witnessed him explain a complicated idea. I've never witnessed him introduce a new idea or cast any ideas in a new light.

Try to picture thinkers you admire speaking in public, engaging in expressing their ideas. Does this describe Bush at all?

Even his supporters recognize this and call him a "plain spoken." But I think it's perfectly fair to question whether a plain speaker is a plainer thinker.

I made a point to question his relative intelligence. I'm not saying he's stupid, but I've never seen evidence he is a deep thinker - that ideas are a passion for him, and it is plainly recognizable in those who it is a passion.

I also don't think there is evidence of an active intellect before, during (he took record vacations) or post-presidency. IN his post-presidential life, he has not gravitated towards a signature cause as many presidents do.

I just don't see any evidence of an active, curious mind.

GWB is an avid reader and has taken up art in his post presidency. He also has had the respect for the office and stayed out of the way and not commented on issues that BO deals with unlike what WJC did to him.

Paul Ryan has a mind. John Kasich has a mind. Gingrich is a thinker. I don't like many of their thoughts, but I don't dismiss anyone on he right as being stupid. George Bush simply doesn't present as a serious thinker. BUsh Doctrine is attributed to him. There is some thought there, agree or disagree

He is socially intelligent? Clearly and that's a legitimate form of intelligence. Connecting people is hard. He could clearly do it better than Gore, who could and did run circles around him intellectually. OPINION

And on that note...

Satire? No Way! That is pure hatred for the man shrouded in artistic expression.

SNL savaged Al Gore. Many thought the famous SNL debate skits played worse for him than they did for Bush. "Lock box" was as much a buzzphrase as "strategery."

You're reaching here.

Also, that is weak. AL Gore and his lock box on one show compared to hundreds of shows and references to GWB. Not the same. You are reaching hard.

As for your GWB diatribe, those are all your opinions, not facts.

He was president. SNL makes fun of presidents.

And I don't know what you're arguing anymore. You responded to what I clearly qualified as a belief. You have no "facts" regarding his intellectual acumen either.

I have not said he is stupid. I have recognized areas he has intelligence. I'm not doing a hit job. I just see no evidence of someone that has ideas he's eager to share, which is the brand of intellect I'm referring to.

You are a man that has never spoken to him but watched from a far. Here is a man who knew him and discussed many issues with him. Who is more factual?
http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bill is likeable, its not just me.

I don't think it is just you.

That's the point.

Philandering (be in Bill or Trump) - that's cool.

But she didn't leave him - what'd a hypocritical shrew.

You're tapping into a very real and very common standard in terms of gender roles in this culture.

I've asked you to address the issue and all you've said it, "it isn't just me".

And I agree with you.

GWB

Of course you do. Give me some specifics about his intellect. Facts, please.

Sure. I said it was a belief and I'll tell you what it's based on, independent of the facts about this relative academic achievements.

I've never seen George Bush express a nuanced thought. And I'm not exaggerating. He speaks in single thoughts ... almost exclusively in single sentences strung together. I've never witnessed him explain a complicated idea. I've never witnessed him introduce a new idea or cast any ideas in a new light.

Try to picture thinkers you admire speaking in public, engaging in expressing their ideas. Does this describe Bush at all?

Even his supporters recognize this and call him a "plain spoken." But I think it's perfectly fair to question whether a plain speaker is a plainer thinker.

I made a point to question his relative intelligence. I'm not saying he's stupid, but I've never seen evidence he is a deep thinker - that ideas are a passion for him, and it is plainly recognizable in those who it is a passion.

I also don't think there is evidence of an active intellect before, during (he took record vacations) or post-presidency. IN his post-presidential life, he has not gravitated towards a signature cause as many presidents do.

I just don't see any evidence of an active, curious mind.

GWB is an avid reader and has taken up art in his post presidency. He also has had the respect for the office and stayed out of the way and not commented on issues that BO deals with unlike what WJC did to him.

Paul Ryan has a mind. John Kasich has a mind. Gingrich is a thinker. I don't like many of their thoughts, but I don't dismiss anyone on he right as being stupid. George Bush simply doesn't present as a serious thinker. BUsh Doctrine is attributed to him. There is some thought there, agree or disagree

He is socially intelligent? Clearly and that's a legitimate form of intelligence. Connecting people is hard. He could clearly do it better than Gore, who could and did run circles around him intellectually. OPINION

And on that note...

Satire? No Way! That is pure hatred for the man shrouded in artistic expression.

SNL savaged Al Gore. Many thought the famous SNL debate skits played worse for him than they did for Bush. "Lock box" was as much a buzzphrase as "strategery."

You're reaching here.

Also, that is weak. AL Gore and his lock box on one show compared to hundreds of shows and references to GWB. Not the same. You are reaching hard.

As for your GWB diatribe, those are all your opinions, not facts.

He was president. SNL makes fun of presidents.

And I don't know what you're arguing anymore. You responded to what I clearly qualified as a belief. You have no "facts" regarding his intellectual acumen either.

I have not said he is stupid. I have recognized areas he has intelligence. I'm not doing a hit job. I just see no evidence of someone that has ideas he's eager to share, which is the brand of intellect I'm referring to.

You are a man that has never spoken to him but watched from a far. Here is a man who knew him and discussed many issues with him. Who is more factual?
http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

Neither, his former employee has a different opinion of him.

I suspect i can find serious people speaking highly of the character of Hilary Clinton. Donald Trump comes to mind (fairly recently).

Do you defer to them on that matter?

Uptown wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloanyk wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:Meanwhile in Dwayne Wade's old town and still prehistoric raptor Bosh's current town...

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/wsvn/status/755896679476244480

Yeah...saw this. F'n unbelievable. I just don't understand the mindset of some people.

That image of him on the ground with his hands up before being shot is going to be all over the nation and world.

CashMoney...where are you. You're an officer...what would you do in that situation?

I was the Head Dean in my HS for a number of years, and I worked with cops all the time, and considered some my friends. I am not anti-police, and always point out that I wouldn't want to be living in a society without them, BUT this is simply getting out of hand.

This story is insane. You would think officers would err on the side of NOT shooting a guy with hands up and back on the ground, Yes even with cops being attacked the last 2 weeks. This is incredible. The officer should lose his gun and be suspended and re-trained.

This is nuts!! I can't fathom this at all. I have never owned a rifle or gun so excuse the naivety of my question.

If I'm still and pointing a rifle with my finger on the trigger, is it possible that the trigger is so sensitive that it might fire with slightest shake or movement of my finger or does one as Ive always assumed have to apply some force to pull it back to fire ??

Not looking to make any excuse , I just can't fathom how this man was lying there for awhile and then belatedly gets shot in the leg

Crazy

This what the shooting of police officers will do.
If you think they all are macho you are mistaken.
A lot of them are regular folks with their own psycho issues and fears.
And now some of them scared to death.
You do not want 600K people with a guns to be scared to death.
They are facing very unusual situations all the time and it is just a matter of time before they will pull the trigger.
The only way to prevent it is to disarm regular police officers as some countries did.
But in US this will make a lot of areas a no go war zones and create internal refuges problems.
Solution which makes things worth is not a solution.

The man was on the ground with his hands up....Nothing to fear here. Just goes to show you some police officers just dont value the lives of some black folks...Hence black lives matter...or should matter.

Obviously the officer was not acting as "normal" person.
The question is why?
You imply he is possibly racist to the extend he likes to shut black people.
Or he is a maniac or lunatic who likes to shut people or just unstable.
Or some secret KKK society is controlling police and directed then to shot black people.
What is you solution to fix it?
Revolution? Riot? Black Ranters patrols? Police screening with publicly assigned psychologist?
Replace police guns with wooden sticks?
Seriously we should look for the motives and for the solutions not just for emotional response.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bill is likeable, its not just me.

I don't think it is just you.

That's the point.

Philandering (be in Bill or Trump) - that's cool.

But she didn't leave him - what'd a hypocritical shrew.

You're tapping into a very real and very common standard in terms of gender roles in this culture.

I've asked you to address the issue and all you've said it, "it isn't just me".

And I agree with you.

GWB

Of course you do. Give me some specifics about his intellect. Facts, please.

Sure. I said it was a belief and I'll tell you what it's based on, independent of the facts about this relative academic achievements.

I've never seen George Bush express a nuanced thought. And I'm not exaggerating. He speaks in single thoughts ... almost exclusively in single sentences strung together. I've never witnessed him explain a complicated idea. I've never witnessed him introduce a new idea or cast any ideas in a new light.

Try to picture thinkers you admire speaking in public, engaging in expressing their ideas. Does this describe Bush at all?

Even his supporters recognize this and call him a "plain spoken." But I think it's perfectly fair to question whether a plain speaker is a plainer thinker.

I made a point to question his relative intelligence. I'm not saying he's stupid, but I've never seen evidence he is a deep thinker - that ideas are a passion for him, and it is plainly recognizable in those who it is a passion.

I also don't think there is evidence of an active intellect before, during (he took record vacations) or post-presidency. IN his post-presidential life, he has not gravitated towards a signature cause as many presidents do.

I just don't see any evidence of an active, curious mind.

GWB is an avid reader and has taken up art in his post presidency. He also has had the respect for the office and stayed out of the way and not commented on issues that BO deals with unlike what WJC did to him.

Paul Ryan has a mind. John Kasich has a mind. Gingrich is a thinker. I don't like many of their thoughts, but I don't dismiss anyone on he right as being stupid. George Bush simply doesn't present as a serious thinker. BUsh Doctrine is attributed to him. There is some thought there, agree or disagree

He is socially intelligent? Clearly and that's a legitimate form of intelligence. Connecting people is hard. He could clearly do it better than Gore, who could and did run circles around him intellectually. OPINION

And on that note...

Satire? No Way! That is pure hatred for the man shrouded in artistic expression.

SNL savaged Al Gore. Many thought the famous SNL debate skits played worse for him than they did for Bush. "Lock box" was as much a buzzphrase as "strategery."

You're reaching here.

Also, that is weak. AL Gore and his lock box on one show compared to hundreds of shows and references to GWB. Not the same. You are reaching hard.

As for your GWB diatribe, those are all your opinions, not facts. I'll add the opinion of someone who has spoken to him.

http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

Since you seem to put weight in those with direct access/interaction, do you have any reason to dismiss this person?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-remorseful-ghostwriter

Knickoftime wrote:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-remorseful-ghostwriter

Was just reading the article. Some scary stuff...fits with his offer to give Kasich a lot of power as a VP.

For research, he planned to interview Trump on a series of Saturday mornings. The first session didn’t go as planned, however. After Trump gave him a tour of his marble-and-gilt apartment atop Trump Tower—which, to Schwartz, looked unlived-in, like the lobby of a hotel—they began to talk. But the discussion was soon hobbled by what Schwartz regards as one of Trump’s most essential characteristics: “He has no attention span.”

In those days, Schwartz recalls, Trump was generally affable with reporters, offering short, amusingly immodest quotes on demand. Trump had been forthcoming with him during the New York interview, but it hadn’t required much time or deep reflection. For the book, though, Trump needed to provide him with sustained, thoughtful recollections. He asked Trump to describe his childhood in detail. After sitting for only a few minutes in his suit and tie, Trump became impatient and irritable. He looked fidgety, Schwartz recalls, “like a kindergartner who can’t sit still in a classroom.” Even when Schwartz pressed him, Trump seemed to remember almost nothing of his youth, and made it clear that he was bored. Far more quickly than Schwartz had expected, Trump ended the meeting.

Week after week, the pattern repeated itself. Schwartz tried to limit the sessions to smaller increments of time, but Trump’s contributions remained oddly truncated and superficial.

“Trump has been written about a thousand ways from Sunday, but this fundamental aspect of who he is doesn’t seem to be fully understood,” Schwartz told me. “It’s implicit in a lot of what people write, but it’s never explicit—or, at least, I haven’t seen it. And that is that it’s impossible to keep him focussed on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then . . . ” Schwartz trailed off, shaking his head in amazement. He regards Trump’s inability to concentrate as alarming in a Presidential candidate. “If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it’s impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time,” he said.

Schwartz believes that Trump’s short attention span has left him with “a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance.” He said, “That’s why he so prefers TV as his first news source—information comes in easily digestible sound bites.” He added, “I seriously doubt that Trump has ever read a book straight through in his adult life.” During the eighteen months that he observed Trump, Schwartz said, he never saw a book on Trump’s desk, or elsewhere in his office, or in his apartment.

Other journalists have noticed Trump’s apparent lack of interest in reading. In May, Megyn Kelly, of Fox News, asked him to name his favorite book, other than the Bible or “The Art of the Deal.” Trump picked the 1929 novel “All Quiet on the Western Front.” Evidently suspecting that many years had elapsed since he’d read it, Kelly asked Trump to talk about the most recent book he’d read. “I read passages, I read areas, I’ll read chapters—I don’t have the time,” Trump said. As The New Republic noted recently, this attitude is not shared by most U.S. Presidents, including Barack Obama, a habitual consumer of current books, and George W. Bush, who reportedly engaged in a fiercely competitive book-reading contest with his political adviser Karl Rove.

This year, Schwartz has heard some argue that there must be a more thoughtful and nuanced version of Donald Trump that he is keeping in reserve for after the campaign. “There isn’t,” Schwartz insists. “There is no private Trump.” This is not a matter of hindsight. While working on “The Art of the Deal,” Schwartz kept a journal in which he expressed his amazement at Trump’s personality, writing that Trump seemed driven entirely by a need for public attention. “All he is is ‘stomp, stomp, stomp’—recognition from outside, bigger, more, a whole series of things that go nowhere in particular,” he observed, on October 21, 1986. But, as he noted in the journal a few days later, “the book will be far more successful if Trump is a sympathetic character—even weirdly sympathetic—than if he is just hateful or, worse yet, a one-dimensional blowhard.”

Schwartz reminded himself that he was being paid to tell Trump’s story, not his own, but the more he worked on the project the more disturbing he found it. In his journal, he describes the hours he spent with Trump as “draining” and “deadening.” Schwartz told me that Trump’s need for attention is “completely compulsive,” and that his bid for the Presidency is part of a continuum. “He’s managed to keep increasing the dose for forty years,” Schwartz said. After he’d spent decades as a tabloid titan, “the only thing left was running for President. If he could run for emperor of the world, he would.”

WaltLongmire wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-remorseful-ghostwriter

Was just reading the article. Some scary stuff...fits with his offer to give Kasich a lot of power as a VP.

For research, he planned to interview Trump on a series of Saturday mornings. The first session didn’t go as planned, however. After Trump gave him a tour of his marble-and-gilt apartment atop Trump Tower—which, to Schwartz, looked unlived-in, like the lobby of a hotel—they began to talk. But the discussion was soon hobbled by what Schwartz regards as one of Trump’s most essential characteristics: “He has no attention span.”

In those days, Schwartz recalls, Trump was generally affable with reporters, offering short, amusingly immodest quotes on demand. Trump had been forthcoming with him during the New York interview, but it hadn’t required much time or deep reflection. For the book, though, Trump needed to provide him with sustained, thoughtful recollections. He asked Trump to describe his childhood in detail. After sitting for only a few minutes in his suit and tie, Trump became impatient and irritable. He looked fidgety, Schwartz recalls, “like a kindergartner who can’t sit still in a classroom.” Even when Schwartz pressed him, Trump seemed to remember almost nothing of his youth, and made it clear that he was bored. Far more quickly than Schwartz had expected, Trump ended the meeting.

Week after week, the pattern repeated itself. Schwartz tried to limit the sessions to smaller increments of time, but Trump’s contributions remained oddly truncated and superficial.

“Trump has been written about a thousand ways from Sunday, but this fundamental aspect of who he is doesn’t seem to be fully understood,” Schwartz told me. “It’s implicit in a lot of what people write, but it’s never explicit—or, at least, I haven’t seen it. And that is that it’s impossible to keep him focussed on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then . . . ” Schwartz trailed off, shaking his head in amazement. He regards Trump’s inability to concentrate as alarming in a Presidential candidate. “If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it’s impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time,” he said.

Schwartz believes that Trump’s short attention span has left him with “a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance.” He said, “That’s why he so prefers TV as his first news source—information comes in easily digestible sound bites.” He added, “I seriously doubt that Trump has ever read a book straight through in his adult life.” During the eighteen months that he observed Trump, Schwartz said, he never saw a book on Trump’s desk, or elsewhere in his office, or in his apartment.

Other journalists have noticed Trump’s apparent lack of interest in reading. In May, Megyn Kelly, of Fox News, asked him to name his favorite book, other than the Bible or “The Art of the Deal.” Trump picked the 1929 novel “All Quiet on the Western Front.” Evidently suspecting that many years had elapsed since he’d read it, Kelly asked Trump to talk about the most recent book he’d read. “I read passages, I read areas, I’ll read chapters—I don’t have the time,” Trump said. As The New Republic noted recently, this attitude is not shared by most U.S. Presidents, including Barack Obama, a habitual consumer of current books, and George W. Bush, who reportedly engaged in a fiercely competitive book-reading contest with his political adviser Karl Rove.

This year, Schwartz has heard some argue that there must be a more thoughtful and nuanced version of Donald Trump that he is keeping in reserve for after the campaign. “There isn’t,” Schwartz insists. “There is no private Trump.” This is not a matter of hindsight. While working on “The Art of the Deal,” Schwartz kept a journal in which he expressed his amazement at Trump’s personality, writing that Trump seemed driven entirely by a need for public attention. “All he is is ‘stomp, stomp, stomp’—recognition from outside, bigger, more, a whole series of things that go nowhere in particular,” he observed, on October 21, 1986. But, as he noted in the journal a few days later, “the book will be far more successful if Trump is a sympathetic character—even weirdly sympathetic—than if he is just hateful or, worse yet, a one-dimensional blowhard.”

Schwartz reminded himself that he was being paid to tell Trump’s story, not his own, but the more he worked on the project the more disturbing he found it. In his journal, he describes the hours he spent with Trump as “draining” and “deadening.” Schwartz told me that Trump’s need for attention is “completely compulsive,” and that his bid for the Presidency is part of a continuum. “He’s managed to keep increasing the dose for forty years,” Schwartz said. After he’d spent decades as a tabloid titan, “the only thing left was running for President. If he could run for emperor of the world, he would.”

Inattentive, fidgety, easily distracted, difficulty with books? Sounds like he has A.D.D , links to some of the most creative, intelligent and successful people. The narcissism? Problably pathological due to upbringing and accomplishment